KEEPING OLD PRISONERS JAILED IS PUNISHING TAXPAYERS

Not only is our society aging, our prisoners are aging as well -- and it's
costing a fortune.

John Smith, age 65, has colon cancer. A number of times a month he leaves
his residence for the short drive to a nearby hospital for chemotherapy.
Two men and a driver accompany him on the trip. Similarly, Ralph Barr, age
88, is taken to a community hospital for dialysis three times a week to
treat his renal failure. These cases would ordinarily not be unusual.
Except, Smith and Barr, (not their real names) are prisoners at state
penitentiaries where they are serving lengthy sentences and are likely to
spend the rest of their lives in prison. Their companions are prison guards
who must remain with them and return them to their cells.

Throughout our prison systems older prisoners are receiving expensive
medical treatments in community hospitals (plus the costs of their guards),
says Edith Flynn Professor of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University.
Michigan is a stark case in point reflecting a national trend.

Over a one-year period, 69 percent of Michigan's prisoners 65 and older
were treated in community hospitals and by other off-site providers,
according to a 1996 report by the Michigan Department of Corrections.

Prison hospitals are set up for acute care: respiratory infections, broken
bones, rashes, etc. They are not equipped to deal with the chronic health
conditions common to older inmates, problems that worsen as they age. And
prison is not kind to the aging process -- after lengthy incarceration, the
"real age" of prisoners is typically 10 years greater than their
chronological age. It's not surprising, therefore, that the cost of
maintaining older prisoners is astronomical and rising. Young prisoners
cost the system $21,000 per year on average, while older prisoners cost
$60,000. And for those over age 60, the average cost is $69,000 per year --
twice the cost of a nursing home.

The situation will get worse as our prison population continues to age. In
1998, 7.2 percent of the 1.8 million prisoners in federal, state and local
prisons were over age 50, up from 4.9 percent in 1990. And the numbers will
increase to as much as 10 percent over the next few years. That's assured
by the "three strikes and you're in for life" sentencing policies adopted
by 22 states and the federal government, plus the stiff minimum mandatory
sentences imposed by many states for drug-related offenses and other crimes.

Why should we be concerned? Because you and I -- the taxpayers -- are
picking up the bill for money not wisely spent. Is there a better way? John
J. Kerbs thinks so. He's a social worker who specializes in public policy
for older prisoners and he recommends "selective decarceration" --
releasing low-risk, older inmates to more appropriate community settings
where their special health-care needs can be met cost-effectively. The
facts and figures backing up his argument are persuasive.

Most crimes are committed by young people (mostly male) ages 13-34 -- they
account for 70 percent of all arrests. With each succeeding decade,
criminal activity drops off sharply. For those age 50 and over, the arrest
rate is 4 percent After 65, the incidence of crime fades to about 1
percent. The figures for recidivism (return to prison after parole or
release) show a similar pattern. Half of 18- to 24-year olds will be back
in prison within seven years. For those over age 60, it's negligible.

Now may be the ideal time to decarcerate older prisoners. Our prisons are
bursting at the seams. Even though we add about 1,500 prison beds per week,
prisons are so overcrowded that 140 prisons are under court order to reduce
their populations. Prison experts say it's not a question of will prisoners
be released, but which ones. Since older prisoners pose the least threat,
wouldn't it be prudent to reserve their spaces for younger, more dangerous
criminals?

There are obstacles at every turn. Communities and community facilities do
not want them. Current parole and release policies do not favor older
prisoners -- for example older prisoners do not participate in programs to
enhance employability that parole boards require for early release.
Governors are reluctant to give pardons for fear of political
repercussions. Also, many prisoners may have become too dependent after 20
years or more of incarceration to function independently -- they will
require a host of social support services.

Kerbs says the obstacles can be tackled, but foremost we need a national
policy that partners with states and the federal government. He warns, if
we don't act soon, a rising tide of litigation will force states to
drastically redesign prisons to meet the needs of older prisoners. The
stage was set in 1976 in the case of Estelle vs. Gamble. It established
that correctional systems are obligated to provide the full range of
medical, dental and nutritional services -- an ironic contrast to the 40
million unincarcerated Americans, including 10 million children, who have
no health insurance.

Giving teeth to the Estelle vs. Gamble decision, the more recent case of
the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections vs. Yeskey, the Supreme Court
ruled unanimously that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 covers state prisons and local jails.

This means that prisoners with disabilities (including chronic diseases)
are entitled to appropriate treatments, facilities and programs. Carried to
the letter of the law, the Supreme Court decision mandates the total
overhaul of prisons to meet the needs of the growing elderly prison
population.

Our nation is facing crippling health-care costs. Medicare is near
bankruptcy and health-insurance costs are rising. We should seize every
opportunity for cost cutting. Selective decarceration of older prisoners is
one good place to start -- it makes sense. "Lock 'em up and throw away the
key" may be an appealing battle cry at sentencing. But years later it may
prove more punishing to taxpayers than prisoners.