THE CALIFORNIA PRISON DISASTER

The mass imprisonment philosophy that has packed prisons and sent
corrections costs through the roof around the country has hit
especially hard in California, which has the largest prison
population, the highest recidivism rate and a prison budget raging out
of control.

According to a new federally backed study conducted at the University
of California, Irvine, the state's corrections costs have grown by
about 50 percent in less than a decade and now account for about 10
percent of state spending - nearly the same amount as higher
education. The costs could rise substantially given that a federal
lawsuit may require the state to spend $8 billion to bring the prison
system's woefully inadequate medical services up to constitutional
standards.

The solution for California is to shrink its vastly overcrowded prison
system. To do so, it would need to move away from mandatory sentencing
laws that have proved to be disastrous across the country - locking up
more people than protecting public safety requires.

In addition, the state also has perhaps the most counterproductive and
ill-conceived parole system in the United States. More people are sent
to prison in California by parole officers than by the courts. In
addition, about 66 percent of California's parolees land back in
prison after three years, compared with about 40 percent nationally.
Four in 10 are sent back for technical violations like missed
appointments or failed drug tests.

Later this year, the state is expected to begin testing a new system
that redirects the lowest-risk drug addicts to treatment. But that
will only work if the state and the counties dramatically expand
treatment slots.

The heart of the problem is that California's parole system is simply
too big. Most states keep dangerous people behind bars or reserve
parole supervision for the most serious offenders. California puts
virtually everyone on parole, typically for three years.

Under this setup, about 80 percent of the parolees have fewer than two
15-minute meetings with a parole officer per month. That might be
adequate for low-risk offenders, but it's clearly too little time for
serious offenders who present a risk to public safety.

A good first step would be to place fewer people on parole. The second
step would be to reserve the most intensive supervision for offenders
who present the greatest risk.

State lawmakers, some of whom are fearful of being seen as soft on
crime, have failed to make perfectly reasonable sentencing
modifications and other changes that the prisons desperately need.
Unless they muster some courage soon, Californians will find
themselves swamped by prison costs and unable to afford just about
anything else.