WHERE OUR MONEY GOES

The Prisons We Build, the Schools We Abandon

California's budget has been in a critical meltdown for the last year.
We all know the rundown: Revenue from current taxes is in free fall
along with the economy, there is little support for new taxes and
elected officials are at a deadlock. As criminologists and
sociologists, we decided to look at how we allocate funds in our
state, and what we get for our money.

For 2009-10, California has budgeted the same amount of money for
corrections and higher education: 13 percent of the general fund for
each, or $12.3 billion for prisons and $12.3 billion for public higher
education. What do we get for this $24.6 billion? When you include the
general obligation bonds for prison construction, the cost per
prisoner per year in California is between $47,000 and $49,000. Our
prisons are comprised of roughly 70 percent people of color, mostly
nonviolent drug offenders.

Currently about 50 percent of prisoners will be reincarcerated within
two years of being released. Why? Because we don't spend money on
programs known to reduce recidivism, like job training, mental-health
programming, drug treatment, anger management and interpersonal-skills
workshops. Not to mention that jobs, especially in this economy, are
hard to come by upon an ex-con's return to their community. As of
April 2009, the unemployment rate for individuals with less than a
high-school degree was 14.8 percent, whereas the rate for those with a
bachelor's degree or higher was 4.4 percent. Since on average 50
percent of convicts were unemployed before arrest, there is a clear
link between unemployment and incarceration.

In contrast, we spend about $6,200 per student per year in public
higher education (California State University and University of
California combined). Currently about 60 percent of students graduate
from the CSU system, but sadly this is highly dependent upon a
student's race and economic background. Students of color, along with
those from poor backgrounds, have a substantially lower retention and
graduation rate. In other words, those who fill our prisons are
similar to those who are more likely to drop out of college.

Recidivism rates have been stable and deplorable and clearly show that
our crime-control policies of the last 30 years are not working. We
have not effectively reduced crime, but instead have economically
destabilized communities of color by vociferously prosecuting petty
drug offenses, a policy that demands copious amounts of money. We are
effectively placing people in warehouses at the cost of both the
dwindling funds in the state budget and the social wealth and
stability of communities.

We can do better. Here's how:

A solution to reducing incarceration rates is through education. Not
only are higher levels of education correlated with a reduction in
crime, but it is also a sound economic investment: For every $1
invested in the CSU system, $4.41 is returned to California's economy.
To balance the state's budget, $600 million has been cut from that
system, resulting in the denial of 10,000 students last fall.

For those already in prison instead of college, rehabilitation
programs are sparse, meagerly funded (about 5 percent of the
corrections budget) and are the first to get cut in a faltering
economy. The "tough on crime" policies that Californians have
supported, such as "three strikes" and heavily punitive drug laws,
demand a burgeoning budget that encourages the warehousing of
criminals rather than funding rehabilitation programs that have been
proven to reduce recidivism.

These priorities are upside down. Rehabilitation programs are what we
need to invest in most to reduce the chance of future crimes. Without
careful attention to building such programs, we'll be left with more
prisoners in more crowded situations who are thus more likely to
recidivate. By emphasizing human storage rather than rehabilitation,
California is effectively allowing for the continuation of crime.

Most of us would agree that we want to prevent crime, which would keep
individuals from going to prison in the first place. A myriad of
events must occur before this is a full reality, but higher education
that is both open and accessible to everyone is a step in the right
direction. Most of us would also agree that the best function of
prison is not to punish but to rehabilitate. To make these two things
happen, we need to reinvest in higher education and reallocate funds
in the criminal justice budget for rehabilitation programs.