STATE NEEDS TO TAKE HARD LOOK AT PRISON POLICIES

Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk's run for governor should go down in
history for her willingness to address directly the outrages of our state
corrections system. The pointed debate between Falk and Attorney General
Jim Doyle was the first real public dialogue on the issue in recent memory.

Falk called for a leaner corrections system, with more and cheaper
alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders, especially those
caught up in the never-ending war on drugs. Falk asserted that Wisconsin
could save much of our nearly $1 billion annual outlay on prisons if we
took up a more enlightened policy, such as that exhibited by our neighbor
Minnesota.

Doyle disputed that Minnesota's system was better, and restated his pride
in his role in creating the truth-in-sentencing statute, which by some
accounts could increase the corrections system budget by another 50 percent
in this decade.

Let's look at the Wisconsin-Minnesota comparison. In 1999, the FBI ranked
Wisconsin 40th among states in violent crimes per 100,000 citizens.
Minnesota ranked 41st. Not much difference there. In June of this year,
Minnesota had 6,529 inmates and Wisconsin had 21,117, more than three times
as many.

Wisconsin's current general fund corrections budget is $816 million, or
about 11 percent more than Minnesota's $735 million, but Minnesota is
spending much more on community-based programming and much less on bricks
and mortar and guarding inmates.

As truth in sentencing kicks in over the next few years, these disparities
will greatly increase. The net effect is that many more Minnesota felons
are in their communities with their families, holding jobs and making
restitution, and the crime rate of the two states is essentially the same.

Minnesota's policy of "community corrections first" is cheaper, reduces
costly incarceration, and has no negative effects on public safety. This
would seem to justify a public debate about Wisconsin's "incarcerate first"
policy.

Unfortunately, the rhetoric of our public officials over the past decade
has consisted of demands to lock people up even while total crimes have
fallen every year since 1991. The larger issue is whether it truly enhances
public safety to demonize lawbreakers and put them in cages at high cost to
the state budget, their families and communities, or attempt to break the
cycle of recidivism that is the real cause of prison growth.

Here are some approaches that could address the growth in Wisconsin
corrections spending and preserve public safety:

Provide more options to judges for treatment alternatives to prison for
low-level drug offenders, and for property crime violators who are drug
addicted. California has seen dramatic success with such an initiative.

Enact sentencing guidelines for judges, so that truth-in-sentencing
legislation does not have the unintended consequence of greatly increasing
average sentences across felony categories. Jim Doyle has proposed this
approach. If the high-end estimate of the truth-in-sentencing effect on
prison growth holds, inmate populations could rise one-third by 2005,
resulting in several hundred million dollars in additional costs.

Permit greater discretion for judges to release inmates with serious health
and mental health issues for community treatment, as well as for old age
when the likelihood of further criminal behavior is near zero.

Increase Department of Corrections funding of community corrections to
reduce the impossibly high caseloads now facing parole officers, and
provide drug and alcohol and mental health treatment for all supervised
felons who need it. Passing mental health and substance abuse insurance
parity legislation would help reduce the state's treatment costs considerably.

Enact "corrections transparency" legislation to require the DOC to provide
timely and complete information on its population, including crimes and
time served, inmate and supervised release population demographics, and
health/mental health/substance abuse programming and outcomes. The lack of
comprehensive, longitudinal information means that public debate - and
legislative corrections policy - are conducted largely in a vacuum.

Address recidivism. Only about 30 percent of prisoners are incarcerated for
new offenses - the great majority are probation and parole violators, and
nearly all have been in "the system" numerous times, beginning in
adolescence. A rational, comprehensive approach would provide meaningful
job training, GED courses and substance abuse/mental health treatment in
prisons. It would also prohibit discrimination against felons in employment
except in areas of bona fide public safety concerns. Inmates should not
leave prison unemployable, untreated and hostile toward society.

Enact legislation to require "financial impact statements" for all new
criminal laws and planned state and local corrections facilities. Such
legislation has been narrowly defeated or vetoed several times in recent
years. The lack of public information on the true cost of new criminal laws
permits fiscally irresponsible political pandering.

A genuine public debate would consider the costs to society in crime and
expense of ignoring the needs of high-risk populations, especially
low-income families and communities of color. Emerging scientific research
on early childhood development and the correlation of childhood abuse and
neglect on later criminality makes clear that society is paying a heavy
price for ignoring these connections. We are in a true "pay me now or pay
me much more later" situation. Children at high risk for abuse, neglect,
school dropout, mental illness and substance abuse are not receiving
adequate services, with the predictable outcome of criminal involvement at
a high social cost.

We must also face our racism head on. Wisconsin incarcerates
African-Americans at the highest rate in the nation, while our population
is among the whitest in the nation. We should look for reasons for this in
the mechanics of the justice system, but more importantly we should look at
ourselves and ask if this is really the kind of corrections system and
state we want to have.