The SLC Human Services and Public Safety Committee convened on Saturday, July 12, for a business session and on Sunday, July 13, for a program session, during the 62^nd SLC Annual Meeting.  The following is a summary of the speaker presentations and Committee activities from each of these programs.  An attendance list is attached.

Business Session, July 12, 2008

I.          Human Trafficking

             Senator Jennie Forehand, Maryland

             Representative Marian Cooksey, Oklahoma

Background

Every year, the multi-million dollar human trafficking industry deprives individuals of their human rights and freedoms, increases global health risks and fuels the growth of organized crime.  In recent years, states have begun to take steps to eliminate these activities.

Senator Forehand’s Presentation

Senator Forehand began her presentation by defining human trafficking as the use of fraud, coercion or deception in recruiting and transporting persons, particularly across national borders, for the purpose of involuntary servitude.  The overwhelming majority of people trafficked are women and children, many of whom are forced into the sex industry or imprisoned as domestic workers.  Moreover, most people trafficked into the United States are those living in impoverished environments throughout the world.  Many of these individuals are deceived about the job opportunities available to them in the United States and coerced into accepting bogus arrangements regarding employment and living conditions.  Once here, these individuals are forced into the sex industry, used as domestic workers in private homes or put to labor in sweatshops and the agricultural industry.  Many of these individuals do not speak English and are unfamiliar with the various labor laws in the United States, exacerbating the potential for manipulation and abuse.  However, Senator Forehand pointed out that it is not only persons from other countries who fall prey to these types of exploitative practices.  Thousands of women and children in the United States are in danger as well.

Senator Forehand then spoke on the Trafficking and Victims Protection Act, passed by the U.S. Congress and enacted in October 2000.  This piece of legislation recognized that human trafficking was the fastest growing source of income for organized crime.  The Act sought to prevent human trafficking overseas; protect victims of trafficking in the United States, regardless of their citizenship status, and help the victims rebuild their lives through federal and state support; as well as prosecute traffickers through strict federal criminal penalties.  Prior to the passage of this Act, there were no comprehensive federal laws to protect potential victims of human trafficking and prosecute those who perpetrated such crimes.  Senator Forehand emphasized that existing federal criminal laws, such as those relating to false imprisonment, prostitution, or aggravated assault, do not adequately address all forms of trafficking. They also do not adequately protect these individuals, nor do they offer proper services for victims of human trafficking.  Therefore, it behooves states to enact legislation to combat this heinous crime.

According to the most recent information, 11 SLC states have enacted legislation criminalizing human trafficking.  All of these laws have made the practice a felony offense.  Also, many states have enhanced penalties for crimes perpetrated against children.  For instance, Louisiana and Mississippi have laws that sentence traffickers of children to 20 to 25 years in prison.  Florida allows a sentence of up to 30 years for such offenses.  Texas allows for an imprisonment of up to 99 years when the victim is under the age of 14.  Many states, including Florida, Mississippi, Missouri and North Carolina, specifically address the destruction or misuse of immigration documentation in order to exploit individuals.  Also, Virginia has made it a crime to threaten to report illegal immigration status for the purpose of extortion. 

Senator Forehand also addressed the Center for Women and Policy Issues, an organization that, since 1998, has brought the issues of worldwide trafficking to the attention of state and federal legislators.  Since 2001, the Center has worked with states to craft state level responses to this issue and to construct model legislation, putting together one of the most comprehensive examples of legislation for addressing all of the nuances of this issue.  According to the Center, the most important goals of state legislation should be to pass criminalization statutes; provide victim assistance and protection programs; create statewide, interagency task forces on human trafficking; coordinate federal, state and local agencies; study the nature of the problem; recommend legislative policy and program initiatives; and regulate organizations such as international “marriage brokers” in the state. 

Senator Forehand also spoke about the advantages of creating task forces.  The states of Maryland and Virginia both have created task forces for the effective implementation of state plans for preventing human trafficking.  The Maryland task force currently is focusing on educating the public on this issue.

Senator Forehand addressed restitution and victim protection.  She noted that Florida provides services from the state Department of Children and Family Services to immigrant survivors of human trafficking, and up to three times the monetary amount for restitution of services.  South Carolina provides social services to illegal immigrants who are victims of human trafficking.  Texas not only provides services, but also funds it with money collected from fees imposed on sexually oriented businesses.  In addition, Missouri requires that international “matchmaker” businesses supply recruits with the marital and criminal histories of clients.  Failure to do so is a felony crime in the state.  Texas has similar requirements, and allows civil penalties of up to $20,000 be levied for each violation.

Senator Forehand concluded by stressing that ignorance of how pervasive a problem human trafficking is in the United States leads to lack of actions.  She encouraged lawmakers to investigate the effects of human trafficking in their own states and to act in constructing legislation that will address these activities.  Senator Forehand closed by noting that human trafficking is a problem in every state in the nation.

Representative Cooksey’s Presentation

Representative Cooksey began her presentation by reiterating the importance of this issue, and echoing Senator Forehand’s assertion that no state is immune to the problem of human trafficking.  Representative Cooksey called human trafficking the “slavery of the 21^st century,” and asserted that it is a crime that deprives individuals of their freedom and liberty.  Representative Cooksey also emphasized that it is one of the foremost women’s issues of today.

Representative Cooksey stated that human trafficking is the second fastest growing crime internationally, trailing only behind drug trafficking.  It is a $10 billion a year industry that centers around the most degraded, exploited and dehumanized people in the world.  Representative Cooksey asserted that the federal government cannot handle this problem alone.  National cases far outweigh the federal government’s capacity to investigate and prosecute these crimes.  As a result, the U.S. Department of Justice has encouraged states to pass legislation, and has promised to assist in the prosecution of traffickers and supply aid to the victims of these crimes. 

According to Representative Cooksey, studies show that most individuals trafficked for forced labor are from the most impoverished areas of the world.  The Human Rights Center has estimated that at any given time, more than 10,000 to 17,000 forced laborers are working in the United States, predominantly in the areas of prostitution, domestic services, and agricultural and industrial industries.  In addition, there are approximately 600,000 to 800,000 victims worldwide at any given time.  China has reported the largest number of victims, followed by Mexico and Vietnam. 

Representative Cooksey stated that four states bordering Oklahoma—Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri and Texas—already had made trafficking a felony when she originally began developing a trafficking bill in her own state.  In both 2006 and 2007, Representative Cooksey’s bill passed the House of Representatives, but failed to gain approval in the Senate.  Finally, in 2008, the legislation was passed unanimously by both chambers, and will be enacted into law in November of 2008.  The legislation will make it a felony to engage in human trafficking, forced labor or forced sexual exploitation of any kind.  Persons convicted of this crime may receive sentences of five years in prison, and a fine of up to $10,000.  If the crime involves victims under the age of 14, the penalties can be increased to 10 years in prison and a fine of $20,000.  Also, the offender must pay restitution to the victims.  In addition, the bill authorizes state seizure of property used in perpetuating the crime.

A case in Oklahoma, in which 53 workers were brought to Tulsa from Kuwait and forced into slave labor, in part, prompted her sponsorship of Oklahoma’s human trafficking legislation.  These workers were recruited as high-tech welders, electricians and engineers, with the assurance that they would work in the United States with substantial payment.  Instead, they were held under watch by armed guards and under constant threat of deportation.  The workers were restricted in their abilities to leave the premises of the workplace; forced to work up to 14-hour days for $2 an hour; made to sleep in a warehouse on metal cots in the same room as the machinery; and provided limited rations of food.  In this case, these individuals were lured to the United States by false promises and found themselves prisoners, since they were forced to relinquish their passports, visas and airline tickets to the employer.  The Tulsa manufacturing plant that committed this crime was closed in 2002, but no restitution has been paid to the individuals it exploited.

Representative Cooksey emphasized that individuals from outside the United States are not the only victims.  In 2004, various child prostitution rings were uncovered in Oklahoma City.  Investigations revealed that a loose network of prostitution was operating out of Oklahoma area truck stops which spanned the United States.  Federal charges were levied against 19 people accused of transporting girls as young as 13 years of age to cities in Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Texas.  Based on reports from the U.S. Department of Justice, anywhere from 100,000 to 300,000 children in the United States are at risk of becoming victims of human trafficking at any given time.  Clearly, Representative Cooksey concluded, this is an issue that is not going to disappear.  In closing, she challenged each member to do whatever necessary to educate themselves and their constituents on the issue of human trafficking, and to protect those trapped in this latest insidious form of slavery.

II.        Legislative Roundtable Discussion

A legislative roundtable followed the presentation which included the following topics: sex offender management; corrections funding; parity for mental illness in health coverage; distracted driving laws; and public health emergencies. 

III.       Election of Officers

Senator Yvonne Miller, Virginia, gave the report of the Nominating Committee.  Representative John Arnold, Jr., Kentucky, was nominated for chair of the Committee, and Senator Barbara Horn, Arkansas, was nominated for vice chair of the Committee.  The nominations were moved and seconded, and Representative Arnold and Senator Horn were elected by acclamation.   

Program Session, July 13

I.          Corrections in Southern States

             Richard Jerome, Project Manager, Public Safety Performance Project, Pew Center on the States, Washington, D.C.

             Senator Kenneth Corn, Oklahoma

             Steve Buck, Deputy Commissioner for Communication and Prevention,
                          Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services

             Justin Jones, Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections

             Frank Smith, Field Organizer, Private Corrections Institute, Kansas

Background

As prison inhabitants reach approximately 1 percent of the American population and corrections costs soar throughout the country, lawmakers are faced with myriad choices regarding the proper funding of programs that most effectively and efficiently address the problems associated with crime and punishment in their states.  Building new prisons, revamping “tough on crime laws” and adjusting early release programs all have an impact on corrections costs.  The difficulty of striking a balance between prioritizing the safety of citizens, while exploring alternatives to prison for some convicts, is one that lawmakers must address. 

Mr. Jerome’s Presentation

Mr. Jerome began his presentation by stating that, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Pew Public Safety Performance Project, in the past 20 years, the national prison population has nearly tripled, rising from approximately 585,000 in 1987 to about 1.6 million in 2007.  When the U.S. jail population, which is more than 723,000 at this time, is added, the number of Americans in jail or prison exceeds 2.3 million.  This means that nearly one in every 100 Americans, or 1 percent, currently resides in jail or prison. 

According to Mr. Jerome, the costs associated with housing prisoners have increased over the past 20 years as well.  According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, during this same period, total state general fund expenditures on corrections rose 315 percent, from $10.62 billion in 1987 to $44.06 billion in 2007.  In fact, in fiscal year 2007, an estimated one of every 15 state general fund dollars was spent on corrections.  In contrast, states saw a mere increase of 21 percent for higher education during this same time period.  In 1987, for every dollar spent on higher education, 32 cents was spent on corrections; in 2007, for every dollar spent on higher education, 60 cents was spent on corrections.  Five states (Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, Oregon and Vermont) spent more on corrections in 2007 than they did on higher education.  Minnesota had the lowest ratio of corrections to higher education monies, spending 17 cents on corrections for every dollar they spent on higher education.  Among SLC states, the average amount spent on corrections for every dollar spent on higher education was 47 cents.  Maryland spent the greatest amount, with 74 cents spent on corrections for every dollar spent on higher education.  At the other end of the spectrum, Alabama spent only 23 cents on corrections for every dollar spent on higher education.  Mr. Jerome emphasized that while states do not necessarily choose between higher education and corrections, it is only common sense that every dollar spent in one area is unavailable for another. 

Mr. Jerome continued by pointing out that incarceration rates vary widely among various demographics.  For instance, white women ages 35 to 39 have the lowest rate of incarceration, at one in every 355 people.  Correspondingly, black men ages 20 to 34 have the highest incarceration rate in the country at one in every nine.  In general, incarceration is heavily concentrated among men, racial and ethnic minorities, and 20- and 30-year olds. 

There also has been a wide range of incarceration rates from state to state, according to Mr. Jerome.  For instance, in 2007, California had a 4,068-person decrease in its prison population, the greatest decrease in the country, while Florida experienced a 4,447-person growth in prison population, the highest in the country.  Among SLC states, seven (Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee and Virginia) were in the top 10 states in the country with the greatest prison growth.  Only two (Oklahoma and Texas) were in the bottom 10. 

Mr. Jerome pointed out some of the national trends that are suspected contributors to increases in prison population and overall corrections costs.  One factor is significant population growth, especially in Western states.  Another contributing factor is a rise in probation and parole violators, which has seen a 60 percent growth in the last two decades.  Other trends that are emerging include the rate of women incarcerated (57 percent) growing faster than men (34 percent); a rise in the average age of incarceration (up from 31 to 34); an increase in methamphetamine-related cases, particularly during the last decade; an increase in mental health cases; and a rise in sex offender cases.

Mr. Jerome maintained that states that want to protect public safety, while slowing the growth of their prison populations, can pull two basic policy levers: they can divert a greater number of low-risk offenders from prison or reduce the length of time that the low-risk offenders stay behind bars.  An additional solution, of course, is a combination of the two.  To reduce prison admissions, states can take either a “front-end” or a “back-end” approach.  A “front-end” approach addresses the issues of sentencing and diversion.  For instance, drug courts are proving to be an effective way to break the cycle of crime and addiction by addressing the underlying problem.  By utilizing frequent drug tests, ensuring a continuum of treatment services, and increasing penalties for violations, drug courts are able to keep more individuals out of prison and in community rehabilitation programs.  Another solution involves the installation of targeted penalty changes, which steer selected low-risk offenders to community corrections programs or modify mandatory minimum sentences.  Yet another example of “front-end” reforms are comprehensive sentencing guidelines that allow states to decide, as a matter of policy, which types of offenders should go to prison and which are appropriate for community corrections. 

A “back-end” approach to reducing incarceration deals with reforms in parole and probation violations.  One example is utilizing intermediate sanctions, such as day reporting centers for offenders who break the rules of their release, to ensure that each violation receives a swift, certain and proportionate response.  Another avenue states may pursue is developing short-term residential facilities for persistent rule violators with substance abuse problems.  Finally, another reform for probation and parole violations is enacting performance incentives that shorten terms of supervision.  These have proven very effective in a number of states.  Offenders who comply with their conditions and fulfill obligations such as victim restitution and child support are rewarded for their efforts. 

In addition to reducing prison admissions, states also can focus on reducing the length of time a convict stays in prison.  Mr. Jerome stated that the most effective method of addressing this issue is “risk reduction before reentry.”  An example of such a policy would be offering risk reduction credits that allow slightly earlier release for inmates who complete treatment and education programs designed to reduce recidivism.  Another approach is enforcing risk-based release instruments.  These use analysis of actual recidivism patterns in order to help releasing authorities decide who should remain incarcerated and who is ready for release.  A good approach is ensuring that there is sufficient program availability in prisons and the community, so that release is not delayed because inmates cannot complete their requirements.  Mr. Jerome added that both of these options—reducing admissions and reducing length of time spent in prison—require strong community corrections programs to ensure that offenders in the community remain crime and drug-free. 

Mr. Jerome concluded by citing examples in two states that have undertaken major corrections reforms in recent years: Kansas and Texas.  Kansas recently faced a 22 percent projected prison growth by 2016 and $500 million in additional costs associated therewith.  In fiscal year 2006, 65 percent of prison admissions in the state were probation or parole violators, contributing 27 percent to its total prison capacity and costing more than $53 million a year.  However, the Kansas Legislature approved a 60-day sentence credit for completing risk-reduction programs and restored earned time credit for non-violent offenders.  They also approved $4.4 million for grants, including $2.4 for substance abuse and mental health programs.  The grant programs are expected to reduce probation and parole revocations by approximately 20 percent.  Overall, the state expects to save $80 million over five years. 

Texas projected a 14,000 prison bed shortfall by 2012 and expected $523 million in additional corrections costs for fiscal year 2008.  In recent years, the state has experienced extremely high recidivism rates, insufficient treatment programs and low parole grant rates.  However, the Texas Legislature, rather than simply building more prisons, approved a $241 million network for short-term diversion and treatment facilities.  The state expects that this alone will save anywhere from $210 to $443 million over two years. 

These are just two examples of how states can develop innovative programs that serve as effective alternatives to simply sending more people to prison for a longer time. 

Mr. Jerome stated that this is an exciting time to be involved in such changes.  With advances in the science of behavioral change and in supervision technology, along with broad public support for alternatives and bipartisan reform efforts across the nation, states can move forward in reducing corrections costs while making their communities safer.

Senator Corn’s Presentation

Senator Corn began with an examination of the history of funding for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (DOC) in order to illustrate the enormous effect corrections spending has had on the state.  In 1991, total funding was approximately $156 million for an inmate count of just over 13,000.  At that time, the DOC was allotted around $12,000 per inmate annually.  In 1996, with the advent of “tough-on-crime legislation,” funding for corrections began to climb rapidly.  By 2001, total DOC funding had skyrocketed to almost $390 million; the jail and prison population had grown to nearly 23,000; and the cost per inmate per year was upwards of $17,000.  Today, the jail and inmate population in the state has grown to almost 26,000 and the 2008 allocation to the DOC is over $506 million.  Approximately $20,000 is allocated annually for every inmate in Oklahoma jails or prisons.  In addition, Oklahoma currently spends a much higher percentage—around 7 percent—of its annual state budget on corrections.  The national average is approximately 3.5 percent, with many states, such as Kansas and New Mexico, spending well under 2.5 percent of their total budgets on corrections annually. 

Senator Corn stated that when he initially was elected to serve in the Legislature in the late 1990s, he, too, was of the mindset that criminals simply need to be locked up.  However, Senator Corn continued by saying that he very quickly realized that putting someone in prison costs a lot of money for taxpayers.  Consequently, he began searching for alternatives to long prison sentences, high recidivism rates and ever-increasing costs for housing prisoners. 

One specific area that Oklahoma has begun to look at is prisoners who are serving sentences for crimes that require 85 percent of the sentence be served, or “85 percent crimes.”  Given the nature of these crimes and the mandatory sentencing requirements attached to them, these prisoners are the most likely to be behind bars for the longest period of time before they have the opportunity for release.  As of June 2008, there were 4,317 such inmates housed in the state.  This number has more than doubled since June 2004, when there were 2,037 such inmates in the state.  This cohort has grown rapidly since 2000, when there were just six such inmates in the state, amounting to a more than 700 percent increase in just eight years. 

A similar dynamic can be witnessed with inmates serving life without parole.  In 2008, approximately 661 inmates were serving life sentences in Oklahoma.  The number is up from 2002, when there were 409 inmates serving without the possibility of parole.  Finally, the number has risen drastically since 1992, when just 88 lifers were in state prisons. 

Citing 2006 statistics, Senator Corn pointed out that for maximum security prisoners in the state, the per diem cost is approximately $60, the most expensive option.  For medium security prisoners, the cost goes down to a little under $52 per day.  However, halfway houses and work centers cost $39 and $36 per resident per day, a significantly cheaper proposition.  When alternatives to incarceration are utilized, the total cost per inmates begins to fall, which has been actualized in Oklahoma.  Senator Corn pointed out that the average per diem cost for each individual in the correctional system is approximately $45, well below the national average of $68.  Some states, such as New Mexico, are experiencing per diem rates as high as $82.  On another note, Oklahoma has seen a decline in the number of inmates entering prisons in recent years. 

Senator Corn then stated that lawmakers, in order to address these many problems, must be smart about corrections; they must prioritize spending in order to optimize safety and minimize cost.  For instance, Oklahoma has continually raised salaries for corrections officers and prison facility staff.  Most recently, in 2006, the state appropriated an additional $24 million for a $2,800 raise for these personnel, and for hiring an additional 75 correction officers and 50 parole officers in the state.  The Legislature at that time also agreed to annualize this supplement in order to continue recruiting and retaining qualified personnel.  These individuals have the difficult job of protecting society from the most dangerous criminals while ensuring that paroled inmates safely assimilate into society.  Proper funding for corrections personnel and the programs that they operate is advantageous to the state because not only does it help create a safer environment inside and outside the wall of state prisons, but also ensures that increasing numbers of persons within the corrections system will get the type of assistance they need to stay out of the system once they are released. 

Senator Corn concluded by emphasizing that corrections budgets are consuming too large a percentage of state budgets.  Everyone wants to be tough on crime, he admitted, but a “spend now, pay later” approach, while politically profitable in the present, will continue to plague corrections budgets down the road.

Mr. Buck’s Presentation

Mr. Buck began by stating that Oklahoma, as with many states across the nation, is in the midst of a corrections and mental health crisis.  First, the state has failed to identify and meet the needs of those with mental illnesses and substance abuse problems.  As a result, the state’s criminal justice system is filled with people who have untreated mental or addictive disorders.  This results in great cost to those in need, their families, and communities throughout the state. 

Mr. Buck continued by noting that mental and addictive disorders often are overlooked in conversations regarding public health and medical issues.  Yet, these illnesses are primary public health concerns.  Mental illness and addiction are defined as medical conditions that disrupt a person’s thinking, ability to relate to others and daily functioning.  Just as diabetes is a disorder of the pancreas, mental and addictive disorders are a disease of the brain.  Mr. Buck pointed out, as an example, that a brain scan of a person with schizophrenia reveals that their brain activity in the frontal cortex is significantly less than what is found in a non-schizophrenic brain.

Mr. Buck continued by citing a 2006 study by the U.S. Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics which found that more than half of all prison and jail inmates, including 56 percent of state prisoners, 45 percent of federal prisoners and 64 percent of local jail inmates, have some type of mental health problem.  Among the inmates who reported symptoms of a mental illness, 54 percent of local jail inmates had symptoms of mania, 30 percent had major depression and 24 percent had a psychotic disorder.  Among state prisoners, 43 percent had symptoms of mania, 23 percent major depression and 15 percent psychotic disorder.  Finally, of federal prisoners, 35 percent had symptoms of mania, 16 percent major depression and 10 percent psychotic disorder.  Also, Mr. Buck pointed out that female inmates had higher rates of mental health problems than male inmates, an interesting statistic given that the national female inmate population is increasing at a more rapid rate than the male population.

Inmates with mental health problems, according to Mr. Buck, also have very high rates of substance abuse in the year before admission to jail or prison.  In fact, 74 percent of all state prisoners and 76 percent of all local jail inmates were dependent on or abusing drugs or alcohol during this time.  Also, 37 percent of state prisoners and 34 percent of jail inmates said they had used drugs at the time of their offense.  Finally, 13 percent of state prisoners and 12 percent of local jail inmates had used methamphetamine in the month before their offense. 

Out of the 26,000 inmates in the state of Oklahoma the state Department of Corrections estimates that approximately 11,000 have a serious mental illness.  More than 75 percent of female inmates and 46 percent of male inmates have been diagnosed with a mental illness.  Of these, approximately 57 percent were incarcerated for non-violent offenses.  In terms of substance abuse, about 33 percent of inmates were imprisoned for drug and alcohol offenses, and at least 50 percent were incarcerated for a crime related to substance abuse.  Additionally, 57 percent of offenders on parole and 50 percent of those on probation had drug and alcohol offenses.  Among inmates in the state, distribution of drugs is the top offense and the possession of drugs is the second most frequently occurring offense.

The result of these high incarceration rates has been skyrocketing costs to the taxpayer.  Since 1991, appropriations to the Department of Corrections have more than tripled, rising from $156 million in fiscal year 1991 to more than $503 million appropriated for the upcoming year.  In Oklahoma, more frequently than in any other state in the nation, when someone does not have access to mental health or addiction treatment, that person ends up incarcerated.  Mr. Buck contended that this is irresponsible, not only in terms of human suffering that can be avoided by making services available, but also from a fiscal standpoint.  The average cost of maintaining an inmate in prison is approximately $48 per day.  However, for someone in a prison mental health unit, the cost jumps to around $175 per day.  In addition, providing appropriate mental health and substance abuse services to someone in the community to keep them from entering the criminal justice system costs approximately $20 and $15 per day, respectively.  Mr. Buck emphasized that our society no longer can afford to ignore the fact that individuals who are mentally ill or addicted are being incarcerated without appropriate treatment.

Overall, Mr. Buck continued, jails and prisons are ill-equipped to help offenders with mental illnesses or addictions.  The American Psychiatric Association notes that people with mental illness are much more expensive to incarcerate than other inmates; incarcerated longer than other inmates; are often nonviolent offenders; have a co-occurring substance abuse disorder; are not receiving treatment and programs that would decrease recidivism; and generally would be better served, economically and medically, with treatment in their communities.  Similarly, not nearly enough inmates with substance abuse problems are being helped during their time behind bars.  These individuals often leave jail or prison with the same problems that led to their incarceration in the first place.  Recidivism among this cohort is extremely high when treatment is not available. 

Mr. Buck described some efforts in Oklahoma to address these problems.  Primarily, the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services has proposed a “Smart on Crime” package, which includes programs to address mental illness and addiction at a number of diversion points, including before, during and after incarceration.  Some of the prevention measures include equipping police responders in every community to identify substance abuse and mental health symptoms; training psychiatric and addiction responders throughout the state to assist law enforcement personnel at the scene; providing adequate residential treatment services statewide; and ensuring Statewide Systems of Care services for youth and families at-risk of entering the criminal justice system.  Goals of the program for individuals who are entering jail or prison include mental health and substance abuse screening services in each county jail, with treatment and medication programs to divert offenders; the expansion of drug, mental health and juvenile drug courts statewide; and providing mental health and substance abuse treatment for youth in the juvenile system.  Finally, for individuals who have entered jail or prison, goals include installing day reporting programs designed to provide substance abuse, methamphetamine and mental health treatment; evaluations for those waiting on recommendations for alternatives to incarceration; and treatment for individuals on probation and parole, particularly those at-risk for reincarceration due to mental illness or substance abuse dependence.  The program also proposes a host of reintegration goals for inmates reentering society, such as providing discharge specialists to help link people to treatment programs; providing intensive care teams statewide to assist with similar needs; and providing statewide assistance with housing and employment for high risk individuals. 

In conclusion, Mr. Buck noted that mental and addictive disorders are treatable, perhaps even more so than physical illnesses such as heart disease, cancer or diabetes.  For instance, of those who suffer from bipolar disorder or major depression, 80 percent respond quickly to treatment.  Additionally, 60 percent of those with schizophrenia can be relieved of acute symptoms with proper medication.  It is possible to meet the needs of those with mental illnesses or addictive disorders at virtually any stage of involvement (ideally, before involvement) in the criminal justice system, and divert these individuals into more effective, less expensive alternatives.  In conclusion, Mr. Buck stated that diversion programs, such as Oklahoma’s “Smart on Crime” package, constitute sound public policy from an economic, public safety and humanitarian perspective.  With greater emphasis on such programs, lawmakers can begin to make profound changes in their corrections systems.

Mr. Jones’ Presentation

Mr. Jones began his presentation by noting that the inmate population in Oklahoma is at approximately 98 percent capacity, and that the Department of Corrections (DOC) considers the prison system to be “full” at 95 percent.  This means that if a large number of offenders begin violating probation or parole, the DOC will not have enough beds to house everyone.  Also, the DOC expects to see a funding deficit for fiscal year 2008, so they plan to rely heavily on the effectiveness of alternative sentencing programs in the state, such as the community sentencing program.  This program targets non-violent offenders and gears assistance toward each person's individual problematic behavior.  Currently, about 88 percent of the participants in the program remain in the community three years after completion.  In other words, only 12 percent return to the corrections system.  Overall, of the more than 10,000 offenders who have received community sentencing since the program began in March 2000, only 21 percent have failed and been sent back to prison.  This gives the program one of the best diversion rates in the state and proves it to be a worthwhile investment.  The average cost per offender is approximately $1,700, and currently there are almost 40 community sentencing councils in more than 60 counties.  Mr. Jones estimated that the program saves the DOC approximately $18,000 to $19,000 a person per year, which would otherwise be spent on prison cots for such individuals.  

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Resource Center, Oklahoma expects to see a 2 to 3 percent increase in prisoners over the next decade.  Also, the state has led the country in the last several years in female offenders per capita, and recently moved from fourth to third in the number of male prisoners per capita.  The hope is that programs like the Community Sentencing program will assist in lessening the number of offenders who recidivate and lessen the overall number of prisoners projected to enter the system in the coming years.  Along with community sentencing, the expansion of mental health courts and drug courts has become a priority for the DOC.  A little fewer than 40 percent of prisoners in the state are there for violent offenses, leaving slightly more than 60 percent there for nonviolent offenses.  In fact, according to Mr. Jones, the top three crimes leading to incarceration during the past year were drug-related, such as possession of an illegal substance with the intent to distribute.  The state has initiated other preventative programs in recent years, which hopefully will reduce the numbers in the prison population.  For instance, the state has attempted to reduce the number of offenders coming to prison due to mental health episodes or due to substance abuse problems.  The DOC also is focused on assisting high-risk populations, such as children of incarcerated parents, who are approximately five times more likely than their peers to end up in prison. 

According to Mr. Jones, the state has a very low recidivism rate overall rate.  Under the traditional definition of recidivism, in which the offender commits no new offenses for three years after leaving prison, once prisoners in Oklahoma are released, only about 27 percent to 28 percent return to prison.  However, Mr. Jones explained that lawmakers must take recidivism statistics with a grain of salt, since an increase in recidivism rates could simply mean that the state is cracking down on high-risk offenders, which is a positive thing.  Likewise, a decrease in recidivism rates could simply mean that high-risk offenders are not being caught or sentenced properly.

Mr. Jones concluded by stating that a common misconception is that corrections is a simplistic process.  He rebutted this assertion by stating that addressing the needs of 26,000 individuals who have an array of criminal records, backgrounds, illnesses, and mental health concerns is a difficult undertaking.  Corrections systems must address everything that a city must address, from sewer systems to psychological services for their residents.  There is great complexity in addressing all these needs on a day-to-day basis. 

Mr. Smith's Presentation

Mr. Smith stated that private prisons are changing the way states go about incarcerating individuals, but not in a positive way.  According to supporters of private prisons, they provide a greater level of service and security at a lower cost to states.  According to Mr. Smith, private prisons, in some cases, might be able to offer reduced costs, but the quality of service is questionable.  First of all, in order to maximize profits, private prisons look for ways to cut costs.  This typically means reduced salaries, healthcare and training for employees.  Private prisons have a penchant for hiring non-union workers at low wages, which also leads to high turnover rates—roughly three times higher than that of public prisons.  Small communities and rural areas often are attracted to the idea of luring private prisons, since they can bring jobs, fuel the local economy, and draw state dollars.  However, the disadvantages of private prisons must be weighed in light of the benefits they can produce.

There has arisen great skepticism regarding the effectiveness of private prisons to control inmate populations and keep the communities adjacent to the prisons safe.  Since two private prison operators control more than 70 percent of the market, there is little private sector competition for services.  Also, if a private prison operator fails to meet its contractual obligation to the state, the state must resume public operations of the prison, or else permit substandard operation to continue.  This is the dilemma in which many lawmakers and other officials find themselves.  For instance, nationwide, there were 323 escapes from private prisons from 1995 to 2004.  These escapes lead to a variety of further offenses, including murder, robbery, burglary, kidnapping, rape, child molestation and aggravated assault of a police officer.  In 1998, for instance, four convicted murderers and two other violent offenders escaped a private prison in Ohio, causing great alarm and panic in the rural community that surrounded the prison.  Subsequent investigations revealed that inadequate guard training was a primary factor in the incident. 

In conclusion, Mr. Smith added that private prisons do not actually offer reduced costs.  The United States General Accounting Office released a report claiming that studies on private prisons in five states revealed that there was no substantial evidence that these programs were saving the states any money.  Several independent studies have reinforced this conclusion. 

Southern Legislative Conference 63^rd Annual Meeting

Winston-Salem, North Carolina

The SLC will meet for the 63^rd Annual Meeting in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, August 15-19, 2009.  In keeping with the wishes of the SLC presiding officers, please note that meeting notification does not authorize travel.

SLC Staff Contact:   If you have any questions regarding this report or the 2008 SLC Annual Meeting, please contact Jeremy L. Williams in our Atlanta office at 404/633-1866 or jlwilliams@csg.org.