Prison reform dud in the Senate

That whoosh of air you may have felt around downtown Lansing on Tuesday was the state Senate’s collective whiff on prison reforms.

After the Michigan House passed a prison budget including a net $47 million cut (or 2.6 percent) below last year’s levels, a group of senators the week rolled out what they called the “low-hanging fruit” in the corrections budget. As reported by Gongwer, the proposal would: 1) require teleconferencing of prisoner hearings to limit the cost of transportation; 2) establish conditions (including freedom from substance abuse) prisoners must meet before being paroled; 3) establish a strict conflict of interest provision for any company contracting with the department (SB 475*); 4) require competitive bidding for goods and services used by the department; 5) establish partnerships with medical colleges in the state to help treat prisoners; 6) require reports on the state’s offender tracking system.

Now those may be fine, money-saving steps, but senators failed to even put the roughest guestimates of what these reforms would save. Senators appear a long way from passing the House-approved cuts. And, the upper chamber has yet to deal with numerous other prison reform possibilities presented by the Center for Michigan and a coalition of business, education and nonprofit groups all seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in prison spending because the $2 billion prison budget cut represents about one out of every five dollars in the state general fund and crowds out other strategic priorities for Michigan’s future.

Those other potential reform approaches include…

1. PRISON CLOSURES: The modest budget cuts approved by the House require closure of several as-yet-unnamed prisons. The closure process is likely to be noisy and fraught with political fencing among vulnerable legislators. Support and momentum from corrections reform groups may be necessary to see this process through. Department officials told us in March that each prison closure can result in ballpark savings of more than $30 million. If additional prison closures are not approved, it is unclear how even modest reform savings would materialize. However, in a haunting display of how important the prison-industrial complex can be to small towns, locals are lining up to keep their local prisons and prison jobs.

2. REDUCE PRISON POPULATION TO THE GREAT LAKES AVERAGE: Savings from this reform total $390 million per year. Savings could only be achieved over time. Current administration efforts to reduce the prison population through increased paroles would adjust this reform figure downward by about $29,000 for each prisoner released through increased paroles. (SOURCE: “Budget Action Plan: Restructuring Options to the State Legislature for Transforming Michigan’s Budget,” by Public Sector Consultants. August 2008. Page 6.)

3. GENERAL DEPARTMENT EFFICIENCIES: After holding hearings across the state, a Senate subcommittee declared it was “convinced that the Michigan Department of Corrections should be able to reduce its per-prisoner cost by at least 20-30 percent.” At the low end, such a reduction equates to about $400 million per year. So, if senators believe their own report, why not pass a budget that includes a 20-30 percent cut and let the prison bosses figure it out from there? (SOURCE: “Final Report of the Subcommittee on Prison Reform and Public Safety.” May 2007. Page 7.)

4. MOVE MEDICALLY INFIRM PRISONERS BEYOND PRISON WALLS: The general idea is to move dying prisoners to Medicaid-funded care and supervision beyond prison walls. Savings estimates vary and we have not yet found a clear documentation. The nonprofit Hope Network has proposed it can save $4.2 million per year for each 100 medically infirm prisoners. With roughly 500 such prisoners in the system, that’s roughly $20 million per year in savings. (SOURCE: Rough estimate of 500 medically infirm prisoners based on informal conversation with MDOC staff. $20 million savings estimate based on “Project Hope Pilot: An Alternative Model for Effective Re-Integration of Ex-Offenders in Michigan.” November 2007. Appendix item titled “Savings with Hope Services – Medically Fragile.”)

5. PRIVATIZE PRISON FOOD SERVICE: Savings of $10-38 million are possible if Michigan can match the daily prisoner feeding costs of some other states, namely Florida and Kansas, according to a 2008 Michigan Auditor General report. Corrections Department officials and some legislators dispute the accuracy of this assertion, citing numerous problems, specifically, with the Florida privatization model. (SOURCE: “Performance Audit of Prisoner Food Services,” by Michigan Auditor General. June 2008.)

6. IMPLEMENT AUDITOR GENERAL EFFICIENCY RECOMMENDATIONS: Auditor General reports in the past two years have also detailed an estimated $37 million in annual savings through numerous management improvements, including excess prison guard overtime costs due to rigid work rules, undocumented transport costs, prison guard bonuses, prison guard dry cleaning allowances and other perks, potential savings from work and shift reorganization, and better price negotiations on goods and services. (SOURCE: “Performance Audit of Selected Personnel and Other Administrative Costs,” by Michigan Auditor General, October 2008, and “Performance Audit: Prisoner Transportation,” by Michigan Auditor General, December 2008.)

7. MOVE PRISONERS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPORTATIONS TO FEDERAL CUSTODY: House Bill 4130 would transfer some 200 prisoners to federal custody as they are under federal deportation orders. The House Fiscal Agency has not yet analyzed the bill. Original Gongwer reports in February suggested this approach could move 500 prisoners out of state custody. AT roughly $29,000 per prisoner, that’s $14.5 million per year. But reports suggest 200 prisoners are eligible at modest savings of $2 million per year. (SOURCE: Gongwer News Service.)

8. EMPLOYEE WAGE & BENEFIT FREEZES: The House-approved Corrections budget includes $35 million in “economic adjustments” — $9.5 million in salary and wage increases; $6.9 million in insurance increases; $15.4 million in increased retirement costs; and $500,000 for increased workers compensation costs. Freezing these payments would require employee concessions and renegotiation of labor contracts approved in fall 2007. (SOURCE: House Fiscal Agency Analysis of Corrections budget approved by the House. April 2009.)