--Mike Connelly

Not “just,” anyway (can’t do anything about the “old” anymore). Yes, the words here are sometimes solely the erratic wanderings of an old, cranky man sitting at his keyboard in his pajamas drinking Guin . . . milk. But sometimes they actually do reflect perspectives that others share, and the cautions given may sound more authoritative coming from those sources. So, with that in mind, we give you this article on zombie management fads.

We’ve been going off recently on the mantras of management and policymaking, the “evidence-based theater” that we incant to convince ourselves and others that we’re doing something about problems, resolving issues, when basically we’re just acting out familiar roles from familiar plays with familiar lines and scripts. Like the poor, hapless Yahoo CEO (well, not “poor” really) who seems to have read one too many books feeding her control fetishes at the office. You know the genre. Things like “Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun” (two sentences: Kill more of them than they do yours. Take their women and still have DNA in half the world centuries later.) and “In Search of Excellence” that re-package bromides that may have worked in particular contexts at particular times but have limited value even in stable but non-standard workplace environments and certainly have none in the turbulence of The Perfect Storm.

As someone who started as a state budget analyst, I hear every clueless policymaker uttering the pointless “zero-based budgeting” with both amusement and nausea. I’ve been through zero-basing, and it’s as constructive as the coaching of soccer plays to 7-year-olds that I’ve also done. IOW, given the complexity of workplaces and their environments, it’s better to get a grasp of that complexity and resulting uncertainties and learn how to white water raft than to turn to Sigma Alpha Betamax Practices as a sure-fire cure-all. In The Perfect Storm, there’s no better recipe for failure and capsizing than “one size fits all” dogma that will blow up with the first shift from calm to white water.  That's why long-time practitioners roll their eyes with every "new" idea that comes along, why The Little Hoover Commission a few years back said we've got all the reports and commissions and everything we need, we know what works, let's just do it.  (You can add the "for God's sake" that you've felt in your own worklife here if you would like.)

The article gives you seven of its author’s pet zombie fads that just won’t die no matter how hard and often they flop. You’ll likely recognize at least some of them (pity you if you’ve gotten them all thrown at you at some point), but here are a couple that we feel are particularly suited first to Corrections Sentencing reform “workgroup” practices and second to internal DOC operations. Since they echo things we’ve said here over and over, we won’t explain the connections again. Just use them as samples of the writer’s insight and click the link to show him appreciation for validating what we talk about here. Don’t do it for you. Do it for us.

Thank you.

Fad 5. Management by Consensus
Consensus management is usually seen as an alternative to "top-down" decision making common inside hierarchical organizations. In theory, important decisions are to be made with the agreement of everybody in the group.

Since everybody has a say in the decision, anybody can effectively veto any decision. As a result, only decisions that are completely innocuous and support the status quo are ever made. Difficult decisions--ones that might ruffle feathers--tend to get shunted aside.

When tough decisions are made, they're subject to what's called "the Abilene paradox," where a group will unanimously agree on a course of action that no individual member of the group desires because no one is willing to go against the perceived will of the group. . . .

Fad 7. Management By Objective
With MBO, you define objectives within an organization so that management and employees agree to the objectives. Then you compare the employee's actual performance with the agreed-upon objectives.

On the surface, there's nothing wrong with this idea. However, it becomes a fad when people turn what should be a fairly simple exercise into a paperwork nightmare. In this case, the process of planning and evaluating work takes more effort than the work itself.

What's worse, the explicit laying out of objectives--and basing compensation on them--makes it difficult for organizations and individuals to change gears when something unexpected happens. . . .

--Mike Connelly

Some of the most important and relevant data and research in Corrections Sentencing and its reform by 2020 has come/is coming from The Sentencing Project (disclaimer: I’ve worked with one staffer there at a different organization and currently work with another on a different project so, yeah, I’m biased, whaddya gunna do about it?). Since we have another week of research abstracts that threaten to blow out our ISP, we’ve decided to break out three abstracts up right now at NCJRS from The Project for your separate consideration. To prove we’re not completely gooey about them, we will note that none of the reports discussed below really deal with what we call The Perfect Storm, although that’s true of everyone, the Reform 1.0 folks, the critics of the Reform 1.0 folks, etc. Before you read these pieces, we would ask you to drop just below the post to the last one from yesterday, our weekly Perfect Storm news update, and frame in your mind the world that will result from those events, the direct and indirect effects on Corr Sent budgets, operations, staff, and futures. Then view the reports, and all the reports on the Corr Sent future in, well, the future, from that framework. See what we mean? That said, there’s more likely to still occur as predicted by the projections put forward in the first piece than in most other reports you’ll run across. You’ll find the full reports at the Sentencing Project website so go give them the hits. It makes them feel good, and isn’t that what life’s about?


To Build a Better Criminal Justice System: 25 Experts Envision the Next 25 Years of Reform
Marc Mauer; Kate Epstein
The Sentencing Project

These 25 essays contain the perspectives of leading thinkers in the field of criminal justice, including academics, practitioners, and policy advocates. Topics covered include: evidence-based approaches to reducing institutional populations; why a reliance on fiscal arguments has little basis for success absent a shift in the political environment in which these issues are addressed; public education strategies designed to encourage a more rational public debate on criminal justice; assessments about the potential leadership roles to be played by policymakers, practitioners, leaders in disadvantaged communities, and individuals who have been through the criminal justice system; which platforms best convey convincing and comprehensive messages about the need for reform; disseminating information using the success stories of recent years; how to engage in ongoing research to identify strategies for change; the strategic role of race in addressing criminal justice policy; the need to focus on issues specific to women; how to frame juvenile justice policy under a rubric of a “my child” testing that promotes compassionate and effective treatment for all; how to focus on prevention, adopting a human rights framework for justice reform; and finally, a wholesale reconsideration of national drug policy in order to reverse the harmful impacts of recent decades. Also included are commentators from abroad who assess the role of the United States in comparison to, and as influential in, developments in other nations.

State of Sentencing 2012: Developments in Policy and Practice
Nicole D. Porter
The Sentencing Project

This report presents an overview of recent policy reforms (2012) in the areas of sentencing, probation and parole, collateral consequences, and juvenile justice. Seven States - Alabama, California, Missouri, Massachusetts, Kansas, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania - revised mandatory penalties for certain offenses, including crack cocaine possession and drug-offense enhancements. Seven States - Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Missouri, and Pennsylvania - expanded the use of earned time for eligible prisoners and limited the use of incarceration for probation and parole violations. Connecticut abolished the death penalty, becoming the 17th State to eliminate death as a criminal sanction. Two States - Louisiana and Oklahoma - authorized or expanded mechanisms to modify sentences post-conviction. These policies allow prosecutors and judges to reduce prison sentences of individuals who meet eligibility requirements. Three States - California, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania - authorized sentencing relief for certain individuals sentenced as juveniles to life without parole. Changes in criminal justice policy were made for various reasons, including an interest in managing prison capacity. Legislators have shown are interested in enacting reforms that recognize that the Nation’s scale of incarceration has produced diminishing returns for public safety. Consequently, legislators and other stakeholders have prioritized implementing policies that provide a more balanced approach to public safety. The evolving framework has focused on reducing returns to prison for technical violations, expanding alternatives to prison for persons convicted of low-level offenses, and authorizing earned release for prisoners who complete certain rehabilitation programs. Despite the reforms noted in this report, the United States continues to have the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Lawmakers who are concerned with the use of incarceration should prioritize addressing policies that trigger a prison sentence and lengths of stay.

Too Good to be True: Private Prisons in America
Cody Mason
The Sentencing Project

Results show that the available evidence does not point to any substantial benefits to privatizing prisons. Although there are instances where private prisons result in small savings, the structure and demands of for-profit prisons appear to produce a negative overall impact on services. The available data challenges the claim that economic benefits of private contracting are cost saving. Even if private prisons can manage to hold down costs, this success often comes at the detriment of services provided. Nationwide, public funds for prisons are already limited leaving little excess spending that can be cut. Therefore, private prisons must make cuts in important high-cost areas such as staff, training, and programming to create savings; companies are pressured to maintain low overhead costs and provide less direct oversight. Finally, private prison companies’ dependence on ensuring a large prison population to maintain profits provides inappropriate incentives to lobby government officials for policies that will place more people in prison. This is evidenced by the creation and coordination of model legislation through conservative lobbying groups, as well as in the political contributions and lobbying efforts of individual companies. This effort to increase reliance on incarceration comes at a time where America’s rate of imprisonment is the highest in the world and when the prison population is far beyond the point of diminishing returns in terms of public safety.

An Occasional Series

--Mike Connelly

We’ve talked a lot here about aging inmate populations, their special needs and management, and their impact on whether prison diversion programs actually result in correctional savings as we sell to policymakers. Recently I had a student who did a paper on the aging inmate which, while not comprehensive or without faults, did a nice job, I thought, capturing much of what we need to talk about in a readable format easily broken into blog post junks.

So with his permission we will excerpt from his paper over the next few weeks where space beckons/permits. (Endnotes have been omitted but, if you want to know references, just e-mail us.) Those of you already way too aware of the problems associated with this special population will nevertheless enjoy the reminders, we think, while those way too unaware can be brought up to speed fast. So, without further ado, whatever “ado” is, everything you ever wanted to know . . . well, enough for now anyway.

“The Elderly Inmate”—Leonard Webb, guest poster
CONCLUSION (Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight)

Not long ago the issue facing prison administrators was overcrowding with systems working with decreasing budgets and federal mandates to reduce populations. Whenever possible states have released non-violent offenders and opted for non-custodial sentences. Those strategies reduced the number of inmates; however, they do not address the costs as the number of aging inmates is increasing. Although the inmate population grew by 18% between 1999 and 2008, the number of inmates 55 and older grew by 76%. A study conducted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) found it costs about $48,000 more to house elderly and ill inmates annually than it does for a younger prisoner (Schwartz-Miller). This fixes half the problem, as the number of inmates is decreasing prison officials are still faced with a need for more money.
Many maintain that releasing elderly and infirm inmates will not reduce costs, just shift the costs to other government agencies. These newly released ill inmates will require assistance from welfare (Schwartz-Miller). Federal law does not require termination of Medicaid benefits for prisoners. However, the majority of the states do not allow benefits as long as the individual is incarcerated. Once the older inmate is released he will need assistance from programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. Maybe more research should be conducted in this area. It may be cheaper for the former inmate to be housed in a nursing home, or in the home of a relative. At least the costs of correctional officers and other security measures would not factor into the budget. Again the costs are simply shifted, but they may be reduced (Medical News Today, 2009).When the courts impose a life without parole sentence it is with the understanding that the offender will spend the rest of his or her days behind bars. These sentences are typically reserved for serious and violent crimes. As they age inmates develop diseases and other problems associated with aging and eventually one of them finishes them off, just as it does with those in the general population. Society grew weary of revolving door justice systems and called for tougher sentences. For those who do not want old sick inmates will have to ask law makers to revise the laws, to abolish life sentences.
There was a television series in the 1970s titled Logan’s run. The plot was simple, set in the 24th century survivors of a nuclear war killed everyone at 30. This was done because space and resources were limited and more value was placed on youth; however, that was a make-believe television show. Throughout history the elderly has been revered and respected, or discarded like a used tissue, depending upon the culture. Imagine what it would be like to live in a society where the aged are simply killed. There are some societies that practiced Senilicide (the killing of old people). Most people have heard stories of how the Eskimos would set their elderly adrift on ice floes. The old and sick were regarded as a drain on the community's resources. It is said that the practice was rare except during famines and when circumstances were sufficiently desperate (University of Maryland, 2008).
No one has suggested that America kill its elderly; the point is that managing the elderly has been an issue for societies for some time. It is costly to care for the elderly whether they are incarcerated or not. In America that responsibility has fallen on the taxpayers in society. Either through state and federal correctional systems for those incarcerated or Medicare and Social Security for those who are not. Private insurance companies offset the increasing costs through higher premiums.
Founded in 2006 by Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington Law School, The Project for Older Prisoners (POPS) is a program that works with any number of prison projects that uses students as volunteers. Some assist individual low-risk prisoners over the age of 55 to obtain paroles, pardons, or alternative forms of incarceration. The students prepare extensive background reports on prisoners to determine the likelihood of recidivism. If the risk is low the student volunteer secures housing and other support for the inmate, in addition to helping prepare the case for a parole hearing. To Date POPS boasts a 0% recidivism rate. Students working with the program receive academic credit (George Washington University).
An institution specifically for older inmates may help the problem. It may be a facility already in existence. Younger non-impaired inmates could be transferred from a chosen prison and older impaired inmates from the other institutions could be transferred in. It would be less expensive to retro-fit an existing facility than building a new one. A prison with older, ill, and mobility impaired would require less security staff as well. Even an inmate that may continue to commit criminal acts who is old and suffering from a debilitating chronic illness, is unlikely to scale a barbed wire fence or tunnel out.
Perhaps the criteria parole boards use to determine whether or not an individual is likely to re-offend should be revised to reflect a more accurate picture. The crime could be considered as well. It is more compassionate to parole an inmate after serving 10 or 15 years if their crime is getting caught shoplifting three times. The three strikes law could be revised to exclude certain crimes. Tougher sentencing laws are a good idea, just as the U. S. Constitution was a good idea. Amendments have been added to one, maybe they can be added to the other.

An Occasional Series

--Mike Connelly

We’ve talked a lot here about aging inmate populations, their special needs and management, and their impact on whether prison diversion programs actually result in correctional savings as we sell to policymakers. Recently I had a student who did a paper on the aging inmate which, while not comprehensive or without faults, did a nice job, I thought, capturing much of what we need to talk about in a readable format easily broken into blog post junks.

So with his permission we will excerpt from his paper over the next few weeks where space beckons/permits. (Endnotes have been omitted but, if you want to know references, just e-mail us.) Those of you already way too aware of the problems associated with this special population will nevertheless enjoy the reminders, we think, while those way too unaware can be brought up to speed fast. So, without further ado, whatever “ado” is, everything you ever wanted to know . . . well, enough for now anyway.

“The Elderly Inmate”—Leonard Webb, guest poster
PART EIGHT (Part One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven)

The United States is not the only country with a graying prison population. Germany and Japan are also dealing with the issue. Germany has a penal institution dedicated specifically to older inmates. The facility is in the small southwestern town of Singen and is believed to be the only facility of its type in Europe. The locals call the prison “Opa Gefaenginis” or Grandpa Jail. The 50-bed facility houses inmates with a minimum age of 62 with a mean age of 67. Singen inmates have committed crimes such as drug smuggling, armed robbery, and fraud. A third of the population is convicted sex offenders and six are serving life sentences for murdering their wives. What is unique about the prisoners there is that each of them committed their crimes late in life. Life is good for the inmates at Singen; at least as far as prison life goes. Inmates are allowed to roam freely about the facility during the day; in addition they may participate in recreational activities like bowling. They receive physiotherapy to ease the pain in old arthritic joints and receive six hours a month for family visitations. A physician visits once a week, and a psychologist six times a week.

Japan has seen its number of prisoners 60 or older double since 2003 to over 10,000. The factors causing the increase are economic and like in America longer sentences. The majority of the older inmates are incarcerated for shoplifting and theft. About half of them are repeat offenders many who steal so that they will be returned to prison where they are guaranteed shelter, food, and a bath twice a week. One 70-year-old inmate who is dreading his approaching release reports that he is an old man and because of the poor economy he fears he will not be able to gain employment. Another factor is that elderly inmates with no family or community ties have no chance of parole. In Japan parole is granted only to those with a reliable guardian. Japan has a geriatric ward at a prison near Hiroshima and the government has plans to spend $100 million to build larger facilities throughout the country.

As long as the sentencing laws remain unchanged the problems associated with elderly inmates will only increase. When an individual’s mental capacity diminishes to where they no longer realize where they are or they have been placed in prison to be punished. It would be difficult to see how justice is served in that situation. It is also difficult to fathom an individual in that condition could present a threat to society. If prisoner’s rights advocates want to effect a change they will have to continue to target lawmakers and other elected officials. Society plays a role, perhaps a larger role than is imagined. Elected officials have a tendency to do what voters want. When these politicians adopt a get tough on crime platform, it is generally because some poll or adviser tells him that it will endure him to voters.

When we are the victim of a crime our initial reaction may be to lock the perpetrator up and throw away the key. If you cannot do the time do not do the crime is the sentiment of many law-abiding citizens. When the courts hand down a sentence, rather it is punitive or rehabilitative its purpose is to serve justice and prevent re-offending. Crime is a concern among citizens, particularly violent crimes.

Many have no sympathy for the aged inmate, particularly the relatives of their victims. Victim advocates believe justice should come before leniency. Some say those who committed serious and violent crimes deserve what the get. These people make a good point; however, so do those who advocate for compassionate release. Most people would agree that the ability to show compassion is a desirable trait. Compassion is modifying prison cells to accommodate wheelchairs and walkers. Compassion is housing the elderly away from younger predatory inmates. Compassion is providing the best medical care possible. To release old ill inmates when their specialized needs are met goes beyond compassion. That would be for economic or special treatment reasons. Some may argue it would be compassionate to transfer an inmate to a nursing home, or install a nursing home in the prison. It is not necessary to release an inmate to show compassion. Assuming the correctional nursing home or hospice provides the same quality of care as those in the free world. It would be safe to assume that even the staunchest victim’s rights advocate do not want to see inmates endure any undue suffering.

An Occasional Series

--Mike Connelly

We’ve talked a lot here about aging inmate populations, their special needs and management, and their impact on whether prison diversion programs actually result in correctional savings as we sell to policymakers. Recently I had a student who did a paper on the aging inmate which, while not comprehensive or without faults, did a nice job, I thought, capturing much of what we need to talk about in a readable format easily broken into blog post junks.

So with his permission we will excerpt from his paper over the next few weeks where space beckons/permits. (Endnotes have been omitted but, if you want to know references, just e-mail us.) Those of you already way too aware of the problems associated with this special population will nevertheless enjoy the reminders, we think, while those way too unaware can be brought up to speed fast. So, without further ado, whatever “ado” is, everything you ever wanted to know . . . well, enough for now anyway.

“The Elderly Inmate”—Leonard Webb, guest poster
PART SEVEN (Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six)

From 1995 to 2001 the State of Virginia has operated without a parole system for offenders who committed crimes after 1995. In 2001 legislators passed a law that allowed parole of individuals older than 65 and had served a minimum of five years, or those over 60 and had served a minimum of 10 years. The Virginia Parole Board states that decisions regarding those who committed their crimes prior to 1995 already included age and health status. Virginia found that even under the 2001 law many offenders had committed serious crimes at an older age and still did not meet the criteria for release. When Virginia passed its “geriatric” parole law in 2001 many believed that would lead to the release many of its elderly inmates. However, there were several cases in which the offenders had committed murders, rapes, and child molestation. These offenders had committed their crimes at an advanced age and the judges and juries that convicted them were aware of the offender’s age.
Many inmates maintain there is a flaw in California’s system. They claim that politics play a role in whether or not an inmate obtains parole. Not just for the old and ill but for everyone. “The board generally finds no more than 4 percent of the prisoners suitable for parole,” said Marisa Gonzales, a staff attorney at the San Francisco-based nonprofit, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children (LSPC). Because of this low static some prisoner’s rights advocates maintain that California’s State Parole Board is violating the California Penal Code. The few inmates that are approved by the board also have to get approval from Governor Schwarzenegger, who many claim is interested only in appearing to be tough on crime. “The board gives us a release date, and the governor takes it away,” said Jane Benson, 60, a prisoner of 22 years. Benson was unsuccessful in her first three appearances before the parole board. She believed she was home free until her papers reached Governor Schwarzenegger’s desk.
Some states are attempting to curb the costs of incarcerating older inmates by implementing health care co-payments. These policies require prisoners to pay between $2 and $15 for a sick call, doctor’s visit, or a prescription. These fees may be out of reach for older sickly inmates as they are less likely to have an in prison job or the resources outside the institution. It is important to note that those states that require co-payments do exempt certain services. Emergency services when treatment or evaluation is immediately necessary for the health of the inmate are an example on one exemption. Some mental health services and care addressing needs for hypertension, diabetes, and ling aliment.
Although the majority of inmates older than 50 currently incarcerated in state and federal institutions are non-Hispanic Whites, a disproportionate number of older inmates are African American. Typically Southern states incarcerate a greater number of African American than in other regions of the nation. African American women are more likely to report prior drug and alcohol problems; however, they were significantly less likely to suffer from depression compared to Caucasians. Studies also show that Caucasians are more likely to report significantly more somatic complaints than those of African Americans. Prison literature suggests that African Americans are more resilient to in regard to the pains of incarceration, and stave off threats to self-esteem. Studies suggest African Americans typically develop defense mechanisms to discrimination, debasement, and degradation prior to incarceration.
It will cost more to keep the elderly incarcerated, there is nothing officials can do about that fact. However, effective management may reduce the costs. A few states such as Louisiana, North Carolina, and Ohio among others are clustering their geriatric inmates in units or stand-alone facilities. These units are suitable for older inmates still with a potential for violence, and staffed with specialists that detect geriatric diseases early before they become chronic and more expensive to treat. Inmates who have no potential for violence, yet still at risk for reoffending may be housed in a minimum security facility. These facilities save money because they require fewer guards resulting in lower budgets. The most infirm inmates may be placed in correctional nursing homes or some type of supervised release such as parole or home detention.
Older offenders require more attention than younger inmates. Older inmates have more health issues and concerns in regard to chronic illnesses, diet, medication, and physical therapy. These health problems associated with elderly prisoners often times require skilled nursing care in addition to other supportive services. With an increase in these types of health-related issues, correctional facilities will have to spend more money as aging inmates struggle with declining health and impending death. Prisons were designed to house young able-bodied people. Not people in wheelchairs and walkers. Architectural designs present particular challenges for aging inmates with ambulatory issues. Correctional facilities typically have narrow doorways that do not accommodate wheelchairs. There are no handrails or grab bars and most are not built to permit barrier-free access to bathrooms or short walks to dining halls. Because of the physical limitations of many older prisoners prison facilities may be an option in regard to better managing them. Providing the transferring to nursing homes is not an option. Health care for these elderly prisoners is costly in any setting; however, nursing homes are less expensive as they do not require the added expense of security. It is also becoming a priority for correctional systems to develop and implement end-of-life programs. Long-term isolation from the free world many elderly inmates fear dying alone and the shame of dying as a prisoner. In addition these inmates generally lack visitors at the end and options such as advance directives and do-not-resuscitate orders. There are not many prisons that have such programs for the terminal inmate, most use the compassionate release, or medical parole option. This allows the terminal prisoner to die in a health care facility or at home.

An Occasional Series

--Mike Connelly

We’ve talked a lot here about aging inmate populations, their special needs and management, and their impact on whether prison diversion programs actually result in correctional savings as we sell to policymakers. Recently I had a student who did a paper on the aging inmate which, while not comprehensive or without faults, did a nice job, I thought, capturing much of what we need to talk about in a readable format easily broken into blog post junks.

So with his permission we will excerpt from his paper over the next few weeks where space beckons/permits. (Endnotes have been omitted but, if you want to know references, just e-mail us.) Those of you already way too aware of the problems associated with this special population will nevertheless enjoy the reminders, we think, while those way too unaware can be brought up to speed fast. So, without further ado, whatever “ado” is, everything you ever wanted to know . . . well, enough for now anyway.

“The Elderly Inmate”—Leonard Webb, guest poster
PART SIX (Part One, Two, Three, Four, Five)

Typically friends and family of older inmates as a source of support have been long gone. Incarceration places a huge strain on family relationships and friendships. Marriages often end in divorce during a prison sentence as families struggle with issues involving the incarceration of a family member, such as the embarrassment associated with the incarceration of a family member, in addition to the loss of a financial resource. In addition families generally had to travel long distances to visit and visiting hours typically are during the day when most people are working and children are in school. These obstacles are difficult to overcome. It is estimated that more than half of all parents are never visited by their children while incarcerated. Some incarcerated parents do not want such visits because they believe it may be too emotional painful for the child. Still, contacts (of any kind) decreases with the passing of time.

The prison environment is naturally stressful, perhaps some facilities more than others a maximum security institution compared to a minimum security, for example. Most certainly even a big strapping man in his prime would find it difficult to adjust to prison life. Suppose the individual is past his prime and suffers from a debilitating disease. His stress level would be greater; therefore the effects would be greater.

The nation’s prisons are overflowing with inmates serving long sentences that guarantee they will reach old age while incarcerated. Studies suggest that older prisoners endure unique stress and trauma that younger inmates do not. Older inmates fear victimization from younger stronger inmates, and dying in prison. These fears are not unfounded as in 2004 2,019 prisoners 55 and older died in prison. Many studies have been conducted on stress and trauma in regard to prisoners. Not much has been done in regard to the subject specifically as it relates to older prisoners.

States cannot just release prisoners because they are elderly or ill. Many are serving life or long sentences and are not eligible for release because of the laws. In addition there are victim rights to consider for this reason victim advocates do not believe older offenders should receive leniency. They argue that simply because an inmate is old, ill, or disabled does not make him or her eligible for release. The costs should “take a back seat” to punishment and justice.

States could save millions of dollars if they reconsidered their policies in regard to managing elderly low risk inmates. A report by the ACLU estimates the annual nation cost of keeping older inmates incarcerated could be over $104,000. These estimates are based on the costs of housing and medical care among other factors. The report suggests conditional parole for low risk elderly inmates, broadening medical parole, and directing parole boards to consider age when making their decisions. In addition to re-evaluating tough mandatory sentencing laws.

Clifton Feathers and Ernest Pendegrass, each old and suffering from illness typically associated with their ages represent the nation’s philosophy of longer sentences and fewer paroles in regard to criminal justice. Feathers killed a man in 1978. Today he is an old blind inmate confined to a wheelchair, easy prey to younger inmates who steal his snacks keeping him constantly on edge. Vans depart the women’s prison in Corona 350 times a month ferrying sick inmates to outside facilities for health care. Each trip costs the California taxpayers $233 just for the guards and gasoline. At 79, Pendegrass is a feeble lifer, taking medications that cost the state $1,800 a month. He has survived four types of cancer and a stroke during his time behind bars. It is anyone’s guess how much surgeries and chemotherapy have cost the taxpayers. Then there is Frank Parker. At 68, he walks with a cane and his body speckled with bruises, a result of his tendency to pass out and keeling over. Parker owns a house and his children are ready to care for him. Parker has served 20 years for killing a man who he says was running around with his wife, but the parole board has not seen fit to release him.

These units are suitable for older inmates still with a potential for violence, staffed with specialists that detect geriatric diseases early before they become chronic and more expensive to treat. In addition they are ideal for inmates who have no potential for violence, yet still at risk for reoffending. The states save money because many of the facilities require fewer guards resulting in lower budgets. The most infirm inmates may be placed in correctional nursing homes or some type of supervised release such as parole or home detention.

An Occasional Series

--Mike Connelly

We’ve talked a lot here about aging inmate populations, their special needs and management, and their impact on whether prison diversion programs actually result in correctional savings as we sell to policymakers. Recently I had a student who did a paper on the aging inmate which, while not comprehensive or without faults, did a nice job, I thought, capturing much of what we need to talk about in a readable format easily broken into blog post junks.

So with his permission we will excerpt from his paper over the next few weeks where space beckons/permits. (Endnotes have been omitted but, if you want to know references, just e-mail us.) Those of you already way too aware of the problems associated with this special population will nevertheless enjoy the reminders, we think, while those way too unaware can be brought up to speed fast. So, without further ado, whatever “ado” is, everything you ever wanted to know . . . well, enough for now anyway.

“The Elderly Inmate”—Leonard Webb, guest poster
PART FIVE (Part One, Two, Three, Four)

There are reports of older prisoners required to walk long distances for meals and for medications. Inmates are often required to stand for long periods for services, sometimes in inclement weather. Many older inmates are living with physical symptoms of chronic diseases, most often the symptoms are pain. The concrete bunks that many prisoners sleep on are too uncomfortable for older inmates to sleep on. Some prisons provide thin mattresses; however, they are too thin to afford much relief. Many older inmates report that the only medication available to them for pain is Motrin. This is because most believe inmates fake pain and illnesses to gain medications to get high. It is likely that inmates who complain of pain are not taken seriously and go untreated.

Older prisoners make up a smaller percentage of the correctional population therefore it is easy to overlook them in regard to their special programing needs. Recreational activities are typically physically taxing and counseling programs geared toward rehabilitating younger offenders. These programs do not address issues that elderly inmates deal with such as terminal or chronic illness, isolation, and depression.

Hospice in prisons is a strategy that provides inmates with a dignified death without unnecessary pain and suffering. For more than three decades Hospice programs have provided services and quality care to the dying. Concerned with the conditions in which state and federal prisoners die. Many correctional systems in the mid-1980s began to examine the possibility of merging hospice into the correctional system. Since then many programs have been incorporated throughout the nation. Correctional hospice involves physician supervised care, nursing, social workers, in addition to spiritual and bereavement care, patient comfort is the primary focus. To qualify patients must have a life-limiting condition and a prognosis of six months or less to live.There are some variations to the correctional hospice programs. For example, certain pain control medications are dispensed with restrictions and others are not. There are custody and security members of the team in addition to medical technicians. Decisions made about the role, if any other inmates will play. The patient’s close friends may be considered family, if so with what rights and privileges.

If the hospice program is not a priority, generally no special funds will be allocated for the program. Special needs, such as special equipment may pose security concerns and may take some time to resolve. Staff training is also a crucial component of the program. Medical, support, and security staff should receive specialized training in areas involving hospice care and its components, the concept of death, and managing medical issues among others. There are some community hospices that accept terminally ill inmates. The Missionary Sisters of Charity is one such facility. It is a hospice near Johns Hopkins Medical Center founded by Mother Teresa for men dying of AIDS.

Ohio is probably the best example of a correctional system that is addressing the problems its elderly inmates face. The state has more than 3,000 inmates 50 and over housed in five specialized facilities. One of which is the Hocking Correctional Facility, a medium security facility for older males. The institution offers a variety of programs geared to the elderly inmate, programs like adult education, college courses, GED classes, and chair aerobics. Inmates have jobs based on their physical capabilities. There is a popular fitness program; in addition the inmates have case manager to assist with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid applications. The Ohio Reformatory for Women offers female inmates similar programs.

The Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola has a model patient friendly hospice program that serves eight to 10 inmates at a time. The program is consistent with the hospice philosophy, in that inmates volunteer. A benefit of the program is that social workers and other inmate volunteers fill in for absent family members who have died or abandoned the inmate. Because of their age and experience there was a time when the older inmate held a higher status in the prison hierarchy. However, because of the rise of gangs and the threat of victimization from the younger stronger prisoners the aging inmate’s quality of life has decreased. The fear of other inmates is a factor that affects the psychological health of the aging inmate. To cope many older inmates avoid the prison yard and restrict participation in other activities therefore increasing feelings of isolation.

The Medical facility at Vacaville, California is the largest penal hospital in the world with more than 3,200 inmates/patients. Studies suggest that one- half million prisoners suffer from at least one of the following diseases: hypertension, asthma, or diabetes. Many inmates within the California correctional system require a liver transplant, but they are not likely to receive one because of the costs and their criminal status. To manage the chronic illnesses of its inmates prison officials will find a balance between costs and inmate needs for adequate medical care. Many health issues may be better managed through education, exercise, and healthy eating habits. These fundamental measures are effective, yet inexpensive.

An Occasional Series

--Mike Connelly

We’ve talked a lot here about aging inmate populations, their special needs and management, and their impact on whether prison diversion programs actually result in correctional savings as we sell to policymakers. Recently I had a student who did a paper on the aging inmate which, while not comprehensive or without faults, did a nice job, I thought, capturing much of what we need to talk about in a readable format easily broken into blog post junks.

So with his permission we will excerpt from his paper over the next few weeks where space beckons/permits. (Endnotes have been omitted but, if you want to know references, just e-mail us.) Those of you already way too aware of the problems associated with this special population will nevertheless enjoy the reminders, we think, while those way too unaware can be brought up to speed fast. So, without further ado, whatever “ado” is, everything you ever wanted to know . . . well, enough for now anyway.

“The Elderly Inmate”—Leonard Webb, guest poster
PART FOUR (Parts One, Two, Three)

Older incarcerated women

In 1977 the ratio of men to women prisoners was 24 to one. In 2007 the ratio was 13 to one. One factor contributing to the increase in the numbers of older women prisoners is the shift to a retributive and punitive philosophy toward crime and punishment in the 1980s. The tendency to put women in prison and give them longer sentences is a byproduct of the nation’s tougher stance on crime. Although there is no evidence to suggest some type of geriatric crime organization because of the growth in the aging population in general there are older women to commit crimes.

Women, as a general rule seek health care at two and a half times the rate as their male counterparts. Still prison officials do not adjust staffing ratios in women’s prisons. Many women enter the penal system with a history of victimization. They come from poverty, addiction issues, trauma, and fear in many stages in their lives. Many of these women suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). PTSD is characterized by intrusive thoughts, nightmares, and flashbacks of earlier experiences. Women have higher incidences of certain debilitating diseases such as arthritis and hypertension. Women also have more problems with their reproduction systems. Breast, cervical, and uterine cancers, for example, 75% of women with breast cancer are over 50. Osteoporosis is a degenerative bone disorder that affects older women. This makes women significantly more likely to suffer from hip, back, and spine impairments.

The "golden girls" is a group on inmates at the California Institution for Women (CIW). They came together as a support group for each other. The group is named after the popular television about four older women living together. The CIW at Corona has 137 inmates older than 55. Most member are serving life sentences for crimes ranging from murder, kidnapping for ransom, drug related offenses, and some for non-violent crimes but received long sentences under the “three strikes” law. These women suffer from a variety of ailments, including depression, asthma, arthritis, and osteoporosis. Some women report witnessing 70 and 80-year-old inmates with arthritis or just returning from surgery trying to crawl onto the upper bunks.

Chairwoman Donna Jelnic, 64, heads the meetings for "golden girls." The group discusses a variety of topic at the meetings like the status of the lawsuit against Proposition 9, a ballot initiative approved by voters that will expand the legal rights of crime victims at the expense of many of the rights of prisoners and parolees. Current and former inmates praise Warden Dawn Davison for some of the compassionate policies she has implemented over the four years she has been warden. During Davison’s tenure inmates older than 55 may have two blankets and pillows, have preference for lower bunks, and have shorter walks to the cafeteria and less waiting in “pill” lines.

In 2009 the oldest woman incarcerated in California’s prison system died. Helen Loheac, restraints on her hands and feet, accompanied by two correctional officers at her bedside, blind, deaf, suffering from Alzheimer’s, and end stage renal failure. She was 88 and hoped to die at a facility for former women prisoners. Denied parole a few months before her death because the parole board believed she was a risk to society. At the time of her death Loheac had served 19 years on a conspiracy to murder conviction. Some claim that California’s incarceration of the elderly is inhumane. Some of the inmates are so old that they cannot complete simple daily chores. Gloria Killian, a former inmate and staunch prisoners’ rights advocate claims it is an injustice. She maintains the ill inmates are not a threat to society, and would not hurt anyone.

Dee Mariano, 59, a former inmate claims that the state spent about $70,000 a year on her for her various medications for treatment for her chronic lung and bone disease during her 11-year incarceration. Since her release she claims her annual medical costs are about $17,000 with the aid of the state and federal government. Mariano plans to start the Helen Loheac Memorial Release Project to help older women inmates live and die with dignity. Loheac went to the hospital three times a week for dialysis each time accompanied by two correctional officers. Mariano estimates the state spent about $250,000 annually for Loheac’s medical treatments.

An Occasional Series

--Mike Connelly

We’ve talked a lot here about aging inmate populations, their special needs and management, and their impact on whether prison diversion programs actually result in correctional savings as we sell to policymakers. Recently I had a student who did a paper on the aging inmate which, while not comprehensive or without faults, did a nice job, I thought, capturing much of what we need to talk about in a readable format easily broken into blog post junks.

So with his permission we will excerpt from his paper over the next few weeks where space beckons/permits. (Endnotes have been omitted but, if you want to know references, just e-mail us.) Those of you already way too aware of the problems associated with this special population will nevertheless enjoy the reminders, we think, while those way too unaware can be brought up to speed fast. So, without further ado, whatever “ado” is, everything you ever wanted to know . . . well, enough for now anyway.

“The Elderly Inmate”—Leonard Webb, guest poster
PART THREE (Part One, Part Two)

Depression is the most common form of psychopathology in older people. Although the rates vary in regard to race and ethnicity, clinically relevant symptoms are more common among older women compared to younger women. Depression is also more likely to be found among the unmarried, those lacking social support systems, and those suffering from multiple chronic diseases. Older incarcerated women very often fall into one or more of these categories. Studies show that emotional well-being is linked to adjustment or the coping style of adjusting to prison life. In attempts to improve their situations emotionally adjusted inmates have a tendency to maintain some control in the prison environment. This is important to note as this affects how prison staff view the inmates and subsequently the care and treatment they receive.

There is not much data on the number of older inmates who suffer from serious mental illness; however, estimates place the figure at 16%. A survey conducted in 200413% of 102 sex offenders 59 and older has some type of psychiatric disorder ranging from depression to personality disorders. Another study of 671 inmates 55 and older conducted at the Tennessee State Prison in 2006 found that 16% of them were mentally ill. In addition the study found a correlation between crime, gender, and the diagnoses of dementia or depression.

Arthritic and rheumatic are the most common chronic disorders that affect the mobility of the elderly. In addition to restricted mobility these disorders cause depression and pain. Bronchitis and emphysema are chronic respiratory disorders common in the elderly. These disorders may cause fatigue, confusion, persistent cough, and fever. The incidence of cancer increases with age, particularly of the lungs, pancreas, and stomach. Colon cancer is more prevalent in women; however, rectal cancer occurs more in men. Women face a higher risk of breast and cervical cancer as they age Diagnosis of cancer in the elderly is more difficult because other chronic illnesses tend to mask the early warning symptoms. In some people older than 65 bladder capacity may diminish by as much as 50%. That coupled with an enlarged prostate gland common in men more than 60 results in increased frequency in urination, difficulty in starting and stopping the stream, and increased risk for bladder infections. It is apparent how many of these conditions may pose a problem in the prison. For example, if prison policy is inmate restraints (hands cuffed behind their backs) during movement from one place to another, an inmate with arthritis could pose a challenge, or the move could prove painful for the inmate.

Sensory decline may be aggravated by living in a restrictive environment like a prison. With the addition of poor sight, poor hearing, restricted physical activity because of chronic disorders and the reasons for emotional and mental detonation become obvious. Decreased sense of smell and taste because of age, smoking, or medications affect the appetite of the elderly. Some people increase their salt intake to compensate for the declining sense of taste. Some lose interest in eating altogether resulting in weight loss. With diminished salivary gland response and declining muscle strength the elderly are more vulnerable to choking. Because vision is essential for negotiating our environment and hearing vital for communication it is obvious that in a prison it would be extremely detrimental to be without them. Imagine what it would be like to live in such a hostile environment ant not be able to see or hear danger approaching.

Typically inmates develop defense mechanisms like continually monitoring their surroundings for the slightest hint of danger. Some may become as inconspicuous in an attempt blend in. Some may disconnect from the people around them. Signs of weakness or vulnerability are an invitation for victimization. The prison environment, particularly a men’s prison, is an environment which violence is glorified and a means of gaining status and self-respect. Many inmates who serve long sentences, upon release find themselves dependent on the strict discipline and repetition of prison life for a sense of purpose, also known as Prisonization.

The challenges and questions prison administrators and lawmakers face are whether or not to limit spending on long-term incarceration, in addition to creating and maintaining a safe environment for frail inmates. Creating special facilities for aging women inmates and assisting the elderly in successful transitions into and out of prison. Effectively address female inmates’ mental health issues associated with lifelong victimization. These challenges among others have created a sense of urgency in some to conduct policy-based prison research to determine the impact on aging women inmates. The unprecedented growth in the women’s prison population has sparked an interest in examining the consequences of incarceration on inmates as well as their families. Prison administrators confront an array of issues associated with end-of-life. For example, special needs such as long-term care, cost and delivery of care, and inadequate facilities. Penal harm associated with dying in prison, and victimization in prison. Even though women inmates comprise a small percentage of the adult prison population their numbers are increasing at a significantly faster rate than that of men.

An Occasional Series

--Mike Connelly

We’ve talked a lot here about aging inmate populations, their special needs and management, and their impact on whether prison diversion programs actually result in correctional savings as we sell to policymakers. Recently I had a student who did a paper on the aging inmate which, while not comprehensive or without faults, did a nice job, I thought, capturing much of what we need to talk about in a readable format easily broken into blog post junks.

So with his permission we will excerpt from his paper over the next few weeks where space beckons/permits. (Endnotes have been omitted but, if you want to know references, just e-mail us.) Those of you already way too aware of the problems associated with this special population will nevertheless enjoy the reminders, we think, while those way too unaware can be brought up to speed fast. So, without further ado, whatever “ado” is, everything you ever wanted to know . . . well, enough for now anyway.

“The Elderly Inmate”—Leonard Webb, guest poster
PART TWO (Part One here)

The razor wire along the top of the walls of the Men’s State Prison in Hardwick, Georgia, is almost a joke where many of the inmates are dependent on canes, walkers or wheelchairs.“ It keeps going up and up. “We’ve got some old guys too sick to get out of bed. And the courts say we have to provide care and we do. But that costs money” said Alan Adams, director of Health Services for the Georgia Department of Corrections.

Data from the Bureau of Justice found that the number of men in prison over age 55 increased from 48,800 to 89,900 from 1999 to 2007. That is an increase of 82% in eight years. The growth of older inmates is not the result of a geriatric crime wave, “three strikes” and “truth in sentencing” laws and other sentencing reforms are responsible for the trend. This is more prevalent in the Southern states because of their tougher sentencing laws in comparison to the rest of the nation. The growth rates of prison population in 16 Southern states have increased by an average of 145% since 1997. A few states have a “two strikes and you’re out” law. Georgia is one such state. If convicted of one of seven violent felonies one must serve a minimum of 10 years without parole, and any sentence of 10 years or more, for any offense, at any time is also without parole. A second conviction for any violent felony, he or she is automatically sentenced to life without parole.

Longer and tougher sentences are not the only factor that has led to the population boom of older prisoners. Historically Americans are accustomed to viewing the elderly as victims in regard to crime. There has not been much research done in regard to older offenders; however, Duncan conducted one of the first studies in 1930. He analyzed age and crime data from prison records of those incarcerated in a Texas prison from 1906 to 1924. Duncan concluded that although criminal activity generally declines after 40 it may not completely cease. In fact, he reported that violent crimes occurred frequently among older criminals. Studies in crime and the elderly reveal two types of older offenders: First timers and chronic offenders. In 1936 Schroeder pioneered research in the crimes of each type. He studied a group consisting of 486 criminals, 243 of the sample under 40 and 243 over 40, and a total range in age from 15 to 64. He found that those who offend after 40 represented one of two groups. One group tended to commit violent crimes such as murder and sexual crimes. Members of the other group had a tendency to commit white-collar crimes. Those who committed violent crimes after 40 tended to be relatively free of early criminality and delinquency. Although the white-collar crimes tended to be a continuation of a pattern established at an early age.

Managing the Elderly Inmate
Medical care and security is a challenge confronting many correctional facilities. Typically the older inmate keeps busy to pass the time and steer clear of younger inmates that may cause trouble. The lifer or on inmate with a long sentence generally accepts that prison is the place they will spend a long period of their lives, if not all of their lives. They accept certain facts like that they will live without the companionship of the opposite sex and ties to family and community will weaken if not disappear altogether. They will have new relatives through birth and marriage and relatives they know and love will die, without his or her participating in these events.

The rights of prisoners to quality health care have been the topic of much debate. The government has the authority to punish the people it governs when those people violate the rules or laws prescribed by the government. Provided those laws are in line with the Constitution of the United States and the government follows due process in the prosecution of offenders. In addition the punishments meted out by the government are not deemed to be cruel and unusual. The United States Supreme Court determines if the laws violate the U.S. Constitution.

The court has established that incarceration as a punishment involves the offender losing his freedom, separation from family, and the community. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the government provide medical care for those it punishes by incarceration. The court ruled that “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” which is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.

The aging process is complex and varies from individual to individual depending on genetics, lifestyle, and environment. One particular individual may be old and feeble at 50, whereas another is still young in mind and body at 60. This holds true with the population in general and is no different in prison. One challenge facing prison administrators in regard to programs and planning is their inability to define an “old” inmate. However, a majority of studies use the chronological age of 50 to 55 at which an inmate becomes an elderly offender. A national study of correctional departments showed that correctional staff typically agree than an inmate in their 50s has the health problems and physical appearance of someone at least 10 years older.

Health conditions among the elderly are likely to be chronic, permanent, progressive, and generally incurable. These conditions often result in physical disabilities that require long-term management and are typically involve continuing pain or distress. The likelihood of becoming disabled as a result of contracting a chronic disease greatly increases with age. Some of these older inmates may require heart surgeries, procedures to clear clogged arteries, costly medications to thin blood, treat diabetes, and reduce blood pressure. The most common ailments among the elderly is arthritis (48%), hypertension (37%), hearing impairments (32%), heart disease (30%), orthopedic impairments (18%), and cataracts (17%). It is important to note that the incidence of these conditions varies with ethnicity. For instance, arthritis and hypertension are more common in African Americans than Caucasians, whereas the opposite is true in hearing impairments and heart disease.

END OF PART TWO

 

An Occasional Series

--Mike Connelly

We’ve talked a lot here about aging inmate populations, their special needs and management, and their impact on whether prison diversion programs actually result in correctional savings as we sell to policymakers. Recently I had a student who did a paper on the aging inmate which, while not comprehensive or without faults, did a nice job, I thought, capturing much of what we need to talk about in a readable format easily broken into blog post junks.

So with his permission we will excerpt from his paper over the next few weeks where space beckons/permits. (Endnotes have been omitted but, if you want to know references, just e-mail us.) Those of you already way too aware of the problems associated with this special population will nevertheless enjoy the reminders, we think, while those way too unaware can be brought up to speed fast. So, without further ado, whatever “ado” is, everything you ever wanted to know . . . well, enough for now anyway.

“The Elderly Inmate”—Leonard Webb, guest poster
PART ONE

A man sits in a wheelchair; his sallow skin sagging and thinning gray hair sparsely covers his head, meet George Sanges. Sanges has a debilitating neurological condition and takes an array of medications twice daily. Sanges is also an inmate in the Men’s State Prison in Georgia. His condition has deteriorated since he began serving a 15-year sentence in 2005 for aggravated assault against his wife. Sanges was rushed to the hospital twice during his incarceration for heart problems. Among the 10 largest prison systems in the nation Georgia spends around $8,500 annually for medical costs for prisoners older than 65 and about $950 for younger inmates. Men’s State Prison is home to the greatest number of aged prisoners in Georgia. Men’s State Prison looks like any other prison from the outside; however, on the inside gang fights are rare. The inmates spend time playing checkers instead of lifting weights. There is still prisoner conflict; however, those consist of bickering and catfights waged from wheelchair seats. There are no prison bunks; instead plastic wrapped hospital beds occupy every corner of the room where the inmates sleep.

There is a common misconception that most people in prison are young. The whole of the criminal justice population, including those incarcerated and on community programs, such as probation is aging more quickly than the nation’s population. Prior to incarceration many inmates behavior put them at risk for health problems. Many arrive with a history of drug abuse and high risk sexual activities. In addition to inmates entering prison with previous behavioral risk factors often they have had limited or no access to health care prior to entering the system. Data from three of the nation’s largest prison systems indicate that elderly inmates are commonly transported outside prison walls for costly health care treatment for events related to chronic diseases, thus placing additional stress on already limited state budgets. Officials estimate the nation’s costs of housing and caring for prisoners over 50 is $16 billion annually. In 2010 the state of Texas paid $4,853 per elderly offender for care compared with $795 for inmates under 55 for a total of $545 million. Although elderly inmates comprise 8% of Texas’ inmate population they are responsible for 30% of prisoner’s health care costs.

One may assume the prison environment is naturally stressful, perhaps some facilities more than others a maximum security institution compared to a minimum security, for example. Most certainly even a big strapping man in his prime would find it difficult to adjust to prison life. Suppose the individual is past his prime and suffers from a debilitating disease. His stress level would be greater; therefore the effects would be greater.

The nation’s prisons are overflowing with inmates serving long sentences that guarantee they will reach old age while incarcerated. Studies suggest that older prisoners endure unique stress and trauma that younger inmates do not. Older inmates fear victimization from younger stronger inmates, and dying in prison. These fears are not unfounded as in 2004 2,019 prisoners 55 and older died in prison. Many studies have been conducted on stress and trauma in regard to prisoners. Not much has been done in regard to the subject specifically as it relates to older prisoners.

America is experiencing an unprecedented growth in the elderly population. One implication of this trend is elderly inmates. Particularly the costs to keep these elderly inmates incarcerated. The baby Boomers are in their 50s and 60s, chronologically someone in this age range is not necessarily “old”; typically this is around the time they begin to experience health issues associated with aging. A 2003 report from the Georgia department of Corrections showed that 31% of older prisoners have no physical limitations, compared to 83% in the 15 – 29 cohorts. Older inmates present unique challenges for the correctional system, particularly in regard to their health care needs. In many cases inmates are not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid and as a result the costs for their health care and as a result the states are left to pick up the tab on their health care. Many of these cash-strapped states are already cutting budgets. In 1980 Oklahoma had 85 inmates who were age 50 and older, that figure that has ballooned to 3,952 in 2010. That figure is expected to increase 48% by fiscal year 2013.

Previously prison management issues focused mainly on separating violent inmates from the nonviolent ones and programs that helped the inmate in the transition back into society. Because of the tremendous increase in the numbers of older inmates, prison management is far more complex and costly. Prison administrators will have to incorporate a better understanding of the aging process in a prison environment as inmates’ age faster than those not incarcerated. Prison managers must also understand there may be legal ramifications with regard to chronic ailments common in the elderly, such as Alzheimer’s disease and their related complications. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits discrimination against disabled individuals (including incarcerated individuals). Failure of prisons to comply with these acts could result federal courts ordering prison facilities to accommodate prisoners with special needs.

END PART ONE

--Mike Connelly

You may (or may not) wonder why we’re so skeptical at times regarding prison population projections and basing policy decisions on them. Part of it’s that I’ve done them and seen them misused for purposes good and bad. Part of it is that I’ve seen policymakers make decisions, such as increasing bedspace either through more building or more diversion from prison, and then practitioners, seeing the empty beds, change their practices from the ways they had been modeled in the projections. And by “change their practices,” I mean “grab the chance to pump people into prison that they hesitated about before because the bedspace wasn’t available.” Ironically, the first place I heard of this happening was TX, where the state in the 1990s built new prisons based on projected need, believing that would have them well prepped for years into the future. However, abrakadapra!!, the beds filled within a year or so instead. Why? Well, “if you build it, they will revoke.” P&P officers, seeing the empty beds now available, started hammering their revocators (there’s a name for a rock band!!) more than they had in the data used to build the model on which the prison building was based. In OK right now, projected bedspace and reported “savings” are based in part on a constant list of 85% crimes (offenses for which the offender must serve 85% of the sentence before getting credits toward release); however, the state’s self-proclaimed archangel DAs are reportedly working at expanding that list of offenses so that many offenders who might be affected by the recent reforms [sic] won’t have them available. Voila!, the projections are suddenly wrong.

Grits for Breakfast blog shows us how Texans are apparently the only people who are allowed to mess with Texas. By not revoking parolees as much and a few other reforms forced on the legislature by the House Speaker saying “no more prisons” (a part of the Corr Sent Reform 1.0 package rarely mentioned elsewhere), the state did see a slight percentage drop in its prison population, which was apparently waving a red cape in front of the state’s self-proclaimed archangel DAs who kept felony conviction levels relatively constant over the same period that arrests were dropping precipitously. IOW, why try these lesser amounts as misdemeanors or let them go when we’ve got bedspace freeing up? As a result, the state Legislative Budget Board projects that this Reform 1.0 success story will see its prison populations begin increasing again after 2014.

We’ve been critical of Reform 1.0 efforts in large part because they ignore the history and players in the states making the efforts and end up overlooking the very definite structuring that will have to be done to prevent the gaming that we’re talking about above once the spotlights on the policy have been turned off. As we’ve noted, policy isn’t policy until it’s implemented, and simply getting a bill passed is a very superficial measure of reform success. If the implementation hasn’t been thought through and adequately provided for, the most likely outcome will be something quite different from what the press conferences hailed. Oklahoma left evaluation of its reform’s success in the hands of one of the major players who is unlikely to find himself a failure and it did nothing to verify that the upfront assessment it extolled would even be considered at sentencing and not gamed if it were. North Carolina, like Oklahoma, failed to guarantee adequate funding for the extended community supervision reforms that passed. Texas has now proved the lesson twice. The odds are pretty good it will get more chances.

(Speaking of odds, what do you think put as the over/under on the number of years before South Dakota, whose governor hailed Texas as the model he wanted his Reform 1.0 effort to emulate, is back at it? Past experience, I’d take 6 but The Perfect Storm is getting worse so we might end up over the actual.)

 

--Mike Connelly

This guy might as well be writing for our blog. We talk about the kumbaya folks who extol their reasonableness and general "great conversationalists" perspective and get run over by people who’d rather do the politics and go for the power, who prey on the civility of the Sesame Street alumni, and who take the stakes they hold over Corr Sent reform to anything that would threaten their positions, power, prestige, and professions (4 P’s, alliteration!!!). The writer of this post calls it the headline and points out the same:

People infected by the Fighter’s Fault Fallacy are played skillfully by anyone who fights dirty and then double-dirty by lamenting publicly the lack of bi-partisanship. “Why can’t we all just get along” say the guys who started the fight and escalate it.

Unlike us, he takes time to take apart the simplistic belief that it’s all just a matter of communication and attitudes. There are very strong reasons why the hoped-for and treasured-above-all “consensus” doesn’t come about, which the writer outlines well. And he cites “three unrealistic moral commandments that build to an unrealistic conclusion” regarding the conflict between the power-protector/seekers and the hands-joiners:

1. Since it’s the right thing to do, on the count of three let’s all be equally self-doubting and receptive to the possibility that we're wrong.

2. Since it’s the right thing to do, on the count of three let’s all be equally tolerant and open-minded about each other’s counter-arguments.

3. Anyone who doesn’t comply with rules one and two is a pig. As George Bernard Shaw says “Don’t fight with a pig. You’ll just get dirty and the pig likes it.” We should not and need not tolerate the company of people who don't follow rule one and two.

From these three combined, many people conclude there is therefore never a reason to fight and all who fight are equally bad.

The problem is that many can't or won't comply with one and two, and we can't always escape the company of those who don't.

As we’ve noted, virtually every Corr Sent Reform commission/workgroup/council in the last 4 decades has operated under the “Fighter’s Fault Fallacy.” And 4 decades later, the status quo has only bent slightly in a few areas, usually vaulting back to the old days as soon as the immediate players depart. Some might wonder if this should continue in this manner. The writer certainly would. In honor of “consensus,” we’ve decided to agree with him. And with that Einstein guy who thought poorly of trying to solve problems with the same people and processes that created and maintained them. We like the company.

--Mike Connelly

Reality frequently laughs at our certainties, such as no Heisman finalist could possibly have a make-believe girlfriend. That only happens to skinny guys in high school who are every girl’s “best friend” because he’s skinny and has curly hair when the trend is for every guy to have hair like the Beatles and on top of that he gets pimples at inopportune . . . uh, yeah, guys like that, guys I used to see hanging around. Anyway, occasionally we post something here that might raise some eyebrows (!!) and doubts (!!!), only to have a new piece of info come out within a day or two that backs up what we were saying.

A couple of weeks back for our Sunday book review we reviewed Overdiagnosed, which spelled out how our zeal for “if just one life could be saved” and “you can’t put a price on human life” actually led to more endangered lives and higher costs for everyone in medical treatment than if we’d just kept our zeal to ourselves. If you didn’t read that review (why not and do so now), surely we don’t have to note that health care isn’t the only field in which those phrases get misused to the same effect. Since the recommendations of that book were so “outside the silo” from everything we’re told in the media and by our families and friends (don’t get that checkup, that cancer very likely won’t kill you), it was understandable that you either passed on the review or created breezes with your head shaking as you did read it.

But now this piece from the Journal of the American Medical Association provides chapter and verse from a Danish study indicating that getting that annual checkup not only isn’t necessary but will likely lead to more harm than good:

During these health checks, an estimated $322 million is spent annually on laboratory tests that no guideline groups recommend…The cost of follow-up biopsies of normal breasts triggered by false-positive mammogram results alone is probably in the range of $14 to $70 billion annually. It is likely that follow-up testing from general health checks substantially contributes to the estimated $210 billion in annual spending on unnecessary medical services.

Because the “saved” cases (maybe, maybe not, see “likely won’t kill you, cancer” above) get far and away the greater attention rather than the unnecessarily treated and harmed people, these kinds of studies have a hard time breaking through. In effect, they’re in the same position as those of us pushing the Corrections Sentencing Reform 2.0 options, noting that the long-term problems aren’t going to be solved by Reform 1.0 menus and in the meantime we’re spending far more on false positives of “need to be in prison” than we should be, especially in the face of The Perfect Storm. But studies like this one and its advocates give us hope that, funeral by funeral, resignation by resignation, election defeat/term limit by election defeat/term limit, we can replace the status quo defenders who can’t think of any other options than surgery or prison. Or as one advocate of the study says,

“The authors correctly note that changing people’s assumptions about checkups will be unbelievably hard. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it.”

Sing it, Doc. We’ll be your chorus.

--Mike Connelly

One of our many hobby horses here is the problem we have with claiming “evidence-based practice” for studies that haven’t met the scientific criterion of replicability. We’ve noted frequently how the leading field in research design—medical research—that created EBP has serious problems with its findings in major part because of the difficulties of replicability and/or the inability of subsequent researchers to produce results previously reported. John Ioannidis’ work has even brought the supposed gold standard of randomized field studies into some question because, in theory, replication of such studies wouldn’t have these problems. If it’s true of medical research with decades of work behind it, it’s likely true of other fields, even ours.

One field that has taken the challenge seriously is econo . . . no, no, don’t be silly. It’s psychology. We’ve reported in the past about plans to take studies from 3 journals in 2008 and see if their findings can be repeated. And here is another example, a special issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science devoted specifically to the topic, the problems, and the debate. You’ll get a flavor of it just from the titles of the articles therein, including one from Ioannidis (with handy pop-ups of the abstracts of each article when you cursor over the title).

Editors’ Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science: A Crisis of Confidence?
Is the Replicability Crisis Overblown? Three Arguments Examined
Replications in Psychology Research: How Often Do They Really Occur?
The Rules of the Game Called Psychological Science
A Vast Graveyard of Undead Theories: Publication Bias and Psychological Science’s Aversion to the Null
Science or Art? How Aesthetic Standards Grease the Way Through the Publication Bottleneck but Undermine Science
Low Hopes, High Expectations: Expectancy Effects and the Replicability of Behavioral Experiments
The Psychology of Replication and Replication in Psychology
You Could Have Just Asked: Reply to Francis (2012)
It Does Not Follow: Evaluating the One-Off Publication Bias Critiques by Francis
Teaching Replication
Harnessing the Undiscovered Resource of Student Research Projects
Rewarding Replications: A Sure and Simple Way to Improve Psychological Science
Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring Incentives and Practices to Promote Truth Over Publishability
An Agenda for Purely Confirmatory Research
Psychologists Are Open to Change, yet Wary of Rules
The Nine Circles of Scientific Hell
Why Science Is Not Necessarily Self-Correcting
Introduction to the Special Section on Research Practices
An Open, Large-Scale, Collaborative Effort to Estimate the Reproducibility of Psychological Science
The Long Way From α-Error Control to Validity Proper: Problems With a Short-Sighted False-Positive Debate
Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science
DSM-5 Task Force Proposes Controversial Diagnosis for Dishonest Scientists

What’s even better is that, right now anyway, the whole issue is available for free if you hurry over. You won’t have to out in the cold to assuage your need to read all or most of them immediately. For us in Corrections Sentencing, the questions are similar enough to those we need to be concerned about that you can frequently just switch out “Corr Sent” for “psychology” wherever it’s mentioned. Again, this is not to say that the evidence we’re passing on to policymakers is actually flawed or not replicable. But we need more of the efforts like the psychologists are pulling off because all it will take will be hanging one policymaker out to dry publicly with some erroneous research claims and all EBP will be questioned thereafter. The way to maintain credibility is exactly the way the psych guys are doing it. Let’s give them some applause. And hits. (Maybe they’ll keep the free stuff coming our way . . . .)

--Mike Connelly

“The Fiscal Future That Won’t Happen”
“The Folly of Praying for a Crisis”

Our negative view of the basic foundation of Corrections Sentencing Reform 1.0 efforts isn’t just opinion nor held only by us alone. These two pieces at that well-known whack-job enterprise known as GOVERNING spell out well what we and others are concerned about and why, if you understand what they’re saying, you understand what we’re saying when we talk about the insufficiency of 1.0 reforms, even their detriments when they delay necessary thinking and action or discourage policymakers with their lack of impact so much that no 2.0 is considered worthwhile.

The subtitle of the first piece is “Arithmetic always triumphs; our unsustainable trends will stop. What matters is how.” Can we hear an “AMEN,” brothers and sisters? It ends with “Regardless of your ideological persuasion or policy preferences, the numbers tell you that there is a hurricane the size of Katrina on the radar. With luck, it won’t hit dead-on and the levees will hold, but it would be wise to begin gathering supplies and boarding up the windows.” Katrina, Perfect Storm, to-may-toe, to-mah-toe. What he doesn’t get is that it’s already here and will catch everyone before it’s done.

The second piece gets that more. It starts with “The daunting array of long-term-challenges that our federal, state and local governments face share one essential characteristic: Problems that are preventable if action is taken now will grow into destructive crises in the years ahead if they are not managed proactively. The aging of the population and rising health-care costs are precipitating a range of fiscal challenges. At the same time, the warming of the planet is posing new challenges to our infrastructure and communities, epitomized by the devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy.” Sandy, Perfect Storm, to-may . . . you get it.

This guy laments those who have concluded that basically we’re going to have to have the worst happen, at least to enough states and communities, before we’ll wake up and take action. He laments it but doesn’t really prove them wrong. Maybe because he is one of the few mainstream commenters who actually gets what’s going on pretty fully:

State and local governments are also on an unsustainable fiscal course, with deficits projected to exceed 5 percent of the economy. Unlike the federal government, states and localities would have to take a series of increasingly difficult measures to close the rising fiscal gaps each year to bring about the balanced general-fund budgets that most of them are constitutionally required to maintain.

And the impact of global warming appears, if anything, to have been underestimated. We have known for years that major cities along seacoasts were poorly protected from the ravages of major storms. The regional cost from Sandy has been estimated at $50 billion, making it the second most destructive storm in U.S. history after Katrina.

Unlike with 9/11, we have two advantages in dealing with these twin public-policy challenges: We have definitive information about the extent of the problems, and we know how to fix them in ways that would head off the worst consequences. . . .

After calling out our current policymaking leadership [sic] for actually perpetuating the delays to what’s needed to be done (our kind of guy!!), he finishes with this dose of reality:

But a crisis, by definition, is not an event we can tame or control. Crises that would be severe enough to get our collective attention would cause a level of havoc and destruction that we would not be prepared to accept.

Let's hope that we don't end up needing a crisis to force us to do the things that need to be done. Instead of praying for crises, we need to act in a timely way to prevent them.

If and when we ever see any of those advising and advocating Corrections Sentencing Reform 1.0 laying this out in front of their fellow policymakers from the very beginning and making it clear that tweaking here and redefining there, slowing the problems but not prepping for the triage that is going to come either planned or unplanned will not get the necessary work done, then we’ll be ready to grant more credibility to the Reform 1.0 efforts. Their first step might be to call either of these two writers (the latter preferable to the former) to start the “workgroup” deliberations, even if it meant stirring things up and upsetting the holders of stakes over the process. (No, in answer to your unspoken comment, calling us to do it would be the trumpet sound signaling seals opening and Armageddon had begun.)

 

--Mike Connelly

Way back in my own Corrections Sentencing Reform 1.0 days, before The Perfect Storm really started blasting and 1.0 was more tailored to the times, I participated in some of the Stanford University sessions on California’s still-mega incarceration problem. One of the few ideas I can claim that I offered to staff for sessions there was to invite the guys highlighted in this post to speak to officials and consultants about the importance of ideas in getting change accomplished and especially the importance of “sticky” ideas. One of the authors actually taught there (not sure if he still does and don’t feel like Googling, but feel free yourself) so I thought it would be an easy sell. Wasn’t, of course. Was told that the idea had been kicked around but there were other topics that needed to come first and the presentation to my knowledge never happened.

But I still like the concept of “sticky” ideas, as you might expect given the time we spend here emphasizing that the stories and messages we use to get the Corr Sent Reform need across are even more important than the research and good sense that back them up. Fortunately for any of you also interested and inclined, the post will give you the essential concepts behind “sticky” ideas and coincidentally a link through which you can purchase the book. I get no commissions for sending you there so don’t worry about that.

The post lists 6 principles that all ideas that last and motivate people tend to share. All of them can and should be applied to what we do to persuade people about the changes we need to accomplish in the face of The Perfect Storm. Here’s an unsurprising one to give you a taste. You’ll want to read the other 5 afterwards, we’re sure:

6) Stories:
“Research shows that mentally rehearsing a situation helps us perform better when we encounter that situation in the physical environment. Similarly, hearing stories acts as a kind of mental flight simulator, preparing us to respond more quickly and effectively.“

And while on the subject of change, here’s a piece that offers helpful advice about how you must prep people for it by removing their fears about it. Again unsurprisingly, one of the key requirements to accomplish that is to tell effective stories that “stick” in people’s minds. That theme you’ll find in basically all 6 recommendations you’ll find in the article. And here’s the conclusion that brings them together (but still read the article, okay?):

. . . You can use Charles Duhigg's insight--make the novel seem familiar--to build your workers' confidence about managing change. If your organization has been sailing through turbulent seas in recent years, then change is hardly novel. Telling your workers that "we've been here before, we know how to handle this" is both honest and reassuring. It suggests that the staff has developed a new habit--the habit of change.

Changing is going to be (already is) the one constant in the trip through to the other side of The Storm. Those who can change fear to confrontation and uncertain to familiar with the “sticky” ideas they pass on to staff and publics will be the ones most likely to still be upright when it’s over.

--Mike Connelly

West Virginia has had a reputable center analyze its substantial Corrections Sentencing problems, and it concluded the following: that the state needs to address substance abuse problems with more alternative sentencing and treatment options; that the state should focus more on reentry programs like transitional housing, and that parole revocations are driving a major part of their prison population increases and the supervision and treatment of parolees should be a major consideration, including mandatory supervision after release.

Yeah, yeah, you just read about that, right? The Council of State Governments workgroup on WV prison needs, right? Revocations pointed out as a major “driver” of the prison growth, need for post-release supervision and more effective reentry, substance abuse undermining the state and needing treatment. All there in the recent story.

Only the “reputable center” in the first paragraph wasn’t CSG. It was WV’s Center on Budget and Policy, and it wasn’t this week, it was back last February.

You may not recall all the details from the efforts last winter to get WV started on Corrections Sentencing Reform 1.0 so let’s recap (see here, here, here, here, and here). Because of the work of the Center and other state-grown orgs, a report was issued that detailed most of what was described in paragraph one. From that, legislation was developed that passed the Senate overwhelmingly and bipartisanly and was about to pass the House overwhelmingly and with at least some bipartisan support. However, the House Minority Leader and the DOC head couldn’t agree on how some finer points that the Leader insisted on would be worked out. The governor punted to CSG rather than go ahead and get started addressing the state's problems in even the modest way proposed. As we noted at the time, this in effect gave a veto to the Minority Leader if “consensus,” which is the little engine that could in the 1.0 garage, is to be required for passage, as the governor indicated when bringing in CSG.

So now WV has new outside and top down analyses confirming what their home-grown and democratic ones found, and the talk is about the same needs as the earlier participants recommended, with a little window-dressing about more upfront risk assessment at sentencing which may or may not occur and may or may not get gamed if it does. And the Minority Leader’s opposition does not appear to have been muted. To get his support in order to get the all-important “legislation passed” box checked before leaving the state, the result will almost certainly be less than what was on the edge of passage in March this year without him. But we can be sure that the resulting bill, like Oklahoma’s recent effort, will be lauded as a leap forward rather than a needless delay and likely step backward. IOW, the question raised in a July article, “Can Another Study End State Inmate Overcrowding?,” is about to be answered.

It would be nice to be wrong. Really nice. Like it would have been nice to have been wrong about Oklahoma.

In the words of our frequent guest blogger, Lamar Shapiro, “the beat goes on.”

 

 

--Mike Connelly

On Friday we noted in the News a meeting of the Oklahoma panel to implement its recent minor Corr Sent reforms and how the failure to understand the parties involved and the problems of implementation had led exactly to the chaos that we had originally predicted when the thing was being considered. You may have thought we were harsh. But this post from the former editor of the very conservative statewide newspaper makes clear how limited the original story was and how much worse the situation is than we first reported. The term-limited Speaker, whose departure will leave no leader in state government with a stake in seeing this Reform 1.0 to be successful, says “90% of the work is still ahead of us.” Uh, sorry. 80% of that should have already been done before anything was passed, and the consultants were told the likely problems. I know because I was one of those who told them as I was on my way to the train outta Dodge.

Here’s more:

But Thursday’s meeting was like watching a bad rehearsal of a Broadway musical that ought to be farther along.

At one point, Frazier suggested that volunteers from the Tulsa-based George Kaiser Family Foundation would manage nonviolent offenders serving shorter sentences for probation violations at new Intermediate Revocation Facilities instead of longer sentences in standard prisons.

Not so, foundation staffer Amy Santee, a project supporter. She politely corrected Frazier, saying the foundation’s role is to “carry forward existing treatment programs” at sites like the Eddie Warrior Correctional Center and Mabel Bassett Correctional Center — not to perform IRF treatments.

Santee added that foundation-funded staff are not volunteers, and are credentialed in their fields.

And though the Council of State Governments has offered grants to support the ambitious project, it was soon clear that no one outside of Corrections and Mental Health had applied. A representative of Attorney General Scott Pruitt revealed that the AG’s office hasn’t asked for a grant. Other participants on the working group said they didn’t know about the CSG grant offer. Among those who knew, there was confusion about the grant application process.

Note several things here (while keeping in mind that nothing about to be said deals with the legislature’s failure to appropriate for the reforms, claiming to give DOC money for increased postrelease supervision while requiring increased private prison funding ostensibly out of dollars used by the recidivism-cutting state correctional industries program to buy materials). The same two groups who took out the meat of the previous year’s minor effort at Corr Sent reform are clearly bringing out the stonewalls for this one. The governor has sent someone from her office shown in both stories to be clueless about way too much, not the directors of DOC or the mental health/substance abuse dept, to the committee to decide on implementation efforts. Would you do that if you were serious about a constructive effort?

And the AG not only isn’t interested in effective implementation support, his office is the one charged with distributing grants to law enforcement and then evaluate how well he did in selecting. AND he’s been charged with issuing the periodic reports on the results of the entire reform effort, receiving data from the state’s public safety agencies but not required to do anything more than print them out on glossy paper and call that an analysis. Which is good because, were he actually expected to produce a true evaluation of the changes in public safety before and after implementation and demonstrate that the reforms were responsible, he has no one on his staff qualified to do a professional evaluation. That doesn’t mean he couldn’t find someone in the University of Oklahoma’s econ department to produce a “professional evaluation” that reaches the results he wants. That academic department has done it repeatedly in the two decades OK has been playing at Corr Sent reform.

That’s assuming the state actually gets to the point of doing more than sending money to police departments to offset budget cuts but in the name of “fighting violent crime,” as intended by the legislation. If the state’s lucky, that’s all that will get implemented and it can actually be defended, just not in terms of “justice reinvestment.” Again, that’s not just our opinion. Read this quote from one of the co-chairs as the meeting concluded:

“We’re all adults here,” he said. “I think it would require a miracle for us to be ready to implement this law by November 1.”

We can all think of better things to pray for. Like those states that keep looking at these Corrections Sentencing Reform 1.0 experiences and thinking that “hey, that’s what we need to be doing!!”

--Mike Connelly

Wanted to note for you that we’ve added this report from the Sentencing Project to our links of important Corrections Sentencing Reform 2.0 articles in the upper right of this page. We had only gotten started a bit at JCO and were working on proposals more than the blog when it came out. That said, we shouldn’t have held off as long as we did pointing it out in case you hadn’t seen it.

Basically, the Project people got brief essays from some crim justice types around the country to talk about their vision of criminal justice by 2036, a little broader scope than our outer boundary of 2020 here.  Some of them were specific to their concerns, others more expansive and systemic, but all the works are interesting and will invoke head-nodding among our readership here. Jeremy Travis prints out his keynote address to the Project conference with many very good ideas and points, including more focus on ALL crime victims (not just those involved in cases making courts), our sad lack of data and understanding of why crime rose and fell so dramatically 20-25 years ago, development of standards for our assertions of evidence for evidence-based practice, shifts from cases to problemrecs as our units of concern for policymaking, and changes in how we think about prisons.  Bringing all these items to serious agenda-setting, he says, will require “superheroes” of science and passion.  Yes, you may be tempted, wide-eyed, to close the page at that point, but hang in.  More realistic stuff is coming.

We won’t go through all of the remaining 24 essays, just point out that Alan Jenkins has a good essay on the need for a “compelling narrative” to drive the thought and action in future criminal justice policy as well as the institutional structure to continuously drive that message home.  Dennis Schrantz has a clever vision of 2036 as a period in which mass incarceration has ended, similar to our posts here on how our approach to policy in Corr Sent would have played out in other historical controversies.  The public health model gets used more than once as a viable alternative to our current paradigms, and juvenile justice doesn’t get shirked if that’s one of your interests, either.  Proper concern is shown for issues of gender, race, and class, and several writers do note that we don’t really have a criminal justice system, but don’t go as far as we do here to just call it a criminal processing system.  Obviously nicer than we are.  Todd Clear reiterates points we linked to here earlier about how to cut prison populations more dramatically than Reform 1.0 ever could.  In fact, he makes the simple case about 1.0 that, since the best recidivism reduction we can hope for, from the research, is 20%, a 50% recidivism rate will only be cut to 40%, not nearly enough to meet the demands and needs by 2036.

Being us, we can’t let the report go without noting things we would have liked to have seen or would have said.  While the need for an “echo chamber” was rightly cited a couple of times, no recommendations made about how to get that going beyond the occasional reports and tv appearances we now get (with their limited effects) and one essay noted how very difficult it is to even get press coverage of real prison issues.  The Project did get an “angel” DA to present on what his district has done to affect prison usage and get more treatment, but there was a reason he was picked.  His district is an exception, not the rule, to the general orientation of prosecutors nationally, dominated as they are in volume and probably number by their self-appointed “archangel”colleagues.  Get the essay-writer on are form panel without having to kowtow to his colleagues, something would get done.  That doesn’t happen and isn’t going to.

As frequent readers know, we at JCO are concerned about the, frankly, failures of other disciplines like econ and poli sci, psych and policy analysis to make overall constructive contributions to their own fields and policymaking and how those failures can bleed into disciplines like ours that follow their approaches and rhetoric.  A good essay here castigates folks who want to still be using leeches, so to speak, in what we do, but there’s no recognition that medical research has MAJOR problems itself and no call for attention to understanding how those disciplines have screwed up so we don’t repeat their errors.  And Travis’ essay, as good as it was, seems to feel that because the causes of cancer don’t vary across the country, the causes of crime and their resolution in a nation with Louisiana and Texas, Vermont and Massachusetts, Washington and Oregon, and Wisconsin and Minnesota shouldn’t be seen as varying either. Good luck with that.

But you can probably guess what our biggest criticism of the report would be, given our constant harping on The Perfect Storm.  Despite these essays being done in 2011, a year when the clarity of weather, water, energy, and associated concerns started hitting home in a big way, they could have been written 5, 10, some even 20 years earlier.  With the exception of the public health essays, they are all still “inside the silo” that has blinded us to forces outside that silo that will have far more impact on what happens in Corrections Sentencing by 2020 than anything the writers discuss, much less by2036.  Elliot Currie does show some needed skepticism about the fiscal capacity of government to make the changes proposed therein, but he’s still mainly “inside the silo.”  Until these and other thinkers get that there’s a wave hitting waayyy far inland and not going away, even these valuable contributions will be far too inadequate to get us where we will need to be.

Enough.  It’s good to have any serious thought about our predicament beyond the next couple of years or a five or ten year prison population projection inside the silo going on and disseminated.  If/when your state understands the true enormity of what’s facing us and starts frantically wracking around looking for ideas and priorities, this will be one of the first places you should start.  Don’t worry.  It’ll just be a click away in the upper right.