Arizona’s prison population has jumped 35 percent since 2002, with drug and theft offenders making up the largest numerical increase in the number of inmates during the past six years.
At the end of last year, Arizona’s state prisons held 39,502 inmates, marking a gain of almost 10,000 prisoners compared to the end of 2002, according to the Department of Corrections. Almost half of the new inmates were incarcerated for drug or theft offenses.
The figures were obtained by the Arizona Capitol Times following a study by the Washington D.C.-based Pew Center of the States that indicated 7.3 million, or one of every 31 United States residents, was under some form of correctional control, including incarceration, probation and parole, in 2007. Of that number, 2.3 million inmates were incarcerated nationwide, at an estimated total cost of more than $51 billion.
In Arizona, one in 33 residents was either locked up in state and federal prisons and county jails, or on supervised probation or parole. And the state’s correctional spending reached $951 million, an amount representing 9.5 percent of the general fund, according to the Pew study.
The study concluded that states could save money by locking up fewer “lower-tier” offenders and instead using alternative methods of punishment and rehabilitation. The study indicated sending those offenders to prison has limited impact on public safety and crime.
Chief among the proposed alternatives is a more extensive and improved use of “community corrections systems,” such as probation and parole, with varying degrees of severity based on offenders’ estimated risks to public safety.
It also recommended expanding the use of global-position monitoring and empowering supervising agencies to hand out swift punishment for violators.
“This reinvest strategy wouldn’t put a stop to all new crimes,” the report states. “But it would significantly cut recidivism — both for offenders coming out of prison and those diverted from prison in the first place — and do it at a fraction of the cost of a prison bed.”
But in Arizona, the call to move offenders from unforgiving and punishing prison sentences to programs aimed at stopping recidivism is not without its detractors.
Paul Ahler, executive director of the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council, said the state already uses incarceration as a necessary last resort.
Ahler, whose career as a municipal, county and state prosecutor spanned almost 30 years, said it was “staggering” that the Pew study showed 87,000 Arizona residents were on probation or parole in 2007 and called it proof that the Arizona criminal justice system is flexible enough.
Many incarcerated offenders in Arizona have failed multiple chances on probation, and, in the vast majority of cases, prison is reserved for dangerous and repeat offenders, he said.
“It’s my belief that the people at DOC (Department of Corrections) deserve to be there, and by keeping them there we are making our communities safer,” said Ahler, adding he believes any short-term savings achieved through incarcerating fewer inmates would be offset by additional crimes committed by released offenders.
Likewise, Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall said she would rather see a study that details the economic and emotional impacts of repeat offenders.
“It makes me crazy,” she said. “We deal with so many habitual repetitive offenders that it’s absolutely astonishing.”
Direct and indirect economic and emotional costs on victims come in the form of stolen items, higher insurance premiums, as well as medical costs associated with violent assaults, she said.
At the same time, enormous public costs are incurred through criminal investigations, apprehensions and court proceedings to re-prosecute offenders, LaWall said. The state’s prisons hold violent criminals, repeat offenders and people caught with amounts of drugs that significantly surpass personal use limits, she said.
“I feel very confident that in Pima County my prosecutors are incarcerating the most serious, violent and dangerous offenders — the ones who most seriously endanger and threaten the safety of this community,” she said. “I think we do an outstanding job of that.”
But Kathy Waters, director of Adult Probations Services Division of the Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts, said community corrections programs have proven to lower costs, reduce recidivism and, if necessary, avoid costly incarcerations. Still, she declined to say whether she thinks Arizona is sending more offenders to prison than necessary.
Waters said she has revoked more than her “fair share” of probationary sentences during her 20-year career, but she is convinced the programs are worthwhile.
“I’m a strong advocate for community corrections,” she said. “I think locking people up is the easy way.”
Offenders can benefit from tailored probationary programs of varying severities that help change lifestyle factors, including thought processing, anger management, substance abuse, choice of associates and preferred leisure activities, she said.
In many cases, intensive probation for low-level offenders has been proven to increase recidivism rates, she said.
The Arizona Supreme Court reports $1,400 a year is needed to put an adult through standard probation, while intensive probation reaches $7,800. Both figures are substantially lower than the $22,500 it takes to incarcerate an inmate for a year.
“You’re talking about a difference of thousands of savings,” said Waters. “And there is collateral savings. They’re (offenders) working, they’re paying taxes and they’re supporting their families.”
The problem is complex, and state lawmakers disagree on the best way to deal with the rising costs of incarceration and the perpetually increasing number of prisoners in the correctional system.
The calls for increased probationary sentencing, often called evidence-based sentencing in Arizona, stem in part from the implementation of mandatory sentencing laws. Those measures, crafted with punishment in mind, were created to curtail broad judicial discretion that led to wild swings in sentencing severities — often for the same types of crimes, said Rep. Adam Driggs, a Republican from Phoenix.
Driggs, also a former prosecutor with the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, said he has reservations about furthering a policy of moving inmates from hard time to a longer leash as a crime-reduction tool.
Driggs said he was particularly interested to hear about programs in Hawaii, where probation violations can, and do, result in immediate and brief stints in jail in hopes of providing a cheaper and instant wake-up call for recalcitrant offenders.
“Part of the problem with probation is you’re trying to predict a person’s future behavior,” said Driggs. “And no judge can predict whether this person or that person is going to be successful on probation or not successful.”
Rep. Bill Konopnicki, a Republican from Safford, said the state’s ability to cover the cost of locking up thousands of new inmates each year should be considered in the debate over mandatory sentencing requirements. The fiscal realities should trump most arguments over judicial discretion in criminal sentencing, he said.
“You can talk about liberal judges or conservative judges, or whatever,” he said. “But the judge is the last person to
have contact with them (offenders), who has heard the evidence and all the reasoning, and we rely on them to make that decision. But we’ve taken it out of their hands.”
Right now, inmates must serve 85 percent of their sentences, while parole violators are forced to serve 100 percent of their original sentences. That approach removes incentives to be a model prisoner and earn early release, he said.
During fiscal 2008, 21,428 inmates were admitted to Arizona Department of Corrections facilities. The majority, 68.3 percent, were new court commitments, while revoked county probationers and parolees accounted for the remainder.
At its current pace, Konopnicki said, Arizona would need $3 billion for new prison construction by 2012. Annual state spending on corrections also would increase to $1.3 billion from $900 million during that time.
“We cannot afford that kind of investment in corrections,” he said.
Konopnicki said the rising correctional expenses will affect other state-financed services, such as assistance for developmentally disabled people, and university funding. The opportunity costs guarantee alternative forms of punishment for some offenders will get a closer look in the future, he said.
“I think we’re going to be forced to look at it,” he said.
Although calls for massive overhauls of criminal sentencing laws have yet to be seen in Arizona, the push toward evidence-based sentencing is gaining traction.
Recently, the House Judiciary Committee advanced a strike-everything amendment to H2063, which seeks to add flexibility to laws requiring the GPS monitoring of probationers convicted of dangerous crimes against children.
Jerry Landau, a lobbyist for the Arizona Supreme Court, said the intent of the bill was to amend a 2006 law meant to require GPS monitoring for offenders convicted of sex crimes against children.
As written, the law inadvertently applied to many assault and drug cases, especially those involving methamphetamine. The high number of people affected by the law created steep expenses, and GPS monitoring was not always found to produce the best results, he said.
“Public safety is our number one priority,” he said. “If utilizing GPS for every dangerous crime against a children defendant who was on probation was the best mechanism to ensure public safety, I wouldn’t be here.”
Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat from Phoenix, said she believed testimony from supporters of the strike-everything proposal and previous well-received evidence-based sentencing presentations from court officials swayed committee members to vote in favor of the bill.
“I think evidence-based practices, whether you are talking about corrections, or education or any government aspect, are by far the best guide,” said Sinema, a private criminal defense attorney by profession.≠