The Criminal Justice Reinvestment Act has a commendable goal ó reducing the stateís prison population by reducing recidivism rates ó and worthwhile ideas for doing so, but not at the expense of imposing more costs and responsibilities on county governments and local criminal justice systems.
Thatís a real fear for local officials if N.C. House Bill 642 were to establish mandates without providing money or resources to implement them. Against the backdrop of the stateís budget crisis and its need to reduce the inmate population, passage of the bill would mean that counties such as Rowan, which are already outsourcing inmates to other areas, would be in an even bigger bind. The impact would ripple across many areas of the criminal justice system, from potentially overwhelming the pretrial release program to requiring more probation officers and raising inmate health-care costs. Rowan officials have estimated the additional costs to house more inmates would be at least $1.4 million a year. Other counties are also worried. Guilford officials said earlier this month the proposal would add $861,400 annually to their jail costs. Meanwhile, judicial officers are concerned about the consequences for the stateís structured sentencing guidelines when punishments are lessened for some non-violent violators.
Thatís not to say the proposal should be ditched. As a cost-reduction measure, it makes sense to consider alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders who arenít considered a danger to the public. With more than half of state prison admissions for parole violations, it also makes sense to try to lower that number with stepped up monitoring and parole supervision. If the recidivism rate could be cut, it could more than offset the costs of additional probation officers and electronic monitoring devices. The same goes for intervention programs designed to deter young perpetrators from becoming chronic ó and costly ó adult offenders.
The N.C. bill reflects the thinking of experts involved in the federal Criminal Justice Reinvestment project, which is supported by the Council of State Governments and the Pew Center on the States and has spawned other state initiatives similar to this one. The N.C. measure, like those elsewhere, has enjoyed bipartisan support, a good indication that the general goals of the bill have merit. But general goals and practicable solutions at the local level are two different things ó as weíve seen with the stateís previous attempt to shift mental health care from state hospitals to community centers. Legislators need to make sure the act actually solves prison crowding, rather than simply passing the buck and the burden to local governments.