Reducing the Prison
Population:
What Works?
The Sentencing Project
by
Nicole D. Porter
Director of Advocacy
nporter@sentencingproject.org

Trends in State Prison Population

Changes in State Policy

Prison Closures

Conclusion & Recommendations

Discussion/Q&A
STATE PRISON POPULATION, BY OFFENSE, 2010
Prisons Can Be Costly
Are there more cost effective ways to ensure public safety?

DOC reports spending $1.3 billion a year on corrections.

Vera Inst. of Justice reports: FISCAL YEAR 2010: Wisconsin
Department of Corrections (DOC) had $800.3 million in prison
expenditures.

The state also had $74.1 million in prison-related costs outside
the department’s budget.

Total cost of Wisconsin’s prisons—to incarcerate an average daily
population of 23,015—was therefore $874.4 million,.

The state spends on average $37,994 in average annual cost per
Source: Vera Institute of Justice
incarcerated person
Incarceration Rates have Challenged
Stakeholders

Red States and Blue States have adopted policy change to control state
prison populations: ranging from Texas to New York

State policymakers have committed to reducing rates of incarceration

Policy can frame the Debate: Vermont set a goal of reducing the
average rate of detainees to 300 per 100,000 after observing rising rates
between 2008 and 2010.

Stakeholders include: the court administrator, the administrative
judge of the trial courts, the commissioner of the department of
corrections, the executive director of the department of state’s
attorneys and sheriffs, and the public defender.

This goal was codified into statute in 2010.
Trends in State Policy
•2000-2008 the number of people incarcerated in state prisons rose by 12% from
1,176,269 to 1,320,145, although with a broad variation around the nation.
•At the high end, six states expanded their prison populations by more than 40 percent
– West Virginia, Minnesota, Arizona, Kentucky, Florida, and Indiana.
Minnesota (low compared to other states): Increased during early 2000s due to
sentences for meth & DWI offenses. Growth slowed starting in 2007 due to
modest changes.
•Prison populations declined modestly in 25 states in 2010.
•Total prison population declined for the first time since 1972.
•Despite recent trends it’s important to note the continued scale of incarceration in this
Changes in State Policy & Practice
Prison Population: function of several factors that include what triggers a
prison sentence and length of confinement
In recent years states targeting efforts to control state prison populations have
looked at several policy issues that include:
•Sentencing Reforms
•Alternatives for “Prison Bound” People
•Reducing Time Served in Prison
•Managing Parole Release Rates
•Reducing Probation/Parole Revocations.
Sentencing Reforms
New York: Scaled back the Rockefeller Drug Laws substantially to
reduce the scope of mandatory sentences
Michigan: Reformed the “650 Lifer Law” that had previously imposed
life sentences for 650 gram drug offenses, even for first-time offenders.
Eliminated most mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses and
incorporated sentencing provisions into the guidelines system, with
enhanced judicial discretion.
Kansas: Amended state sentencing guidelines to divert people
convicted of drug possession to mandatory treatment rather than
prison, and eliminated sentencing enhancements for persons with prior
convictions for drug possession.
Texas: Granted prosecutors the discretion to charge certain state jail
felonies as misdemeanors
Changes in Policy produce Results.
NY: Reducing Drug Offenders Sentenced to Prison
Alternatives for Prison Bound People

New York: Drug Treatment Alternatives to Prison program
established by the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office to
divert prison-bound defendants into treatment programs to
help reduce the use of incarceration; later expanded to
other prosecutor’s offices statewide.

New Jersey: Attorney General revised plea negotiation
guidelines to permit “open pleas” in lower-level drug-free
zone cases, giving judges discretion at sentencing.
Reducing Time Served in Prison
New York: Implemented “merit time” credits and other incentives for
participation in educational and vocational training, treatment and other
services to speed up parole consideration
Mississippi: Authorized parole for persons convicted of nonviolent
offenses after June 30, 1995 who served a portion of their sentence.
State lawmakers also removed nonviolent offenses from “truth in
sentencing” provisions.
Indiana: Authorized discharge for long term prisoners who have served at
least 21 years and received 4 years of earned time credit for certain
rehabilitation programs
Colorado: Established presumptive parole for inmates who reached their
parole eligibility date and whose controlling sentence is felony drug
possession or use offense
Community Investment to reduce
Recidivism

Controlling prison populations must work hand-in-hand with
strengthening community networks to reduce recidivism

Opportunity for partnership with various stakeholders: correctional
officials, business leaders, faith leaders, and others

States have institutionalized systems to address strengthening
successful reentry efforts for persons exiting prison

Ohio – community based reentry councils

Michigan and Texas – requires reentry plans for each exiting
inmate (e.g. housing, job search, etc.)

Minnesota, Connecticut, North Carolina, Ohio – adopted
policies that strengthen job opportunities for persons with prior
convictions to reduce recidivism
Parole Release Rates

New Jersey: Adopted Risk assessment instruments to aid
parole board in considering release issues

Michigan: Use of data-driven policies to identify lower-risk
cases for release, establishment of greater range of
intermediate sanctions for rule violators, and the designation
of two “reentry prisons” to assist in planning for release.

Kentucky: Amended parole release policies and expanded
home incarceration for persons convicted of certain
offenses
Reducing Revocations

New Jersey: Established Regional Assessment Centers to
provide input to parole board in determining if parole violators
should be allowed to continue to parole supervision.

Michigan: Established the Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative
to develop locally-based planning focusing on services in
housing, employment, substance abuse, and other areas
designed to increase prospects for successful reentry.

California and Arizona: Established a funding mechanism to
reward counties that succeed in reducing the rate of adult
probationers sent to prison; funding allocation based on costs
avoided by the state through reduced revocations.
Prison
Closures
* Changes in policy can reduce demand for costly prisons
*Key way to reduce state costs is through reforms that can lead to downscaling
state prison capacity
*Achieved in several ways from prison closures to scaling back capacity at
targeted facilities
*2011: at least 13 states have closed or downscaled correctional facilities
reducing prison capacity by over 15,500 beds
*States included: Texas, New York, Michigan, and North Carolina
*2012: at least 6 states have announced prison closures including Illinois,
Florida, and Kentucky– which may reduce state prison capacity by over
13,000 beds
Conclusion/Recommendations

Reducing the State Incarceration Rate is
Possible

Policy change can be achieved through
legislative and administrative reforms

Reducing the state prison population is a
moral issue that can save Wisconsin money