How to Save DOJ Money Without Furloughs

Attorney General Eric Holder sent out a memo to Justice Department employees Friday (available here) saying he transferred $150 million from DOJ's funds to the Bureau of Prisons to avoid mass furloughs of prison guards and staffers.
Absent this intervention, we faced the need to furlough 3,570 staff each day from the federal prisons around the country. The loss of these correctional officers and other staff who supervise the 176,000 prisoners at 119 institutions would have created serious threats to the lives and safety of our staff, inmates, and the public.

Absent this intervention, we faced the need to furlough 3,570 staff each day from the federal prisons around the country. The loss of these correctional officers and other staff who supervise the 176,000 prisoners at 119 institutions would have created serious threats to the lives and safety of our staff, inmates, and the public.

The Department's actions can protect BOP's facilities only through the end of the fiscal year in September and these actions do not address the serious life and safety issues that the BOP faces next year under continued funding at the post-sequestration levels.

Sequestration requires a $338 million cut in BOP's budget, of which $330 million is for salaries. (That still leave it with 95% of its budget.) Under the sequestration plan, a guard would lose one day of paid work every fourteen days. From Holder's February 1 letter to Congress about the sequestration cuts:

The sequestration would cut $338 million from BOP's current budget. BOP would face a furlough of nearly 36,700 onboard staff for an average of 12 days, plus curtailment of future hiring, if sequestration occurs. This equates to about a 5 percent reduction in on board staff levels and would endanger the safety of staff and over 218,000 inmates. As a consequence, BOP would need to implement full or partial lockdowns and significantly reduce inmate reentry and training programs.

I'm not sure giving guards an extra day off every two weeks without pay is as big a calamity as portrayed by Holder. More troubling to me, and less widely reported, are the cuts in rehabilitation and vocational programs. Cutting these programs is likely to result in increased recidivism. Inmates who leave prison with skill sets and having undergone substance abuse treatment are more likely to turn their lives around and avoid a return to prison. Cutting these programs will also give the inmates even more dead time than they have now, which in turn is likely to lead to increased behavioral problems, making the prison guards' jobs more dangerous. As Holder also wrote in his February 1, 2013 letter :

This would leave inmates idle, increasing the likelihood of inmate misconduct, violence, and other risks to correctional workers and inmates. Further, limiting or eliminating inmate programs such as drug treatment and vocational education would, in fact, lead to higher costs to taxpayers and communities in the long run as the lack of such inmate re-entry training makes it less likely that released inmates will be successful at reintegration into society upon their release.

The furloughs would also likely mean a cut-back in inmate work hours, since there would be fewer guards on duty to supervise them. That will mean a reduction in their earnings going to child support and restitution.

Unanswered as yet? What cuts are coming to inmate mental health services? Why can't we at least send the 86 detainees cleared for release at Guantanamo back to their home countries? While the Pentagon bears the cost for housing them, the Administration just requested an additional $49 million for Guantanamo.

So furloughs are a lousy idea. But there are many other ways for the Bureau of Prisons to save money. The U.S. has become a global jailer. We should return the inmates we kidnapped from Africa, South America, Mexico and the Middle East. They are costing us a fortune and many have not committed any crime in or against the U.S. Examples: The Somali pirates tried and sentenced to life in prison; extradited FARC and cartel members, many of whom are serving double-digit or life sentences; Viktor Bout, set up by informants in Thailand over a deal to buy planes that fell though. (DEA agents kidnapped him, lost their first extradition battle and the U.S. appealed, spending even more money. ) Bout was also kept in segregation at MCC New York, at extra cost. What do we get for it? A bill for that will amount to around a half million dollars to lock him up in a maximum security prison in Marion, IL, for 20 years, after which he will put on a plane to Russ1a.

There's also Russian pilot Yuri Konstantin Yaroshenko, and his co-defendant, set up by informants in Africa and extradited here, sentenced to 20 years. (If someone is sending drugs from South America to Africa, with Europe as the final destination, why are we punishing them here? Does the DEA really need 83 offices around the world?)

And then there are the Somali pirates, some of whom are teenagers, brought here from the other side of the world to be tried, convicted and sentenced in Virginia's "rocket docket" district:

Thus, when Somali pirates were charged under piracy laws that date back to the country’s founding, they could be tried in Norfolk because that is where the pirates were first brought after their arrest. Last month, five Somali pirates were convicted in a 2010 attack on the USS Ashland off the coast of Africa; four of the five face automatic life sentences.

The current cost of housing a federal inmate is about $30,000 a year. While BOP won't say what it costs to house an inmate at the Supermax in Florence, Colorado, state prisons spend about $75,000 per inmate per year. From BOP's response to an FOIA request by Solitary Watch:

"The BOP does not collect separate or specific data held in Administrative custody or at USP Ad-min Max Florence. These costs are included in the general per capita costs for the applicable facility. Since the prisons at Florence make up a Federal Correctional Complex [which also has maximum, medium, and minimum security inmates], the operating costs are based on all complex operations, shared services and facility expenses at this site."

While Supermax in Florence has may house only 400 or so inmates, Solitary Watch reports there are about 19,000 inmates in some form of segregation in federal prisons, all at an increased cost.

The costs of housing 179,000 inmates is only part of it. We're also paying huge fees to private prisons to house another 40,000 federal inmates. There's also the cost of transporting all 219,000 of these prisoners, which is the responsibility of the U.S. Marshal's Service, also a DOJ agency, and its JPATS program, a step up from Con(vict) Air.

Many are so old they no longer bear any danger to society. They could be released on home monitoring. As could the lesser drug offenders.

Holder shouldn't look so perplexed. There are other solutions besides furloughs. For a relatively quick fix, Congress could pass the Barber Amendment, increasing good time to federal prisoners.

Barber Amendment – Title 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1) is amended as follows: by striking the number “54″ in the first sentence as it appears and inserting in lieu thereof the number “128″; and in the same sentence, by striking “prisoner’s term of imprisonment” and inserting in lieu thereof “term of sentence imposed”. This Amendment is retroactive.
Congress could also pass the recently introduced bill that would give federal judges the authority to sentence below mandatory minimums. Even better, it could repeal mandatory minimum sentencing laws for non-violent offenders. Furloughs aren't the answer.
< March Madness Day 4 Open Thread | Sunday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Something that has always (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by NYShooter on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 09:51:52 AM EST
     perplexed me is the unfair, punative, and just illogical policy of passing laws that reduce sentence times, but not making them retroactive for current inmates. Can somebody explain the thinking behind that?

    The problem is incarcreation in the U.S. (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Dadler on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 11:03:22 AM EST
    ...is simply an industry like any other, commodified as only America knows how to. IOW, too many people make too much money from it to do anything but expand it. And now that the "problem" has grown so huge, it is a self-perpetuating cash-cow for certain people, the most affluent of whom simply buy the political power they need to keep their industry flush with bodies that turn into cash. The Feds, who can factually never go broke, will always be there for funding (amazing how they can, poof, fund this, but not things that actually help people...those things must be cut). The American public has been, it seems, irreversibly brainwashed on many issues, foremost among them is prison politics and the societal implications. Hell, Americans are still so phucked up from the cold war that words like society and community actually strike the fear of socialism and communism and every other irrationality. We're a supremely and incomparably messed up nation psychologically.

    If a 5% budget cut (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Payaso on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 03:55:52 PM EST
    means a huge number of furloughs, what exactly are they keeping?

    Here's a money-saving idea: Immediately release all non-violent drug offenders who have served more than five years in prison.

    Obama has the power to do it (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Payaso on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 03:57:45 PM EST
    All he has to do is commute their sentences.

    Yep (none / 0) (#5)
    by bocajeff on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 06:41:58 PM EST
    Can even make it just about pot and not other drugs and would probably accomplish the goal. Maybe the same amount of pot he used to smoke.

    The DEA could save a lot of money (none / 0) (#6)
    by Payaso on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 12:19:06 AM EST
    if they quit raiding California pot clinics.

    Easy peasy.