Money Report 2017

Following the Money of PRISON Mass Incarceration POLICY INITIATIVE By Peter Wagner and Bernadette Rabuy January 25, 2017 Te cost of imprisonment — including who benefits and who pays — is a major part of the national discussion around criminal justice policy. But prisons and jails are just one piece of the criminal justice system and the amount of media and policy attention that the various players get is not necessarily proportional to their influence. In this first-of-its-kind report, we find that the system of mass incarceration costs the government and families of justice- involved people at least $182 billion every year. In this report: • we provide the significant1 costs of our globally unprecedented system of mass incarceration and over-criminalization, • we give the relative importance of the various parts, • we highlight some of the under-discussed yet costly parts of the system, and then • we share all of our sources so that jour- nalists and advocates can build upon our work. Our goal with this report is to give a hint as to how the criminal justice system works by identifying some of the key stakeholders and quantifying their “stake” in the status quo. Our visualiza- tion shows how wide and how deep mass incarceration and over-criminalization have spread into our economy. We find: • Almost half of the money spent on running the correctional system goes to pay- ing staff. Tis group is an influential lobby that sometimes prevents reform and whose influence is often protected even when prison populations drop.2 • Te criminal justice system is over- whelmingly a public system, with private prison companies acting only as exten- sions of the public system. Te government payroll for corrections employees is over 100 times higher than the private prison industry’s profits. • Despite the fact that the Constitution requires counsel to be appointed for de- fendants unable to afford legal represen- 1 tation, the system only spends $4.5 bil- Some of the lesser-known major players For example, while state government lion on this right. And over the last dec- in the system of mass incarceration and spending makes up the majority (57%) ade, states have been reducing this figure over-criminalization are: of corrections costs, local governments even as caseloads have grown. • Bail bond companies that collect $1.4 make up almost a third (32%).4 Local • Private companies that supply goods to billion in nonrefundable fees from de- governments are largely enforcing state the prison commissary or provide tele- fendants and their families. Te industry law, and local discretionary arrest and phone service for correctional facilities also actively works to block reforms that bail policies can have tremendous influ- bring in almost as much money ($2.9 threaten its profits, even if reforms could ence on both the state budget and justice billion) as governments pay private com- prevent people from being detained in outcomes. For example, more than half panies ($3.9 billion) to operate private jail because of their poverty. ($13.6 billion) of the cost of running prisons. • Specialized phone companies that win local jails is spent detaining people who • Feeding and providing health care for 2.3 monopoly contracts and charge families have not been convicted.5 million people — a population larger up to $24.95 for a 15-minute phone call. than that of 15 different states3 — is • Commissary vendors that sell goods to To be sure, there are ideological as well expensive. incarcerated people — who rely largely as economic reasons for mass incarceration on money sent by loved ones — is an and over-criminalization. But at this mo- Tis report and infographic are a first even larger industry that brings in $1.6 ment, when crime is near record lows and step toward better understanding who billion a year. there is increasing attention to the role of benefits from mass incarceration and who • A graphic like this shows the relative privatization in the justice system, we need might be resistant to reform. We have no economic cost of different parts of mass a far more expansive view of how our doubt that we missed some costs, and we incarceration, but it can also obscure the criminal justice system works, whom it did not include some costs because they are fact that we don’t have a single mono- hurts, and whom it really serves. relatively small in the big picture or are lithic system. Instead, we have a federal If we are to make our society safer and currently unknowable. But, by following system, 50 state systems, and thousands stronger, we’ll need to be making far the money, one can see that private prison of local government systems. Sometimes smarter investments than we are today. corporations aren’t the only ones who these systems work together, although benefit from mass incarceration. often they do not; and looking at just the national picture can obscure the importance of state and local policy decisions. Methodology and data sources While this report asks a very simple pay to support their incarcerated loved that other researchers building on this question about the financial costs of mass ones. work should be aware of: incarceration, a comprehensive answer has • $265 billion7, includes the costs of fed- • We decided not to include any expenses never existed before because the govern- eral, state, and local corrections and the that do not appear to add up to at least ment doesn’t collect or organize these sta- entire police and court systems. Tis fig- $1 billion a year, for example, the money tistics in one place. Like our report, Mass ure does not separate out the civil parts transfer industry, or the release card in- Incarceration: Te Whole Pie, which of the police and court systems nor does dustry. looked at who is behind bars and why, this it address the collateral costs paid by the • Tere are many items for which there are report aggregates economic data that have families of incarcerated people. no national statistics available and no never been put together before to offer a straightforward way to develop a national big picture view of who pays for and who Tis report’s goal is to identify the total figure from the limited state and local benefits from mass incarceration. cost of mass incarceration and the com- data. For example, criminal justice fines Before we explain our sources and parative investment that each part of that and fees can be substantial. In at least 38 methodology, it might be helpful to ex- system has in the status quo. We wanted to towns and cities in the U.S., more than plain our goals and how this report’s find- take a holistic view without also exaggerat- 10% of all revenue is collected from ing that mass incarceration consumes at ing our findings by including tens of bil- court fines and fees. In St. Louis County, least $182 billion each year is different lions of dollars in policing and court ex- five towns generated more than 40% of than the two more commonly cited Bureau penses that have little to do with the en- their annual revenue from court fines and of Justice Statistics figures: forcement of criminal law. fees in 2013. Given the tremendous vari- • $81 billion6 addressing only the cost of In general, this report includes a num- ability between different jurisdictions, we running the corrections system (prisons, ber of firsts, including the identification of did not see a way to develop a national jails, parole, and probation), thereby sufficient data points to develop national figure and decided not to provide one at missing the policing and court costs, and estimates where none existed before. But all. However, the existing research8 makes all of the other costs that families have to our approach does have a few weaknesses it clear that the insidious, yet largely in- visible system of fines and fees should be 2 priority for research to drive policy re- nue often goes to the state or county’s filings in the year ending in March 2015.13 form. general fund, so we chose not to include Second, courts’ criminal caseloads can • Our effort to separate out the civil com- that complication.10 Similarly, revenue “squeeze out” civil cases.14 Since 1986, ponents of policing and judicial and legal from civil asset forfeiture is generally workloads for federal judges have in- expenditures cannot be considered com- used to benefit the police or district at- creased, driven by the increase in criminal plete, and some technically civil costs are torney’s offices. cases. Unlike civil cases, criminal defen- included in our report. As we explain in • We don’t adjust for inflation and some of dants have a right to a speedy trial, which the sections on policing and the judicial our data are older than others. In particu- means that as criminal workload increases, and legal system below, our adjustment is lar, the only known data for food (2001), judges are sometimes forced to prioritize both rough and subject to definitional utilities (2001) and health care (2008) criminal cases, resulting in a slower pace weaknesses. We would, for future reports, are particularly old and are surely a sig- for civil matters and imposing opportunity be very interested in seeing studies that nificant understatement of current costs. costs on civil litigants. Presumably this estimate the civil vs. criminal breakdown We considered adjusting the data for dynamic is even more acute in state courts, in individual jurisdictions in order to inflation, but concluded that it would which handle more criminal cases than the improve our national estimates.

Load more