Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, January 13, 1993 TAG: 9301130372
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: ROBERTA A. BONDURANT
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
AN EXPANDED JAIL ISN'T THE ANSWER TO ROANOKE'S CRIME CRISIS
IT APPEARS that expansion of the Roanoke city jail - either to the Datasafe building adjacent to the present jail or to a brand new facility - is a fait accompli. We have, for so long, resorted to locking up our "undesirables" that space problems have reached crisis proportions. For the public's, as well as the inmates' safety - or so the argument goes - we need to spend somewhere between $7 and $12 million in taxpayers' money to expand the jail. Or do we?The Roanoke Times & World-News ran two editorials on the subject. On Sept. 28, 1992, in "Cells and chairs are filled," your editorial staff recognized that the "lock-'em up strategy" isn't working, and our law-and-order approach to fighting crime in the past 20 years has failed to deter criminal behavior.
Yet, on Oct. 19, in "The city jail is a tinderbox," the editorial writer advocated expansion of one unfinished pod in the existing facility in addition to further expansion. The writer added that alternative sentencing, treatment, training, and rehabilitation programs are needed and require additional funding - but this misses the point. To the extent that we continue to resort to building more cells to contain crime, we are fiscally prioritizing incarceration and thereby throwing away precious dollars that have proven better spent on other programs.
In August 1992, the Roanoke Valley Poverty Task Force published a report that recommended against further spending on jail and prison construction. The task force was comprised of 37 citizens from all social sectors, including business leaders, health professionals, educators, pastors, a juvenile court judge, and two members of City Council, Republican and Democrat. They studied the causes and effects of poverty in the Roanoke Valley in public hearings and work sessions that spanned one year.
While the group recognized the need for imprisoning violent offenders for society's protection, it also noted that 40 percent of those imprisoned are nonviolent offenders. The task force concluded that funding for crime prevention and rehabilitative efforts, which include literacy, job training and substance-abuse programs, could more effectively serve nonviolent offenders than incarceration.
The cost-effectiveness of incarceration vs. offender services bears out the lunacy of our present approach. From 1987-1990, Virginia spent approximately $232 million on prison construction (about 5,000 beds) to tackle the growing adult-inmate population. As of August 1992, appropriations had been set aside to build seven new institutions (about 5,100 beds) at a cost of $183 million by the end of 1995. Yet it seems that the more cells we have, the more we need. A conservative estimate of the cost of housing, clothing and feeding one inmate each year is $17,188.
Meanwhile, in 1991, the Virginia CARES ex-offender program received only $1,308,051 in state funds for pre- and post-release programs. The organization assisted 72 ex-offenders in finding employment. At an average income of $9,714 per year, their employment for six months would generate $349,704 in direct income. Employed ex-offenders contribute to the local economy, to the tax base, and are no longer a $17,000-per-year liability. Evaluations conducted by the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services have shown Virginia CARES to be a cost-effective means of reducing recidivism.
Sentencing alternatives and human-service agencies could alleviate the jail population crisis. These entities are established, organized, and waiting in the wings for a piece of the $7 million pie to be set aside for prison construction:
It was reported in October 1992 that the local Community Diversion Incentive program diverted 300 offenders otherwise headed for prison, and that in 1991, the equivalent of 200 years in jail time was diverted. Relative to the court's tremendous dockets, that's not many prisoners and not much jail time. We need to expand CDI services.
It was reported in December 1992 that "boot camp" for first-time male offenders in Virginia looks to be quite successful. Only one in five candidates drop out, and of those graduating, 85 percent have returned to their communities and avoided recidivism. We need to develop this program to accommodate female offenders and more male offenders.
Mental-health and substance-abuse services are glaringly underfunded in both pre- and post-release programs for offenders. There is little question that the doubling of our local jail population in five years is at least in part due to the surge of cocaine use and distribution. And Roanoke police officers readily admit that a stay in jail often comes as welcome relief to the homeless, the addicted and the mentally unstable offender. We need to expand mental-health and substance-abuse services.
Housing is almost always an immediate problem for the ex-offender upon release. Most return to their community with $25 and traveling clothes. If their partners or children receive welfare assistance in the form of Section 8 housing or Aid to Dependent Children, they cannot live there permanently, lest their family's aid be cut off. Absent a disability, men cannot live in Section 8 housing. We need to prioritize welfare and housing reform.
Early intervention with juvenile offenders can be an effective alternative to the later cost of incarceration. Tutorial and literacy programs, DARE, Youth Support Services, and dropout-prevention programs all would contribute to reducing crime.
The lack of public transportation is an impediment for ex-offenders, as well as many other segments of our population. Many industrial and construction jobs are in the outlying areas surrounding Roanoke, and many of the better-paying jobs involve "night-shift" work. Valley Metro does not provide service to these areas or during these hours. Although perhaps qualified, the ex-offender must forego these jobs for lack of transportation. We need to prioritize public transportation.
These are but a few of the alternatives to our mindless spending on prison-building. Ignoring these alternatives is even more egregious when we consider the inequities in our system of punishment. Blacks comprise about 20 percent of Virginia's population, but 60 percent of its prison population. In December 1991, one in every four black males between the ages of 20 and 29 was in prison, in jail, on probation or parole. Consider the implications for the poverty rate among households headed by black women.
It is no secret that wealth and "whiteness" carry with them tremendous advantages in our system of justice. Family, financial and political support are factors that work together to increase the white-collar offender's chances of a reduced sentence or an alternative to incarceration such as probation. By comparison, most of Virginia's prisoners read on a fifth-grade level, have never had a steady job, have serious substance-abuse problems and enjoy little family support. These factors combine to make offenders among the poorest of the poor.
Is it practical to suggest diversion of construction funds to alternative sentencing programs when the local jail population is at record levels, described by some as a "powder keg" waiting to explode? If the city approves the $7 million in funding for renovation of the Datasafe building or the $12 million for expansion or construction of a new jail, it could take months, even years, to complete such a project.
What if, instead, we assigned just as significant fiscal priority to reassessing, improving and expanding our pre- and post-release human services and sentencing alternatives in the meantime? Of course, it will be more difficult to invest in human capital than it would be to erect more bricks and mortar. But it's plausible that overcrowding would be significantly relieved.
That's what a year-long study by this community's citizens has borne out. In devising its short- and long-term fiscal priorities, City Council should take note.