« Economic Optimism | Home Page | Inadequate House K-12 Budget is Lobbed at the Senate Chamber »
Oregon Spending More on Prisons than Universities and Community Colleges
Representative Chip Shields is a first term legislator representing NE Portland
With the budget for the Department of Corrections increasing 32% this year to $1.2 billion for the 2005- 07 biennium, and the prison population growing rapidly, Oregonians are being forced to spend a greater share of tax-payer dollars on incarceration rather than on education. Currently in Oregon we spend more on corrections than we spend on universities and community colleges combined.
Because I believe that it is imperative for this Legislature to begin the difficult work of stabilizing our growing prison population and addressing our funding priorities, I have worked hard to ensure passage of Senate Bills 435. There is considerable evidence that this bill will increase public safety and save taxpayer dollars. It will allow the state to shift much needed funds to K-12, higher education, law enforcement, and services for some of our most vulnerable citizens.
Senate Bill 435 would increase earned time credits from 20% to 33% for non-Measure 11 offenders (Measure 11 is the mandatory minimum sentencing law in Oregon). Earned time credits are credits accumulated by inmates time for good behavior that allow inmates to cut time off their sentence (e.g. - for completing drug and alcohol treatment, obtaining a GED, not assaulting corrections officers).
Evidence shows that expanding earned time will not only save money, but will also increase public safety since the accumulation of earned time credits is associated closely with reduced recidivism. Washington recently increased their earned time credits to 50%. SB 435 will save the state $6.5 million this biennium, $26 million by 2007-09, and will allow the delay of building the Madras prison
SB 435 had a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 12. In addition to my testimony, Rep. Gary Hansen testified in support of the bill. Numerous advocates for education and social services testified in support including Cynthia Guyer, a crime victim and Executive Director of the Portland Schools Foundation, and Tom Fahey, president of the Portland Community College Foundation.
May 26, 2005 by Chip Shields
Permalink: Oregon Spending More on Prisons than Universities and Community Colleges
Comments
Over and over again, the budget process has pitted education against public safety against public health against affordable housing.
There are two sections of the Oregon Constitution that, if the Legislature stops acting unconstitutionally, would solve the budget problems.
They are Article IX, Sections 2 and 6. Before I quote them, it's important to know the definition of the word "shall" (from the Merriam-Webster dictionary):
"used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory"
Article IX Section 2:
The Legislative Assembly shall provide for raising revenue sufficiently to defray the expenses of the State for each fiscal year, and also a sufficient sum to pay the interest on the State debt, if there be any.
Article IX Section 6:
Whenever the expenses, of any fiscal year, shall exceed the income, the Legislative Assembly shall provide for levying a tax, for the ensuing fiscal year, sufficient, with other sources of income, to pay the deficiency, as well as the estimated expense of the ensuing fiscal year.
It is time for the Legislature to follow the Constitution and raise taxes enough to actually fund society ... all of it: public safety, K-12 & higher education, healthcare, etc, etc, and so forth
Posted by: Bill Michtom | May 27, 2005 8:34:15 PM
Ya know, if you stopped the illegal immigrants, you'd have all the $ you need. They steal so many services from real Americans.
Oh yeah and more taxes, yeah right, the government already has enough of my $. The kids are the future, today belongs to me!
Posted by: Georgie | May 28, 2005 12:18:13 AM
Speaking of the community college budget....I'm disappointed, yet not surprised, that Oregon media outlets barely covered the floor debate surrounding HB 5092 - the K-12/community college appropriations bill that passed the House on May 27th on a largely party-line vote. (Republican Debi Farr voted against the bill along with all of the House Democrats).
Everyone in the building knew that all of the House Democrats (myself included), supported the community college appropriations' number in the Bill. Equally important, House Republicans were well aware that everyone in the Democratic Caucus opposed the $5.2 billion figure for K-12. Thus, we had the potential for bipartisan unanimity on the community college budget.
That's right, the Oregon House could have, and should have, passed a decent community college budget (approx. $436 million) unanimously. This would have sent a strong signal to both the Governor and the Oregon Senate budget negotiators.
Instead, the House Republican leadership chose the very unusual move of combining the K-12 & community college appropriations. As I asked in my remonstrance on the floor: "Why"? What is the POLICY JUSTIFICATION for taking the unusual step of combining these elements? Especially when it was well known the House Dems. opposed the K-12 number.
The best argument for combining K-12 & community college concerns giving administrators the knowledge of where they may stand as they budget for next year. However, this argument is obviated by the fact that the House Republicans twice voted against motions to bring the K-12 budget to the House floor for a vote.
An open question to House Republicans, or anyone out there in support of the combining the K-12 & community college budget as was done in HB 5092:
What is the policy justification for combining the K-12 & community college budgets? Why was it done this session and not in previous sessions?
Thank you in advance,
Rep. Larry Galizio
Posted by: Larry Galizio | May 28, 2005 4:36:10 PM
Do you reps ever consider REDUCING spending?!?
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Jun 2, 2005 5:04:27 PM
Chris--
Oregon has reduced state spending at a rate beyond most any other state over the past five years. The budget we are working on right now will be over $500 million short of what is projected to be needed to simply maintain current levels of service for schools, health care and public safety.
Can I ask a question in return? Have you ever atteneded a single budget meeting of at any level of government--city council, school board, county or state? I'd recommend it to you. I'd also suggest that you contact even the most right-wing Republican in Salem and ask them for their list of additional cuts, a list of programs that they believe we don't need. I'd love to see it. Child protective services? Funding for district attorneys?
There are states, such as Colorado, that have attempted to cut their way to prosperity. Their education system is a shambles now, with higher ed in particular danger. If that's the future you want for Oregon, all I can say is that I absolutely, 100% disagree with you.
Posted by: Rep. Peter Buckley | Jun 3, 2005 6:06:51 AM
Thank You Representative Shields for taking leadership in getting control of the skyrocketing DOC budget. When the DOC budget is projected to double in 8 years and we are already spending more on prisons than community colleges, you know there is a problem. Orgeon's spending on prisons demonstrates a horrible set of priorities.
It is definitely time to pass some safe and sensible sentencing reform and SB 435 is good beginning. And it doesn't even touch M11. We need more legislators to show leadership on these issues. If we don't get smarter about sentencing reform now, DOC spending is going to make balancing the budget and paying for much needed services harder and harder each biennium.
What does it take for movement on this issue. SB 435 saves millions of dollars and protects public safety by reducing recidivism. Does it get any better?
I expect more leadership on this issue from democrats. We need to stop being myopic and realize that we have a major problem on our hands. States around the country are getting smarter about how they deal with crime. Why are Oregon lawmakers dragging thier feet?
Thank you Rep. Shields!
Posted by: David Rogers | Jun 3, 2005 10:33:27 AM
I’m 100% supportive of smart sentencing reform such as SB 435. Bills such as these both increase public safety and reduce the state budget. Let’s stop spending our tax dollars on prisons and instead spend them on education and programs that actually prevent crime and violence. SB 435 is a step down the right path. Let’s keep walking in this direction.
Posted by: Lindy Walsh | Jun 3, 2005 11:00:01 AM
Mr. Buckley,
I'm curious how Oregon has *reduced* spending when the general fund budget for 1999-2001 was $10.6B and the GF budget for 2005-2007 is $11.9B?
Posted by: chris mcmullen | Jun 3, 2005 11:19:35 AM
I would like to say something to people who wonder why Oregon does NOT want to change anything regarding prison building and senate bill 435. It is simply this. Oregon DOC is a money maker. I am told that the men in prison must spend $69.95 for a personal CD music box. You know guys, the ones that you can buy at Wal-Mart for as little as $14.95?? Now you tell me, WHO is making the bucks here. You want to know about the food these men eat? Some of the food they eat comes out of boxes labeled "not for human consumption". And Oregon boasts of spending ONLY $2.32 a day on feeding inmates three "square" meals a day. Their meals are high on carbs with very little to no protein. Whatever Purina does NOT want to put in its doggie food, is send to DOC. These grown men are limited to 8 oz. of spaghetti noodles. That's one scoop of noodles with a sauce that is made out of mystery meat. How do I know this? Good people working in various cafeterias around the state. You know what? The inmates at Guantanamo Bay are fed much better there than here in our land of abundance, well, that is, if you are NOT an inmate. I guess I am ranbling here, however, we prison overcrowding being high on peoples' minds, and hardly anyone wanting to do anything about it, it does make sense to keep our men and women in prison for as long as possible. These monetarily dirt poor people,line the pockets of some of the higher ups in Oregon. It's is time to get smart on sentencing. We let very few people go, with tons more coming in daily. Kinda sad. Thank you for your time.
Posted by: Kathy | Jun 3, 2005 11:22:57 AM
I would like to say something to people who wonder why Oregon does NOT want to change anything regarding prison building and senate bill 435. It is simply this. Oregon DOC is a money maker. I am told that the men in prison must spend $69.95 for a personal CD music box. You know guys, the ones that you can buy at Wal-Mart for as little as $14.95?? Now you tell me, WHO is making the bucks here. You want to know about the food these men eat? Some of the food they eat comes out of boxes labeled "not for human consumption". And Oregon boasts of spending ONLY $2.32 a day on feeding inmates three "square" meals a day. Their meals are high on carbs with very little to no protein. Whatever Purina does NOT want to put in its doggie food, is send to DOC. These grown men are limited to 8 oz. of spaghetti noodles. That's one scoop of noodles with a sauce that is made out of mystery meat. How do I know this? Good people working in various cafeterias around the state. You know what? The inmates at Guantanamo Bay are fed much better there than here in our land of abundance, well, that is, if you are NOT an inmate. I guess I am ranbling here, however, we prison overcrowding being high on peoples' minds, and hardly anyone wanting to do anything about it, it does make sense to keep our men and women in prison for as long as possible. These monetarily dirt poor people,line the pockets of some of the higher ups in Oregon. It's is time to get smart on sentencing. We let very few people go, with tons more coming in daily. Kinda sad. Thank you for your time.
Posted by: Kathy | Jun 3, 2005 11:24:04 AM
I am with David Rogers: We need strong Democratic leadership on smart government as demonstrated by SB 435. This bill frees up funding that can be used for much more pro-active community needs such as schools, housing, healthcare: pillars on which a strong community are built. While I will not argue that we do not need well-funded corrections system, I will say that funding that goes to corrections is funding spent on the back end of societal probelms. Especially is a constrained budget environment, to over spend on the back end is a horrible mistake. Let's pass SB 435, free up some much needed dollars, and invest them in our communities future.
Posted by: Michael Anderson | Jun 3, 2005 11:29:26 AM
I care about public safety and crime, and my strongest feelings on this issue is that Oregon needs to shape up and make wiser decisions about how our dollars shape public policy.
I fully support SB 435 because I believe that it is a sensible decision: increase earned time for people who have demonstrated they are rehabilitated and by doing so, we reduce the likelyhood that they will return to prison having committed new crimes. I want to reduce the crime rate and harm in our communities, and SB 435 will help ensure that.
The issue at hand is about public safety, and the question we should all be asking ourselves is what can we do to reduce the crime rate and save taxpayer dollars...
As a voter and loyal Oregonian, the answer to me is very clear: pass SB 435 to create safer communities and use the money saved towards strengthening the basic foundation of our communities: the schools.
Posted by: Cassandra Villanueva | Jun 3, 2005 11:54:08 AM
I strongly support SB 435 for all of the above reasons and for the following: Due to the lack of programs related to previous budget cuts (there are 500 beds for alcohol and drug treatment and 10,000 inmates currently identified with alcohol and drug addiction) inmates are basically warehoused. Most are fortunate if they have a job that takes 4 hours daily--many jobs are only 1-2 hours daily since there are so many inmates who want to work. Consequently, those with non-M11 sentences are just sitting, waiting out their sentences. The sooner they can be released the better, since on parole and post-prison supervision, they can enroll in mandatory drug and alcohol treatment in the community. Also, the incentive of increased earned time highly motivates inmates to do their best while behind bars.
Posted by: Judy Farrell | Jun 3, 2005 12:56:37 PM
I appreciate the comments and concerns offered up by the folks in support of Senate Bill 435. I am grateful Oregonians can look to someone like Representative Shields who has diligently addressed the need to get the growing DOC budget under control. I have often heard experts in our community - some of the good folks responding here - point to the powerful relationship between earned time and recidivism: Credit for time served (assigned with the DOC discretion) does encourage citizens to take the steps towards personal reform and change that does not find them re-incarcerated at taxpayer expense. Reduced recidivism does increase public safety.
As an educator of youth, I dearly hope for the passage of this bill to reduce the unsustainable growth of our prison system to make headway towards wiser spending priorities that allow for the preventative services and educational opportunites. It saddens me to face the figures and the facts to date about the current state Oregon faces. How did we get to the place where our elected officers have allowed for a budget that has invested so much more in punitive measures than allowing taxpayers to more fairly support the schooling of future generations of Oregonians and justice policies that are preventitative and restorative? Other states that have pursued "smart on crime" policies that protect public safety and free-up resources for other urgent needs. How about Oregon?
Posted by: Georgia | Jun 3, 2005 2:23:05 PM
I appreciate and echo the comments and concerns offered up by the folks in support of Senate Bill 435. With them, I hope for the fairness and smartness that the sentencing reforms and sustainable budgeting that Senate Bill 435 provides. Constituents can have voice with Rep. Shields and address the urgency of getting the unsustainable growth of the DOC budget under smarter control.
What is so just about this bill is its fairness on sentencing reforms. I have often heard experts in our community - some of the good folks responding here - point to the powerful relationship between earned time and recidivism: Credit for time served (assigned with the DOC discretion) does encourage citizens to take the steps towards personal reform and change that does not find them re-incarcerated at taxpayer expense. Reduced recidivism does increase public safety.
As an educator of youth, I dearly hope for the passage of this bill to reduce the unsustainable growth of our prison system to make headway towards wiser spending priorities that allow for the preventative services and educational opportunites. Many teachers of our lower-income youth experience how the DOC budget is out of control with the lives and futures of our students and their futures. It saddens me to face the figures and the facts to date about the current state Oregon faces. How did we get to the place where our elected officers have allowed for a budget that has invested so much more in punitive measures than allowing taxpayers to more fairly support the schooling of future generations of Oregonians and justice policies that are preventitative and restorative? Other states have pursued "smart on crime" policies that protect public safety and free-up resources for other urgent needs. How about Oregon?
Posted by: Georgia Helen | Jun 3, 2005 2:54:10 PM
Having worked in the housing arena for a number of years I completely support SB 435 and applaud Rep Shield's efforts to get the bill moving. Every legislative session people are forced to fight over an ever shrinking pie of public dollars. In times of scarce resources it is encouraging to hear about legislation that is actually looking at ways to reduce spending while making programs more effective. It is this type of innovative thinking and problem solving that can move our state forward. I look forward to seeing this bill passed!
Posted by: Anita Rodgers | Jun 3, 2005 3:45:26 PM
Dear Rep. Shields --
Thank you for your work on this important issue. SB 435 is a minimal (but crucially important) step this Legislature can take towards restoring balance and fiscal responsibility. Educational institutions are in trouble and prisons are ridiculously overused for drug-related (read fundamentally medical) and mental health problems. Increased good time for non-measure 11 offenders would provide incentive for reform-mindedness and save a great deal of money at the same time. Please do all you can to get this measure to a vote.
Posted by: Robert Reynolds | Jun 3, 2005 3:49:28 PM
Thank You Chip Shields for all of your efforts toward moving SB 435 forward.
As you know, research has shown time and time again that earned time is a proven, safe and sensible way to reduce recidivism and save tax dollars.
We need to address Oregon's ever growing prison population and all of the money being spent to incarcerate people at the expense of educating people.
Senate Bill 435 is an excellent step in the right direction.
Thank you again for your work in this important area.
Posted by: Karen | Jun 4, 2005 7:10:44 AM
Chip Shields has fought hard in our legislature for the passage of SB435. We support his efforts.
Our legislature clearly has a fiscal responsibility to provide a budget that contains programs that negate the need for costly, excessive punishment. The unsupportable cost of prolonged imprisonment and more prison building is a major contributing factor to our state's fiscal inability to achieve more intelligent goals such as adequate funding of our schools and effective social and rehabilitative programs which we clearly know reduce crime and recidivism.
We desperately need more school funding; effective educational programs build the necessary foundation for our youth if they are to achieve future success in our society and is a much more sensible way to reduce crime.
Punishment vs. education/rehabilitation? We prefer the latter where state spending priorities are concerned. SB 435 is a sensible direction the legislature needs to take.
Posted by: Wayne & Sharon Miller | Jun 4, 2005 5:22:25 PM
Who opens a school, closes a prison." VICTOR HUGO
Schools are the first line of defense against crime, Prisons are the last resort. If we build more prisons we can donate our textbooks to them, apparently our schools don't need them, and they might as well find a state supported home.
When we think "PUBLIC SAFETY" why not think, "more police in the streets to curb repetitive crime," instead of more prisons after the fact, with the prosecutors handing out multiple indictments resulting in sentences that run into infinity and evermore PRISONS.
Better schools or more prisons? Gosh, that's a tough call. You think?
Wayne Miller
Posted by: Wayne & Sharon Miller | Jun 5, 2005 9:23:18 AM
Thanks for the kind words. It is gratifying to see so many people want to improve public safety in ways that save taxpayer dollars.
Posted by: Chip Shields | Jun 6, 2005 10:37:19 AM
I am a huge supporter of SB 435! What I really need to know is - how do I keep up with the status of the bill? When does it go up for its final vote and when does it go into effect if passed? Any information would be greatly appreciated.
Darci Brower
Posted by: Darci Brower | Jun 16, 2005 2:37:02 AM
Hi Darci. Probably the easiest way to stay on top of 435 is to call my legislative assistant Marshall Jevning at 503-986-1443. Unfortunately, the bill appears to be dead this session. But we will keep pushing forward on ideas like this that both increase public safety and save taxpayer dollars.
Posted by: Chip Shields | Jul 12, 2005 8:53:05 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
