What {they} say

On any given day five million people in the U.S. are unter the control of the criminal justice system. wether they be in jail, on parole or probation. The Justice Department estimates that one in every 15 people, or 6.6% of the U.S. poulation, will serve time in prison during their lifetime. It cost the federal and state governments approximately $20,000 to $30,000 a year to incarcerate one idividual. At a time when government debt is at an all-time high, legislators and concerned citizens are taking ever more notice of the rising cost of the prison system. One culprit behind rising prison costs is the high number of repeat offenders.  According to a 2002 study by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, more than 67% of individuals who were released between 1993 and 1994 were rearrested within three years. And two-thirds of those rearrested were arrested within the first year of release. That rate is a full 5% higher than the rearrest rates for 1983.

As a result of the increase in the prison population, as of December 2000, state prisons were operating at between full capacity and 15% over capacity, while federal prisons were at 31% over capacity. The estimated minimum cost of building one prison cell is $80,000. Experts estimate that, in the case of a drug dealer serving five years in prison, it will cost the government $450,000 to arrest, convict and imprison him or her.

The questions are, should the federal, state and local governments spend money to build new prisons to accommodate the rise in the number of people serving time in prison? Or should that money instead be spent on rehabilitative programs that seek to reduce the rates at which ex-convicts are committing crimes and serving new sentences?

Two major means of rehabilitation that traditionally receive federal funding are education programs and drug rehabilitation. In 1994, under the administration of President Bill Clinton (D,1993-2001), federal Pell Grants, a means of funding prisoners' colledge educations, were denied to prisoners. However, college programs, as well as secondary education programs, continued to be prominent in prisons across the U.S. From the 1960s through the 1990s a series of umbrella surveys stated that 85% reported positive relationships between participation in education and a reduction in recidivism, However dispite that finding ,prison system funding continues to be cut, and programs are being eliminated altogether.

Many proponents argue that the main obstacle to reducing recidivism through current rehabilitation methods is the lack of funding. Diane Williams, president and cheif executive officer of Safer Foundation, a not -for-profit organization providing" transitional and secured resdential services to offenders and ex-offenders," testified in 2001 before the Illinois House of Rpresentatives' prison management reform committee. She explained the Safer's strategy of providing emplpyment and education, as well as counseling, to its transitional clientele had reduced recidivism among the clients to only 23.8%. The statewide average of recidivism at that time was 42.5%. She argued for greater support for those offenders facing reentry into their communities, and in particular, for increased funding, expansion of education programs and the creation of a stronger vocational programs. "Recent withdrawal of funds at the federal level is a grave error,"Williams asserted, "statistics consistently acknowlege the value of education in reducing recidivism.