INTRODUCTION
Factors Impacting Prison Overcrowding
Despite a steady decrease in crime and arrest rates over the past 10 years, Connecticut has had to struggle with the persistent growth of the inmate population and a high rate of recidivism among convicted offenders under supervision. The primary solution has been to add prison beds by building new facilities and expanding others -- almost 10,000 new beds costing well over $1 billion have been added since 1989. Less than five years after the Department of Correction (DOC) completed the comprehensive construction project, however, it is almost at capacity and has had to transfer 500 inmates to out-of-state prisons to relieve overcrowding.
To a lesser degree, Connecticut has implemented a system of graduated sanctions. The network of sentencing options and alternative sanctions: (1) punishes and rehabilitates offenders whose crimes and/or criminal histories do not demand a prison term; and (2) assists in the transition of inmates from prison back to their communities. This model is based on the recognition not all offenders are the same, and only a few deserve the most intensive and expensive sanction -- prison -- and almost all offenders sent to prison eventually return to their communities.
There are well documented societal issues that impact the prison population and crime rate. These factors include poverty, a lack of education or employment opportunities, drug or alcohol use and abuse, racial disparity, exposure to others involved in criminal activity, and mental illness. These complex societal issues cannot be addressed by a single state agency nor solely by the criminal justice system. In fact a criminal justice response to some of these factors often occurs because other state service systems have not been adequately funded or developed, or they have shifted the responsibility for addressing the issue or client population to the criminal justice system. Solutions to these problems are outside the scope of this study.
Many factors impacting prison overcrowding are, however, under the control of the criminal justice system. The factors include the nation's 20-year "war on drugs" that focused policing and prosecution efforts and resources on drug offenses and increased sanctions for those crimes. Increased prison bed space allowed the courts to sentence offenders to prison and adult probation and the parole board to return offenders to prison for a violation rather than use other alternative sanctions and programs. The high rate of recidivism among criminal offenders impacts the prison population.
The driving force behind prison overcrowding, however, is the aggressive "tough on crime" approach taken by policymakers, criminal justice administrators, and the court since the mid-1990s. A series of laws (referred to as "truth in sentencing") aimed at increasing penalties and reducing the discrepancy between the court-imposed prison term and the actual time served by an inmate has lengthened incarceration periods. Inmates are serving a greater portion of their sentence in prison prior to early release or discharge.
The ability of the criminal justice system to detain an offender relies on the availability of jail and prison beds throughout the process from arrest to parole. Prison overcrowding, therefore, is problem that impacts all criminal justice agencies; not just the Department of Correction. It is also an issue that must be addressed by the General Assembly, which is responsible for responding to the public demand for punishment of offenders, setting sentencing policy, and funding the criminal justice system.
The legislature is once again faced with the issue of prison overcrowding and the decision to authorize expansion of the correctional system. Because of this, in March 2000, the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee voted to study the factors impacting prison overcrowding and develop recommendations.
The committee found a workable, long-term solution to prison overcrowding must extend beyond simply adding prison beds. It must also address the cumulative impact of the thousands of criminals that eventually return to or remain in their communities. Until their criminal activity is curbed, any real reductions in crime or the prison population will be difficult to achieve. The ultimate goal of protecting the public will also be jeopardized.
Thus, Connecticut requires a comprehensive community corrections strategy that is based on a system of graduated sanctions and reserves prison for the most serious, violent, or habitual criminals. The basic elements of this model are already in place, but are not operating in a coordinated manner to: manage the growth in the inmate population; impose the least restrictive sentence based on the offender's criminal history and current offense; provide effective and affordable public safety; or control crime and recidivism.
Also, Connecticut has not made the necessary financial investment or policy commitment to a community corrections strategy. Policymakers and criminal justice administrators have not yet recognized the importance of community supervision in terms of public safety and reducing crime and recidivism. The community corrections strategy suffers for a poor public image. It has come to symbolize the leniency of the criminal justice system -- it is viewed as letting inmates out early or not sufficiently punishing them for their crimes.
Inattention to the criminal and noncriminal behavior of offenders in the community, however, misses the opportunity to intervene in a positive manner and all but promises recidivism, eventual imprisonment, and risks to public safety. The public debate must not focus on whether a crime strategy is "tough" or "soft," but rather is it an effective and efficient policy for reducing crime and recidivism and protecting public safety.
Scope. The scope of the committee study focused on identifying the main factors causing the current prison overcrowding problem and the options available to the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to control the growth of the inmate population.
Methods. A variety of methods were used to gather information for the prison overcrowding study. Committee staff reviewed state statutes, regulations, and historical legislative materials and federal laws related to the mandates of the Department of Correction, Board of Parole, Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS), and the judicial branch's criminal court, adult probation, and alternative sanctions systems. Executive and judicial branch criminal justice agencies' policies and written procedures as well as budget documents were also reviewed. Public policy and academic research on prison overcrowding, prison construction, community supervision, offender treatment and rehabilitation, alternative to incarceration sanctions, and recidivism were examined.
Interviews were conducted with administrators, judges, and key staff in the correction department, parole board, DMHAS, and judicial branch as well as with selected staff from a number of private, non-profit agencies that contract with the state criminal justice system to provide services, supervision, and treatment to accused and convicted offenders. Program review staff interviewed representatives from many advocacy and interest groups in the state. National organizations and professional associations that cover crime, offender supervision and rehabilitation, and prison management were contacted for information on recent findings and trends in controlling the growth in the prison population and addressing the substance abuse and mental health needs of the total offender population.
The program review obtained data from criminal justice agencies (i.e., Department of Correction, Board of Parole, and Department of Public Safety) and the judicial branch regarding criminal convictions, prison sentences, and probation and parole supervision. Crime and arrest rates in the state were examined. Caseload information from the agencies providing custody or supervision services was also reviewed. The program review committee held a public hearing on October 4, 2000.
Report Organization. This report contains background information and analysis organized into seven chapters: (1) an overview of Connecticut's criminal sentencing framework and significant sentencing reforms over the past 20 years; (2) the current capacity of the correction system and community-based service network; (3) an analysis of the offender population and sentencing trends; (4) the committee's findings on the factors impacting prison overcrowding; and (5) description of two options to manage the growth in the prison population. The report's final two chapters contain the committee's recommendations for community corrections policy and procedure.
Agency response. It is the policy of the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee to provide agencies subject to review with an opportunity to comment on recommendations in writing prior to the publication of the committee's final report. A written response to the report was solicited from the Department of Correction, Board of Parole, and judicial branch. Appendix D contains the response from the Department of Correction. The Board of Parole and judicial branch did not submit responses.