House vs. Senate amendments to Justice Reinvestment Act (JRA) – posted 4/3/2016
While neither House nor Senate amendments may be perfect, Maryland Alliance for Justice Reform finds that the House version of the Justice Reinvestment Act (JRA- HB 1312 / SB 1005) more effectively reduces nonviolent offenders’ rates of incarceration and applies these funds to prevent new offenses. Thus, to improve public safety and to strengthen Maryland communities, MAJR urges contacting State Senators to support a “conference bill” that will compromise & give preference to the House JRA amendments.
Pew Institute original JRA analysis. JRA, as originally introduced, was projected to avert all of the six percent projected 10-year prison growth and bend the prison population downwards, reducing it 14% below its current level to 17,600 by 2026. In total, this could result in savings of $247 million to Maryland taxpayers over the next ten years.
Pew Institute criticism of Senate JRA amendments. The amended Senate bill would avert only a portion of the long-term growth in the prison population, and would not bend the population below its current level by 2026. Instead the prison population would grow slightly though less than projected absent any reform. In total, the amended bill might result in only $34 million in savings over the next ten years.
Note: Cost savings are calculated using marginal bed costs and account for offsetting of community supervision costs depending on the supervision policies in each package.
Senate amendments make numerous and significant changes to the bill as originally introduced. These changes are detailed in the attached chart.
The two changes that most dramatically depart from the JRCC’s recommendations and that most compromise the projected prison population and cost impacts of the JRCC package are listed below.
- Administrative parole: The impact of administrative parole is eliminated because the policy in the amendment is restricted to inmates assessed as low risk. The average release date for offenders assessed as low risk is already at parole eligibility date (25% of sentence served) so this would not alter time served for parole eligible offenders from what it is today.
In addition to losing the impact, this change also misapplies the related research principle. Moderate and high risk offenders should be the target population for recidivism reduction programming in parole case-plans.
- Caps to technical revocations of probation and parole: The impact of the revocation caps policy in the amended bill allows for a departure valve so broad as to not meaningfully change the options now available to judges. A statement of “good cause” or “public safety risk” on the record could be made for any and all technical violations that currently trigger revocations to prison. As such, the language in the Senate amended bill would not be projected to affect a change in practice.
Aside from the question of prison bed impact, this reversion to current practice also bucks the research about what works to reduce recidivism. It is the certainty and proportionality of the revocation caps that (along with swift application) work to interrupt reoffending. Additionally, it would leave largely unaddressed the high number of offenders returned to prison for technical violations, a primary driver identified by the JRCC. Research reviewed by the JRCC demonstrates that sending technical violators to prison increases the likelihood of recidivism in these offenders.
MAJR analysis of House JRA amendments. While no Pew analysis currently is available of House amendments, MAJR finds various improvements over the Senate draft. These include Pew’s two primary warnings:
- not excluding for administrative parole all but low risk inmates—a concern raised by Pew; by permitting other qualified inmates who satisfy parole conditions, public safety & corrections funding both will be improved; and
- not eliminating caps for technical revocations by substituting any undefined “good cause” or a loosely defined “public safety” exception to allow full imposition of suspended sentences for minor, technical violations of parole or probation. The House version a) rejects the undefined “good cause” loophole; b) strengthens findings for public safety exception; and c) adds the option of drug treatment for a technical violator, rather than incarceration.
Other House amendments also improve on the Senate version by:
- adding protections for folks with employment licenses so they will not lose or be blocked unless conviction relates to the employment;
- raising ceilings (value of property taken) on theft-related offenses–in effect offsetting inflation– so that convictions for higher $ remain misdemeanors;
- increasing the number of inmates with mandatory minimum sentences who can apply for court reconsideration;
- answering some Judiciary concerns about due process & notice for violations of probation;
- -restoring the deletion of jail time for driving suspended & without license 1st offenders – a provision that can save unnecessary incarceration for hundreds of Marylanders each year;
- providing wider participation in the JR oversight board, including corrections education, treatment providers, groups that assist ex-offenders, etc;
- getting tough on crime, the amendments also prohibit gang members from receiving income / property from offenses; takes $ / property forfeited from gangs & deposits them into an “Addictions Treatment Fund” along with other state revenues; and
- clarifying that three-year Justice Reinvestment Coord. Council is replaced by a permanent Justice Reinvestment Oversight Board.
