Prisons or Colleges?

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed a dramatic change in the way higher education is funded, which, if adopted, would give UC a secure financial footing for the future. The trouble is that it lines up higher education against prisons:

The amendment he introduced in his State of the State address would limit the state correctional budget to no more than 7 percent of state general fund revenue and guarantee that the University of California and California State University together would receive no less than 10 percent. The funding shift would begin in the 2011-12 fiscal year and be fully realized in 2014-15.

"Spending 45 percent more on prisons than universities is no way to proceed into the future," Schwarzenegger said. "What does it say about a state that focuses more on prison uniforms than caps and gowns? It simply is not healthy. I will submit to you a constitutional amendment so that never again do we spend a greater percentage of our money on prisons than on higher education."

California needs to find ways to run its prisons more cost-effectively, he said, by allowing private prisons to compete with public prisons. California spends about $50,000 a year per inmate while other states spend $32,000, he said. ... His proposal prohibits cost-savings being achieved through early release of prisoners.

There's no question that state spending on prisons has skyrocketed while spending on higher education has plummeted (see chart). As I see it, however, Schwarzenegger's proposal is fraught with problems. First, and foremost, the correctional officers union is one of the most powerful political forces in the state. From Wikipedia:

The CCPOA is deeply involved in a variety of political activities. Most spending is done through political action committees. Although its membership is relatively small, representing only about one tenth the membership of the California Teachers Association, CCPOA political activity routinely exceeds that of all other labor unions in California. The union spends heavily on influencing political campaigns, and on lobbying legislators and other government officials. CCPOA also hires public relations firms and political polling firms. ...

Lobbying efforts and campaign contributions by the CCPOA have helped secure passage of numerous legislative bills favorable to union members, including bills that increase prison terms, member pay, and enforce current drug laws.

Indeed, the disparity in funding of corrections and higher education has resulted in large measure because the UC system is outgunned, outsmarted, and outmaneuvered by the COs. Schwarzenegger's proposal will be characterized by the CCPOA as an anti-law and order measure. They'll probably get the sheriffs and other cop interest groups to back them. They'll throw dollars at the legislative and referendum processes in amounts higher education can't match.

Indeed, the NYT reports that:

... a spokesman for the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, Lance Corcoran, called the proposed privatization “definitely a threat to public safety in California.” “If this is the direction the administration chooses to go in, there will certainly be consequences,” Mr. Corcoran said. Lawmakers fear the union, which is well known for campaigning heavily against proposals it dislikes and focusing on lawmakers who support them.

Privatization thus is going to be a non-starter. The CO union will blow it out of the water. And, in this case, they'll get help from the left-liberal groups that think privatization of anything--but especially how we treat felons--is awful.

Another problem, is that California's prison system is swollen by a whole set of moronic laws that would need to be repealed in order to get the size of the prison population under control. Three strikes. Mandatory minimum sentences. And so on. But trying to repeal them gets you condemned as soft on crime. And it bumps up against the law and order lobby. The CO union likes big prison populations.

So I'd like to ask Schwarzenegger a few questions: Who's going to be for this except for a bunch of Birkenstock-wearing, ex-hippy academics? (Well, and me.) What interest group can you line up against the CO union? Who is going to finance the referendum fight?

On top of which, what about the multiple federal court consent decrees under which the prison system operates. How are you going to get the judges to sign off on this?

It's typical Schwarzenegger: Big talk, with nothing behind it.

Update: At Prawfsblawg, Jonathan Simon opines:

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger used his annual state of the state address to call for a constitutional amendment to guarantee that at least 10 percent of the state's general fund revenues go for higher education, while prison expenditures are limited to 7 percent. [read his press release]. The Governor stated that expenditures had traditionally been 10 percent for higher education and 3 percent for corrections (actually it was nearly 20 percent when I was a student here). Noting that this year corrections received more money than higher education, the Governor is calling for an amendment that will fix the ratio beginning in 2014.

The proposal is bold and deserves support (although adding yet more layers to our Rube Goldberg state constitution is a problem in its own right). Unfortunately, the Governor seems to envision that this will be achieved by reducing spending on prisoners, not by reducing prisoners. His proposal would also allow the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to contract out to private suppliers for prisons and prison services.

Comments

[Ethan Elkind]

And let's not forget that it was this governor whose last minute (and dishonest) campaign ads against reforming "three strikes" helped sink that measure. It's ridiculous to lock people up for life for a nonviolent felony. Not to mention expensive: almost $50K a year to house a prisoner in CA. Between those commercials and his irresponsible elimination of the vehicle license fee when he took office, a lot of the blame for California's fiscal mess can be laid at his Brentwood doorstep.

[David]

The 3 strikes law is a red herring. The much much much bigger issue here is why does California spend $50K/inmate compared to $32K/inmate elsewhere???? That strikes at the heart of the over-priced & under-delivering state government--all services, including education, roads, etc.

Again, the real problem with California (and many other state governments) is overspending on employees, pensions & benefits.

[roux]

I'll give the Obama worshipping hippy answer. Legalize pot, tax it and use the money for higher ed... (pun intended) Less pot heads in jail and more pot heads paying taxes.

[Everlasting Phelps]

You know, they could drop the percentage down that low without having to privatize anything -- just pardon all the political prisoners in the drug war. If you are there on simple possession or distribution without an additional violent charge, let them out.

[Tom]

Guaranteeing X% of the general fund revenue will go to education or prisons is not effective because of the volatility in general fund revenues. This volatility is based on the emphasis on personal income tax (and the progressive nature of it), and the fact that the California economy has very cyclic industries (e.g., high tech). Variations in those industries lead to big variations in personal income (especially at the top), which leads to wild variation in the general fund revenue.

This problem is evident if you look at general fund revenue in the last decade -- it went from $78B in 2000 to a low of $70B in 2002 up to $101B in 2007. Sacramento being Sacramento, they've never seen a tax dollar they couldn't spend (and then some), and so instead of reacting to the increase in state revenues in the middle of the decade as a short-term fluke, they jacked up spending. Revenues have fallen back down to earth, but now we've got all of this spending that we've gotten used to. Had we taken the 2004 general fund expenditures ($80B) and simply adjusted them for inflation & population growth over the last five years, we'd be running a surplus.

[Richard McEnroe]

Can we split the difference and just lock up the humanities, English Lit and Poli-Sci majors?

Because sometimes when you have two problems they can solve each other...

[robotech master]

They could easily reduce spending on prisons if they did something about the illegal alien problem and started taxing mexico for the costs their citizens burden the US and cali taxpayers.

[DirtCrashr]

As a product of the UC System I say that the UC system is already corrupt and bloated - take money from both and choke-off the Unions that are killing California.

[Doug]

If government did not provide prisons, would there be prisons? No. If government did not provide universities, would there be universities? Of course. One is an essential role of government, the other an option. One of the main problems with government in America today is that optional functions (education, welfare, healthcare) are crowding our esential ones (defense and public safety).

[Allan]

Here is the problem, the wrong people are fighting this battle for the schools. Why are prisons so strong? The union is strong.

What is the solution? Collective bargaining by professors. Ivory tower dwellers unite!!!

[AD]

"... Legalize pot, tax it and use the money for higher ed..."

Well, that will bring new meaning to grade-inflation.

[Ryan Waxx]

> It's ridiculous to lock people up for life for a nonviolent felony.

The fundamental, defining characteristic of people who have an anti-3-strikes agenda is that they cannot... cannot! bring themselves to describe the law in a fair and accurate manner.

That may be because any mature discussion about recidivism rates after the third felony turns against them.

The criminal is not being locked up for "a nonviolent felony", where "a" means "one" in the english language. It could hardly be a three strikes law if that were true.

[Ryan Waxx]

> They could easily reduce spending on prisons if they did something about the illegal alien problem and started taxing mexico for the costs their citizens burden the US and cali taxpayers.

Exactly how would we tax Mexico without annexing it first?

[Vader]

This is a no-brainer. College students will find ways to pay for their attendance at college, if the government doesn't. I doubt criminals will work very hard to find ways to pay for their prisons.

[Paul]

You know, it's probably better to fund prisons than colleges. Not because it's a good idea to lock people up, but because adding money to the higher education market through federal and state funding naturally drives up the market price of a college degree.