One of every 32 adults are in jail, on parole, or on probation.
     This news is extremely 'contra-positive' (this is a new word for me--a friend over for Thanksgiving dinner introduced the word as a way of taking the negativity out of negative). Think of the one in 32 ratio this way when you're out Christmas shopping: many of the folks you see in the mall are either on probation or parole or have a close relative behind bars. That's a more real way of defining failure in the criminal justice industry.
     If this ratio released by the U.S. Department of Justice were a fifth grader's report card, responsible parents would be working with the teacher and principal to set up an emergency program to ensure student success rather than accept student failure. When it comes to collective action on criminal justice though, our generic answer too often is to build more prisons or hire more parole officers. We accept failure and don't look for success.
     Sitting down with jailers/cops/judges/prosecutors/mental health professionals/social workers or others working in the criminal justice arena is instructive. We learn that more than two thirds of those in the 'system' are there because of addictions to alcohol and other drugs. We know that at any given time 10 percent of all Alaska inmates are on the active mental health caseload.
     We know all this and more. But we've cut back on treatment for alcohol and other drug addictions and other services. We're dong less 'correction' so there's more incarceration. On the mental health side, advances in the science and outcomes for mental health are as robust as the advancements and outcomes for coronary heart disease. But in the prison system, the problem isn't simply lack of mental health treatment but the availability of diagnosis.
     When the focus simply is warehousing the addicted or the ill, is it surprising the recidivism rate is intolerable?
     We also lack focus at the back end of incarceration. When the prison release paradigm amounts to not much more than a pat on the back, it isn't surprising that many fail on re-entry. If felons leave prison with the same addictions that helped get them there, our neighborhoods and communities are less safe and our prison costs keep rising because they too often end up right back where they started. If felons leave prisons, where they may receive some minimal mental health treatment, and end up on the streets where they may not continue mental health treatment, they too often wind up right back where they started.
     Conceptually, we know all this is true. But, unlike the responsible parents with the struggling fifth grader, we don't do what's necessary to work on success.
     Partly, it's a problem with the way we budget:
     We know how much it costs to add addiction programs when we have a captive audience and we know how much we "save" when we reduce the in-prison programs. But we fail to account for future savings if we reduce the recidivism rate.
     We know how much it costs to ensure that probationers and parolees continue counseling or have access to the meds they need to stay mentally healthy. But we fail to account for future savings if these transitional necessities are not available.
     We know the cost of various alternative courts that divert some criminals into alternative programs instead of prison. But we fail to account for future savings when we succeed with these new courts.
     We know other jurisdictions are looking to mitigate prison costs by reinvesting in community transition costs. But Alaska trails other states in working on re-entry.
     A new administration and new legislature can provide new opportunities. One of the opportunities is to take programs that control prison growth and generate consequent savings, like some innovative programs in Connecticut, and tailor them for Alaska.
     If we take this opportunity to focus, we can make our communities safer and reduce prison costs. That's a first step in working for success rather than trying to manage failure.