Home

Prison to Work: Do Jobs Keep Ex-Offenders Out of Prison?

2012-11-12T23:08:30Z

By Andrew Crutchfield, Special Projects Analyst, California Common Sense

Manhattan Institute President Lawrence Mone (left) and Newark, NJ Mayor Cory Booker. Together, Booker and the institute are working on the Newark Prisoner Reentry Initiative (NPRI). (Source: Manhattan Institute)Unfortunately, history tells us that in California, the majority of prisoners will reoffend after their release from prison. These reoffenders ultimately cost their community even more in terms of both crime and incarceration costs.

Howard Hussock, Director of the Manhattan Institute’s Social Entrepreneurship Initiative, argues that quickly placing ex-offenders in jobs is the most successful means of reducing recidivism. In this interview, he argues that programs for ex-offenders should focus on employment prior to even drug treatment or job training. He also discusses the barriers those ex-offenders face when attempting to successfully reenter society. The Manhattan Institute is currently working with Newark, New Jersey’s Mayor Cory Booker to test the approach in that city.

You say that prisoners face problems upon release from prison. What are some common problems?

It is surprising the mundane and practical problems prisoners emerging from incarceration encounter. The fact that they don’t have a good job history, they may lack education, they may have substance abuse problems, they obviously have a criminal record, and that can sort of bar them from certain kinds of employment.

I think those kinds of barriers are actually well known, but there are many more mundane problems as well. Many [ex-offenders] do not have practical forms of government identification. Many owe tremendous, really debilitating amounts of child support payments, which have increased during their time in prison and create a situation where they are likely to have wages garnished by government authorities even if they are lucky enough to get a job. And many typically do not have homes immediately to return to. Many of them have back traffic tickets that can cause their parole to be revoked.

There are a tremendous number of really mundane issues that are not addressed by corrections authorities, who don’t see it as their role to oversee a successful reentry [into society], but rather to focus on keeping correctional institutions themselves safe.

Newark, New Jersey focuses first on employment for released offenders. Why do you argue that makes sense?

Getting a job can help organize your life so that you have a motivation to improve your skills and make the right choices more generally. What’s the alternative? The alternative has been pursued by numerous programs, and it seems to make sense: let’s get training for a job, let’s make sure you are free of substance abuse problems. But you obviously aren’t going to be hired for a job if you are an active drug user anyway.

The job training and preparation route is a very tempting one. But it turns out there are a great many – even in this terrible economy – relatively low-skilled jobs where, if you just show up, you can begin to build a job life for yourself.

For instance, I recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal about somebody who had been in prison most of his adult life. But he was able, because he was willing to work the night shift picking up garbage and showed up reliably for a year, to earn more than $60,000 a year with the prospect that, if he gets an enhanced drivers’ license, to earn $100,000 a year with overtime. And so starting with a job – any job – can help organize your life and give you motivation to make other self improvements. And to get the self-respect to reunite with family members and perhaps children that can help bind you to a socially constructive community.

What reductions in recidivism can we expect from these programs?

I think our expectations should be modest. The Manhattan Institute has been involved in with working with Mayor Corey Booker in Newark, having set up a network of social service providers (as the jargon goes) to help [ex-offenders] and to report to the mayor’s office about their success or lack of it. I think it’s possible to imagine reductions from levels of 50% to 60% recidivism, which are typical over three years, down to 20% to 30%. I think you don’t want to exaggerate the possibilities. It’s not going to get to ten [percent], it’s not going to get to zero. But I think it is possible to reduce it to 20% to 30%.

How costly are these programs? Has anyone managed to construct any sort of measure of return on investment?

I’m not aware of that. I’m not sure. There are so many ways. I understand that is a fashionable idea in nonprofit circles, and there is some validity to it. Obviously the most important return on investment is one of avoided costs. And so, you know, when you are looking at $60,000 to $90,000 per prisoner, per year and I bet it’s higher in California.

The savings are just very low hanging fruit, so everyone who is not going back to prison is a huge savings because not only are you avoiding costs, but suddenly you are paying into the social security system. Right? You are a taxpayer. And so I don’t think it really takes a deep dive analysis to realize that programs that may cost $2,500-$3,000 per person, per year are a good return on investment.

What would you say to someone who thinks that already enough money is spent on prisoners and is hesitant to spend more?

I don’t think we should spend more at all. I think we would be able to spend less if we spent the money that we are already spending on a more effective way. That should be the goal.

Bernick: No Shortage of Skilled Workers for California

2012-10-25T00:18:06Z

By Andrew Crutchfield, Special Projects Analyst, California Common Sense

Michael S. Bernick served as Director of California’s labor department, the Employment Development Department from 1999 to 2004. He is a practitioner and theorist of job train. (Source: Wikipedia)At 10.2%, California's unemployment rate is the highest after Nevada and Rhode Island. What is driving high levels of unemployment in California? Michael Bernick, who served as the Director of California’s Employment Development Department from 1999 to 2004, is an expert on the job market and job training. In this interview, Bernick explains that California’s job-training programs are adequate and that a shortage of skilled workers does not exist. Instead, he argues, a shortage of traditional job openings is driving high unemployment due to rising taxes and employee costs.

Has there been a breakdown in job security in California or the U.S. in general? Why?

It is difficult to quantify, but we do see a breakdown in job security in terms of the growth in the number of independent contractors and so called “contingent workers,” defined to include independent contractors, employees of staffing companies, and the self-employed. We have seen a growth in that population over the past decade and a half. And that’s the clearest quantification.

Anecdotally, I grew up in California in the ‘50s and ‘60s, and it wasn’t true that everyone was employed full time in an employer-employee relationship, but it was a far more common structure of work than it is today. The labor market has split in California, with the great majority of workers still in an employer-employee relationship. But we see a rising number of contingent employees….”

What role do state job training programs play in reducing unemployment?

Well they have a role to play. The truth is the government – the public workforce system – is constantly being criticized for training people for jobs that don’t exist, not training people for the right jobs, or not doing the job training we need. In fact, over the past 40 years in California, as in the United States, we have built up an effective workforce system. It’s not perfect, but the system is highly pragmatic. It is geared towards taking unemployed people and either helping them find jobs with some job search assistance or providing job training of less than six months or so and then placing them in jobs. It is an effective system.

The limitations of the system are that it reaches relatively small numbers of the unemployed and it doesn’t really affect the demand side the number of jobs. The problem is not that we can’t train people to be computer software technicians or certified nurse assistants. It’s that the number of job openings is limited.

California Elections' Top Independent Spender and Donors, 10 Years

2012-10-24T17:26:00Z

California Common Sense recently released a report about independent spending on candidate elections in California from 2000 to mid-2012. Above is part of a flow chart illustrating which committees spent the most during the period, and below is the executive summary. You can find the full interactive flow chart here.

Money fuels politics. Traditionally, political supporters and special interests channeled money to candidates and their parties as direct contributions and lobbying. But since the first campaign contribution limits were enacted in the 1970s, political money has increasingly taken the form of so-called “Independent Expenditures” (IEs), political campaign spending that is not coordinated with a candidate’s official campaign.

Though IEs have only received significant national attention in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FECruling in 2010, they have been a growing factor in California politics since Proposition 34 (2000) limited direct contributions to candidates. In that time, total independent expenditures in legislative races have increased by a factor of 60, and those in statewide candidate elections by a factor of 55. In the 2010 election alone, over $80 million was spent independently on political campaigns.

This report examines the $220 million in independent expenditures spent on candidate races in California between 2000 and late May 2012, focusing on the 106 organizations and committees that spent all but $25 million of it. We dissected the races that attracted the most money, the groups who spent it, and their donors.

We identify a dramatic increase in IEs from the 2000-02 to 2004-06 election cycles and a substantial increase between the 2004-06 and 2008-10 cycles. We also find that labor unions are the largest source of independent spending, focusing primarily on governor’s races. Labor-backed committees spent nearly 50% of all IEs and unions made 75% of all donations to IE committees larger than $1 million. Business-backed and political committees each spent 12.5% of IEs. Finally, the report identifies a number of inadequacies in the current IE disclosure and publication system.

What Would a California Tax on Haircuts (and Other Services) Look Like?

2012-10-16T21:53:59Z

By Andrew Crutchfield, Special Projects Analyst, California Common Sense

Once consuming mainly goods, Californians now consume mainly services. That's leading some to ask whether the state should consider taxing the sale of services and lowering the overall sales tax rate. (Source: Google Images)

The sales tax is intended to be a tax on consumption. While California collects sales tax when a book is purchased, it collects no sales tax when someone receives a haircut. So why is one form of consumption taxed, while the other is not?

California taxes most goods, but doesn’t tax most services. This dates back to the 1930s, when most states implemented sales taxes. Then, people mainly consumed goods, so the sales tax targeted the consumption of goods. States deemed that taxing services generated an administrative burden that was not worth the limited additional revenue.

Today however, Californians mainly consume services. As the goods’ share of consumption decreases, the state increases the sales tax rate to generate the same amount of revenue.

In 1982, household consumption of services exceeded consumption of goods for the first time. Since then, services have only continued to grow as a portion of household consumption. If it taxed all feasible services, California could raise an additional $13.2 billion.

I recently spoke with Professor Annette Nellen, Director of San Jose State University’s Tax Program. She argues that taxing services would end the erosion of the sales tax base that is driving up sales tax rates statewide. By broadening the tax base, taxing services would also help to reduce revenue volatility (fluctuations). Less revenue volatility would improve the state’s business climate and budgeting projections.

Nellen stated that given wide opposition to it, simply applying the sales tax to services is not politically viable in California. Both consumers and service providers would oppose the change. And service providers would pass the tax on to consumers, resulting in higher prices and lower sales.

According to Nellen, the state can overcome opposition to broadening the sales tax by pairing it with an overall sales tax reduction.

The Common Sense Voter's Guide

2012-10-15T21:30:00Z

(Source: California Common Sense)California Common Sense (CACS) recenly released a non-partisan voter's guide for the propositions on the November 2012 ballot. The guide focuses on the propositions that will have major fiscal and structural impact on the State: Propositions 30, 31, 32, 36, 38, and 39. Concentrating on issues relevant to CACS’s previous research, the guide adds depth and context to the public discourse surrounding the propositions. It simplifies complex issues and cuts through hyperbolic rhetoric without omitting crucial detail. It arms voters with facts and meaningful analysis so that they can go to the polls with confidence.

Research Director Mike Polyakov said, “Our analyses extend beyond the typical campaign talking points. CACS provides the context to evaluate the substance and likely effects of the propositions, which every voter should have before stepping into the ballot box. Our guide offers depth, balance, and common sense.”

The voter's guide includes original summaries, details, and analysis of each proposition; relevant secondary research; and substantive arguments for and against. When possible, the guide includes campaign videos for and against each proposition, as well as links to campaign websites and related interactive data visualizations from CACS. It also offers a side-by-side comparison of Propositions 30 (Governor Brown’s tax increase) and 38 (Molly Munger’s tax increase).

Help us by liking and sharing the guide on Facebook.

You can find the entire guide here.

NBC: Jerry Brown's Plan for Pension Reform Might Not Have the Teeth to Tackle California's Unfunded Liability

2012-10-03T21:42:47Z

NBC Bay Area New's "Reality Check" video segment recently questioned whether the Governor Jerry Brown's pension reform legislation will make a dent in the state's unfunded pension liability. The piece featured commentary from California Common Sense.

Governor Jerry Brown wasted little time upon his return to Sacramento pushing a pension reform plan that, in his own words, would change the landscape of California’s pension woes.

“These pension reforms will go a long way toward making our pension system more sustainable and more fair to the taxpayer and to the employee,” Brown told a group of reporters last October.

Fast forward a year, and California has enacted pension reform legislation that contains many of the governor’s chief proposals: a cap on benefits for future hires, a later retirement age, a rolled-back pension formula and higher contributions from some state employees.

But will the highly-publicized reforms actually make a dent in the state’s mushrooming unfunded liability, and if so, can Californians expect substantive change?

“I think it goes in the right direction, but it definitely does not go far enough,” said Mike Polyakov, research director for the non-profit group California Common Sense in Los Altos.

(Read the full article at NBC Bay Area News.)

California’s Department of Corrections: Shifting Prisoners and Costs to Counties

2012-10-03T01:49:00Z

By Prerna Anand, Research Analyst, California Common Sense

(Source: California Common Sense)

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)’s share of the State budget has ballooned from under 3% in 1980 to almost 10% today. While several factors are responsible for the 1327% increase in CDCR’s budget in just three decades, the state inmate population has been a key driver, expanding rapidly since 1980 and spurring a prison overcrowding crisis in California. Pressed by a federal court-mandated 2013 deadline to substantially reduce prison overcrowding, the State has worked to redistribute its overall prison population among state prisons and county jails.

With the 2012-13 Realignment plan, the Brown Administration seeks to further reduce the inmate population and decrease the department’s share of the State’s General Fund budget to 7.5%. While the plan may achieve the aforementioned goals, the overall number of inmates in the statewide penal system may not be reduced. Barring altered sentencing policies, the State will be forced to devote critical resources to the growing inmate population in the county penal system.

The population explosion in prisons is not the sole reason for CDCR’s expansion. An impact assessment of three factors – prison guard salaries, inmate health care and “excess inmate population”^[i] – revealed that other variables have played significant, albeit smaller, roles as well.^[ii] Security personnel salaries increased by more than 180% during 1980-2012, slightly ahead of inflation, while salaries for all other general state employees trailed behind inflation. Health care costs per prisoner increased more than six times in that time and comprised 16% of inflation adjusted CDCR cost growth (the biggest jump was seen after 2006 when the federal courts appointed a Receiver^[iii] to ensure that inmates received constitutional levels of healthcare).^[iv]But the excess growth of inmate population was responsible for 55% of the increase in CDCR’s total expenditures between 1980 and 2011. Essentially, had the inmate population not grown to five times its 1980 size, California’s corrections system would demand far fewer state funds than it does today.

A Patchwork Corporate Tax System

2012-09-28T20:04:52Z

By Andrew Crutchfield, California Common Sense, Analyst

Source: Tax Foundation

Proposition 39 makes changes to California’s corporate tax apportionment formulas. Separate from rates, corporate tax apportionment formulas allow a state to determine what share of a corporation’s profit is subject to state tax.

The Rise of a Patchwork System

Each state needs a way to compute what portion of a multi-state business’ profit is located within its borders and only tax that share. Problems arise if multiple states tax the same portion of a businesses's profits, thereby subjecting the business to over taxation.

The need for state corporate tax apportionment rules arose in the 1930s when states had “tax methods… almost as numerous as the taxing jurisdictions.”[i] States lacked a common standard until 1957 when the Uniform Law Commission, a nonpartisan body made up of representatives from each states, created the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA).[ii]

UDITPA required states to use an equally weighted three-factor formula that considers the ratio of a corporation’s sales, property, and payroll in a state to determine what part of the corporation’s income is subject to the state’s income tax. States considered this formula desirable because it splits taxed corporate income between marketing and manufacturing states.[iii] The property and payroll components ensure a share of profit is apportioned to the states where the corporation operates and manufactures good, while the sales portion ensures a share of profit is apportioned to the states where the goods are actually sold.

In 1959, Congress passed Public Law 86-272 to clarify the minimum presence necessary for a corporation to pay income tax in a given state. The law allows corporations to solicit sales in a state without paying corporate tax, provided that the orders are filled outside the state. Congress designed the measure to limit expanding reach of state corporate tax policy until it could devise a better solution. Congress’s “temporary” law has now been in place for over 50 years.[iv]

California Prison Guard Union: The Toughest Beast in the State

2012-09-25T20:15:01Z

The California correctional officers’ union (CCPOA) has been guarding more than just prison inmates. As one of the most influential special interest groups in the state, it has secured and steadfastly held onto some of the highest salaries and benefits awarded to state employees.

CCPOA maintains an annual operating budget of over $23 million. With that sum, it makes contributions to ballot initiatives, lobbying efforts, and political campaigns.

CCPOA is best known for its support of ballot initiatives that keep prison populations high. In 1994, CCPOA spent $101,000 on the Three Strikes Initiative, making it the second largest donor to that campaign. That proposition passed with a 72% majority. In 2008, CCPOA spent $1 million against Proposition 5, helping to defeat an initiative that would have emphasized treatment over incarceration for non-violent drug offenders.

Will Stockton's Bankruptcy Alter Legal Understanding of Pensions?

2012-09-22T01:37:00Z

Earlier this week, Dan Walters in the Sacramento Bee argued that Stockton, CA’s bankruptcy proceeds may entirely alter the common perception that pension benefits for current public employees are untouchable.

Walters argues that in general, attempts to reduce future pension benefits for current employees is difficult both politically and legally because California case law largely considered them guaranteed, thus untouchable. But with its considerable pension obligation, largely financed by bonds, Stockton offers a potentially landmark case. Its bond insurers are challenging Stockton’s bankruptcy plan, under which the city would stop making payments on most of their borrowed pension obligation bond debt but would continue making full payments to cover promised pension benefits for current and future retirees, thus leaving benefit levels unchanged. Walters writes:

“Under bankruptcy protection, Stockton wants those who hold millions of dollars in city-issued bonds – or their insurers – to take a haircut, but it doesn't reduce the $29 million it pays each year to the California Public Employees' Retirement System [CalPERS]. That doesn't sit well with the bond insurers.”