The High Price of Housing Prisoners

For the last few years, county lobbyists have been engaged in conversations with state officials and legislators about the reimbursement counties receive for housing convicted felons for the state. Currently, the Tennessee Department of Corrections reimburses counties only for costs related to housing convicted felons in local jails and workhouses. The county covers the costs of housing convicted misdemeanants and the cost of all pre-trial detainees. At one time, counties were paid by the state for pre-trial detainees, but that practice ended many years ago. Back in 1994, the McWherter administration, in an effort to contain state costs, limited the amount paid to most county governments for housing felons to $35 per day, regardless of actual costs. During the Sundquist administration, the Department of Corrections stopped paying counties for inmates who are incarcerated awaiting a hearing for an alleged probation violation. That remains the practice today. During the early years of the Bredesen administration when the state faced a budget crisis, the reimbursement for housing prisoners was reduced from $35 per day to $32 per day. That rate was later restored to $35 and it remains there today. But as you can see, there has been a trend, regardless of who is in office, for the state to save money by cutting back on what they pay counties for housing prisoners.

There are several different arrangements counties can have with the Department of Corrections. Some counties have contracts for a flat rate. Some have contracts for reasonable allowable costs. Others have no contract but get reasonable costs up to the cap. A small number of counties house prisoners by resolution authority at a significantly lower rate - $18 or $20 per day. For FY06, only three local government facilities received more than $35 per day. They were the Johnson City Jail for housing female inmates at $36.75, the Davidson County Detention Facility which received $39.96 per day for felons and the Shelby County Correctional Center which received $46.46. From the 2006 data, it appears that 65 counties are hitting the $35 cap, either by contract or through capping the reasonable allowable costs which are reimbursed. At these jails, the county is essentially subsidizing all inflationary costs related to housing prisoners for the state. I asked Lynne Holliday with the County Technical Assistance Service to do a quick calculation of how inflation would have affected this reimbursement rate. Her numbers are telling. She used two different figures, the CPI and a less well known statistic – the Implicit Price Deflator for State and Local Government Expenditures (IPD). The IPD is targeted to reflect those factors of the economy that most directly relate to the costs of providing government services. According to Lynne, the IPD has traditionally gone up faster than the CPI. Using either figure, the effect is significant.

Taking the $35 figure established in 1994 and adjusting it for increases in the CPI, $35 in 1994 will buy only $24.88 worth of goods and services today. To put it another way, it takes about $49 today to buy the equivalent of $35 worth of goods and services in 1994 dollars. Using the IPD the outcome is even worse. Adjusted for IPD increases, $35 in 1994 will buy only $23.45 worth of goods and services today, or it would take $53 today to buy the same $35 worth of 1994 goods and services. This is an inherent unfairness in the way the state is treating county governments that only gets worse over time. The private correctional corporations that contract with the state get paid at higher rates than local government and they generally have inflationary factors built into their contracts. Change in this area is long overdue. The Department of Corrections deflects some of this concern by arguing that it should only pay our marginal costs. Essentially they are saying counties would have to pay to operate jails regardless of whether or not the state had any prisoners in them. Regardless of whether or not you agree, you still cannot deny the inflation issue. If $35 was a fair level to cap what the state will pay counties in 1994, it's hard to argue that is still a fair rate 13 years later. Relief for county jails is long overdue from the state. The cap should be raised significantly. But even if we can't get relief now by raising the cap, there at least needs to be an inflationary factor added immediately to the rate this year so that the situation does not continue to worsen.

Look for more information about this issue in the weeks to come.

TDOT Announces Safe Routes to School Training Sessions

If your community is interested in encouraging kids to walk or bicycle to school safely, you may be interested in a federal grant program that is 100% federally funded and requires no local match. To apply for the grants however, the Tennessee Department of Transportation is requiring applicants to attend training in order to receive funds. You can find out more about this program at this website: http://www.tn.gov/tdot/bikeped/saferoutes.htm.

A series of workshops on these grants begins next week on December the 4th and runs through December 14th. You can find a schedule of the workshops on the webpage listed above. The following is from a TDOT press release on this issue.


Applicants Must Attend Training In Order to Receive Funds


Nashville, TN — The Tennessee Department of Transportation will hold training sessions in December for communities interested in applying for Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program funds. The Safe Routes to School program is a statewide initiative designed to make bicycling and walking to school a safer, more appealing and healthier alternative for students in kindergarten through eighth grade. This year, any agency interested in obtaining SRTS funds must attend one of eight training sessions in order to be eligible to receive a SRTS grant.

“The Safe Routes to School program integrates health, fitness, traffic relief, environmental concerns, and safety all under one umbrella,” said TDOT Commissioner Gerald Nicely. “These training sessions are an excellent opportunity for communities to learn more about Tennessee’s Safe Routes to School program, and how to develop a successful project.“

In 2007, Tennessee awarded $4.4 million in SRTS funds to 26 schools across the state for a variety of projects from sidewalk construction to installation of traffic calming devices to educational activities. The SRTS program is 100% federally funded. TDOT has received $10.7 million for the program through 2009.

“In 2007, we were discouraged to see that 20% of the applications we received were ineligible. Therefore, we are making it mandatory for applicants to attend one of our training sessions,” said SRTS Coordinator Diana Benedict. “These funds can be used for a variety of projects and activities, so it’s important for those interested in receiving Safe Routes to School funds to know what is eligible and what is not eligible for Tennessee’s program.”

Training sessions will be held in Knoxville, Johnson City, Chattanooga, Cookeville, Nashville, Waynesboro, Memphis, and Martin in December. The training sessions are free and open to the public. A list including the time, date and location of each training session is attached to this email.

To learn more about the Safe Routes to School Program and upcoming training sessions, please visit http://www.tn.gov/tdot/bikeped/saferoutes.htm or email the program coordinator at tdot.saferoutestoschool@state.tn.us or call (615) 253-2421.

Guest Editorial Regarding Open Government

The following editorial appeared in the Sunday, October 7, 2007 edition of the Tennessean. I was asked to submit comments from the local government perspective. I am reproducing my comments here for your information:

At the end of the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln resolved that to honor those who died for our country, we should ensure that "...government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." Unfortunately, many no longer view government as an extension of themselves and their community, but as an outside force. The separation citizens feel from their government can be blamed on a mixture of unnecessary bureaucracy, citizen apathy and the overall complexity of our lives. But if we intend to have a thriving, effective democracy, the people must remain engaged with their government. To facilitate this, our laws require governments to make decisions in the open and allow public access to government records. The state legislature is currently considering whether those laws need revision.

Regarding records, members of the media have complained that Tennessee exempts too many records from public access. When considering proposed changes, one must remember these records relate not only to the government, but also to its people. Records involving government accountability should be open, but records that compromise the privacy of individual citizens should not. It takes education and diligence for government employees to get this balance right. Considering the current epidemic of identity theft in our nation, now is not the time to hastily remove safeguards that protect individual privacy.

Regarding open meetings, it is vital for the public to have notice of meetings and the opportunity to observe the decision-making process. The sunshine law currently exempts "chance meetings" between two members of a governing body from notice requirements. However, it provides that business must not be decided or deliberated during these informal communications. This provision was originally intended to allow officials to speak freely about public business in unofficial settings. As currently interpreted, it subjects officials to allegations of breaking the law if they merely "talk shop" with a peer. The problem is the word "deliberation." Attorneys disagree about when a simple conversation becomes deliberation. This uncertainty casts a shadow of litigation over any communication between public officials. It does not serve public interest to limit all conversation between officials to the strict confines of a public meeting. The law should be clarified to allow healthy discourse while clearly prohibiting back-room plotting. Most other states also recognize that certain specific matters are best considered in a confidential setting. Tennessee may want to follow their lead. For example, a county should be allowed to meet in a closed session to discuss a land purchase for a new school. If the seller knows from a public meeting the maximum price the government will pay for a piece of property, you can be sure the taxpayers will always pay that maximum. Also, if a supervisor is charged with misconduct, hearings may be more candid and respectful of the victim if held privately.

Whether your concern is government accountability or individual privacy, this is an excellent time to get involved, make your voice heard, and ensure your government continues making decisions that are in the people’s best interests.