Agenda 2005: A Guide to the Issues - Crime - Georgia Public Policy Foundation

Crime

Agenda

Remove the state’s gag rule on local crime statistics
Adopt “truth in sentencing” for all crimes so that the public knows exactly what percentage of a prisoner’s sentence will be served
Consider more cost-effective alternatives to prison for nonviolent offenders
Focus local law enforcement on deterring, rather than reacting to crime
Modify the Georgia Charter School Law to support the successful Youth Challenge Academy for high school dropouts

Facts

General Crime

Mirroring the downward trend nationally in crime rates, Georgia’s crime rate has dropped for the past three years and now stands at 45 per 1,000 residents. Georgia’s crime rate is lower than many of its neighbors, including Florida at 54, North Carolina at 47, South Carolina at 53 and Tennessee at 50. Unfortunately, Georgia’s current crime rate stands in stark contrast to the rate of 14.1 in 1960.
Over the past eight years, Georgians have witnessed an unprecedented drop in serious crime. According to the 2002 crime statistics, the latest available, Georgia’s Violent Crime Index (measured as the number of murder, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults reported to police per 1,000 residents) continues to decline. In 1999, the rate of violent crime in Georgia was 5.34. For 2002, that number stands at 4.59. Georgia’s Property Crime Index, measured as the number of larcenies, burglaries and motor vehicle thefts reported to police per 1,000 residents, also continued its decline. In 1999, the Property Crime Index stood at 46.15 per 1,000. For 2002, that number is 40.48. Source: Informing Crime Control Strategies with Criminal Career Research, A Report of the Georgia Statistical Analysis Center, June 2001, and Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Since 1980, nearly one in four criminal offenses relate to traffic violations, with the majority of those being DUI charges. The next most prevalent charges are theft (larceny), assault/battery, drug offenses and fraud. Source: Informing Crime Control Strategies with Criminal Career Research, A Report of the Georgia Statistical Analysis Center, June 2001.

Legal Issues

Over the past several years, Georgia’s criminal laws have been strengthened and are some of the toughest in the nation. For example:

Georgia Sentence Reform Act of 1994 (“Two Strikes” Law) — This act requires that offenders convicted of one of seven serious violent felonies, known as the “seven deadly sins,” serve 100 percent of their court-imposed sentence in prison on the first conviction and life in prison without eligibility for parole for a second conviction. The seven deadly sins are murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, rape, aggravated child molestation, aggravated sodomy and aggravated sexual battery.
Georgia School Safety and Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1994 — This law granted the adult felony court exclusive jurisdiction in cases involving a child 13 to 17 years of age who is charged with one of the seven felonies from the Two Strikes Law.
“Ninety Percent Time Served Policy” — In 1998, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles imposed a “90 percent time served” policy for offenders convicted and sentenced to prison for any of the following crimes: attempted rapes, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, aggravated battery on a police officer, aggravated battery, child molestation, carjacking, robbery, aggravated assault on a police officer, aggravated assault (using a weapon or causing injury), enticing a child for indecent purposes, cruelty to children, feticide, incest, statutory rape, attempted murder, bus hijacking, vehicular homicide (while drunk or as a habitual violator), aggravated stalking and burglary of a residence (home invasion).

Prisons/Incarceration

Georgia’s prison population grew by 3.3 percent during 2002. Georgia has the sixth-largest prison population in the country. We also have the seventh-highest incarceration rate, with a rate of 552 prisoners per 100,000 residents. The U.S. average is 476. Source: State Board of Pardons and Paroles and Georgia Department of Corrections
In September of 2004, Georgia had over 49, 054 inmates, a stark contrast to 1992’s number of 23,690. Between 1995 and 2002, Georgia’s inmate population grew by more than 13,000. Only Texas and California added more inmates. Source: Georgia Department of Corrections and State Board of Pardons and Paroles

Source: Georgia Department of Corrections

Tougher laws and strengthened pardons and paroles rules have led to longer incarceration periods. For instance, the population of Georgia inmates serving life sentences has increased 71 percent since 1993. Source: State Board of Pardons and Paroles
Georiga’s prison capacity grew from 18,800 beds in 1990 to 47,000-plus beds in 2002, an increase of nearly 150 percent. It is estimated that by October 2007, the prison population could reach 58,677. Source: Georgia Department of Corrections
The average age of a Georgia inmate has risen from 28.7 in 1979 to 34.7 in 2002. Nearly one in 10 Georgia prisoners are over age 50. Source: Georgia Department of Corrections
75 percent of Georgia inmates are in state prisons, 9 percent are in private prisons, while only 3 percent, or 1,451, are in transition centers. Source: Georgia Department of Corrections
Between 1993 and 2002, Georgia’s incarceration rate rose from 398 per 100,000 residents to 552, which is an increase of 39 percent in under 10 years. The national incarceration rate rose from 344 to 476, an increase of 38 percent. Source: Georgia Department of Corrections

Pardons, Paroles and Probation

At the end of 2001, 6.8 percent of all adults in Georgia, or one in 15, were under some form of correctional supervision. The national rate was one in 32. Source: State Board of Pardons and Paroles
In September of 2004, the parole population stood at 24,183. While inmate population has grown every year since 1992, the parole population has remained stable or has fallen slightly. Source: State Board of Pardons and Paroles
Over the last six years, the State Board Parole Board’s success rate, percentage of successful completions, has exceeded the national average by 16 percent or more. The national average is 45 percent. In 2003, Georgia’s success rate was 61 percent. In 2003 Georgia began to apply a stricter measure of parolee success than is currently used to tabulate national statistics. Source: State Board of Pardons and Paroles

In 1991, one in every 10 prison releases was a max-out, prisoners who are released after serving the entire sentence. By fiscal year 2003, due to tougher laws and parole policies, max-outs had increased to one in three. Source: State Board of Pardons and Paroles
At the end of 2002, Georgia had 331 people on parole per 100,000 residents. That represented a 0.5 percent increase from the start of the year. The national average was 350 per 100,000 adult residents. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics
Georgia had 470,100 people under correctional supervision at the end of 2002. That number was the second highest in the South behind Texas (737,400) and just ahead of Florida (427,100). Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics
70 percent of Georgia’s probationers are repeat offenders. Source: Georgia Department of Corrections

Agenda

Remove the State’s Gag Rule on Local Crime Statistics

The Georgia Crime Information Center is operated by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) and is responsible for collecting crime statistics from all local law enforcement agencies in the state. This information is then provided to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which publishes its annual Uniform Crime Report that provides the crime statistics commonly used by researchers and the media.

The Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC) provides crime information for every county in Georgia their their Web site. However, Georgia law prevents GCIC from providing citizens with a breakdown of city crime statistics. For example, the GCIC is authorized to report on crime in Gwinnett County as a whole but may not provide a breakdown of the amount of crime attributable to Lawrenceville.

Fortunately, the FBI releases its Uniform Crime Report to the public on an annual basis, so the information is ultimately obtainable. Common sense and efficiency suggest a Georgia law that allows for the uncensored flow of such vital information to the public.

Consider More Cost-Effective Alternatives to Prison for Non-Violent Offenders

Given the projected increase in Georgia’s prison population, in large part a result of the Two Strikes law and the 90 Percent Rule the Board of Pardons and Paroles adopted, Georgia should explore using alternatives for non-violent offenders.

According to a report issued by a Joint Committee of the Department of Corrections and the Board of Pardons and Paroles, “during fiscal year 1999, more than 6,000 non-violent inmates were admitted to state prison that fit the profile of detention center inmates. If a substantial portion of these offenders were sentenced to diversion or detention center beds, ten-year savings would range from $250 million [if only half the inmates were diverted] to $500 million [if 100 percent of inmates were diverted]…”[1]

Georgia should seriously consider the use of such less costly alternatives for offenders who pose little risk to the public. Additionally, facilities such as transitional centers have a lower rate of reconviction, 19 percent, than more traditional inmate facilities like county prisons, which stand at 28.2 percent, according to the State Board of Pardons and Paroles. Other alternatives include:

Increased Use of Probation Adding additional probation officers, with a significant proportion of those new officers allocated to the judicial circuits as pre-sentence investigators. The pre-sentence investigators could compile personal and criminal backgrounds on the offenders and conduct risk/needs screenings to assist prosecutors and judges in determining which offenders are best suited for alternatives and who should go to prison.[2]

Front-End Beds A option that may be less costly than prison beds would be to use front-end facilities such as additional probation diversion and detention centers, which can also serve as work camps housing relatively free labor for counties and local municipalities. A 2000 study suggests that “if used appropriately, additional probation officers and more diversion centers and detention centers could significantly reduce the need for 10,311 additional prison beds expected by the end of December 2004.”[3]

Back-End Beds. Additional parole revocation centers can serve to divert parolees who commit technical violations of parole away from “hard beds” and into short-term, treatment-oriented work camps. It is estimated that as many as 800 to 1,000 parole revocations could be diverted to these beds annually. Also, more prison transitional centers could be used as a back-end alternative to a more costly “hard” prison bed. Consideration should be given to both state-operated transitional centers and those that are privately operated. In the coming years, certain inmates, particularly those convicted of non-parolable first strikes with no supervision to follow their release, will have to be transitioned back into the community by the Department of Corrections since there will be no assistance from parole. Those could be placed in Department of Corrections-operated transitional beds. Parolable cases could also be placed in transitional beds, with parole officers overseeing their supervision (a program known in some states as “day parole”).[4]

Day Reporting Centers (DRCs). A non-incarcerative means of one-stop shopping for a variety of services such as drug testing, drug treatment, mental health programs and job placement, DRCs are a concept that can be adapted to fit the target needs of particular offenders. There are more than 120 DRCs in operation in the country; some government-operated and others private-vendor. In North Carolina more than 50 DRCs have been created to meet the intermediate sanctions required by that state’s structured sentencing laws. The DRC concept provides a structured blend of supervision, sanctions and programs coordinated within the center. The community benefits through high offender accountability, greater monitoring of the offender, and less wasted time by probation/parole supervisors, who are in a constant search for viable treatment resources.[5]

In Georgia, a single DRC could serve probationers and parolees in the same center, meaning greater efficiency through resource sharing, resulting in less taxpayer expense. A 1995 study by the National Institute of Justice found the average cost of a DRC to be approximately $35 per offender per day, although the range can be anywhere between $10 and $100 depending on the type of offender and services rendered.[6] Prison crowding is projected to get worse in Georgia. Policy-makers should look at these alternatives and others working in other states to effectively address this issue.

Deterrence

Innovative deterrence programs have helped New York City, Boston, Jacksonville, Fla., San Diego, Richmond, V.A., and Philadelphia reduce crime rates dramatically.

Boston

In Boston, crime rates stand at their lowest levels since 1968, when the city began using the current statistical methods. In addition to implementing a computer-aided analysis of statistics similar to New York City’s, Boston officials took a new stance on public disorder and worked tirelessly to improve community contact with police. More than 1,000 citizen neighborhood crime watch programs now blanket the city. Unlike the uniformed police-run programs in other cities, Boston’s Crime Watch Program is coordinated by citizens themselves. The neighborhoods sponsor regular community meetings, provide information to police and participate in everything from street sign repair to neighborhood festivals. They have scored notable successes in collecting information on drug houses. Most importantly, police captains are held accountable for the crime rates in their own districts.[7]

Indianapolis

Under the leadership of former mayor Stephen Goldsmith, Indianapolis turned to community policing to deter crime. Community policing consisted of two parts — bringing police and citizens into working partnerships and giving the police responsibility for identifying and solving neighborhood problems.

The Safe Streets program was one program that stemmed from these new partnerships with the community. Here, police used sophisticated crime data to meet with neighbors and map out solutions to tough problems. Community leaders, in turn, asked the department to immerse tough areas in patrols and encouraged aggressive action, including stopping vehicles for traffic violations and questioning suspicious pedestrians. Other police-community partnerships were formed to rid neighborhoods of a wide range of nuisances, from open-air drug markets and crack houses to improperly run liquor stores.

Other programs began during this time that were intended to reduce crime, instill a sense of pride in the community and ensure law-abiding residents that no area was less important than any other in the city. Two such programs included the Broken Windows and Graffiti Busters programs. Under the first program, city officials worked under the assumption that disorder serves as a precursor for crime. Thus, officers were instructed to report problems they noted on patrol, looked for dangerous buildings or abandoned garages where assaults might occur and suggested solutions. The Department of Public Works was instructed to quickly remove unsightly defacement of buildings and obscene scribblings found on walls. These programs, among others, were successful in bringing the city and communities together to develop creative ways to improve crime-ridden areas.[8]

Jacksonville, Fla.

Only a few cities in the nation have attracted more individuals than Jacksonville during this decade, and only San Diego has seen its crime rates fall as quickly as Jacksonville’s during the 1990s. A survey by the Jacksonville Community Council shows a 20 percent decrease in the number of people who felt unsafe walking in their communities at night between 1996 and 1998. While Jacksonville benefited from Florida’s increased prison sentences, the Jacksonville police stress that increased community participation in police work helped reduce crime.[9]

San Diego

Crime is at a 25-year low in San Diego, which now has the reputation of being one of the safest large cities in America. Under Chief Jerry Sanders and his successor, David Bejarano, the San Diego Police Department built impressive relationships with community organizations. The police department manages to combine toughness against criminals with a community-friendly public face. Under Sanders, officers knew residents in their communities by name. Two-person teams managed the city’s three shifts and developed effective ways of sharing information on specific problems. Neighborhood meetings with residents resulted in innovative ways to deal with everything from car theft to school truancy.[10]

Richmond, V.A.

Richmond’s 3-year-old Project Exile has been widely credited with helping cut that city’s murder rate almost in half. A similar program in Philadelphia, called Operation Cease Fire, also showed positive results. Under these programs, local prosecutors transferred gun-related crime cases to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for prosecution under federal laws in the less-crowded federal courts — which impose heavier sentences with no probation or parole.

Philadelphia

In 1999, the federally funded Operation Cease Fire program hauled more than 300 of Philadelphia’s most egregious gun offenders off the streets and into federal court. In addition, gun possession indictments by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Philadelphia increased fivefold from 1998. Out of 173 gun cases disposed of, only one defendant was acquitted, while 149 others simply pleaded guilty and went straight to federal prison. Philadelphia’s rates of shootings and killings dropped steadily after Cease Fire’s launch.[11]

Modify Georgia’s Charter School Law to Allow Funding for the Youth Challenge Academy

As many as 75 percent of Georgia’s juvenile offenders eventually become involved in the adult corrections system.[12] By 2005, the number of Georgia adults in the 18-24 age group will increase by 19 percent, primarily from the aging of today’s youth. If the juvenile offender transition into adulthood is not addressed immediately, the state faces a huge challenge in slowing future growth in the expensive adult prison system.[13] Moreover, more than 75 percent of high school dropouts who do not further their education will have at least one run-in with the criminal justice system before age 25.[14]

The Youth Challenge Academy is turning around the lives of high school dropouts and, based on the statistics above, saving the criminal justice system millions of dollars in the meantime. Although funding has been appropriated in recent years by the General Assembly, the Academy has been ineligible to receive state education funding as a charter school because the law prohibits schools from establishing entrance requirements. A special exemption could be created that addresses this issue.

Although the Youth Challenge Academy focuses on high school dropouts, it nonetheless embodies charter school principles. The Georgia Charter School Law was designed to encourage innovative programs such as the Academy. Georgia legislators should modify this law to allow funding for this and similar programs.

Endnotes

1. “Georgia’s Correctional Future,” Georgia Department of Corrections.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

7. The Heritage Foundation, “Issues 2000: The Candidate’s Briefing Book.”

8. Stephen Goldsmith, The Twenty-First Century City: Resurrecting Urban America, Regnery Publishing, Inc. (1997).

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

11. National Center for Policy Analysis

12. “Georgia’s Criminal Justice System at a Crossroads: Tough Laws, Smart Decision,” Georgia Public Policy Foundation

13. Ibid.

14. State Board of Pardons and Parole.