Partnership targets Indiana's corrections system

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

To address Indiana’s growing prison population and increasing related costs, the state is partnering with The Pew Center on the States and the Council of State Governments Justice Center for the first comprehensive review of the state’s criminal code and sentencing policies since 1976.

Indiana is participating in the Justice Reinvestment Initiative, officials announced this morning in Gov. Mitch Daniels’ office. The project aims to improve public safety by reducing the number of offenders in Indiana’s prisons, reduce recidivism, and to better manage corrections costs.

The state’s prison population has grown 47 percent in the past 10 years from 19,309 in fiscal year 2000 to 28,389 in fiscal year 2010. In that same period, the Indiana Department of Correction’s appropriations from the general fund increased 76 percent. Despite those increases, Daniels noted the state addressed the population increase without new construction by being more efficient and better management of prison capacities.

Daniels, with the support of Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, bipartisan legislative leadership, and Attorney General Greg Zoeller, sought assistance from the Public Safety Performance Project of The Pew Center regarding sentencing and other corrections issues.

The project will analyze Indiana’s crime, arrest, conviction, jail, prison, probation, and parole supervision data. It will also include a system-wide examination of the state’s prison population, drivers of prison growth, and strategies currently used to increase public safety. The CSG Justice Center will interview people from prosecutors, public defenders, and law enforcement officials to victims, their advocates, and service providers, among others. The new 13-member Justice Reinvestment Steering Committee, comprised of various Indiana stakeholders, will review the analysis and make recommendations while working with the CSG Justice Center on policy options.

Adam Gelb, director of the Public Safety Performance Project of The Pew Center, said the project will help Indiana going forward rein in prison spending. He also noted Indiana is not starting from “ground zero” because there are “a lot of essential building blocks here in Indiana.”

Such essentials include drug and other problem-solving courts that look at options other than prison for offenders.

More than 2,000 times a day, Indiana’s trial court judges are deciding sentences for offenders, looking at what would be the “smart” sentence for the offender and the situation, Chief Justice Shepard said. “There are alternatives to prison. Many programs are led by trial judges. … It’s a great opportunity to cooperate with the other two branches.”

However, Chief Justice Shepard told Indiana Lawyer that five times as many felons in Indiana are serving sentences in various ways as part of a “whole constellation” of programs that are not prison.

Indiana’s monetary commitment is $100,000, which is paid for with federal grant monies through the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute. The Pew Center and the CSG Justice Center have also received funding from the U.S. Department of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Assistance to advance the initiative. As a participant, Indiana will be eligible for future funding from the BJA.

Daniels said Pew has shown it ability to work fast in other states and officials here hope to see analysis in the third and fourth quarters because they want to be able to make recommendations in January for the legislature to address in tandem with the budget. The Indiana General Assembly’s 2011 session will set the state’s next biennial budget.

Daniels also said a surprising percentage of prisoners are there for a “very short period of time, suggesting we’re a little out of whack.”

The average sentence for an Indiana prisoner is 18 years and 10 months, according to information provided by the governor’s office. However, this is an increasing number of low-risk offenders being sentenced to prison for short period of time. In 2009, 4,583 offenders were sent to the Department of Correction for a fixed term of less than 90 days; of those, 1,361 were in prison for 30 or fewer days.

As states nationwide have addressed ways to reduce incarceration rates, Indiana’s rate of incarceration continues to climb at a rate much higher than the national average. Using 2000 to 2007 figures, Indiana ranked seventh in the nation for rate of incarceration. In 2009, Indiana was in fourth and likely will be in second behind Alabama once Florida and Pennsylvania’s sentencing reform measures take effect, according to U.S. Department of Justice statistics.

Once the legislature adopts new policies, the CSG Justice Center will help the state translate the policies into practice, keep track of any effects, and keep state officials up to date.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.