![]() Kentucky is one of two states, along with Louisiana, that are unique for the extent to which they incarcerate such a large share of the individuals who are in state custody in county jails. ![]() The report closes with policy recommendations to reduce incarceration while addressing counties’ fiscal constraints. The next section takes an in-depth look at these issues in several county jails. We begin by describing the historical, legal and fiscal context for why Kentucky’s jails are overcrowded and the barriers to reforms. 6 It is based on state and local data, as well as in-person visits and conversations with local justice system actors in several rural Kentucky counties (rural areas are where the majority of jail incarceration in the state occurs). While much has been written about the inconsistent and often poor living conditions of Kentucky’s county jails, as well as the collateral consequences of incarceration, this report focuses on how the broken system we use to pay for our jails contributes to the poor living conditions, fuels the construction of bigger jails and ultimately contributes to the lack of success in making systemic changes. ![]() This report provides an in-depth look at the fiscal complexities of jail funding in Kentucky that stymie progress on much-needed policy changes. In other words, both pretrial policy changes and sentencing policy changes would reduce incarceration, but the latter would negatively impact county jails’ bottom line by limiting their revenue-generating opportunities, while the former would benefit it. And while incarceration is often framed as a public safety solution and jail expansion as a necessary accommodation, jail expansion is actually a driver of mass incarceration, with harmful fiscal and human consequences.Īnother consequence of this vicious cycle is that while county governments advocate for policy changes that would lower their costs by reducing pretrial incarceration, they typically oppose sentencing reforms that would reduce the number of people serving felony sentences that the state pays county jails to incarcerate. The result is a vicious cycle of lives harmed by incarceration, pressure to keep the pipeline of incarcerated people full, and rising public costs for corrections driving out other investments that could better address the root causes of the challenges communities face in the first place. ![]() This arrangement incentivizes counties to expand incarceration - including by building larger jails and crowding them - in order to offset their costs. 3 To respond to those fiscal responsibilities, some county jails rely on the economies of scale created by overcrowding including the extra revenue that comes from holding people in state and federal custody and from charging fees to those who are incarcerated. At the same time, counties are legally and fiscally responsible for the incarceration of those who are held pretrial or on misdemeanor sentences, with related costs determined not by the counties themselves but by state laws, state decisions about funding the justice system and separately-elected judges and prosecutors. In the face of tight budgets, the state has shifted costs to counties in order to reduce its own burden, and in fact pays cash-strapped counties to house people in state custody. Perverse financial incentives resulting from the unique state/local structure of our corrections system are a major cause of Kentucky’s failure to reduce incarceration and overcrowding where other states have succeeded. More On Criminal Justice: Position Announcement - Kentucky Center for Economic Policy Seeks Policy Analyst
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |