Is relying on the state sound policy?

Posted: Thursday, February 18, 2010 12:00 am

In a perfect world, providing life coaching to ex-convicts is a great idea. California’s inmate recidivism rate is distressingly high, and one might assume that helping parolees learn how to make non-criminal decisions is the wise path.

This is, however, not a perfect world, and that fact presents many questions that need to be answered before Santa Barbara County officials sign off on a proposal to build and maintain two parolee day-reporting centers.

The pitch was made by the Sheriff’s Department at this week’s Board of Supervisors meeting. The board was short-handed, so the sheriff’s report was accepted, in concept, on a 3-0 vote.

Taxpayers should hope for a full board when and if this project comes back for consideration, and after someone provides an answer to what we perceive to be the key question:

Who, exactly, is going to pay for these parolee reintroduction facilities?

The plan, as presented Tuesday, relies on a promise by the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to give the county $1.5 million a year, with another $100,000-plus going to the Sheriff’s Department to oversee the centers.

That pledge of $1.5 million, is, however, only good for a two-year period. After the two years, state and county officials would, presumably, have to work out details on further state funding support.

County officials should be very wary about relying on state funding promises. California government is about $20 billion in the budget hole this year and next, with no relief in sight.

How can a state department guarantee any level of funding, when there is no guarantee state government will even be solvent a year from now?

Another question that begs an answer is just how many parolees are going to use these centers? The state prison system is under court orders that could result in the early release of thousands of inmates, many or all of whom will be parolees.

Are state and local officials factoring in that potential tidal wave of parolees in the planning for local day centers?

A couple of board members voiced mild skepticism about relying on the state for funding, with one saying, “... I’d hate for us to get all dressed up, with no place to go.”

Indeed, and board members need to consider other potential problems. For example, what happens if the board approves the centers, work is started and parolees are getting life training, then after the two-year funding guarantee, the state decides it has no money left for such programs?

Are county taxpayers then on the hook to keep the programs running?

We have little doubt that such a program could help parolees, and could even reduce this state’s abysmal recidivism rate, but at what cost, if the state goes broke?

Are Santa Barbara County taxpayers willing to finance the education of ex-cons on the value of making law-abiding decisions, when so many law-abiding citizens are being deprived of valuable county services because of budget deficits?

California’s get-tough-on-crime era turned jails and prisons into one of this state’s major growth industries — growth that has become a fiscal anchor around the necks of taxpayers. This county alone has been under court order since the mid-1980s to reduce chronic jail overcrowding.

Instead of figuring how to provide more services to convicted criminals, perhaps we ought to invest more time, energy and fiscal resources in early childhood programs to teach kids about the disadvantages of a life of crime.