Prison reform results in strain on welfare system

Jul 29, 2013

The burden of improved conditions in state prisons may be borne by welfare recipients, according to new research from Rice University and Louisiana State University.

The study, "Intended and Unintended Consequences of Prison Reform" published online this month in the Journal of Law, Economics & Organization, examined the impact of federal court orders condemning crowding and the outcomes among following these orders. The researchers found that court-mandated efforts by the federal government to improve living conditions in state prisons resulted in decreased funding.

"When courts are effective in increasing spending on prisoners, the legislature has to increase taxes or cut spending in other programs, given states' balanced budget requirements," said Richard Boylan, professor of economics at Rice. "As a result, most of these increases in spending come at the expense of welfare spending and/or other social programs."

Four years before the courts stepped in, states that ultimately were court ordered to improve living conditions spent approximately 72 percent per inmate of what was spent by states that were not ordered to do so. Across the board, the litigation resulted in increased correctional expenditures to 87 percent per prisoner during the year in which the court order was issued and reaching 102 percent two years after the court order. These correctional facilities also saw lower inmate mortality rates (20 percent decrease), fewer prisoners per capita (12 percent decrease) and all-around better prison living conditions.

However, the results of the study show that these court orders resulted in a 22 percent decrease in the amount of money available for state welfare programs.

Boylan noted that their research showed that after states are released from the court orders, they did not increase their welfare cash expenditures; thus, the original change in welfare spending was permanent. He hopes that the research will underscore the unintended consequences of increased prison spending—namely, cuts to welfare programs.

"These results are a classic example of the unintended consequences of well-intentioned policymaking in the face of limited resources, where helping one vulnerable population ends up harming another," Boylan said.

The researchers examined income per capita, state unemployment, race, percentage of state population residing in urban areas and age distribution between 1951 and 2006 in 12 states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas) that have been subject to court orders calling for increased prison funding.

Explore further: Understanding the economics of human trafficking

More information: The study is available online at jleo.oxfordjournals.org.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Overcrowding in prisons negatively affects health

Nov 05, 2012

an issue in most prisons in Canada and other parts of the world—negatively impacts the mental and physical health of prisoners, states an article in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal).

Recommended for you

Understanding the economics of human trafficking

6 hours ago

Although Europe is one of the strictest regions in the world when it comes to guaranteeing the respect of human rights, the number of people trafficked to or within the EU still amounts to several hundred ...

Affirmative action elicits bias in pro-equality Caucasians

Jul 25, 2014

New research from Simon Fraser University's Beedie School of Business indicates that bias towards the effects of affirmative action exists in not only people opposed to it, but also in those who strongly endorse equality.

Election surprises tend to erode trust in government

Jul 24, 2014

When asked who is going to win an election, people tend to predict their own candidate will come out on top. When that doesn't happen, according to a new study from the University of Georgia, these "surprised losers" often ...

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rwinners
not rated yet Jul 29, 2013
I wonder. The wealthy in the country find it 'necessary' to keep a substantial portion of our citizens under restraint. You know, the Michael Bloomberg types.
Why won't they pay for that choice?
Time for the Federal government to take control of state prisons and tax the wealthy to foot the bill.