Introduction
The state of California has been making major budgetary cuts across all sectors of government. However, these reductions have not been applied equally to the different sectors. Regarding discretionary spending, a couple of areas have had different treatment especially during times of recession. When the monetary aid for higher education was condensed by the state of California, it decided to increase state prisons’ funding to a great extent. Even though the mentioned governmental areas are not directly linked, the ever enormously increasing financing of prisons contrasted to the constantly decreasing education funding has raised concern among citizens. This paper explains and analyzes why this prison funding has grown yet other sectors, such as the education system become less funded. It also shows the effectiveness of such financing on crime and the economic and social consequences.
Despite the fact that California is renowned for stringent legislation, its directives are not adhered to in a sound manner as compared with other states in the country. In fact, there is a drastic rise in individuals who break the laws of California State. As a result, more individuals end up being convicted which raises the prisonpopulation in California. This escalating inmate population has caused a pressure on the budget, limiting expenditure and funding on other avenues such as higher education in California. Bezahler (2013) mentions that higher education in California experienced a thirteen percent decline in state funding by 2011 (as compared to the 1980 financial aids). Furthermore, California is among the states with the highest funding for prisons but very low funding for education. When compared with Alabama, the cost per student in both states is an average of $20,000. However, the cost per inmate in Alabama is about $15,000. On the other hand, California demonstrated the cost per inmate to be $50,000 (Bezahler, 2013).
The State General Funds
It is surprising that the higher education share of funds has significantly dropped considering that both K-12 education and higher education sectors are the principal receivers of the funding (Kroll, 2013). In California, the higher-education public institutions like California State University would, on one occasion, get more funding than the correctional facilities. However, the times have changed and the prisons get more funding than them.
The chart illustrates how the Californian state has allocated funds to the mentioned programs in the last thirty years. Recently, higher education has experiences a 13% cut whereas there has been a 436% increase in the fund allocation for the prisons. Kroll (2013) argues that the only period that the corrections saw a major cut in their budget is actually around 2007 just after the recession. Moreover, even after the year 1994, when the state of California went through a legislation augmentation for the deterrence of crime, the money allocation to correction facilities was increased. In fact, it is after this period that the state of California spent even more on these establishments (Kroll, 2013). This occurrence was due to the ever-increasing inmate population consequently prompting the need for a higher money allocation.
Population Growth
It is extremely important to observe and analyze the population trends of California if one wants to understand the increase of funding for prisons. With around 40 million residents, California is America’s most populous state. In the last thirty years, there has been a 57% population increase.
This chart demonstrates the comparison of the inmates’ population growth rates and higher-education students’ growth rates within the same 3 decades discussed above. It illustrates that both the student population and general population in the state have risen at a same rate. On the contrary, the number of inmates is seven times more than the overall rate of state population growth (Stelloh, 2013). In the late 1980s, the state witnessed the construction of more prison facilities. However, the overpopulation within prison facilities continued with most being forced to accommodate inmates double their designed capacity. However, the drop in state’s inmate population was a direct consequence of the effective administration under Brown who took effective measures for the reduction of state prisons’ population. In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that California must decrease its correction population to 137% of their design capacities. Thus, the administration started taking measures to decrease inmate population within the next two years (as ordered by the court) (Stelloh, 2013). This process also required more funding as it included inmates’ transference to prisons in other American states.
Expenditures
Solution
If the state wants to resolve the discussed issue of substantial prison funding at the expense of education systems, it should start with the inmate population reduction. The above study shows that the excessive correctional facilities’ population warrants for much spending, which is a problem. Therefore, reducing prison overcrowding will save taxpayers much money which the state can invest in other avenues that need these funds more. The state should devise policies that help reduce the inmate population. First, the state could begin by sending more foreign inmates to their countries. This process requires a much simpler international inmate transfer program. As a result, more than 54,200 foreign inmates can be sent back to their countries, saving the US about $6.8 million in expenditure (Bady & Konczal, 2012). Additionally, more rehabilitation programs that provide credit for release should be incorporated into the correction system. Platt (2014) states that such programs allow for the release of inmates after successful completion of the program.
Conclusion
Along with reducing criminal activities in California, the state should also adopt better policies that result in the incarceration of wrong doers. The perceived issue of inappropriate funding of government institutions stems right from legislation. Poor legislation will always have poor priorities. Better education will not only decrease the percentage of wrongdoers and criminals for their own selfish gains, it will also guarantee fewer convictions and lesser money requirements by prisons. Moreover, to secure more funding for the education system, the state has to fix the problems of unnecessary over-funding in other areas, such as the correction system.
References
Bady, A., & Konczal, M. (2012). From Master Plan to No Plan: The Slow Death of Public Higher Education. Dissent (00123846), 59(4), 10-16.
Bezahler, L. (2013). Will California Choose Prisons Over Schools- Again?. Nation, 297(14), 1-3.
Kroll, A. (2013). Back to $chool: College Is the Past, Prison Is the Future. New Labor Forum (Sage Publications Inc.), 22(2), 39-43. doi:10.1177/1095796013482889
Platt, T. (2014). In Recovery from Rehab. South Atlantic Quarterly, 113(3), 614-620. doi:10.1215/00382876-2692200
Reckdahl, K. (2015). Prison’s Long Reach into America’s Classrooms. Nation, 300(1), 12-17.
Stelloh, T. (2013). California's Great Prison Experiment. Nation, 296(26/27), 31-34.
