Coalition Opposes Sending Vermont Prisoners Out of State

On Oct. 30, a letter was delivered to the Vermont  Governor’s administration and to political candidates advocating for the return of Vermont prisoners that are being held in out-of-state, private, for-profit prisons. Nearly thirty Vermont organizations, groups and businesses signed the document. The effort to bring prisoners back has been spearheaded by the grant-funded group,

Vermonters for Criminal Justice Reform, established in 2013.

On its website, the group states, “At VCJR we believe the state will save money and create more productive communities by limiting incarceration to what works, based on evidence, and redirecting spending to job training, treatment, and education.”

Currently, approximately 500 of the state’s 2,000 prisoners are sent to institutions in Kentucky and Arizona. The practice started in 1998 due to overcrowding at Vermont facilities. These private prisons are owned by the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). Activists reject the CCA’s business model, which they state in their letter, “is driven by a perverse incentive: the more people incarcerated…the more money for shareholders.”

The CCA has responded by asserting that the company has provided its inmates from Vermont with an array of educational, mental health and faith-based programs over the years they have held prisoners from Vermont.

The contract with the CCA is up for renewal next year. Suzi Wizowaty, a state legislator from Burlington and the leader of VCJR has stated, “We’re trying to use this opportunity of expiring of the contract with CCA to bring people’s attention to the fact that we use CCA, and it’s an ineffective response.”

The cost of housing prisoners in Kentucky and Arizona is seemingly cheaper than keeping them in Vermont, $67.43 and $74.30 a day, respectively, compared to $159 a day. However, other costs offset this disparity, including the funds necessary to send employees to visit these out-of-state prisoners, such as caseworkers who meet with inmates.

The real cost of holding inmates out of state, activists say, falls on families. Many do not have the financial means to visit their relatives in out-of-state prisons. Video communication options, such as Skype or FaceTime, are not available, and phone calls can be expensive as well. This disconnect also has adverse effects on the prisoners. Many have written letters from prison describing the isolation of their sentence, which research has shown negatively impacts a prisoner’s reintegration into society.

Another point of contention surrounding use of out-of-state prisons is that only males are sent to such facilities. This practice was declared unconstitutional in a court decision over the summer written by Judge Helen Toor, a Vermont Superior Court Judge. She claimed that males were being denied equal protection and that there is no constitutional justification for treating male and female inmates differently. Michael Carpenter, a Vermont inmate being held in a Kentucky prison, challenged the law and brought the case forward.

The decision included particular emphasis on how the system separates inmates from their children and cites national data that shows prisoners who visit with their children are more likely to get a full-time job upon release and are less likely to be repeat offenders. The Department of Corrections defended itself by insisting that there is no constitutionally protected right to visitation.

As it is unlikely that a fiscally struggling state government could find the estimate $100 million needed to build a new prison to expand its capacity, the proposed solution is to reduce the number of incarcerated people. The letter cites success in reducing prison populations in New York, New Jersey and California as affirmation that such a goal is feasible.  The state Corrections

Commissioner Andy Pollito has expressed hesitancy toward change by telling the Associated Press that the state has managed to stem sharp growth of its prison population. Though the Vermont prisoner population is decreasing steadily by about 13 inmates per year, the activists wish for more aggressive change.

Some suggestions to help realize this goal include treatment for mental health issues and addiction instead of incarceration, particularly for those who have committed non-violent drug-related crimes, as well as helping inmates find housing after their sentence so they are not waiting in prison. Karen Richards, executive director of the Vermont Human Rights Commission, stated that funds should be repurposed “to provide the treatment and services necessary to help former offenders be successful and productive members of their communities.”

The groups have called for a meeting at the Statehouse on November 19th in the House Judiciary committee. However, a tepid state response to the movement – called Locked Up & Shipped Away – makes its success uncertain.