Numbers misleading in prison cost debate

The chattering class in Alaska has been abuzz lately with news that it will cost the state $71 million a year to run its new prison at Point MacKenzie.

Legislators convened to discuss the matter last month at a state Senate committee hearing were shocked — shocked — that it would be so much more expensive to house inmates in Alaska than it is to house them in the Lower-48.

Far from shocked, we at the Frontiersman are puzzled. These elected officials might not have known it was going to be more expensive, but we certainly did. And the state’s head of prisons, Joe Schmidt, has been saying as much for at least a year. We noted it in an editorial in this space 10 months ago when we held up the Goose Creek Correctional Center as being indicative of a failure in outsourcing.

It costs more for the government to provide these types of services than it does the private sector. And why else do you outsource something if not to save money?

So maybe these senators are upset about exactly how much more it will cost to open the prison than to house our prisoners in Colorado. That’s a legitimate concern, but to some degree we think their numbers are off.

Yes, it costs $22 million a year now to house prisoners Outside. Yes, it would cost $22 million a year to mothball the Goose Creek Correctional Center, and yes, it will cost $71 million a year to run the new prison.

But for one thing, that $22 million is the cost to house fewer than 1,000 Alaskans currently doing their time Outside. Goose Creek will house 1,536 prisoners. Doing the math shows that comparison isn’t apples to apples. The cost of housing 1,000 prisoners Outside is $22,000 per prisoner per year. Housing 1,536 prisoners here for that same $22 million works out to $14,322 per prisoner per year. If we housed the same number of prisoners who can be held at Goose Creek Outside, the cost swells to nearly $33.8 million.

So, in addition to bringing those inmates home, the state is buying at least 536 new beds above its current capacity, which is about the same as the capacity of the Spring Creek Correctional Center in Seward.

Opening Goose Creek will alleviate overcrowding in the state’s other prisons, which are stuffed to the gills. What would it cost to build another facility to address that problem?

One figure Schmidt provided lawmakers, but which has been mostly lost in this debate, is the per-bed cost of running the prison. He said that at Goose Creek, the cost will be somewhere between housing an inmate in Seward and housing one at the Palmer Correctional Center. That’s about right, he said, since Seward’s prison is a more secure facility than Goose Creek and Palmer is less secure.

But really what all this talk of mothballing the prison ignores is that right now the state is paying at least $22 million a year to an Outside corporation. That is money that does nothing to help Alaska.

Bringing the prisoners home means the money spent on their rehabilitation and oversight remains in the state.

Prison guards drawing state salaries will buy homes and cars, consumer goods and food. And the money will circulate throughout Alaska.

But even more important is the cost of recidivism. If the state has proven, as we believe it has, that it has a better shot at rehabilitating these criminals in Alaska than it does Outside, the state — and prisoners — should be given that chance.

We prefer to see prisoners serve their time, get out and stay out because recidivism is expensive. And because rehabilitation is a better than building more prisons.