Rehabilitation in a Red State

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12182
• Date: 01 February 2016
• Published date: 01 February 2016
• Author: Derek M. Cohen,Angela J. Thielo,Cecilia Chouhy,Francis T. Cullen

RESEARCH ARTICLE

REHABILITATION IN A RED STATE

Rehabilitation in a Red State

Public Support for Correctional Reform in Texas

Angela J. Thielo

University of Cincinnati

Francis T.Cullen

University of Cincinnati

Derek M. Cohen

Texas Public Policy Foundation

Cecilia Chouhy

University of Cincinnati

Research Summary

Based on a 2013 survey of 1,001 likely voters in Texas, public support for correctional

reform in a “red state” was examined. Four major conclusions were revealed. First,

the respondents displayed strong support for rehabilitation. Second, at least for non-

violent and/or drug offenders, the sample members showed a clear preference for the

use of alternatives to incarceration as opposed to imprisonment. Third, when asked

about a specific policy reform that used treatment rather than prison for nonviolent

drug offenders, more than eight in ten Texans approved of the measure, and strong

majorities endorsed various rationales for it. Fourth, with some minor variation, the

respondents revealed substantial consensus across demographic groups in their embrace

of rehabilitation and correctional reform.

Policy Implications

With the growth of mass imprisonment arguably at its end, the existence of strong public

support for correctional reform even in the major red state of Texas, suggests that a new

“sensibility” about crime control has taken hold. There is now an emergent national

Direct correspondence to Angela J. Thielo, University of Cincinnati, School of Criminal Justice, PO Box 210389

Cincinnati, OH 45221-0389 (e-mail: ajthielo@gmail.com).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12182 C2015 American Society of Criminology 137

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 15 rIssue 1

Research Article Rehabilitation in a Red State

consensus that the overuse of incarceration is unsustainable and that low-risk offenders

no longer should be sanctioned with a prison sentence. The American public, in Texas

and beyond, is willing to support a policy agenda that includes offender treatment,

prison downsizing, and alternatives to incarceration. The challenge for elected officials

is to take advantage of this ideological space and to pursue this agenda. Notably,

politicians in Texas and in other red states are using this opportunity to implement

correctional policy reforms. The data in this study indicate that they will face no public

backlash and, if anything, will gain political capital for their efforts.

Keywords

correctional reform, downsizing, mass imprisonment, public opinion, rehabilitation

Texas is a prototypical “red state.” Since George W. Bush defeated Ann Richards

in the state’s 1994 gubernatorial election, Republicans have occupied the Texas

governorship. Indeed, in the ensuing two decades, the Republican Partyhas come

to dominate state politics. George W.Bush was succeeded in the governorship by Rick Perry

and now by Greg Abbott. In 2015, Republicans held every statewide elected post—totaling

more than 25—including all top executive offices, commissioners’ positions (e.g., agriculture

and railroad), and judicial seats (e.g., on the Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals)

(Cascos, 2015). In the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney defeated Barack Obama

by nearly 16%, carrying more than 57% of the state’s votes and nearly 90% of the state’s

254 counties (Wikipedia, 2015). Texas has two Republican U.S. Senators, John Cornyn

and Ted Cruz, who is the darling of the Tea Party and right-wing media pundits.

Not surprisingly, Texas has a history of get-tough correctional policies. Between 1977

(after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the death penalty constitutional) and 2013, Texas

executed 508 offenders. Only two other states—Virginia (110) and Oklahoma (108)—

have an execution total exceeding the 100 mark (Snell, 2014). In its prisons, the use of

authoritarian and coercive prison practices went largely unchallenged until a federal district

court issued a landmark ruling in Ruiz v. Estelle (1980), finding the state’s correctional

system to be in violation of constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment

(Marquart and Crouch, 1985; Perkinson, 2010).

Institutional crowding was not seriously addressed until 1987 when the Texas prison

system was forced to temporarily close its doors to new inmates for exceeding the new

population limits (Ethridge and Marquart, 1993). In response, the state focused almost

exclusively on expanding prison capacity, using partnerships with private companies to

finance, construct, and manage new facilities (Ethridge and Marquart, 1993; Perkinson,

2010). In 1993, the Texas Legislature approved a billion-dollar plan to build a “state jail”

system for low-level offenders, “essentially adding a new layer” of prisons to a system already

experiencing huge growth (Campbell, 2012: 298; Moll, 2012). Between 1990 and 1999,

the state’s inmate population increased threefold (Jillson, 2015). At year-end 2013, the

figure stood at 157,900 (Carson, 2014).

138 Criminology & Public Policy

Thielo et al.

In 2007, however, a key turning point occurred in Texas crime-control policy. Facing

projections indicating a need for at least 17,000 new prison beds by 2012 at a cost of ap-

proximately $2 billion, Governor Perryapproved significant anti-prison legislation (Council

of State Governments, 2009). Lawmakers that year rejected plans to fund new prisons and

instead allocated $241 million for the types of rehabilitation programs that had seen their

budgets slashed just a few years earlier (American Civil Liberties Union, 2011). With funds

budgeted for 10,000 new treatment slots, the reforms provided viable prison alternatives

to judges when sentencing low-level offenders, to probation and parole departments when

dealing with supervision violations, and to parole boards seeking community placements

when releasing inmates (Council of State Governments, 2009; Levin, 2011).

Since the landmark legislation of 2007, Texas legislators have enacted several additional

reforms designed to keep offenders out of prison and in the community. Thus, additional

funding for “problem-solving courts” (e.g., drug courts) has increased their number and

scope (American Civil Liberties Union, 2011). These courts seek to address offenders’

underlying criminogenic needs through community-based treatment and close supervision

(Belenko and Logan, 2003). A 2011 measure allocated 35% to 60% of prison cost savings

to counties that submit a plan to revoke fewer offenders to prison and that reach certain

rehabilitation objectives, including reducing the recidivism of their probationersand helping

more of them find jobs (Levin and Reddy, 2011). Texas leaders have also lessened some

barriers offenders face to reentry into society after a conviction and/or prison stay. One

measure approved in 2013 makes it easier for ex-offenders to obtain and keep occupational

licenses, whereas another prohibits the listing of a convicted sex offender’scurrent employer

on the sex offender registry (Levin and Reddy, 2013).

Between 1999 and 2013, Texas reduced its prison population by 10.5% (Roeder,Eisen,

and Bowling, 2015). In 2011, Texas was able to close a prison for the first time in its history,

trimming more than $40 million from the corrections budget (Levin and Reddy, 2011); two

privately run facilities were shuttered in 2013. Furthermore, Fabelo, Arrigona, Thompson,

Clemens, and Marchbanks (2015) report that due principally to reforms enacted since 2007,

the number of youthful offenders incarcerated in the state’s correctional facilities declined

approximately 66% by 2012, allowing the state to close eight juvenile correctional facilities.

Toa degree, the developments in Texasreflect the new political landscape in corrections,

where bipartisan support for prison downsizing and for redeeming offenders has taken hold

(Dagan and Teles, 2014; Petersilia and Cullen, 2015). At issue, however, is whether red

state citizens—in this case, the Texas public—will accept or resist efforts at correctional

reform. Are politicians out of step or in lock step with their constituency? It is possible

that conservative elected officials, especially red state governors, have embraced correctional

reform as a means of balancing budgets in the aftermath of the Great Recession of 2008 and

the declining tax revenues it produced (Aviram, 2015). If so, then they may be moving in

a policy direction not shared by the public, especially those on the political right. Political

resistance might eventually resurface as more right-wing candidates trumpet a platform of

Volume 15 rIssue 1 139