Interesting cost comparisons (July 1)
By Chuck Doud
The Madera Tribune
Sometimes a story comes along that is so outrageous it sounds like somebody made it up, but in this case I believe it to be true. It is an Associated Press piece out of Michigan which says, in effect, that Michigan wants to house California prisoners — to make money. And it sounds like Michigan would be able to make money and California would be able to save money, as well.
Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm has written California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger offering to house — for a fee — some of the Golden State’s inmates.
The reason for this is that Michigan is planning to close two prisons, but would like to keep them open to keep the guards in those places employed.
Shipping prisoners out of state would be nothing new for California, which already has 7,600 of its prisoners in private, out-of-state slammers.
But the most astounding thing about the whole story is this: It costs California an average of $46,000 a year per prisoner to house its prisoners in-state. Michigan, on the other hand, pays out about $30,000 per prisoner. That’s a $16,000 difference.
What? How can that be? Why is California paying 53 percent more per prisoner than Michigan?
Let’s see. Is Michigan in a third-world country, where anything goes in prisons? No. Do Michigan prisons have to meet federal guidelines? Yes, they do. Are Michigan prisons locked in a multi-billion lawsuit over prisoner health care? No. (California is.) Are Michigan prison guards unionized? Yes, as California’s are.
So, what do you suppose the difference is? Could it be that California just doesn’t know how to operate a prison system efficiently, while Michigan does? Could it be that the nation’s most expensive prison system is also its most wasteful? That might be the case.
Perhaps the smartest thing we could do would be to send all our prisoners out of state.
