Government is very bad at spending now in order to save money in the future. The only exceptions are when you have a strong constituency lobbying for the spending. Were it not for the fact that kids have parents and grandparents who vote and who care deeply about their welfare, there is no way government would spend what it does on education, despite the obvious long-term benefits of the investment.
There is another group, who by spending money on education and counseling the government could save a lot of money in the long-term, which does not have the sympathy of the general public. And that is the prison population. After they leave jail, many if not most inmates quickly return to the life of drugs and crime that sent them to the slammer in the first place. While spending money on drug rehab, psychological counseling, and job training could greatly reduce the odds of these people returning to prison, thereby saving the state the great expense of incarcerating them, you would be hard pressed to get government to aside money for that when the budget battle comes around.
The obvious answer is a for-profit "Prisoner Education and Rehabilitation Corporation" (PERC), which gets paid if its "graduates" don't return to prison. Getting the state to agree to a future commitment to pay a company $5000 a year for every $30,000 a year it already saved the state in expenses would not be overly difficult. If a company feels that by spending money now they can save state money in the future, and they are willing to wait and accept as payment a percentage of those savings only when they become apparent, then give them the opportunity. Those companies whose students stay crime and drug free stand to make a lot of money while saving the state even more, while those whose techniques prove ineffective will lose their investment. A clear case where the capitalists can solve a problem the politicians couldn't afford to be bothered with.
I first posted this idea 6/23/2002.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
Curious, I'm voting for. This seems to be an excellent idea. My only thought is that there would have to be some degree of separation between released inmates and the prison corporation that rehabilitated them. So that, for example, the coporation would not be tempted to unfarily protect them from future prosecution. Otherwise, one could imagine a "bad equilibrium" in which these prisons become a front for organized crime.
Bravo. It is a much better then inmates living off tax payer money. I think inmates should not only be reformed, or educated in prison, but find someway to contribute to society. You should also be careful that you don't make prison a life people want to live. I've heard people who have committed crimes and been caught on purpose just to have 3 meals, and a warm place to sleep. It should still be a punishment. Maybe if students had to sleep in military suplus tents (like I heard a texas correction center), wear old fashioned black/white horizontal striped uniforms (same TX center) and work part time in a recycling center, or waste management center, or some other undesirable line of work, -as long as it does not pose a risk of escaping.
I support prison education, but only if it's run by the state. Private education is unaccountable to its pupils, the public, and the government.
Maybe. I worry about root causes that will not be affected. I worry that someone will arrest "good" people who are unlikely to return to prison. Will education do ANY good? But it is a worthy conversation at the very least.