Corrections Costs, Department of Corrections, WI Legislative Audit Bureau
Download original document:
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau 97-18 Corrections Costs, Department of Corrections Summary As prison populations have increased, the State’s corrections system has required an increasing proportion of state expenditures. Between fiscal years (FYs) 1985-86 and 1995-96, when total general purpose revenue (GPR) spending increased 67 percent, the average daily adult inmate population doubled and expenditures for the adult corrections system increased 129.4 percent, from approximately $121.6 million to an estimated $279.0 million. This figure includes $212.8 million in direct costs of adult correctional facilities, as well as $66.2 million in department-wide costs associated with adult facilities, such as training for new correctional officers and contract costs for inmates housed in non-department facilities. Excluded are costs that are not related to incarcerating adults, such as the costs of supervising offenders on parole and housing juvenile offenders. The Department of Corrections predicts both adult inmate populations and expenditures will continue to increase into the foreseeable future. In light of this growth, legislators have raised questions about the factors affecting the costs of the state corrections system and how Wisconsin’s costs compare with those of other states. Therefore, at the direction of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee we reviewed: the Department’s adult corrections system costs by security level; Wisconsin’s daily per inmate costs compared to those of other midwestern states and Texas; efforts to contract for corrections services in Wisconsin and other states, including the effect of such efforts on reducing corrections costs; and cost, access, and effectiveness of inmate rehabilitation opportunities, including work and job training programs. The State’s contracts to house inmates in Texas county jails have prompted questions about how Wisconsin’s costs compare to those of other states. Based on a national survey by the Criminal Justice Institute, Wisconsin’s daily per inmate cost of $53.51 ranks 30th among the states and is slightly higher than the national average. To control for differences in how states may report their costs, we directly surveyed four neighboring states. After adjustments, Wisconsin’s daily cost per inmate ($50.93) was comparable to costs in Iowa ($50.05) and Illinois ($47.95), and significantly lower than costs in Minnesota ($90.92) and Michigan ($61.52). Differences in the number of institutions in a state’s system, the population of each institution, security needs, facility design, and the number and types of programs offered make cost comparisons among states extremely difficult to interpret. Nevertheless, the largest single factor in corrections costs is staffing, and some limited data are available to compare staffing costs. Two factors have a significant effect on staffing costs: salary levels and inmate-to-staff ratios. Entry-level salaries for Wisconsin correctional officers are below both the averages for midwestern states and the national average. Wisconsin’s overall inmate-to-security staff ratio is the same as the national average of 4.5 inmates to each correctional officer, but slightly below the midwestern average of 4.8 inmates to each correctional officer. This difference is equal to 4 percent of Wisconsin’s security staff, or 121 officers. However, it does not take into account potential differences among the states that would affect staffing decisions, such as building design and the level of security at the institutions being compared. Costs also vary considerably among institutions within Wisconsin. Average daily costs are $61.71 at the maximum-security institutions, $45.56 at the medium-security institutions, and $44.46 at the minimum-security centers. These differences are influenced, in part, by the different staffing ratios used at each security level, with 1 officer for every 3.6 maximum-security inmates, 1 per 4.8 medium-security inmates, and 1 per 5.6 minimum-security inmates. We were not able to analyze other factors affecting cost differences among Wisconsin correctional facilities because the Department has not standardized reporting and record-keeping requirements, and individual facilities define and report their operating costs differently. For example, while all facilities provide rehabilitation programs, only four report those costs separately. Consequently, while the Department annually reports costs by facility, its facility cost data cannot be used to evaluate cost differences or the efficiency of individual facilities, or to determine the areas of expenditure that are increasing the fastest. This report includes recommendations for the Department to standardize financial reporting requirements for individual facilities so that costs and potential efficiencies can be better analyzed. As incarceration costs have increased, corrections officials in Wisconsin and nationally have looked to privatization of services as one way of controlling or reducing costs. In addition, because contracting can be an appealing option for managing fluctuating inmate population levels, states are increasingly using contracts with private and public entities as a means of expanding capacity. However, recent controversial incidents involving the conduct of some private prison operators that house inmates from other states have illustrated the importance of states’ efforts to ensure the accountability of the providers of corrections-related services. Until FY 1996-97, Wisconsin made relatively limited use of contracting, except in the provision of specialized health care services to inmates and in contracts for bed space in Wisconsin county jails. However, in the past year, the Department has significantly expanded its use of contracting both for services within the Department’s facilities and for bed space in other facilities. The 1997-99 biennial budget contains several initiatives that will further increase privatization of corrections activities. As of October 1997, the Department contracted for housing for 1,158 minimum- and medium-security inmates in facilities it does not operate. Under these contracts, 943 inmates were housed in Wisconsin and Texas county jails, and 215 inmates were housed in a federal prison in Duluth, Minnesota. The FY 1997-99 biennial budget significantly expands the ability of the Department to contract for the housing of inmates in non-department facilities. In FY 1995-96, the Department spent approximately $8.3 million to house adult inmates under contracts with Wisconsin county jails. In FY 1996-97, the Department began to contract for prison beds in out-of-state facilities in Texas and Duluth, with expenditures of $7.2 million for Wisconsin jail contracts, $2.4 million for Texas jail contracts, and $569,000 for the contract with the federal facility in Minnesota. While Wisconsin’s average cost for housing inmates is $53.51 per inmate per day, contract costs are $39.96 per inmate per day under the Texas contract, $43.34 under the contract with the federal prison in Duluth, and $60.00 under contracts with most Wisconsin counties. However, comparing Wisconsin’s average daily cost to these contract costs does not recognize differences in the security levels and programs offered under contract, or the Department’s costs related to contracting for bed space. Differences between contract costs and the Department’s daily per inmate costs can be attributed to several factors, including differences in compensation for correctional officers. Salaries of the Department’s security staff are higher than those of staff in Texas jails and lower than those of staff in Wisconsin county jails. For example, after one year of experience, excluding fringe benefits, a correctional officer would earn an average annual salary of $18,000 in Bowie County, Texas; $28,800 in Outagamie County; and $20,373 if employed by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections. Daily per inmate costs are also affected by the level of security required, the amount and type of health care services provided, and differences in rehabilitation programs available to inmates. For example, the Department does not transfer its highest-cost inmates— those requiring maximum-security or inmates with health conditions—to non-department facilities. The provisions of the Department’s contract with the Texas jails require that Wisconsin inmates be provided the same type and level of programs and services available to all other inmates housed in the jails. While some information is available on the types of programs offered, the Department has no data on the number of inmates who enroll in, or complete, these programs. Because the Department has only limited descriptive information about the programs and services available in Texas, including the specific content or intensity of rehabilitation programs and inmate access to them, it is not possible to compare the programs and services available to inmates in Texas with rehabilitation program opportunities in Wisconsin. Also, while the contracted daily costs for housing inmates in Texas and Minnesota are substantially lower than average daily costs in Wisconsin’s institutions, the actual savings to the State are less than this would indicate because the contracts do not reflect the Department’s costs for transportation, medical services, and contract monitoring. These additional costs increase the actual cost of housing inmates in the Texas jails to an average of $43.04 per day for medium-security inmates with no significant health conditions; in comparison, Wisconsin’s average cost for medium-security institutions, including all health costs, is $45.56 per day. Wisconsin’s average cost for minimumsecurity centers, including all health costs, is $44.46. In addition to contracts for bed space in non-department facilities, Wisconsin also contracts for services provided within state facilities. The Department spent approximately $6.6 million on service contracts related to the adult institutions in FY 1995-96. The Department’s contract for outpatient and inpatient specialty health care services from the University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics accounted for $3.9 million of these expenditures. The Department is expanding the scope of its service contracts with private vendors at its two newest facilities, the Prairie du Chien juvenile facility, which it is authorized to operate as a state adult prison until June 30, 1999, and the super-maximum prison in Boscobel, which is scheduled to open in August 1999. Health care, food, laundry, and other services at these facilities will be provided by private vendors. While the immediate cost-effectiveness of housing contracts has been of secondary concern because of overcrowding, cost-effectiveness should be of significant importance to the State in contracting for food and health services at the new facilities at Prairie du Chien and Boscobel. Our analysis of the Prairie du Chien contracts, as well as analyses of the cost-effectiveness of health and food services contracts in other states, indicate that contracting for such services does not always cost less. The Department’s contracts for food and health services at Prairie du Chien are 21.8 percent higher than its average costs for providing similar services directly at institutions of similar size. To manage its resources most effectively and ensure that the desired goals of contracting are actually met, whether they be cost savings or improved services, the Department will need to approach decisions to contract for services in a more systematic and businesslike manner. To do that, the State will need to establish clearly defined objectives against which the contract services, costs, or performance can be assessed. Once the decision to contract has been made, the Department will need to develop detailed, enforceable contracts and adequately monitor the services. Based on our reviews of purchasing practices in the past, as well as our December 1996 best practices review of local government privatization of services, we have identified a number of model contracting steps against which the Department should compare its own efforts. While the Department has limited flexibility in controlling security costs, it has considerably more discretion over rehabilitation costs, which accounted for approximately $35.8 million in FY 1995-96. Questions have been raised about the level of spending for rehabilitation programs, both to determine the extent to which such programs contribute to overall incarceration costs and to determine the extent to which they are being provided to increase the likelihood that inmates will make successful transitions into the community at the end of their prison sentences. In this report, rehabilitation programs include both work and non-work opportunities provided to adult inmates, because both types of opportunities are provided for similar reasons: to reduce disruptive behaviors that inhibit an inmate’s ability to live in the general prison population; to reduce inmate idleness and the associated security concerns; and to influence the behavior of inmates, and thus reduce the likelihood that they will return to prison once their prison sentences are completed. Work opportunities include institutional jobs, Badger State Industries, the prison farm system, and work release; non-work rehabilitation opportunities include education and treatment programs. Approximately 6,000 jobs are available to adult inmates. In total, the Department spent approximately $19.6 million on inmate work opportunities in FY 199596. However, these costs were partially offset by approximately $16.7 million in product sales revenues and reimbursements to the Department generated by inmate labor. In addition to work opportunities, the Department provides a variety of other treatmentand education-based rehabilitation programs, such as basic academic education, vocational education, alcohol and other drug abuse (AODA) treatment, sex offender treatment, aggression management, and other programs such as parenting programs and childhood abuse counseling. Most inmates with identified education or treatment needs receive at least one non-work rehabilitation program during their incarceration, but participation in non-work rehabilitation programs is voluntary and may be discontinued or denied for disciplinary or other reasons. In FY 1995-96, total expenditures for these programs was approximately $16.2 million. As inmates enter the correctional system, they are assessed through testing and a review of their backgrounds to determine their rehabilitation needs. To determine whether inmates with identified needs are provided access to programs, we reviewed the records of a sample of 400 inmates released during FY 1995-96 and FY 1996-97. Of the 334 inmates who were identified as having one or more rehabilitation needs, 38.9 percent received no programs, while 61.1 percent participated in one or more programs. Few inmates with multiple rehabilitation needs had all identified needs met. We also noted variation in the availability of different types of programs. For example, for all inmates released during FY 1995-96, 53.4 percent of the need for basic academic education and 41.8 percent of the need for aggression management was met, but only 30.4 percent of the need for sex offender treatment and 31.5 percent of the need for AODA treatment was met. According to staff in the Department, several factors preclude every identified need from being met, including overcrowded conditions that exceed capacity to provide programs, as well as the difficulty in meeting the rehabilitation needs of those incarcerated for only short periods of time. While the Department attempts to track progress in providing programs to inmates, many of the status codes it uses have multiple definitions. For example, if an inmate’s file indicates a status code of "unavailable," it could mean that the inmate is unavailable to participate in the program because he or she lacks certain skills or is in segregation, or it could mean the program is not offered at the institution where the inmate is incarcerated. Without more precise information, the Department cannot adequately analyze the reasons rehabilitation needs are met or not met, and it is hampered in making the most effective use of existing resources. We also noted the Department has not directly evaluated the effectiveness of its programs. Because the array of programs offered by the Department is similar to that of many other states, we reviewed 11 national studies on the effectiveness of rehabilitation and treatment programs and interviewed corrections staff from four other states. While programs are provided for multiple reasons, program effectiveness has generally been evaluated only in terms of recidivism. While we found some studies that concluded AODA treatment and first-time sex offender treatment programs reduced recidivism rates, other studies concluded non-work rehabilitation programs had no measurable effect on recidivism. However, limitations in many of the studies’ designs, such as short study periods and difficulties identifying control groups, restrict their usefulness. To ensure the most effective use of available rehabilitation funds, the Department will need to begin evaluating the success of each of its programs in meeting established goals. While the Department has begun to establish some goals for two of its programs, additional efforts will be necessary to establish goals and to monitor the performance of all rehabilitation programs. We have included in this report suggestions to the Department on how to increase the usefulness of its current plans for evaluating program effectiveness. We have also included recommendations to the Department for improving its information on inmate rehabilitation activity, so that the effect of specific program decisions—such as standardizing curricula among facilities—can be evaluated in the future. South Carolina -- http://www.doc.sc.gov/FAQs/FAQs.html 4. How much does it cost to build a prison? SCDC's recent capital improvements plan estimates construction costs by facility type, in 2003 dollars: 500-bed maximum security institution - $40 million ($80,000 per bed) 1,500-bed high security institution - $80 million ($53,333 per bed) 1,200-bed medium security institution - $60 million ($50,000 per bed) 256-bed minimum security facility - $10.6 million ($41,406 per bed) http://realcostofprisons.org/blog/archives/2005/03/lawsuits_challe.html March 09, 2005 Lawsuits Challenge Prison Conditions HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - Civil rights groups are challenging conditions in many of the nation's most restrictive maximum-security prisons because they believe long-term isolation breeds mental illness among inmates. Chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union have filed lawsuits across the country seeking changes to such prisons, many of which lock dangerous felons in isolated confinement for all but three to five hours a week. The lawsuits, filed in Connecticut, Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio and New Mexico, claim that a disproportionate number of prisoners are mentally ill and not receiving proper medical treatment. ''The people who end up in 'supermax' prisons tend to be emotionally disjointed and behaviorally have a real difficult time with themselves,'' said Dr. Stuart Grassian, a former Harvard University professor who has written articles on the psychiatric effects of solitary confinement. ''Putting them in these environments makes it phenomenally worse.'' Former inmate Bob Dellelo, who served 40 years in a Massachusetts prison, described living in solitary confinement as ''maddening.'' Dellelo was convicted in 1964 for his part in a jewelry store robbery that resulted in the death of a police detective. He later was allowed to change his plea to a lesser manslaughter charge and was released on parole in 2003. Dellelo, who now lives in Revere, served five years in a segregation unit at Walpole State Prison as punishment for escaping from the Old Colony Correctional Center in 1993. ''I thought I was losing my mind,'' he said. The ACLU's lawsuits allege that even the healthiest of inmates succumb to mental illness if they are only allowed minimal human contact, recreation or programming. A complaint filed against the Connecticut Department of Correction in August 2003 said some prisoners at the Northern Correctional Institute are ''subjected to social isolation and sensory deprivation that approach the limits of human endurance.'' They lash out by swallowing razors, smashing their heads into walls or cutting their flesh, the lawsuit claims. Connecticut prisons spokesman Brian Garnett said many inmates at Northern are allowed to participate in programs, such as anger management. Prisoners can also earn their way back into the general prison population, he said. A similar lawsuit filed last month in Indiana blamed the deaths of four mentally ill inmates on isolated prison conditions at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility. ''These places are restrictive, oppressive and destructive environments,'' said David Fathi, an attorney with the ACLU National Prison Project. But those who work within the correction system say isolated confinement is a necessity for violent prisoners who pose a threat to other inmates and staff. Three correctional officers have been killed by prisoners who are now living in segregated units in Michigan's Ionia Maximum Correctional Facility, said Leo Lalonde, a spokesman for the state's Department of Correction. ''So I mean these people have demonstrated through their behavior that they deserve to be locked up 23 1/2 hours a day,'' Lalonde said. ''They have shown us that they are not willing participants to get the programming and to get rehabilitated. That's the thinking.'' Fathi estimates that in the 1990s, more than 30 states operated so-called ''superma''x prisons - maximum-security facilities that keep inmates isolated for long stretches. But in recent years, both Virginia and Michigan have converted supermax units to regular maximum security prisons, and Maryland has announced plans to transfer most of its supermax inmates to other facilities by the end of the year. Connecticut agreed last March that it would no longer keep seriously mentally ill inmates in the segregation program unless the state deems it absolutely necessary. The agreement has not been put into effect because the two sides are still deciding how to monitor compliance. A federal judge must also approve the agreement. Charles Cabone, a human rights attorney in California, attributes the trend to the hefty price tag that comes with such restrictive prisons. He said they tend to be much more expensive since paid employees maintain the facility instead of inmates and prison trusties. The California Prison Focus organization estimates that a super maximumsecurity prison in California costs $57,000 per prisoner per year, compared to $26,000 per inmate in a regular prison. ''There's also going to be a cost increase because of all these mental health issues,'' Cabone said. ''It costs money to take care of these prisoners.'' Daily Hampshire Gazette, Northampton, MA On the Net: http://www.aclu.org/Prisons/ http://www.doc.state.nc.us/dop/cost/cost2001.htm Cost of Supervision Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Cost of Prison Incarceration At the start of 2002, North Carolina's prison system consisted of 76 prison units of various sizes with six of the units having a standard operating capacity of less than 100 inmates. The three smallest units - Wilmington, Blue Ridge, Black Mountain, and Union - had average daily populations of 35, 60 and 72 respectively. The two largest facilities, North Carolina Correctional Institution for Women and Central Prison each held more than 1,000 inmates. The state's legacy of small prisons comes from its history. Most prisons were built during the Depression years when the state assumed responsibility from the counties for housing prison road crews. This legacy, coupled with the large number of small prison units, is what drives up the cost of North Carolina's prison system. For example, the Fiscal Year 2000-2001 per inmate daily operating cost of the medium security prison unit at Cleveland County (avg. daily population 122) was $75.01 per inmate per day compared to the $56.62 per inmate daily operating cost of the medium security unit at Brown Creek, a newer prison with a daily average of 834 inmates. Thus, it is readily apparent that the economy of scale spreads out the fixed operating costs in larger units operated by the Division of Prisons and lowers the per inmate average daily operating costs. During the 1990's the NC Department of Correction has carried out an extensive program of prison consolidation, building and opening newer and larger prisons and closing many of the small, outdated prisons with high costs of supervision. In early 2001, construction was beginning on three new 1,000 cell close custody prisons in Alexander, Scotland and Anson counties. Costs by prison security level The system wide average operational cost for housing inmates in North Carolina prisons in Fiscal Year 2000-2001 was $63.43 per day. COSTS PER INMATE PER DAY FY 2000-2001 close custody $84.21 medium custody $67.43 minimum custody $54.02 average $65.29 With the recent closings of many small prisons, the differences in supervision costs between prisons have narrowed considerably. In 2000-2001 facilities that house close custody inmates ranged in cost from $98.74 per day per inmate at Caledonia Correctional Institution (average population 542) to $68.16 for Southern Correctional Institution (average population 721). For medium custody, the costs ranged from $82.52 per day at Piedmont Correctional Institution (average population 696) to $53.73 at Craggy Correctional Center (average population 402 ). Minimum security facilities ranged from $110.82 at Scotland Correctional Center (average population 61) to $31.28 at Charlotte Correctional Center (average population 243). The state's only maximum security institution, Central Prison in Raleigh (average population 1,009), operated at a cost of $104.44 per inmate per day. http://220.127.116.11/search?q=cache:lsvdUA0CM2kJ:www.dcor.state.ga.us/pdf/FY05C osts.pdf+cost+prison+%22maximum+security%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=17&clie nt=firefox-a GEORGIA FY2005 costs of adult offender sanctions Georgia Department of Corrections December 2005 Cost per Bed Capital Outlay (construction) Costs Capital Outlay (construction) Costs 1 Minimum security prison One dormitory (double bunks) Medium security prison Four general population cellblocks (double bunks) One special management unit (single bunks) One dormitory (double bunks) Close security prison Three close units (double bunks) One dormitory (double bunks) One max security unit (single bunks) Maximum security prison Two maximum security cellblocks (single bunks) $26,298 $50,410 $65,784 $90,822 http://www.window.state.tx.us/tpr/atg/atgps/ps03.html TEXAS – fiscal report re prisons, “Reduce Prison Operating Costs Through Improved Unit Design and Electronic Security Devices” Fiscal Impact For every planned maximum-security bed that could be replaced with a new mediumsecurity bed, the state could save $10,000. On a 2,250-bed unit, the amount saved would be $22.5 million in general obligation bonds, which would not have to be issued. The estimated annual operating savings, at a minimum, would be more than $2,100 per bed changed from maximum to medium security. http://www.post-gazette.com/scrutiny/day2.asp Pennsylvania The average annual cost for housing an inmate in a state prison is about $22,000; at SCI Greene, it is $22,940. Department of Corrections officials said figures weren't available for the average cost of its maximum-security inmates, but nationwide, a maximumsecurity facility costs $50,000 per prisoner per year or more -- more than tuition at some of the nation's best universities. Massachusetts The MA Department of Correction (DOC) by the Number prepared by: Angela Antoniewicz August 2004 (The Governor’s Commission on Corrections Reform Report (June, 2004) contains a wealth of statistics, many more than can be presented on two pages. Some of the more extreme numbers are without context or with incomplete context, making their significance questionable. This sheet uses those statistics for which a context exists, or can be provided). Number of minimum-security facilities in operation before June 2002: 10 Number of minimum-security facilities in operation today: 5 Number of minimum-security and pre-release beds lost due to facilities closing since June 2002: 632 Massachusetts’ rank in staff-to-inmate ratio in the nation: 2nd (1:2) Federal prison staff-to-inmate ratio: 1:4.3 Increase in staffing expenditures since 1995, adjusting for inflation: 29% ($200 to $312 million) Average time served in Massachusetts (MA) state prison: 5 years Average cost of incarcerating offenders in MA: $43,000 per person per year Cost of housing a maximum-security inmate in MA annually: $48,000 http://18.104.22.168/search?q=cache:XEGXtjl3qh4J:www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa/Pub lications/Notes/2001Notes/NotesMayJun01.pdf+%22average+cost%22+%22maximum+s ecurity%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7&client=firefox-a Michigan, 2001 Table 1 Average Costs of Incarcerating a Prisoner for Each Security Classification Level Based on Gross Appropriation FY 1999-2000 Security Level Annual Cost/Prisoner Daily Cost/Prisoner Level I $16,584 $45 Level II 20,131 55 Level III 22,114 60 Level IV 34,732 95 Level V & VI 33,946 93 Multi-level 20,952 57 Source: Department of Corrections, “Average Costs by Type of Supervision, Gross Appropriation, FY 2000" http://22.214.171.124/search?q=cache:W6iXp3AZeBcJ:www.doc.state.ok.us/Private%25 20Prisons/FY%25202005%2520Projected%2520Operating%2520Costs%2520ODOC%2 520Vs%2520Private.pdf+%22average+cost%22+%22maximum+security%22&hl=en&g l=us&ct=clnk&cd=12&client=firefox-a Oklahoma 2005 Projected Operating Costs For Fiscal Year 2005 At Institutions Operated By The Oklahoma Department of Corrections FY 2005 Budgeted Operating Cost Maximum Security $53.18 per day Medium Security (Proposed Facility) $58.69 per day Medium Security - Male $45.14 per day Medium Security - Female $47.16 per day Minimum Security – Male $42.80 per day Minimum Security – Female $37.27 per day Community Corrections $40.43 per day Work Centers $31.11 per day http://126.96.36.199/search?q=cache:29xx2BY2fesJ:www.corrections.ky.gov/NR/rdonl yres/F2CC1155-865A-4739-A652C84BBE16460F/0/cost0203.pdf+%22average+cost%22+%22maximum+security%22&h l=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=21&client=firefox-a Kentucky 2002-2003 (per diem / annual per bed) Maximum Security - KSP $63.28 $23,096.08 Medium Security - Private & Public (excluding KSR, KCIW, LLCC) $39.88 $14,556.07 Medium Security - Public Only (excluding KSR, KCIW, LLCC) $39.36 14,404.68 Minimum Security- State Only $38.93 $14,209.59 Extraordinary Facilities (KSR, KCIW, LLCC) $59.20 $21,667.31 Minimum Security - Private & Public $37.26 $13,600.16 http://www.doc.state.co.us/DeathRow/deathrow.asp Colorado (current) The average cost of incarcerating inmates at the Colorado State Penitentiary, including death row inmates, is $103.58 per day. The Colorado State Penitentiary is a Security Level V facility (maximum security) with a mission of incarcerating high-risk offenders. Due to heightened security requirements and increased staffing needs, the associated costs are higher than a lower security facility. http://mail.google.com/mail/?auth=DQAAAGkAAADsxMLTV1uOqP0PQw6tHpXhiDG l50LXqAhHj3fqW7568BrGWMhZcCyWSvi4l8bVoL6NkBl9w2mGlCSenoatbE8cYbEC e6nQFENDmNYnpa4r1eP6dKreG63lzV2GgCEZKA6fT4qqgj8Fztnpg83toyee&shva=1 Mississippi MDOC’s FY 2001 costs per inmate day for individual security classifications in a 1,000bed facility were as follows: minimum security, $38.71; medium security, $42.93; and maximum security, $66.62. MDOC’s FY 2001 costs per inmate day for security classifications in a 500-bed psychiatric correctional facility were $55.00 for medium security and $70.10 for maximum security.