County Commission | The Magazine July 2019 | Page 6

THE COUNTY LINE
N
Sonny Brasfield
Executive Director
State Prison
Gains Have Been
Expensive Losses
for Counties
No New Revenue
Provided at the
Local Level
6 | JULY 2019
ear the end of the 2019
Regular Legislative Session,
leaders from both the
House and Senate held a press
conference to discuss the state’s
prison crisis. We stood in the back
of the room and listened carefully.
The event was held to
reassure those in the U.S. Justice
Department that Alabama is focused
on addressing problems related
to overcrowding, underfunding,
prisoner safety and other matters.
Alabama’s counties face all of those
problems, as well.
Much of the discussion returned
to a comprehensive piece of
legislation passed during the 2015
session, one that legislative leaders
credit with reducing the prisoner
population inside the Alabama
Department of Corrections by about
4,000 inmates. From a purely state
perspective, perhaps the legislation
has been a success.
The overriding message we
heard at that event was something
like this — the 2015 legislation
has produced successes, and we’re
asking Gov. Kay Ivey to call a special
session so we can make additional
changes. We deflected reporters’
questions for comments and
responses that day. But this is not
a subject on which counties — or
sheriffs — can remain silent.
Here’s a quick snapshot.
The 2015 legislation called for
a stronger reliance on probation
and parole, providing additional
revenue to state agencies for the
hiring of more probation and parole
officers and encouraging the use of
community-based programs as an
alternative to state incarceration.
The new process relies on what was
designed to be short stays in county
jails as punishment for violators who
would have previously been returned
to state prison. Back in 2015, we
pushed for funding to reimburse
counties for these new costs, but no
new revenue was provided.
The use of community-based
programs — such as community
corrections, drug courts and
other programs — would be
encouraged as an alternative to state
incarceration. Back in 2015, we
pushed for funding to reimburse
counties for these new costs, but no
new revenue was provided.
The law created a new Class D
felony for certain property crimes
and provided that those convicted
could only serve their time in
county jails — rather than inside
state prison facilities. Back in 2015,
we pushed for funding to reimburse
counties for these new costs, but no
new revenue was provided.
Experts from around the county
testified that such legislation had
reduced state prisoner populations
in other jurisdictions — which no
one disputed. But in states hailed as
the model of success, such as North
Carolina, the state provided money
to reimburse the local governments
for the new costs being passed down
through the legislative reforms.
Back in 2015, we pushed for
funding to reimburse counties for
these new costs, but no new revenue
was provided.
The Association’s message at
that time was one of partnership
with the state and a willingness to
assist — but not to be a substitute
for — the state’s responsibility to
house, feed and provide care for
state inmates. Once the reforms