IBJNews

Counties worry about cost of sentencing overhaul

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana counties could be forced to pay some of the costs of a change in the state's criminal code that is designed to keep low-level offenders out of prison while ensuring the worst serve more of their sentences.

The Times in Munster reports that the Probation Officers' Professional Association of Indiana predicts as many as 800 more probation officers will be needed statewide under the changes, which are scheduled to take effect July 1, 2014.

That's causing concern in cash-strapped places like Porter and Lake counties.

"At this point in time, any increase will affect our department negatively," said Lake County Chief Probation Officer Jan Parsons.

Parsons said the changes in state law, which lawmakers approved last month, put a greater burden on Lake County's already overloaded probation officers.

The ratio of offenders to officers was 40 to 1 in 1987 but has jumped to about 240 to 1 now, she said. Federal probation authorities recommend a caseload of no greater than 70 to 1.

Parsons said Lake County has 18 probation officers, but a recent study found it needs about 13 more.

Porter County Chief Probation Officer Stephen Meyer said he's worried that the changes, which will be reviewed by a legislative study committee this summer, could further strap an office that already faces challenges meeting salary increases required by the state.

About a third of the office's $1.8 million annual budget is covered by user fees set by the state. Local officials can't increase those fees, but the rest of the budget is funded with county tax dollars, he said.

Even though lawmakers will review the costs associated with the changes this summer, Meyer noted that lawmakers won't be writing a new state budget next year. That has raised concerns about whether county probation officials could receive additional money.

"We don't know where any money can come from," he said.

The law requires that most inmates serve at least 75 percent of their sentences. Current law allows most inmates to be released after serving half of their sentences or less if they stay out of trouble while behind bars.

It also expands to six the current number of felony levels and shifts people convicted of lower-level property or drug crimes to intensive local probation, work-release or addiction-treatment programs.

Supporters say they expect the changes to improve the state's justice system, reduce crime rates and reduce the need for new prisons.

The new code is the first significant change to the state's criminal laws since 1977.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT