House talks prison closures and cost saving
By Christina Lengyel | The Center Square
(The Center Square) – Potential facilities closures announced in February were top of mind for representatives as they questioned officials from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and Board of Probation and Parole.
Some legislators expressed concern about capacity at the state’s remaining facilities if Rockwell and Quehanna were to close. Others worried about the economic impact in the regions where those facilities operate.
“We invite that feedback. That’s what this time period is for,” said department Secretary Dr. Laurel Harry, who emphasized that the proposed changes were part of the process put forward by the legislature’s Act 133.
Christopher Oppman, deputy secretary of administration, said that looking at operations like this is standard practice ahead of each budget year. In accordance with Act 133, the agency made the proposal at the recommendation of a steering committee and is now within a three-month public feedback period before making a final decision.
The steering committee responsible for the initial recommendation is an internal group made up of department heads and other officials like Oppman himself. Local officials and groups are now invited to give feedback, but some indicated they want in on the process sooner.
They echoed a sentiment shared by the Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association who claimed that the steering committee veiled a foregone conclusion about closing the facilities. Despite assurances that the closures would not result in layoffs, but that staff would be offered commensurate positions elsewhere, the organization’s initial response was scathing.
“The men and women who work in Pennsylvania’s state prisons work daily with the most dangerous people in this commonwealth,” reads a statement from the association. “Our members are remarkable public servants who deserve better than to be treated like this. So much better.”
Staffing shortages among correctional officers are at about 4.8%, says Harry, but she says the level of vacancies varies from facility to facility. In the event of a closure, officers would have the opportunity to seek out new roles that appeal to them.
Moving staff to other facilities would, Oppman says, help them to address vacancies and focus on “mission-based” hiring that would reduce attrition. Harry also noted that the agency was struggling to recruit more Black men to work in facilities to create a workforce more reflective of the populations.
Representatives across the aisle shared concerns about both officer and inmate safety. Harry said that the agency’s findings did not suggest an increase of violence if the facilities were to close. Rather, they expect the system overall to remain at or below 90% capacity for men and 80% capacity for women.
If the facilities were to close, it would mean a savings of $120 million next year. For context, the two department’s combined proposed budget for 2025-2026 is $3.3 billion, a $143 million, or 4.5% increase from last year.
One cost saving measure that has enjoyed the support of several legislators is improving medical release programs. Rep. Emily Kinkead, D-Pittsburgh, referred to two of the state’s facilities, SCI Waymart and SCI Laurel Highlands, as “effectively nursing homes with bars on the windows.”
Harry noted that sometimes inmates with serious medical conditions and behavioral health issues are difficult to place back in the community and that the cost saved by the department would ultimately fall to other state agencies.
A proposed waiver for a medical assistance re-entry program for inmates already scheduled for release is currently awaiting consideration by the House Judiciary Committee. The legislation would allow for a 30-day medication supply and transition directly into drug and alcohol counseling and services for inmates with histories of substance abuse. Proponents say this will reduce relapse, overdose and recidivism rates.
