Corrections spending has climbed to a record $80.4 billion in fiscal 2025, up from $74.5 billion two years earlier, according to state budget data. Yet the rising price tag has not translated into proportionally safer communities, with recidivism rates stubbornly high and staff turnover spiking.
The Justice Department estimates that 95 percent of incarcerated individuals will eventually be released. That means the effectiveness of prison programs directly affects public safety. As voters grow increasingly concerned about how their tax dollars are spent, the pressure is on governors and legislators to show that corrections spending yields measurable results.
Rising costs, tight budgets
Pennsylvania exemplifies the fiscal strain. Its average daily cost per incarcerated person rose from $169.71 to $197.63 over five fiscal years, a 16.5 percent increase. The state attributes most of the rise to inflation, as the custodial population remained relatively stable.
But higher costs do not guarantee larger budgets. Texas, for example, recently ordered state agencies to cut base budget requests by 3 percent for the 2028–2029 period. Corrections leaders must still maintain security, support officers, and prepare inmates for release—all while operating under tighter fiscal constraints.
“Savings that leave more victims behind are no bargain,” warns Brian Koehn, a former warden and founder of Social Purpose Corrections.
Staffing crisis
The national Safe Inside project reports that correctional overtime spending surpassed $2 billion in 2024, nearly double the amount in 2019. A system struggling to retain staff cannot rely on recruiting campaigns alone.
Koehn, who once led a facility housing inmates from four jurisdictions, saw firsthand how improved leadership and clearer expectations can reduce turnover. His facility went three years without needing a new academy class after staff and inmates were consulted on operational changes.
Proven reforms
Arizona provides a model. After adopting probation reforms that emphasized incentives and evidence-based supervision, new felony convictions among probationers fell by 31 percent over two years. The state now ties probation incentive funding to reduced prison admissions, supporting treatment, training, and officer recognition.
Koehn argues that prison leadership should adopt the same approach: make public safety the goal, measure progress, and reward verified success.
Three changes to put into practice
Koehn proposes three concrete reforms for the next budget cycle:
- Make preparation part of the sentence. Assess literacy, work skills, and treatment needs at intake. Set conduct expectations. Before release, verify identification, housing, treatment appointments, and connections to supervision and employment services.
- Measure performance fairly. Report violence, staff retention, overtime, and release preparation. Track employment and new offenses after release, distinguishing crimes from supervision violations. Independent evaluators should compare similar populations, accounting for risk and transfers.
- Give wardens defined operating budgets. Provide financial training and authority to manage spending. Monthly reports should show costs and overtime drivers. Central offices retain audits and safety requirements, but allow approved local decisions.
Koehn also recommends tying promotions and awards to verified improvement, allowing facilities to carry forward savings for staff development, and requiring corrective action when results fall short.
Political implications
As economic concerns dominate political discourse, corrections spending is a ripe target for reform. With voters skeptical of government efficiency, governors who embrace performance-based budgeting could gain an edge.
Koehn stresses that secure confinement remains necessary for dangerous individuals, but preparing people for lawful release protects the public without excusing crime. “Take responsibility. Develop useful skills. Meet your obligations. Stop creating victims,” he says.
The next potential victim is why states must act—not just to cut costs, but to build safer communities.
