Sheriffs’ slush fund should go to corrections
Etowah County Sheriff Todd Entrekin is under fire for pocketing more than $750,000 in taxpayer funds earmarked to feed the prisoners in his care. This occurred over the course of just three years and, not long after, he purchased a $740,000 beach home in affluent Orange Beach.
This news was met by nearly universal shock and disgust, but what Entrekin did is perfectly legal in Alabama because of a quirky state law. Local sheriffs are given funds from federal, state, and local sources to provide meals for those in their custody. However, because of a law that pre-dates World War II, they are permitted keep whatever money is left over after these individuals have been fed.
Unfortunately, the reallocation of funds may be more common than most think. An untold number of sheriffs since the 1940s have padded their accounts with this money. In fact, open records requests were forwarded to 66 Alabama counties to determine if the local sheriffs had taken advantage of this policy. One responded “yes,” to a tune of $110,000 in three years, while 49 others simply refused to provide an answer. While this isn’t an admission of guilt, their silence will stir concerns and criticism.
The sheriff’s use of the jail food fund highlights the need to reform this outdated law, and State Rep. Mack Butler, R-Rainbow City, intends to do just that. Rep. Butler has proposed a constitutional amendment to earmark such funds for public safety purposes only. However, this should be used as an opportunity to consider where these wasted funds should be specifically diverted, including caring for the mentally ill in jail and reducing recidivism rates.
There are many problems with the existing policy. First, it provides a perverse incentive to provide the bare-minimum nutrition to inmates because it allows sheriffs to deposit the remainder of the funds in their personal accounts. Second, it smacks of misappropriation. Taxes should only be levied when they are absolutely necessary and ought to bankroll projects that benefit society in general. Rather than allowing the sheriff to use taxpayer dollars as a personal slush fund to buy beach homes and God knows what else, the tax revenue should be diverted to address corrections’ needs.
Corrections is often woefully-underfunded, and the effects are troubling. Nationally, suicide is the leading cause of death in local jails, accounting for 31 percent of fatalities. Fifteen percent of men and 30 percent of women placed in county lockup also suffer from a variety of serious mental conditions. In fact, in some locales, jails and prisons have effectively become the largest mental institutions, even though they are ill-equipped to handle people with depression and severe mental illnesses.
Rather than funding sheriffs’ personal interests, the money should be redirected to provide corrections officers with the proper training to identify and respond to these ailments. Further, some tax revenue could be used to provide the health care that these individuals so desperately need.
Another potential use for such funds is to help prevent inmates from returning once they are released from jail. Recidivism rates have reached shocking levels. The focus on fixing this problem is often directed toward prison populations, but reoffending rates of those booked into local jails as they await trial is equally problematic. People who wind up in jail for up to 24 hours are 17 percent likelier to break the law again within two years than those held for less than a day. This likelihood increases the longer an inmate sits in jail: Individuals who spend upward of seven days in county lockup are 35 percent more likely to commit another crime, and as for those who remain in jail for up to two weeks, they are 51-percent likelier to reoffend.
Time spent in correctional facilities simply increases the odds of breaking the law again. If money that has historically been directed to sheriffs is meant to protect society, then perhaps it should be reallocated to allaying the recidivism crisis. Certainly, a portion of the funds that are wasted annually could help bankroll programs to keep petty offenders from staying in jail while they wait for trial or even after their conviction if they aren’t a threat to society. This would likely lower recidivism rates, reduce the financial burden on corrections, and be a much wiser use of the funds.
Alabama prides itself on being a beacon of fiscal responsibility, and it is in many ways. Yet the current policy used to line sheriffs’ pockets is an example of pure fiscal irresponsibility. Rather than perpetuating this outrageous policy, Alabama ought to invest the tax revenue to benefit society. Improving the state’s corrections system is a great place to start.
