Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Corrections Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House approves corrections education program after debate about funding and vocational emphasis
Summary
The Utah House passed House Bill 28 to create a time-limited corrections education and recidivism program, sending it to the Senate after a debate over where the $1.1 million in recommended funding would go and how much should be reserved for vocational training.
House Bill 28, a package of corrections education amendments sponsored by Representative Lloyd W. Franson, passed the Utah House after an extended floor debate about funding priorities and program design.
Franson told colleagues the bill assigns clear responsibilities to the State Board of Education and requires broad collaboration among agencies to reduce recidivism. “The plan shall terminate on 06/30/1996 unless continued by the legislature,” Franson said, framing the measure as a four-year, evaluable pilot.
Franson and other supporters emphasized the state’s high re‑offending rate. “Our recidivism rate is somewhere around 60 to 65%,” Franson said, and he held up an international model as an example: “In Canada… they had reduced it to about 10%,” he said, arguing the state could substantially lower returns to prison with coordinated programs.
Members who backed the bill cited local education efforts in custody. Representative Walt Haines described a Davis County program that produced 50 GED graduates in two years and reported only two subsequent returns to jail, both for parole violations. “So I do believe the program does work,” Haines said.
Opponents and cautious supporters urged clearer emphasis on vocational training and questioned the distribution of money. Representative Goodfellow and Representative Olson pressed the sponsor over the $1.1 million cited in fiscal materials, noting only $200,000 appeared directed to the Board of Regents and community colleges for vocational instruction. Franson said the appropriation figure is in the governor’s recommended budget and that appropriations committees—not the bill—would determine final funding allocations; he said some funds will be used for supplies, training materials and for services that help place released people in jobs.
Several representatives declared conflicts of interest on the record because their institutions could receive program funding; the Clerk noted those oral disclosures in the journal. After members who missed the roll were added, the House recorded the final vote: 64 yeas and 6 nays. The bill will be forwarded to the Senate for its further consideration.
The House debate repeatedly framed the bill as pilot policy: supporters stressed evaluation at sunset and potential fiscal benefits of reducing prison populations; critics called for existing education programs to be fully funded before expanding new initiatives. The next procedural step is Senate consideration and the appropriations process that will determine whether the recommended funding is enacted.
