“We need to get a grip on our budget. We need to recognize that we are essentially a a welfare state… We’re worse than we were a few years ago as far as dependency on Federal dollars. And that has to end.” - Steve Haugaard
“We have 146 maximum security inmates in Jamison the new unit down there in the back of the existing penitentiary area - that has capacity for over 500 people. When you have 146, and we have capacity for over 500, I think we have enough maximum security space” - Steve Haugaard
Former House Speaker working to defeat prison plan
Summit Carbon Solutions suspends permit application for South Dakota pipeline route
Cash for Clunkers Was a Complete Failure
Transcript:
Steve Haugaard:
Dave Roetman:
Dave Roetman: This is the Making Waves Podcast. My name is Dave Roetman. We're here with Steve Haugaard, former Speaker of the House.
Welcome, Steve.
Steve Haugaard Well, thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to visit about some of these issues.
Dave Roetman: Well, thanks for being on. Let's just jump right into it. Let's talk about the prison.
The governor called for a reset on the construction of a new prison, and all options are on the table. You've been involved with this issue from the beginning, and can you tell us a little bit of background of why this is an issue in South Dakota?
Steve Haugaard Well, it's an issue in South Dakota because we haven't had a well-defined corrections policy maybe ever, but at least going back to probably Jankow in the 1980s. And that was a whole different culture.
You had people then that responded somewhat well to incarceration, you know, the discipline, the punishment. And that generation is different, or has passed away, and the new generation doesn't respond to corrections as well as they probably should without adequate programming and planning as far as how are you going to deal with these people while they're in the penitentiary, and then what are you going to do to walk them out and make sure they stay out? So our recidivism rate has, I referenced last year during one of the committee meetings, I referenced the idea that our recidivism rate was probably somewhere in that 75% range. And I think that's probably accurate if you go out to the five to seven-year range.
But what prisons do nationwide is they like to reference a three-year rate, because most people haven't screwed up enough so that they're going to get revoked on their parole within those three years, or they haven't been caught committing a crime within those three years. So our recidivism rate last year was, I made that comment, and the Secretary of Corrections said, no, that's not true, it's 40.2%. And now...
Dave Roetman: Oh, that's so much better.
Steve Haugaard: Yeah.
Well, and now in the past few hearings, the Secretary has corrected herself to identify what the current one is based on 2024 numbers, and our recidivism rate is somewhere at 43 to 44%. So it's gotten even worse in a short period of time. But other states and other nations, if you look at corrections models that are successful, you'll see that, such as in Texas, they're more at the 20% range.
And in Norway, for example, that's kind of the gold standard as far as what works best to address criminal behavior. Theirs is in that 20% range or less. And so what they do, as soon as somebody hits the door, whether it's in Norway or it's in Texas, they take the same approach.
You evaluate this person, figure out where's their educational level, what are their addiction concerns, and what are their vocational skills? And what other counseling resources do you need to invest in this person? And that's what you need to do here. Unfortunately, not funding corrections adequately for decades, we've ended up with a high recidivism rate, and it's because you don't have successful results in the penitentiary system. And in fact, you go back to probation before you ever go to a penitentiary, probation hasn't been adequately funded and hasn't been adequately staffed.
And then while you're incarcerated, the funding for those programs has been waning for quite some time and has been useful but not fully funded. And then again, when you leave the penitentiary, parole is the next step. And certainly we do not have enough parole officers or enough supervision or programming to go with that.
And the vast majority of the people that come into the system, even Secretary Wasko threw out the number, she said 95% of the people that are incarcerated are there as a result of some aspect of addictions. And knowing that, then that should be the first thing you're going to address. Because these guys don't need to come in, or women don't need to come into the system and languish there for months or maybe a few years before a treatment program is offered.
And unfortunately, that's been the standard for South Dakota is that until you become a short timer, where you're down to maybe your last 18 months, you're not going to see much in the way of treatment. And that's just highly ineffective to do it that way. So as soon as they hit the door, there should be a means by which you evaluate the needs, start addressing those things, funnel them into that.
And the two things I oftentimes point out, you've got a department called the Department of Corrections, which should mean you're trying to correct something. And if you don't get things corrected, then you send them to a penitentiary where they're supposed to become penitent. So the whole point of those words is you're going to make a change in this person's life, either by choice or by imposing it upon them.
And we just haven't lived up to that standard. And truly, it used to work for a generation gone by that if you would put them in jail and punish them, they would potentially receive that punishment and realize, I don't want to go back there again. That's not the situation now.
And nobody's afraid of being unable to get a job just because they were in jail or in the penitentiary. So you've got to deal with these people in a different fashion. And that is to focus on our recidivism rate, how do you change that, and where do we have to go for funding on that? I think you could easily come up with some solutions in regard to all this by creating some short-term training programs to get staffing to the point where they might not be the fully trained professional counselor that you'd hope they'd grow into, but they could do well enough to get these people moving in the right direction.
In the education side of it, that's a little less complicated. You can find mentors within the prison itself, and I've known some of those guys that served as mentors to get other prisoners through a GED program. Or you can hire some public school teachers or private school teachers that would be willing to come up and do the same things to get them worked all the way through a GED program to make sure they're on track to have that certificate so that when they get out, they can actually go find a job that requires either a GED or a diploma.
So those are some of the issues there. And we haven't adequately addressed what's called re-entry. And re-entry is simply having all your credentials in place and being ready to get back out on the street so you've got your birth certificate in hand or you've got your driver's license in hand, you've got other documentation that you need, you've got enough cash laid up because you worked for it, you've got enough cash laid up so you can afford to either buy a vehicle or pay for transportation to get to your first applications for jobs.
And just all those things that aren't contemplated with re-entry. And to then also know if you're restricted and where you can have housing, here are your options. If you're going to be in Sioux Falls, Rapid, Mitchell, wherever it's going to be, people should understand what the game plan is going out the door so that they're able to somewhat succeed quickly and not end up committing a new crime because they felt they had no other options.
So those are issues. Like I say, probation needs to be funded adequately and incarceration services need to be funded adequately. Re-entry programs need to be in place and execute on those the way they should be so that they're out the door successfully.
And then parole, if they're going to be on parole, have enough staffing and resources so that they succeed on parole. So the recidivism issue is the main topic and unfortunately during most of these hearings I would raise that issue but I didn't hear any of the proponents of the prison construction talking about recidivism other than in response to concerns that I was expressing and others were expressing. So that needs to be first and foremost in this, whatever it's called, a reset or reconsideration of what the options are.
I hope that they take a close look at the larger issues of corrections before they start focusing in on what kind of buildings do we need because that is not the core subject that goes with corrections. It's not buildings, it's how do you deal with these people. In fact, I received a letter and I think all the legislators received a letter from an inmate who's a lifer and he indicated the very same thing.
He said there needs to be money put into programming and staffing because it's just not happening and he said the building is basically the last thing that needs to be considered. And that was coming from some guy that's living there and will live there for the rest of his life. So if you're trying to solve a problem you should be looking at all options and I understand that that's been stated that everything's on the table but the table is pretty much set right now to bend in a particular direction of building a new building and that is not the core issue.
Dave Roetman: Just for a recap on that, so you're suggesting, you're saying that staffing and recidivism needs to be addressed before building a new building?
Steve Haugaard: Absolutely and we've ignored that for such a long time. We had plenty of opportunities over the past ten years to increase funding for staffing and we just didn't do it. And we were always thinking, well we're too short on money and we don't want to waste money on prisoners basically and it was short-sighted because unless you put money into that you're not going to have good results and so we don't have good results.
Now we think building a new building is going to be a solution, well it's not.
Dave Roetman: Do you think that a 1,500 bed maximum security prison is necessary?
Steve Haugaard: Well the Secretary of Corrections testified just in the past few weeks that we have 146 maximum security inmates and Jamison, the new unit down there in the back of the existing penitentiary area, that has capacity for over 500 people. When we have 146 and we have capacity for over 500, I think we have enough maximum security space.
Dave Roetman:So if we do need a new prison, we don't need a maximum security prison, we already have the space for that.
Steve Haugaard: And we certainly could build something that's far more modest when they're talking about the construction costs on this, I think it's somewhere up in that range of $400,000, $500,000 per cell.
Dave Roetman: That's outrageous.
Steve Haugaard: That's just unnecessary. You could build cement block buildings far cheaper than you can build these poured concrete buildings.
Dave Roetman: So then cement block, just so we're clear, that would be for minimum security?
Steve Haugaard: You could make that for minimum, medium security.
Dave Roetman: And that's all we'd need?
Steve Haugaard: That's all you really need right now. And in fact, right now, you don't know what you need until you address recidivism. And until you take a look at that and spend maybe three to five years addressing the recidivism rate and having adequate programming, you won't really know how many beds you actually need.
Dave Roetman:So where do we go from here? I believe there's a white paper that was published earlier about this. Is that available?
Steve Haugaard; There was the recommendation that we paid a third of a million dollars for that talked about the existing buildings and what could and should be used. But in that report, it begins on the first page with the reference to the fact that if you're not going to really take a careful look at the recidivism rate and do something different with corrections, then here's a list of buildings you might consider.
And that's a pretty sad acknowledgement that is on the first page of that report. It simply says the project description, purposes, and objectives. And at the outset, it says, first of all, an acknowledgement of the fact that absent significant criminal justice reform, as the state's population continues to grow, its prison population may surpass, it says may surpass, the operating capacities of the current facilities.
Doesn't even say that it will. It just says it might, and it especially might if you don't do anything different than what you're doing now.
Dave Roetman: But it hasn't yet.
Steve Haugaard: It hasn't yet. When you look at the current numbers, you certainly don't need that much more maximum security. And I understand the Secretary of Corrections testified that, well, only one of the seven pods down there at the proposed site would be maximum security, but they would all be built to the maximum security standards.
Dave Roetman: Unnecessarily.
Steve Haugaard: Yeah. So lots of things need to be done differently.
And this wasn't just a recent consideration. It appears that somebody was playing chess when maybe the rest of us were thinking about checkers. Because this goes back to the original idea of an incarceration construction fund, which I believe started in 2021 or 2022.
And I look back on the votes, and I see that I was one of three people that voted against that. And the reason I voted against it back then was this very issue that there wasn't a corrections policy in place. And until you have one, there's no reason to start a building fund.
Dave Roetman: CO2 pipeline. Summit has suspended their permitting process for the carbon capture pipeline. And this is seen as a big win by property rights advocates.
Where do you think will be an ongoing issue?
Steve Haugaard: Well, whether it's this one or it's something else that comes down the road later, I think it's important to address. And they haven't said that they're pulling the plug completely. They simply are saying that they would like to pause their application with the general idea that they're going to go out and start talking a little more seriously with landowners, I think, and try to find options that would achieve their easement goals.
One of the things I had a bill put together that I think would have been appropriate, but I chose to pull it so that it wouldn't complicate any of the other issues coming up. But the bill I was thinking about was that any easement obtained as a result of the use of eminent domain, the compensation for every easement holder would have to be equivalent to the highest negotiated price that anyone obtained. Because what happened with this pipeline plan in particular, they sent a lot of licensed real estate agents out in the field to talk to farmers early on and landowners early on, and they got a bunch of easements.
Because the spiel was, you know, ‘‘let's get you paid right away because we're going to put this pipeline through and it's going to happen. We'd just soon work this easement out with you right now and get this signed up and we'll get you compensated right away. Otherwise, you'll probably have to wait a few years.
Dave Roetman: Hard sell.
Steve Haugaard: So they got a bunch of those easements in place early on, and those would be at the bargain basement price. And I remember there was a project here when they were building I-229 in Sioux Falls.
Somebody held out to the very, very end of giving up their residence over there on Louise and 229. And they took that case to the Supreme Court and they won because they weren't willing to take the offer that was given to them. They valued their home and they wanted to be compensated to what they thought it was worth.
And I think that's a reasonable thing to do, too, when eminent domain is the issue. If it's a privately negotiated easement and eminent domain isn't part of the discussion, that's different. Then everybody's going to be able to contract for themselves and make their arm's length transaction themselves.
But when it's not an arm's length transaction, when you're told that you're going to have to submit to this use of your land, then I think that compensation ought to be the highest negotiated price that anybody gets.
Dave Roetman:Yeah, the threat of eminent domain is a form of coercion.
Steve Haugaard: It certainly is.
It takes away that, like I say, arm's length transaction. That's a term used in contract is that if two parties aren't negotiating with equal standing, then it becomes undue influence, in a sense, and it's not an arm's length transaction. So that would be a consideration down the road.
Lincoln County, the other night, they had their planning and zoning meeting and they're still moving forward with a proposed ordinance that will go to the county commission for final passage, which they can still amend that over the course of time, too. But they wanted to get something in place to address the possibility of a carbon they had referenced in their carbon dioxide. But as I've read the bills and the way Karla Lems put her bill together, Representative Lems, it was referenced as a carbon oxide pipeline, as opposed to defining it dioxide or monoxide.
It was carbon oxide.
Dave Roetman: Right. Covers all bases.
Steve Haugaard: Covers all those bases. It's sort of like each year in the legislature, we pass a bill through Health and Human Services and then on through the House and Senate that modifies, includes all the twists and turns that drug dealers make in the development of meth and other drugs, because they'll change the chemical formula every year just enough so it doesn't quite fit that formula that's in law, because you have to prove that formula in law. Otherwise, it's not necessarily going to fit in that schedule.
So we do that each year and that's a little bit of a concern I have with even referencing carbon oxide. There's probably a way that we could reference things of that nature that have a danger element that's not anticipated right now, because the bill itself talks about a preponderant use of carbon oxide. And if there was something else they could put in there that would occupy 55% of that pipeline, then maybe they wouldn't be able to fit within, or they wouldn't fit within this new law.
Dave Roetman: Interesting.
Steve Haugaard: And potentially they could get their pipeline through with M the domain.
Dave Roetman: Well, that gets complicated, especially when you're talking about common carriers and what exactly qualifies with pipelines.
Steve Haugaard: And it's not just that, but when you're talking about billions of dollars, they're going to be looking for ways to get around any word that you've put into these documents.
Dave Roetman: They have a very strong financial incentive.
Steve Haugaard: Yes, they're certainly incentivized.
Dave Roetman:So let's talk a little bit more about the legislative session. What struck you? What issues do you think are highlighted or foremost in your mind? What's happening? Legislative session is ending.
Steve Haugaard: Yeah, I was so thankful to see that there was leadership that was elected that had the opportunity to put in place committee chairs, vice chairs, and members that would be more balanced than what they might have been in the past.
And so that was a real blessing to see that happen on both sides, both in the House and in the Senate. What you could see, though, through the voting records was that that division was pretty sharp down the middle. And so I think both, depending on the bill, the conservative element of the Republicans versus what I call the establishment element of the Republicans, oftentimes they were courting the vote of the Democrats.
Dave Roetman: That was fascinating, wasn't it?
Steve Haugaard: It was just a few people on each side. But they made a significant difference. So that was interesting to see in the session.
It was sad to see some common-sense bills that just couldn't make it through because of apparently the animosity that was existing there and just the tension in those particular issues. The library bill was a prime example of that. That was a pretty simple bill.
It should have flown through both chambers, and you'd expect a liberal group that would oppose those things, thinking, don't tell me how to think or what to read. But these are public funds. If you want to have a private organization that has a repository of pornographic reading material, I guess so be it.
But these are public libraries and public schools. And the focus, I think part of the argument might have been missed, was the fact is a public school has oversight from the school board. So where were they in this situation when they were allowing this terrible material into their public schools? And the same thing with the public libraries.
It isn't just one librarian making the decision about what kind of books to have. You're going to have a board that's overseeing that as well. And so the point wasn't to try to incarcerate some librarian because they had these nasty books in there.
It was to simply say, you folks are accountable just like the man on the street is accountable. If you're going to offer terrible material to young people, then you should be prosecuted for it. And instead, this bill was gutted at the last minute.
And it comes out with basically saying, you know, if you don't like it, go complain. And if you complain, then you have the opportunity for judicial review. Well, the judicial review is always going to be, well, the board said it was OK.
So we, the circuit court or even the Supreme Court in South Dakota, we're not going to override them. They have discretion to do what they choose to do. So like I say, the bill was essentially gutted.
It was left with, you know, passing but only by one vote. And it was just sad to see that those folks couldn't get on board with a simple bill that was simply going to protect kids. And that's all this was about.
You shouldn't be able to dispense material to children that's harmful to them. And instead of getting on board with those things, it appeared that it was just a tug of war. We're going to vote against this because you voted against something else that we thought was going to benefit our side.
Dave Roetman: So one of the issues that's always big in the legislature is the budget. What's your perspective on what's happening with that?
Steve Haugaard: Well, when I first started in the legislature, I believe our budget was in the range of 4.6, 4.7 billion dollars per year, I believe it was. When I took off as a speaker, I think it was still at 4.9 billion dollars.
And Kristi Noem came in as governor at that time. And so we're at 4.9. And now this year, I believe the final numbers ended up somewhere around instead of 4.9 or 5 billion dollars, we're now at 7.2 or 7.3 billion dollars. Well, some of that's accounted for by Medicaid expansion and just normal inflation and that sort of thing, but not entirely.
We need to get a grip on our budget. We need to recognize that we are essentially a welfare state because we only put up, back when it was a 5 billion dollar budget, the ratio was about 60 percent of the money was federal money and 40 percent was state money, our own state revenue that we generated. And now it looks like the ratio is more in that category of 33 percent, maybe 34 percent state money and the other 66 or 67 percent is federal money.
So we're worse than we were a few years ago as far as dependency on federal dollars. And that has to end. And, you know, what you can do to address some of this is you don't have to come in with an axe and start firing people right and left.
But you can take a hard look at each of the agencies and determine if you could simply allow, by attrition, a reduction in workforce in those departments because oftentimes you'll see that you've got very qualified staff and they're probably underemployed in the sense that they could do the work of, if you've got 10 people in the office, you could probably get all that work done with six, maybe seven people or something. It's just those kinds of things that need to be reviewed.
The fact is government naturally grows. Any office with a potentially unlimited budget will just naturally grow and we need to take a close look at that. We could go to each one of those agencies and invite them to give us a hard appraisal of what they really do need and what they don't need. That's something that has not happened for probably 40 to 50 years is to take a close look at the budgeting process and figure out what are our priorities as a state.
Unfortunately, too many times government grows into this idea that they are somehow CEOs of a business. Well, that isn't what it is. State government is intended to be very limited and focused on just those core issues that only the state really can provide.
Roads, prisons, mental health services, things like that. When we get out of our lane on those ideas and we start talking about economic development, well, you don't want to make an environment that's negative toward economic development, but it's not your job to create economic development. We've got to wean ourselves away from that thought and just recognize how can we get this budget down to a point where it's reasonable and if all of a sudden the plug was pulled from the Fed's side, would we be doing okay? We need to do an assessment of all the agencies, what the actual budget should be, and where the source of revenue should come from.
And I think that what we need to be doing is quickly, I would propose that we have a statewide conference in regard to revenue and consider what are the options. Number one in any of those discussions would have to be never, no way, no how would there be an income tax. But beyond that, we should be taking a look at all those sources of revenue that exist out there and what are reasonable and what are unreasonable ones and see if we can get rid of this phenomenal amount of money that has to come from the Feds just so we can say that we balance our budget.
Because we brag about balancing our budget, but you and I could balance our budgets very quickly if two-thirds of it came from somebody else's pocket.
Dave Roetman: Addressing something you said earlier, the government at any level should not be picking winners or losers in the economics because basically you're deciding that person needs to have public money and this other person here loses out. And that's not only unfair, but it also skews the markets.
And you're basically, what you're doing is you're creating an economic system that's untenable because they can't exist without the federal or state funding.
Steve Haugaard: And a sad example would be that program that was instituted I think during Obama's era which was cash for clunkers. All the unintended consequences.
*Transcript ends
Share this post