Nebraska prison officials have scrapped a proposal to release some state prisoners early amid criticism from lawmakers and callbacks to past controversy.
It’s not clear why the department paused the program, which it had dubbed PATH. But emails show the Department of Correctional Services pursued it up until Flatwater Free Press published a story about the program last fall.
“I think they were looking for a way to move people out without having to go through the Legislature,” State Sen. Terrell McKinney of Omaha said. “And I think, once your story came out, (they) started to see some legislative pushback.”
PATH now appears to have hit a dead end despite some support for the general concept of letting prisoners who are nearing the end of their sentences out early with intense supervision. As the state grapples with chronic prison overcrowding, McKinney, a Democrat, and State Sen. Carolyn Bosn of Lincoln, a Republican who chairs the Judiciary Committee, each said they weren’t aware of any legislative efforts to create a similar route out of Nebraska prisons.
The Department of Correctional Services looked to create PATH via the state’s rulemaking process last fall. Through the plan, some prisoners could get out into the community early and live in private housing under department oversight.
At the time, a Corrections spokesperson said PATH was prompted by the department’s “commitment to efficient and meaningful population management strategies” while improving reentry opportunities.
The state has long had some of the most overcrowded prisons in the country, though department leadership has disputed that. McKinney previously drew a connection between the PATH proposal and the state converting its McCook Work Ethic Camp to a federal immigration detention center.
This kind of program serves a purpose, Bosn and others said: It could serve as an incentive for well-behaved prisoners while saving state taxpayers money. The annual cost per prisoner in 2023 was over $13,000, according to a legislative fiscal note from that time.
The initial PATH plan lacked specific details, though, including who could qualify. While many at its public hearing saw the value of such a program, it left some — including the state’s Inspector General for Corrections, a reentry advocacy group and key lawmakers — asking for more information.
“I’m not opposed to it, it’s just about the implementation and how it’s going to work,” McKinney said at the time.
Then-Inspector General of the Nebraska Correctional System Doug Koebernick drew comparisons to a furlough program a previous administration had launched in 2008 that ended in controversy. Back then, the department didn’t follow the rulemaking process that includes a public hearing and alerts lawmakers.
A special legislative committee uncovered the previous furlough program in 2014, finding that Corrections had created it outside the law. The special committee recommended ending it and said such efforts should go through the Legislature. No similar program has existed since 2015, according to the department.
Emails obtained from the Department of Correctional Services by public records request show that staff sought input on PATH from the Parole Board chair last July and sent the proposed rules to a policy adviser to Gov. Jim Pillen in August.
The adviser, Breanna Wirth, sent the office’s “completed pre-review sheet” in late August with approval to proceed.
“Since there are a lot of unknowns with this one, although I do not suspect issues, you will notice I am interested in being kept informed on this one,” Wirth wrote in the accompanying email. “I don’t mean to be a burden – just want to stay involved.”
It’s typical for proposals to be sent to the governor’s policy research office as part of the rule-making process, spokesperson Laura Strimple said. But since Corrections dropped its pursuit of the program, it never went to Pillen for his approval.
“Questions were raised regarding the department’s statutory authority to enact this program based on criticism of a similar program in the past,” Strimple wrote. “Therefore, no documents were presented to the administration for review.”
The emails also show that Corrections received several letters in support of the PATH program, including from people with loved ones in prison, ahead of its October public hearing.
That hearing, though, happened a couple days ahead of the 30-day requirement for the state’s official notice. A Flatwater reporter asked the Secretary of State’s Office about that timing, and emails show it started a chain reaction: That office apparently contacted Corrections and staff there asked the Attorney General’s Office for guidance.
On Oct. 24, Marcus Miles — legislative coordinator for Corrections — told Wirth, Pillen’s adviser, that there would have to be another hearing for the PATH rules. But five days later, Assistant Director Diane Sabatka-Rine sent administrators an email with a link to Flatwater’s story published that day: “We’re on hold for now,” she wrote. “Will share more information next week.”
A spokesperson didn’t answer specific questions about email exchanges in the records.
“NDCS is not moving forward with the PATH program,” spokesperson Dayne Urbanovsky said in a statement. “We regularly explore potential programs and initiatives to determine whether they align with agency priorities, operational needs and long‑term sustainability. After reviewing PATH, we have decided not to proceed at this time.”
Zach Pluhacek, who has since taken Koebernick’s place as the state’s prison watchdog, said in a statement that this situation is “complicated.”
“Ultimately, it might be up to the Legislature to decide whether to specifically authorize a program like this at some point in the future,” he said.
Bosn, whose committee would likely consider such a proposal, said the same.
“While I understand the intention behind them looking at this opportunity, I think that this has to be something that has to be proposed by the legislative branch rather than the Department of Corrections as a proposal,” she said.
Bosn said there are “ongoing conversations” on improving reentry. But, for now, a bill to create a PATH-like program doesn’t appear imminent. That may prove frustrating for advocates like Jeanie Mezger, editor of the Nebraska Criminal Justice Review (Mezger records notes on Board of Pardons meetings for the Nebraska Documenters program, a sister publication to the Flatwater Free Press).
Hundreds of people were released in the previous program, she said, apparently without disaster. But “ownership squabbles” doomed it and, now, PATH.
“The Legislature thinks they should have been involved?” Mezger wrote in an email. “Their involvement has been more about putting people in prison, not in letting them go home.”
6 Comments
So, Flatwater launched a public records request to acquire a few vague emails were NDCS exchanged a link to a story about the PATH program. Interesting.
I wonder, if Flatwater had done a public records request to find out why a certain prison inmate was being blocked from talking to his wife (instead of blindly believing whatever a woman from Canada told you), would that story have been written in a very different way? Hmmm.
Nebraska petty
Seems to me this is a program everyone likes, and no one seems to be able to enact.
Why is it so hard to do the right thing?
But not everyone liked it, which was the exact problem. As soon as NDCS proposed it, Flatwater wrote a hit piece on it, resulting in state legislators saying they opposed it. Now the program is on hold… and Flatwater seems to be backhandedly taking credit for making that happen.
Good article Sara,
I would quibble with one kind of large item. The annual cost per inmate is normally seen as starting at 29,000 and likely for most in longer term confinement, State Penitentiary for example as well above $40,000. the point being that $13,000 is NOT the cost savings that early parole or release would save. In these extremely bad budget times for Nebraska, $40,000+ per head starts adding up pretty quickly. The problem is anything has been the parole board stuck in 1960s Mississippi thinking vice 2026. Its easy to be “tough” on crime until the bills come due, and we are WAY past that stage. Throw in the overcrowding numbers near the top of the nation and you have an issue that screams for better action from all involved. It’s also why problem solving courts like Veterans Court are so successful AND a value for taxpayers!
One big problem with that theory is that the math of how much an individual inmate costs isn’t as simple as saying that kicking them to the curb saves $40K in one fell swoop. You have to understand the difference between the long-term and short-term costs of operating a prison.
Inmates eat state food and use state toilet paper every day, sure. And if we kick them out the door, they stop eating state food and using state toilet paper, sure. But how much does the cost of food and toilet paper make up of that $40K? As the inmates themselves will gleefully tell you, it’s not much, since the quality of the food and toilet paper are both abysmal as the state buys the cheapest it can find and hands out as little of it as they can legally get away with.
The overwhelming majority of prison costs come from long-term costs like staffing, facilities, utilities, etc. In other words, the majority of the money spent to keep a person in prison is not spent on the person, but on the prison itself.
This is why you can’t actually save much (if any) money by just paroling a few extra guys. The only way to create a significant cost savings would be to discharge a sufficiently large number of prisoners that you could fully close an entire facility. The program being discussed in this case wouldn’t have come anywhere close to that, and as such would be extremely unlikely to result in any measurable cost savings after the cost of the program itself was deducted from whatever short-term costs were eliminated by the few parolees.