Wisconsin is one of several states that has started reducing the amount or quality of food served to prison inmates. Mid-year, Dane County jail began serving milk twice a day instead of three times, and replacing the third portion of milk with fruit juice. In addition, instead of receiving two hot meals after breakfast, Dane County inmates now receive a cold lunch and a hot meal only at dinner.
C. Topf Wells, Chief of Dane County Staff, said the revised meals still provide adequate nutrition for the inmates.
“In Wisconsin, there are state administrative rules which ensure that each inmate receives more than adequate nutrition, and Dane County jail followed these rules when making changes,” Topf Wells said.
Nationwide these new food plans, designed to cut the budget deficits, have been a source of controversy for many reasons. Experts are concerned that the new reduced diets are causing health problems. There is also a concern that the new diets are not really saving much money, since an estimated 80 percent of prison budgets cover guards’ salaries.
“Human services, incarceration included, are generally personnel intensive. So this statistic is not out of line with other human services, for which most costs cover salaries,” Dan Nevers, University of Wisconsin advisor for the criminal justice program, said. “But there is a whole spectrum of alternatives that can be used. Release of minor offenders would cut costs. An examination of all drug laws would merit some attention, but that would be a longer-term effort.”
Nutritionists in many states are skeptical about cutting back on prisoners’ food intake, because people vary in size and therefore in the amount of calories they require. When prisons cut to the bare minimum amount of food for an average man of ideal weight, they run the risk of causing friction among inmates.
“I cannot imagine that everyone is getting the same number of calories,” said Richard Atkinson, UW emeritus professor of medicine and nutritional sciences. “If they were giving the same number of calories to everyone, that would be indefensible, because everyone is different. It would be a recipe for disaster. You’d end up having stronger guys taking food from weaker guys. Unless they are very, very careful, cutting so close to the minimum requirements could cause more problems.”
Atkinson added that as long as essential foods are not cut from prisoners’ diets, there should be no great danger to their physical health, but the decrease could affect prisoner morale.
“Politically, you can get away with cutting back on prisoners’ food because the public feels that offenders are getting the bad treatment they deserve. However, in terms of the offenders, cutting back on food makes the experience more embittering, and counterproductive in the long run,” Nevers said.
Nevers also said that because food is one of the few things prisoners have; as quality and quantity deteriorate, so might the prisoners’ behavior.
“One of the greatest agitators is lack of food. An animal who is under-fed becomes very aggressive; humans are no different,” Atkinson agreed.
Atkinson added that reducing the quality and quantity of food available to prisoners may not be the ideal way to cut budget deficits, but it might call attention to the problem at hand and in the long-term lead to a better solution.
