� How to safely reduce Michigan’s $2 billion corrections budget � Laura Sager Executive Director October 30, 2014 1
Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending � CAPPS Mission: ➡ Safely reduce the prisoner population, thus corrections spending. ➡ Avoid cost shifts or harm to prisoners, their How we work: families or corrections staff. ➡ Research and analysis ➡ Develop evidence-based ➡ Increase spending on education and policy recommendations services proven to make communities safer. ➡ Public education ➡ Mobilizing support for reform 2
Corrections spending displaces other priorities 2005-2015: GF corrections spending up 17.3 percent ➡ $1.69 billion to $1.98 billion 2005-2015: GF higher education spending down 25.6 percent ➡ $1.63 billion to $1.21 billion The proportion of the higher ed 2014-2015 Total General Fund spending: budget from tuition and fees has steadily increased since 1987. ➡ Corrections: 19.6 percent In FY 2012, more than 70 percent of ➡ Colleges and universities: 12 percent university funding came from tuition. 3
The impact of “tough on crime” policies From 1980-2010: The state population grew by 6.7 percent � The prisoner population grew by 191 percent � As of June 2014, the prison population was 43,465 and projected to increase The prisoner population peaked in 2006 at 51,454. It declined due to: ➡ Fewer commitments for new crimes ➡ More paroles ➡ Fewer returns of technical probation and parole violators. Mandatory minimum drug law reform and the Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative (MPRI) contributed to these declines. 4
Crime rates decreased while prison population soared 5
6
The least expensive prisoner is the one who isn’t there The size of the prisoner population is driven by: 1. How many people come in � to prison, and � 2. The average length of � prison stay. � � � We can safely reduce the prisoner population These two factors are determined by and save hundreds of millions every year by sentencing and parole policies, changing sentencing and parole policies. not crime rates. � 7
� Growth caused by longer prison stays � � � � � � Pew Center on the States* examined the � average prison length of stay in 35 states in 2009: � � Compared to all the other 35 states studied, in Michigan: ➡ All prisoners served nearly 17 months longer. ➡ Assaultive offenders served 30 months or 50 percent longer We keep people in prison two to three years more than such “tough” states as Georgia, Texas, � Louisiana, Florida and California. *Pew: Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms (June 2012) 8
Taxpayers foot the bill for longer prison stays ➡ Each additional month one lower security prisoner is kept behind bars costs taxpayers approximately $1,600. If the 15,009 Michigan prisoners released in 2009 had served the national average, the savings for just this group would have exceeded $530 million. The Pew study corroborates earlier research by CAPPS, the Citizens Research Council of Michigan and the Council of State Governments. 9
Sentencing: prison terms have steadily gotten longer In the 1970s and ‘80s, 10 years in prison was considered a substantial penalty. � Today, minimum terms of 20, 25, 30 years are common. 10
Sentencing policies that drive up length of stay Policies that lengthen sentences: ➡ Harsh repeat offender laws � ➡ Mandatory sentences for felony firearm � ➡ Increased use of consecutive sentences Michigan’s“truth in sentencing” provisions require prisoners to serve 100 percent of ➡ Frequent upward revisions to sentencing their minimum sentences in a secure guidelines facility. This led to: ➡ Sentencing guidelines that give judges very ➡ The elimination of all “good time” broad discretion in sentencing credit ➡ The elimination of community ➡ Michigan’s unique version of “truth in transition programs for people nearing sentencing” parole � 11
Parole policies: a major factor driving up population Denying paroles when prisoners first become eligible for release. As of June 2014, over 20 percent of all Michigan prisoners were eligible for parole.* Keeping elderly and medically incapacitated prisoners incarcerated who could safely and less expensively be housed outside prisons. Failing to release hundreds of parolable lifers who have served decades longer than their judges intended. Incarcerating parolees who have only violated conditions of supervision, not committed new crimes. Eliminating prisoners’ right to appeal parole denials, which removed board decision-making oversight. * As of June 2014: 5,540 were had not yet been paroled, 2,455 were technical violators and and approx. 850 were lifers = approx. 8,845 12
The elderly and ill pose little threat to the public Criminal behavior declines as people age. Most already have been in prison for decades Elderly and/or seriously ill prisoners are either: � ➡ Serving life without parole, Prisoners with incapacitating health conditions are ➡ Have not reached their first unlikely to reoffend at any age. parole eligibility dates ➡ Aging prisoners = rising medical costs. ➡ Are eligible for parole, but were ➡ Annual cost of a prisoner with significant denied release by the parole health issues: about $70,000. board. 13
About 8 50 parolable lifers are eligible for parole * ✓ Median age: 56 ✓ Average time served: 29 years ✓ Sentenced before 1985: 47 percent ✓ Institutional history: Typically excellent Nearly 500 are 50 or older and have served 25 or more years. * Excludes drug offenders 14
Reinvest in education, prevention, healthy communities Services proven to reduce crime: ➡ Education ➡ Early childhood education ➡ Maternal and infant care ➡ Youth-at-risk programs and services ➡ Mental health treatment ➡ Substance abuse treatment ➡ Community based reentry services ➡ Rebuilding blighted neighborhoods ➡ Access to jobs 15
Myths drive policy choices National and state studies* conducted over several decades show: ➡ Simply keeping people longer does NOT keep the public safer. ➡ Most people DO NOT return to prison for committing new crimes. ➡ Homicide and sex offenders are LEAST likely to repeat their offenses. � In 2009 -2010 hundreds of people who had been repeatedly denied parole were released. Many of these had � been convicted of sex, homicide or other assaultive crimes. � � ➡ The return rate for parolees convicted of new crimes actually dropped from 17.9 percent for the group paroled � in 2008 to 15.6 percent for the group paroled in 2009. * ➡ This drop occurred even though 1,785 more people were paroled in 2009 than 2008. � � � *See CAPPS’s 2009 report: “Denying parole at first eligibility: How much public safety does it actually buy? A study of prisoner release and recidivism in Michigan” at www.capps-mi.org for additional information. 16
Recidivism: most do NOT come back Most people do not return to prison within three years for any reason. Those who do return include: ➡ Parolees returning to prison with new sentences. ➡ Technical parole violators who violated their terms of supervision. Example: Total 2010 parolee cohort returned: 29 percent* ➡ New sentences - 13.5 percent Technical violations - 15.5 percent ➡ Many serious crimes are situational. Return rates in both categories fluctuate and are significantly affected by re- Because a person has been convicted entry support and MDOC supervision policies. of a serious crime does NOT mean he � or she remains a risk to public safety. * MDOC 2013 Statistical Report; Table D3: Three-year Follow-Up Outcomes of Offenders Who Paroled in 1998-2010 by Year 17
Council of State Governments reform proposals The Council of State Governments (CSG) was invited by the Governor, the Legislature and the Supreme Court to investigate factors driving Michigan’s average prison length of stay and make recommendations. CSG’s report buttressed CAPPS’s earlier findings. Stakeholders (including CAPPS and MCCD) are vetting the CSG proposals. ➡ Legislation is expected to be introduced in early November. ➡ There is significant opposition to many of the recommendations. 18
CSG reforms currently under discussion Reinstating a sentencing commission, but with a much broader policy mandate than the previous Michigan Sentencing Commission, which was defunded in 2002. Reforming the way we sentence repeat (habitual) offenders. Requiring the parole board to release prisoners whose conduct meets certain criteria when they have served their minimum sentences.* Changing sanctions for technical probation and parole violations to focus on higher-risk individuals and conserve resources. Updating the community corrections act. * An additional bill, HB 4809, was previously introduced by Rep. Haveman (R-Holland) to improve the parole review process for parolable lifers. 19
Proposed Criminal Justice Policy Commission � The proposed commission would: � ➡ Review and address sentence length, proportionality and effectiveness. ➡ Recommend changes to the sentencing guidelines to better ensure that similar � offenders who commit similar offenses receive similar sentences. ➡ Recommend changes to any law, rule or policy that affects the use and length of incarceration or supervision. � � � 20
Recommend
More recommend
