How to safely reduce Michigans $2 billion corrections budget - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

• 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

families or corrections staff.

➡ Increase spending on education and

services proven to make communities safer.

2

How we work:

➡ Research and analysis ➡ Develop evidence-based

policy recommendations

➡ Public education ➡ Mobilizing support for reform

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

2014-2015 Total General Fund spending:

➡ Corrections: 19.6 percent ➡ Colleges and universities: 12 percent

The proportion of the higher ed budget from tuition and fees has steadily increased since 1987. In FY 2012, more than 70 percent of university funding came from tuition.

3

The impact of “tough on crime” policies

• 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

From 1980-2010:

The state population grew by 6.7 percent The prisoner population grew by 191 percent

5

Crime rates decreased while prison population soared

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.

• These two factors are determined by

sentencing and parole policies, not crime rates.

• 7

We can safely reduce the prisoner population and save hundreds of millions every year by changing sentencing and parole policies.

Growth caused by longer prison stays

• 8
• 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)

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 ➡ Frequent upward revisions to sentencing

guidelines

➡ Sentencing guidelines that give judges very

broad discretion in sentencing

➡ Michigan’s unique version of “truth in

sentencing”

11

• Michigan’s“truth in sentencing” provisions

require prisoners to serve 100 percent of their minimum sentences in a secure

• facility. This led to:

➡ The elimination of all “good time”

credit

➡ The elimination of community

transition programs for people nearing parole

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

• versight.

*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,

➡

Have not reached their first parole eligibility dates

➡

Are eligible for parole, but were denied release by the parole board.

13

• Prisoners with incapacitating health conditions are

unlikely to reoffend at any age.

➡ Aging prisoners = rising medical costs. ➡ Annual cost of a prisoner with significant

health issues: about $70,000.

About 850 parolable lifers are eligible for parole*

✓ Median age: 56 ✓ Average time served: 29 years ✓ Sentenced before 1985: 47 percent ✓ Institutional history: Typically excellent

* Excludes drug offenders

14

Nearly 500 are 50 or older and have served 25 or more years.

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

16

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.

• *
• *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.

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.

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

Return rates in both categories fluctuate and are significantly affected by re- entry support and MDOC supervision policies.

• * MDOC 2013 Statistical Report; Table D3: Three-year Follow-Up Outcomes of Offenders Who

Paroled in 1998-2010 by Year

17

Many serious crimes are situational. Because a person has been convicted

• f a serious crime does NOT mean he
• r she remains a risk to public safety.

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.

19

* An additional bill, HB 4809, was previously introduced by Rep. Haveman (R-Holland) to

improve the parole review process for parolable lifers.

Proposed Criminal Justice Policy Commission

• 20
• The proposed commission would:

➡ Review and address sentence length, proportionality and effectiveness. ➡ Recommend changes to the sentencing guidelines to better ensure that similar

• ffenders who commit similar offenses receive similar sentences.

➡ Recommend changes to any law, rule or policy that affects the use and length

• f incarceration or supervision.

Your voice matters yet this year — and beyond!

• The CSG process and current proposals are a

starting point for reform discussions that will continue into 2015 and beyond.

Please join the movement to end mass incarceration in Michigan!

For more information or a presentation to your organization contact: Laura Sager, Executive Director Barbara Levine, Associate Director for Research and Policy

www.capps-mi.org

capps@capps-mi.org /517.482.7753

CAPPS, 824 N. Capitol Ave, Lansing, Michigan 48906

21