MICHIGAN
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL

AUDIT REPORT

PERFORMANCE AUDIT
OF THE

MICHIGAN PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE (MPRI)
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

February 2012

THOMAS H. MCTAVISH, C.P.A.
AUDITOR GENERAL

471-0400-11

The auditor general shall conduct post audits of financial
transactions and accounts of the state and of all branches,
departments, offices, boards, commissions, agencies,
authorities and institutions of the state established by this
constitution or by law, and performance post audits thereof.
– Article IV, Section 53 of the Michigan Constitution

Audit report information can be accessed at:
http://audgen.michigan.gov

Michigan

Office of the Auditor General
REPORT SUMMARY

Performance Audit
Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative (MPRI)
Department of Corrections

Report Number:
471-0400-11
Released:
February 2012

The mission of the Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative (MPRI) is to significantly
reduce crime and enhance public safety by implementing a seamless system of
services for prisoners from the time of their entry to prison through their
transition, community reintegration, and aftercare in their communities. MPRI
goals include promoting public safety and increasing offender success rates.

Audit Objective:
To assess the effectiveness of the
Department of Corrections' (DOC's)
efforts to oversee MPRI services.
Audit Conclusion:
We concluded that DOC's efforts to
oversee MPRI services were moderately
effective.
We noted two reportable
conditions (Findings 1 and 2).
Reportable Conditions:
DOC
had
not
established
a
comprehensive process to monitor and
evaluate the effectiveness of MPRI
services (Finding 1).
DOC did not have sufficient internal
control to effectively implement MPRI
(Finding 2).

~~~~~~~~~~

Agency Response:
Our audit report includes 2 findings
and 2 corresponding
recommendations.
DOC's preliminary response indicates that
it
agrees
with
both
of
the
recommendations.

~~~~~~~~~~

A copy of the full report can be
obtained by calling 517.334.8050
or by visiting our Web site at:
http://audgen.michigan.gov

Michigan Office of the Auditor General
201 N. Washington Square
Lansing, Michigan 48913
Thomas H. McTavish, C.P.A.
Auditor General
Scott M. Strong, C.P.A., C.I.A.
Deputy Auditor General

STATE OF MICHIGAN

OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
201 N. W ASHINGTON SQUARE
LANSING, MICHIGAN 48913
(517) 334-8050

THOMAS H. MCTAVISH, C.P.A.

FAX (517) 334-8079

AUDITOR GENERAL

February 7, 2012

Mr. Daniel H. Heyns, Director
Department of Corrections
Grandview Plaza Building
Lansing, Michigan
Dear Mr. Heyns:
This is our report on the performance audit of the Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative
(MPRI), Department of Corrections.
This report contains our report summary; description of services; audit objective, scope,
and methodology and agency responses; comment, findings, recommendations, and
agency preliminary responses; three exhibits, presented as supplemental information;
and a glossary of acronyms and terms.
The agency preliminary responses were taken from the agency's response subsequent
to our audit fieldwork. The Michigan Compiled Laws and administrative procedures
require that the audited agency develop a plan to comply with the audit
recommendations and submit it within 60 days of the release of the audit report to the
Office of Internal Audit Services, State Budget Office. Within 30 days of receipt, the
Office of Internal Audit Services is required to review the plan and either accept the plan
as final or contact the agency to take additional steps to finalize the plan.
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to us during this audit.
Sincerely,

Thomas H. McTavish, C.P.A.
Auditor General

471-0400-11

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

4
471-0400-11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MICHIGAN PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Page
INTRODUCTION

Report Summary

1

Report Letter

3

Description of Services

6

Audit Objective, Scope, and Methodology and Agency Responses

8

COMMENT, FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSES

Effectiveness of Oversight

11

1. MPRI Evaluation Process

11

2. MPRI Internal Control

15

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Exhibit 1 - Recidivism Analysis for Parolees Who Were Paroled Subsequent to
and Prior to MPRI Implementation

20

Exhibit 2 - Recidivism Analysis for Parolees Who Had a History of Parole Failure
and Who Were Paroled Subsequent to and Prior to MPRI
Implementation
21
Exhibit 3 - Recidivism Analysis by COMPAS Risk and Level of Services Utilized

22

GLOSSARY

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

24

5
471-0400-11

Description of Services

The Department of Corrections (DOC) started implementing the Michigan Prisoner
ReEntry Initiative (MPRI) in 2005. The mission* of MPRI is to significantly reduce crime
and enhance public safety by implementing a seamless system of services for
prisoners* from the time of their entry to prison through their transition, community
reintegration, and aftercare in their communities. MPRI goals* include promoting public
safety and increasing offender success rates.
The MPRI model is broken down into three phases:
a.

Phase 1 (Getting Ready) begins during in-take and consists of assessment,
classification, and prisoner programming. During in-take, all prisoners receive a
Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions* (COMPAS)
core assessment* that measures their risks, needs, and strengths. During this
phase, an initial Transition Accountability Plan* (TAP) is developed for each
prisoner, which describes the prisoner's needs and goals. Prisoners who are within
12 months of their earliest release date are referred to, are enrolled in, and
complete programming that is intended to align with the prisoners' needs and
goals. Phase 1 programming includes Thinking for Change, Cage Your Rage,
Moving On, Substance Abuse, Assaultive Offender Program, and Sex Offender
Program. DOC has carried out primarily Phase 1 services within its learning site*;
however, it is expanding to other prison facilities within its Correctional Facilities
Administration* (CFA).

b.

Phase 2 (Going Home) begins approximately 2 months before the prisoner's target
release date and consists of preparing the prisoner for release. At the beginning of
this phase, the prisoner is given a COMPAS reentry assessment* that is used by
the Michigan Parole Board, in conjunction with other tools, to make a parole
decision. If the Michigan Parole Board chooses a prisoner for MPRI services, a
reentry TAP is created that describes a reentry plan of appropriate parole services
that align with the prisoner's risks and needs.

* See glossary at end of report for definition.

6
471-0400-11

In-reach* is a crucial part of MPRI and occurs approximately 30 days before the
prisoner's release. The in-reach session connects the prisoner with his/her
transition team, consisting of the parole agent and others in the community. The
transition team reviews the prisoner's reentry TAP and works with the prisoner to
find housing, employment, services to address his/her addiction and mental illness,
and other necessary services. Phase 2 services are carried out by CFA with
collaboration from DOC's Field Operations Administration* (FOA).
c.

Phase 3 (Staying Home) consists of parolee* supervision, services, discharge, and
aftercare. This phase begins when the prisoner is released from prison and
continues until discharge from community parole supervision. The parolee, service
providers, and community mentors together are responsible for facilitating the
success of the parolee. Services are provided based on the parolee's TAP, which
is to be reviewed and updated every 90 days to ensure the continued progress
toward reducing risk and addressing needs. Phase 3 services are carried out by
FOA, contracted administrative agencies, and subcontracted service providers.

DOC implemented MPRI beginning with Phase 3 in 2005 to help communities build
relationships between agencies and service providers to provide parolees with a
smoother transition back into the community. Also in 2005, DOC implemented Phase 2
and, in June 2009, DOC began to implement Phase 1 at a learning site.
DOC has contracted with 18 administrative agencies whose combined jurisdictions
cover the State's 83 counties. Each administrative agency is required to develop a
comprehensive plan that is used to support local strategies by procuring services to
address gaps and barriers that exist in the areas of health and behavioral health, social
support, residential stability, employment readiness, and operations support. These
services, combined with effective parole supervision strategies, were implemented to
help reduce a parolee's risk of committing new crimes and form the basis for the local
MPRI crime-fighting strategies.
DOC considers MPRI a success when parolees complete parole without being
resentenced to prison for a new conviction or a technical rule violation.
For fiscal years 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10, DOC expended $26.9 million,
$43.5 million, and $52.7 million, respectively, on MPRI. The appropriation amount for
fiscal year 2010-11 was $52.1 million.
* See glossary at end of report for definition.

7
471-0400-11

Audit Objective, Scope, and Methodology
and Agency Responses

Audit Objective
The objective of our performance audit* of the Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative
(MPRI), Department of Corrections (DOC), was to assess the effectiveness* of DOC's
efforts to oversee MPRI services.
Audit Scope
Our audit scope was to examine the program and other records related to the Michigan
Prisoner ReEntry Initiative. We conducted this performance audit in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we
plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. We
believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objective. Our audit procedures, performed from April
2011 through July 2011, generally covered the period October 1, 2006 through June 30,
2011.
We judgmentally selected and performed on-site visits of 5 of the 18 MPRI
administrative agencies (Genesee County, Kent County, Oakland [Oakland and
Livingston Counties], Wayne County, and Muskegon [Muskegon, Oceana, and Ottawa
Counties]) to review MPRI-related parolee activity.
As part of our audit, we compiled supplemental information about parolee recidivism
and MPRI services utilized. Our audit was not directed toward expressing a conclusion
on this information and, accordingly, we express no conclusion on it.
Audit Methodology
To establish our audit objective and gain an understanding of MPRI's activities, we
conducted a preliminary review of 5 administrative agencies' operations. This review
included discussions with various DOC staff and administrative agency staff regarding
their functions and responsibilities; observation of MPRI activities; examination of
records, policy directives, and operating procedures; and a review of DOC's annual and
legislative reports.
* See glossary at end of report for definition.

8
471-0400-11

To assess the effectiveness of DOC's efforts to oversee MPRI services, we reviewed
records related to MPRI programming within prison facilities and MPRI related parolee
activity, including case management for services related to housing, employment,
community transition, and parolee recidivism*. In addition, we obtained parolee record
data from DOC's Corrections Management Information System* (CMIS), Offender
Management Network Information* (OMNI), and Correctional Offender Management
Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) databases. We randomly selected and
reviewed program data related to a sample of 297 of the 24,117 parolees who were
chosen to participate in MPRI during our audit period to determine if they were
assessed for services, if they utilized those services, and whether they recidivated. We
also reviewed DOC's efforts to evaluate administrative agency performance and
performed our own analysis of parole data regarding recidivism.
When selecting activities or programs for audit, we use an approach based on
assessment of risk and opportunity for improvement. Accordingly, we focus our audit
efforts on activities or programs having the greatest probability for needing improvement
as identified through a preliminary review. Our limited audit resources are used, by
design, to identify where and how improvements can be made. Consequently, we
prepare our performance audit reports on an exception basis.
Agency Responses and Prior Audit Follow-Up
Our audit report includes 2 findings and 2 corresponding recommendations. DOC's
preliminary response indicates that it agrees with both of the recommendations.
The agency preliminary response that follows each recommendation in our report was
taken from the agency's written comments and oral discussion subsequent to our audit
fieldwork. Section 18.1462 of the Michigan Compiled Laws and the State of Michigan
Financial Management Guide (Part VII, Chapter 4, Section 100) require DOC to develop
a plan to comply with the audit recommendations and submit it within 60 days after
release of the audit report to the Office of Internal Audit Services, State Budget Office.
Within 30 days of receipt, the Office of Internal Audit Services is required to review the
plan and either accept the plan as final or contact the agency to take additional steps to
finalize the plan.

* See glossary at end of report for definition.

9
471-0400-11

COMMENT, FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSES

10
471-0400-11

EFFECTIVENESS OF OVERSIGHT
COMMENT
Background: The programming and services made available through the Michigan
Prisoner ReEntry Initiative (MPRI) are intended for parolees who have a higher risk of
recidivism due to the criminogenic* factors that the services are designed to address.
As a result, comparing MPRI parolees with non-MPRI parolees does not account for
differences inherent to each population and would not provide a valid or reliable
measurement of the actual impact that MPRI had on the recidivism outcomes of MPRI
participants. Also, overall recidivism may be impacted by other services, including
community in-reach into the prisons prior to parole, collaborative case management
after parole, offender mentoring, family reunification, specialized case supervision
strategies, and new technologies such as Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring
and automated substance abuse relapse detection.
Audit Objective: To assess the effectiveness of the Department of Corrections'
(DOC's) efforts to oversee MPRI services.
Audit Conclusion: We concluded that DOC's efforts to oversee MPRI services
were moderately effective. Our assessment disclosed two reportable conditions*
related to the MPRI evaluation process and MPRI internal control* (Findings 1 and 2).

FINDING
1.

MPRI Evaluation Process
DOC had not established a comprehensive process to monitor and evaluate the
effectiveness of MPRI services. As a result, DOC could not assess the strengths,
weaknesses, needs, and overall effectiveness of MPRI.
DOC expended
$26.9 million, $43.5 million, and $52.7 million in fiscal years 2007-08, 2008-09, and
2009-10, respectively, and budgeted $52.1 million in fiscal year 2010-11 for MPRI
services. Therefore, it is imperative that DOC be able to determine the true value
of MPRI services.
Program effectiveness can often be evaluated and improved by having a
comprehensive evaluation process. Such a process should include performance
indicators that measure outcomes* related to a program's goals and objectives*;

* See glossary at end of report for definition.

11
471-0400-11

performance standards* or goals that describe the desired level of outcomes based
on management expectations; peer group performance; a management information
system to accurately gather relevant outcome data on a timely basis; a reporting of
the comparison results to management; and recommendations to improve
effectiveness and efficiency* or change desired performance standards or goals.
Our review of DOC's monitoring and evaluation of MPRI disclosed:
a.

DOC's contract with its 18 administrative agencies did not include a reporting
requirement. As a result, the program data received from the administrative
agencies was not complete, consistent, or comparable.
DOC requested its 18 administrative agencies to submit monthly program data
related to the services they provided to MPRI parolees and had provided a
data collection sheet template and reporting instructions for reporting
purposes. However, our review of data submitted by the administrative
agencies disclosed that some administrative agencies did not use DOC's data
collection sheet, but submitted program data using their own unique forms of
reporting; other administrative agencies did not submit all requested program
data; and still other administrative agencies did not report any of the requested
program data.

b.

DOC did not perform a complete analysis of MPRI outcomes.
DOC compiled and reported recidivism rate data for all MPRI parolees and for
all other parolees on a Statewide basis and by MPRI site. Our review of
DOC's analyses disclosed that DOC did not analyze recidivism rate data
based on whether or not the parolees utilized any of the MPRI services.
We performed the following analyses that may be useful tools in identifying
MPRI program outcomes (similar to the data compiled by DOC, the MPRI
parolees in our analyses included all of the parolees who were chosen by the

* See glossary at end of report for definition.

12
471-0400-11

Michigan Parole Board to participate in MPRI, whether or not they utilized any
of the MPRI services):
(1) We performed an analysis of recidivism rate data for all parolees who
were paroled during calendar year 2007, subsequent to the
implementation of MPRI, and for all parolees who were paroled during
calendar year 1998, prior to the implementation of MPRI (see Exhibit 1).
This data indicated that the recidivism rates of the 14,142 parolees who
were paroled subsequent to the implementation of MPRI were notably
lower than the recidivism rates of the 10,055 parolees who were paroled
prior to the implementation of MPRI.
(2) We performed an analysis of recidivism rate data for all parolees who had
a history of parole failure* and who were paroled during calendar year
2007, subsequent to the implementation of MPRI, and for all parolees
who had a history of parole failure and who were paroled during calendar
year 1998, prior to the implementation of MPRI (see Exhibit 2). This data
indicated that the recidivism rates of the 5,853 parolees who had a
history of parole failure and who were paroled subsequent to the
implementation of MPRI were notably lower than the recidivism rates of
the 3,466 parolees who had a history of parole failure and who were
paroled prior to the implementation of MPRI.
(3) We sampled 297 of the 24,117 MPRI parolees who were paroled during
the period from October 2006 through December 2010. We then
obtained parole data from the Corrections Management Information
System (CMIS), MPRI program services data from the Offender
Management Network Information (OMNI) and hard copy case files, and
violence and recidivism risk assessments from the Correctional Offender
Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS).
We summarized recidivism data, by COMPAS risk*, for our sample of
MPRI parolees who utilized all, some, or none of the recommended MPRI
services identified on the parolees' Transition Accountability Plans (TAPs)
(see Exhibit 3).

* See glossary at end of report for definition.

13
471-0400-11

This data indicated that the parolees who utilized all of the recommended
MPRI services identified on their TAPs had a lower recidivism rate than
those parolees who utilized only some of the recommended MPRI
services and that the parolees who utilized some of the recommended
MPRI services identified on their TAPs had a lower recidivism rate than
those parolees who did not utilize any of the recommended MPRI
services.
c.

DOC did not have a process to identify and provide management with reports
regarding the overall MPRI activity within a prison facility or on a Statewide
basis.
DOC utilizes CMIS, OMNI, and COMPAS for various aspects of MPRI. CMIS
contains parole, commitment, and parole violation data that DOC uses to
compute overall recidivism rates.
OMNI contains case management
information, including day-to-day parolee case management and referral
information. COMPAS contains TAPs and prisoner and parolee violence and
recidivism risk information.
DOC can look up individual prisoners and parolees in the OMNI database and
identify programming and services offered and utilized. However, because the
three systems do not have the ability to electronically communicate with each
other, DOC cannot, on a Statewide basis, efficiently identify what, when,
where, and to whom programming and services were offered. In addition,
Statewide analyses, similar to the analyses performed for our sample of
297 MPRI parolees described in part b.(3) of this finding and presented in
Exhibit 3, could be performed efficiently for all MPRI parolees if DOC's data
systems were integrated.

RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that DOC establish a comprehensive process to monitor and
evaluate the effectiveness of MPRI services.

AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
DOC agrees with the recommendation and informed us that it has taken steps to
monitor, evaluate, and improve the effectiveness of prisoner reentry services.

14
471-0400-11

DOC informed us that it amended the administrative contracts to require agencies
to complete and submit monthly data collection spreadsheets to DOC. DOC also
informed us that it is currently engaged in the first year of a 5-year contract with the
Michigan Public Health Institute for an independent evaluation of prisoner reentry
at the learning site.
DOC indicated that it plans to leverage local colleges and universities near each
site to conduct site-by-site analyses using a "research consortium" approach, with
a consistent methodology across the sites to ensure comparable findings. DOC
informed us that in early 2011, it approved funding via the prisoner reentry
appropriation line to hire an information technology programmer to work within the
Department of Technology, Management, and Budget exclusively on data coding
to advance the OMNI/COMPAS integration design project.

FINDING
2.

MPRI Internal Control
DOC did not have sufficient internal control to effectively implement MPRI. As a
result, DOC could not determine that MPRI parolees received and completed
appropriate services, that the services received were properly approved, or that
DOC staff could efficiently perform their MPRI duties.
MPRI Phase 1 begins during in-take and continues throughout a prisoner's term of
incarceration. During Phase 1, a prisoner's risks, needs, and strengths are
assessed; an initial TAP is developed; programming needs are identified; and
prisoners who are within 12 months of their earliest release date are referred to,
are enrolled in, and complete necessary programming.
MPRI Phase 2 begins approximately 2 months before the prisoner's target release
date with a COMPAS reentry assessment that is reviewed by the Michigan Parole
Board. Each prisoner chosen by the Michigan Parole Board for MPRI participates
in an in-reach session during which the prisoner connects with his/her transition
team and a reentry TAP is developed to identify the support and other services
needed to help the parolee transition smoothly back into society.
Phase 3 begins upon release from prison, when the parolee begins to receive the
services identified on the reentry TAP.
15
471-0400-11

We reviewed the procedures involved in each of the three MPRI phases:
a.

Our review of DOC's process of identifying and providing Phase 1
programming disclosed:
(1) DOC did not ensure that the initial TAPs identified the available
programming that DOC offers to meet the prisoners' specific needs.
(2) DOC did not ensure that it could efficiently rank prisoners by release date
and program priority or allow prison staff to efficiently schedule prisoners
for participation in MPRI programming.
On a monthly basis, DOC uses prisoner and release date data from
CMIS, prisoner programming referral information from OMNI, risk
information from COMPAS, and prisoner programming enrollment and
completion data from an internal database to manually update a
spreadsheet that ranks prisoners and their remaining programming
needs. The spreadsheet is sent to each of the 32 prison facilities that use
the information to enter Phase 1 programming referrals into OMNI.

b.

Our review of DOC's processes for implementing Phases 2 and 3 included a
review of the reentry COMPAS risks, in-reach sessions, completed reentry
TAPs, service referrals, and service documentation. Our review of 297 case
files disclosed:
(1) DOC did not ensure that MPRI parolee reentry TAPs were completely
prepared.
Of the 297 reentry TAPs sampled, 66 (22%) were incomplete. We
identified reentry TAPs that did not include identified provider services,
specific service tasks, service start dates, and/or referral dates. As a
result, some MPRI parolees may not receive all necessary services.
(2) DOC did not ensure that MPRI activity identified in OMNI, the referrals,
and hard copy case files were in agreement.

16
471-0400-11

To initiate an appropriate service for an MPRI parolee, the parole agent
manages the OMNI case files, prepares the referrals, and sends the
referrals to the subcontractors. Hard copy case files are prepared by the
subcontractors that are responsible for providing MPRI services to
parolees. Our review disclosed:
(a) In 38 (13%) of 297 instances, the MPRI parolees' OMNI records did
not agree with the parolees' hard copy case files.
(b) In 46 (15%) of 297 instances, OMNI records and hard copy case files
did not identify the outcome of service for which a referral was
created.
(c) In 70 (24%) of 297 instances, OMNI records and the parolees'
reentry TAPs identified services that should have been provided;
however, there was no referral on file. Without a documented
referral, DOC could not ensure that services provided were properly
approved.
(3) DOC did not document the parolees' MPRI discharge status.
We determined that a parolee's MPRI discharge status, including whether
the parolee utilized, completed, or rejected the MPRI services, is never
documented. A parolee's discharge status may be a factor that DOC
could consider when evaluating the effectiveness of programming and
services offered by the administrative agencies and subcontractors and
the effective implementation of MPRI.

RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that DOC implement sufficient internal control to effectively
implement MPRI.

AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
DOC concurs with the recommendation and informed us that it is taking steps to
improve the controls to ensure effective implementation of prisoner reentry. DOC
indicated that it plans to integrate OMNI and COMPAS to allow each case manager

17
471-0400-11

to create a personalized case plan/TAP for each prisoner in an automated manner
to maintain consistency Statewide. The case plan/TAP will systemically match the
prisoner with the appropriate Phase 1 programs/interventions to reduce risk and
address needs and prioritize and schedule program placements.
In addition, DOC informed us that it is taking steps to improve the completeness of
TAPs, is developing a process to ensure consistent documentation at all locations,
and will require administrative agencies to report discharges using a prescribed
spreadsheet. DOC will also require parole agents to close referrals in OMNI
contract management in addition to documenting them in case notes. DOC will
consider integrating OMNI and COMPAS to prevent closure of jurisdiction if an
active referral remains in OMNI contract management.

18
471-0400-11

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

19
471-0400-11

UNAUDITED
Exhibit 1
MICHIGAN PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE (MPRI)
Department of Corrections (DOC)

Recidivism Analysis for
Parolees Who Were Paroled Subsequent to and Prior to MPRI Implementation

The following table presents the recidivism rates of all parolees (MPRI parolees and non-MPRI parolees) who were paroled during calendar
year 2007 (after MPRI had been substantially implemented) and the recidivism rates of DOC's baseline data of all parolees who were
paroled during calendar year 1998 (prior to the implementation of MPRI).
This data indicates that for all periods presented, the recidivism rates of the 14,142 parolees who were paroled subsequent to the
implementation of MPRI were lower than the recidivism rates of the 10,055 parolees who were paroled prior to the implementation of MPRI.
Also, although the data indicates that the recidivism rates of the 4,496 MPRI parolees were higher than the recidivism rates of the 9,646
non-MPRI parolees, it must be noted that MPRI parolees have a higher risk of recidivism due to the criminogenic factors that the MPRI
services are designed to address. As a result, comparing the MPRI parolees with non-MPRI parolees does not account for the differences
inherent to each population and would not provide a valid or reliable measurement of the actual impact that MPRI had on the recidivism
outcomes of MPRI participants. In addition, overall recidivism may be impacted by other services, including community in-reach into the
prisons prior to parole, collaborative case management after parole, offender mentoring, family reunification, specialized case supervision
strategies, and new technologies such as Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring and automated substance abuse relapse detection.

Months From Date
of Parole to Return
to Prison (1)

Paroled During Calendar
Paroled During Calendar Year
Year 1998 - Prior to
2007 - Subsequent to MPRI Implementation (1)
MPRI Implementation (2)
4,496 MPRI Parolees
9,646 Non-MPRI Parolees
14,142 Total Parolees
10,055 Total Parolees
Total
Recidivism
Total
Recidivism
Total
Recidivism
Total
Recidivism
Recidivated
Rate
Recidivated
Rate
Rate
Recidivated
Rate
Recidivated

0 - 6 months

268

6%

403

4%

671

5%

857

9%

0 - 12 months

690

15%

1,046

11%

1,736

12%

2,132

21%

0 - 24 months

1,273

28%

2,041

21%

3,314

23%

3,896

39%

0 - 36 months

1,484

33%

2,345

24%

3,829

27%

4,599

46%

0 - 39 months

1,633

36%

2,590

27%

4,223

30%

4,698

47%

Notes:
(1) Each prisoner's individual parole is counted separately.
(2) DOC uses this data as its control group for comparative purposes.
Source: The Office of the Auditor General prepared this exhibit based on unaudited prisoner records obtained from DOC.

20
471-0400-11

UNAUDITED
Exhibit 2
MICHIGAN PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE (MPRI)
Department of Corrections (DOC)

Recidivism Analysis for
Parolees Who Had a History of Parole Failure and Who Were
Paroled Subsequent to and Prior to MPRI Implementation
The following table presents the recidivism rates of all parolees (MPRI parolees and non-MPRI parolees) who had a history of parole failure
and who were paroled during calendar year 2007 (after MPRI had been substantially implemented) and the recidivism rates of parolees who
had a history of parole failure and who were paroled during calendar year 1998 (prior to the implementation of MPRI).
This data indicates that for all periods presented, the recidivism rates of the 5,853 parolees who had a history of parole failure and who were
paroled subsequent to the implementation of MPRI were lower than the recidivism rates of the 3,466 parolees who had a history of parole
failure and who were paroled prior to the implementation of MPRI.
Also, although the data indicates that the recidivism rates of the 2,542 MPRI parolees were higher than the recidivism rates of the 3,311
non-MPRI parolees, it must be noted that MPRI parolees have a higher risk of recidivism due to the criminogenic factors that the MPRI
services are designed to address. As a result, comparing the MPRI parolees with non-MPRI parolees does not account for the differences
inherent to each population and would not provide a valid or reliable measurement of the actual impact that MPRI had on the recidivism
outcomes of MPRI participants. In addition, overall recidivism may be impacted by other services, including community in-reach into the
prisons prior to parole, collaborative case management after parole, offender mentoring, family reunification, specialized case supervision
strategies, and new technologies such as Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring and automated substance abuse relapse detection.

Parolees Who Had a History of Parole Failure

Months From Date
of Parole to Return
to Prison (1)

Paroled During Calendar Year
2007 - Subsequent to MPRI Implementation (1)
2,542 MPRI Parolees
3,311 Non-MPRI Parolees
5,853 Total Parolees
Total
Recidivism
Total
Recidivism
Total
Recidivism
Recidivated
Rate
Recidivated
Rate
Recidivated
Rate

Paroled During Calendar
Year 1998 - Prior to
MPRI Implementation (2)
3,466 Total Parolees
Total
Recidivism
Recidivated
Rate

0 - 6 months

182

7%

215

6%

397

7%

446

13%

0 - 12 months

458

18%

500

15%

958

16%

1,067

31%

0 - 24 months

815

32%

938

28%

1,753

30%

1,825

53%

0 - 36 months

959

38%

1,067

32%

2,026

35%

2,132

62%

0 - 39 months

1,053

41%

1,175

35%

2,228

38%

2,178

63%

Notes:
(1) Each prisoner's individual parole is counted separately.
(2) DOC uses this data as its control group for comparative purposes.
Source: The Office of the Auditor General prepared this exhibit based on unaudited prisoner records obtained from DOC.

21
471-0400-11

UNAUDITED
Exhibit 3
MICHIGAN PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE (MPRI)
Department of Corrections (DOC)

Recidivism Analysis by COMPAS Risk and Level of Services Utilized
Sample of Parolees Paroled From October 2006 Through December 2010
The following chart shows the recidivism rates of the 297 sampled parolees who utilized all, some, or none of the recommended MPRI
services identified on their Transition Accountability Plans (TAPs), categorized by the parolees' Correctional Offender Management Profiling
for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) risk and for all parolees sampled.
This analysis indicates that:
• The parolees who utilized all of the recommended MPRI services identified on their TAPs had a lower recidivism rate than those parolees
who utilized only some of the recommended MPRI services.
• The parolees who utilized some of the recommended MPRI services identified on their TAPs had a lower recidivism rate than those parolees
who did not utilize any of the recommended MPRI services.

COMPAS Risk
Level of
Services Utilized

Total

Low
Total
Recidivated

Recidivism
Rate

Medium/High
Total
Recidivism
Recidivated
Rate

Total

Total

Total
Total
Recidivated

Recidivism
Rate

All

65

10

15%

112

22

20%

177

32

18%

Some

31

6

19%

63

16

25%

94

22

23%

None

13

4

31%

13

4

31%

26

8

31%

Totals

109

20

18%

188

42

22%

297

62

21%

45%

Level of Services Utilized
All
Some
None

40%
35%

Recidivism Rate

30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Low

Medium/High

Total

COMPAS Risk
Source: The Office of the Auditor General prepared this exhibit based on unaudited prisoner records obtained from DOC.

22
471-0400-11

GLOSSARY

23
471-0400-11

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

COMPAS core
assessment

An assessment that evaluates the needs of prisoners
entering the prison system.

COMPAS reentry
assessment

An assessment that evaluates the needs of prisoners who
are about to reenter society on parole.

COMPAS risk

The violence and recidivism risk identified as a result of the
COMPAS core assessment or the COMPAS reentry
assessment.

Correctional Facilities
Administration (CFA)

The administration responsible for the State's correctional
facilities, prisoner transportation, food service, and
employment readiness programs. Also, CFA partners with
FOA to accomplish the mission and goals of MPRI.

Correctional Offender
Management Profiling
for Alternative
Sanctions (COMPAS)

A research-based, risk and needs assessment tool for
criminal justice practitioners to assist them in the placement,
supervision, and case management of offenders in
community and secure settings.

Corrections
Management
Information System
(CMIS)

An enterprise-wide electronic prisoner management system.

criminogenic

Producing or tending to produce crime or criminality.

DOC

Department of Corrections.

effectiveness

Success in achieving mission and goals.

24
471-0400-11

efficiency

Achieving the most outputs and outcomes practical with the
minimum amount of resources.

Field Operations
Administration (FOA)

The administration responsible for the State's probation and
parole supervision, electronic monitoring of offenders,
community residential programs, community corrections
services, and substance abuse services. Also, FOA partners
with CFA to accomplish the mission and goals of MPRI.

goal

An intended outcome of a program or an agency to
accomplish its mission.

history of parole
failure

A prisoner or parolee who had returned to prison as a result
of a new conviction or technical rule violation.

in-reach

The time when a transition team meets with a prisoner to
create a plan for parole.

internal control

The plan, policies, methods, and procedures adopted by
management to meet its mission, goals, and objectives.
Internal control includes the processes for planning,
organizing, directing, and controlling program operations. It
includes the systems for measuring, reporting, and
monitoring program performance. Internal control serves as
a defense in safeguarding assets and in preventing and
detecting errors; fraud; violations of laws, regulations, and
provisions of contracts and grant agreements; or abuse.

learning site

The site selected by DOC to begin implementing Phase 1 of
the MPRI model.

mission

The main purpose of a program or an agency or the reason
that the program or the agency was established.

MPRI

Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative.

25
471-0400-11

objective

A specific outcome that a program or an agency seeks to
achieve its goals.

Offender Management
Network Information
(OMNI)

A prisoner management system responsible for parolee case
management and referral of services.

outcome

An actual impact of a program or an agency.

parolee

A felon who is incarcerated for at least the minimum portion
of his/her sentence and is placed on parole by vote of the
Michigan Parole Board. With some exceptions, a typical
offender is supervised on parole for a period of two years.
While on parole, the offender is monitored by a parole agent
employed by DOC.

performance audit

An economy and efficiency audit or a program audit that is
designed to provide an independent assessment of the
performance of a governmental entity, program, activity, or
function to improve program operations, to facilitate decision
making by parties responsible for overseeing or initiating
corrective action, and to improve public accountability.

performance standard

A desired level of output or outcome.

prisoner

A person serving a term of incarceration under the jurisdiction
of DOC.

recidivism

The return of a parolee to State custody.

reportable condition

A matter that, in the auditor's judgment, falls within any of the
following categories: an opportunity for improvement within
the context of the audit objectives; a deficiency in internal
control that is significant within the context of the objectives
of the audit; all instances of fraud; illegal acts unless they are

26
471-0400-11

inconsequential within the context of the audit objectives;
significant violations of provisions of contracts or grant
agreements; and significant abuse that has occurred or is
likely to have occurred.
Transition
Accountability Plan
(TAP)

A case management plan that describes a prisoner's or a
parolee's needs and goals, tasks, and activities.

27
oag

471-0400-11

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

MICHIGAN
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL

AUDIT REPORT

THOMAS H. MCTAVISH, C.P.A.
AUDITOR GENERAL