Justice Reinvestment in Michigan

Policy Options to Deter Crime,
Lower Recidivism, and Reduce
Spending on Corrections

T

his brief describes a range of
policy options that the Council of
State Governments Justice Center
(Justice Center) has developed for Michigan
policymakers. It tracks the findings outlined
in a companion report, Analyses of Crime,
Community Corrections, and Sentencing
Policies. Both the report and this policy brief
were developed in response to a request
from Governor Jennifer M. Granholm,
Senate Majority Leader Michael D. Bishop,
and Speaker of the House Andy Dillon for
intensive technical assistance to address
the high rates of crime and victimization
in Michigan and to reduce spending on
corrections.
To guide the Justice Center’s collection
and analysis of data, the state leaders
established a bipartisan, interbranch working
group, the Justice Reinvestment Working
Group. The working group agreed that
whatever policies they decide to advance

should be consistent with the principles of
justice reinvestment. In other words, to
the extent policy changes effectively lower
the Department of Corrections’ budget, a
portion of those savings should be reinvested
in strategies that the working group has
determined will reduce crime and strengthen
communities.
The options in this policy framework
draw heavily on the expertise and experience
of the working group members and a diverse
group of Michigan stakeholders, including
local government officials and representatives
of community-based organizations.1
These options are not a finite set of
recommendations; they are a range of datadriven options that Michigan’s leaders
should fully consider in partnership with
a broad group of stakeholders to ensure
that taxpayer dollars are being invested in
efforts that will make communities safer and
stronger while reducing corrections spending.

During the initial meetings, the Justice Center and the working group agreed that any analyses and policy options related to the
Department of Corrections’ operations (such as labor management, where there might be opportunities for increased efficiencies) would be beyond the scope of the project. Additional policy options were discussed and considered during the working group
process; however, policymakers concluded that the options offered in this brief were among the most likely to achieve consensus on
reducing crime and victimization and generate significant savings given the current circumstances in Michigan.

1.

Justice Reinvestment in Michigan



Options for Michigan Policymakers
policy option

policy details

Strategy 1: Deter Criminal Activity
1A.
Support local
law enforcement’s
targeted crime-fighting
strategies.

•	 Create and fund a demonstration grant program for local law enforcement
agencies to design and deploy specific crime-fighting operations in partnership
with local prosecutors and community and faith-based groups. Funds could
support activities such as overtime, analysis of crime data, and police/
community partnerships.
•	 Direct the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) to adapt the state’s
information system for supervising probationers and parolees to meet the needs
of law enforcement.

1B.
Reduce crime lab
backlogs to speed
investigations.

•	 Provide the Michigan State Police with additional resources to reduce
significantly the delays in processing evidence. State funding should help cover
the costs associated both with hiring and training additional staff and with
outsourcing expenses while new staff is being trained.

1C.
Increase employment
opportunities for
at-risk young adults.

•	 Target young adults who are disconnected from both school and work and are atrisk for criminal involvement and victimization.
•	 Support, in partnership with private foundations, demonstration projects in
communities with the highest percentages of disconnected young adults. Engage
and provide an intensive set of education and employment opportunities to
disconnected young adults in these communities.

Strategy 2: Lower Recidivism
2A.
Reduce rates of
re-arrest among
probationers.

•	 Improve risk assessment and data systems to allow probation officers to target
supervision resources and interventions at high-risk probationers.
•	 Assess the quality of community corrections programs.
•	 Revise Michigan’s Community Corrections Act to focus resources on probationers
determined to be high-risk, as defined not simply by the offense committed, but
by a validated risk instrument.
•	 Provide local Community Corrections Advisory Boards with funds to target highrisk probationers with the goal of reducing re-arrest rates for this population by
10 percent.

2B.
Respond to probation
violations with swift,
certain, and
proportional sanctions.

•	 Establish pilot projects in jurisdictions where capacity in local jails is set aside to
allow the application of short and swift jail stays in response to violations.

2C.
Expand employment
services for high-risk
probationers/parolees.

•	 Target high-risk probationers returning from jail and parolees returning from
prison to maximize reductions in recidivism.



•	 Reinvest in pilot sites that will provide immediate transitional employment,
including job placement services, case management, mentoring, and basic
skill-building.

Justice Reinvestment in Michigan

policy option

policy details

Strategy 3: Reduce Spending on Corrections
3A.
Ensure that offenders
in prison serve
100–120% of their
court-imposed
minimum sentence.
(Effective for those sentenced
after April 1, 2009.)

•	 Require that people sentenced to prison after the effective date of this policy
serve no less than 100% of their court-imposed minimum sentence and no more than 120%
of that sentence.
•	 Offenders who are serving sentences with a statutory maximum of life (see
partial list of these offenses, p. 5) would not be affected by this policy.
•	 Direct the parole board to release offenders who have served 100% of their courtimposed minimum sentence except in cases where there is failure to complete
required programs that are determined to reduce an offender’s risk to public
safety or institutional misconduct.
•	 Permit the parole board to hold an offender beyond 120% of their court-imposed
minimum sentence in cases where the offender poses a very high risk of reoffending as determined by a validated risk assessment.

3B.
Limit time served on
first parole revocation
for condition
violations.

•	 Require people revoked for the first time from parole for condition violations to
serve no more than 9 months in prison.

3C.
Ensure supervision for
everyone released from
prison.

•	 Require offenders who have served 100% of their minimum sentence to be
released at least 9 months prior to their statutory maximum sentence in order to
ensure a period of intensive supervision in the community.

3D.
Continue the parole
board’s administrative
actions to reduce the
population that has
served more than 100%
of their minimum
sentence.

•	 During the last 6 months, the parole board has administratively taken steps to
expand community-based options, utilize new risk assessments, and pursue
other strategies to reduce the population currently in prison who have served
100 % of their court-imposed minimum sentence.

•	 Apply this policy to anyone admitted to prison after April 1, 2009, for their first
parole revocation.

•	 If the parole board is able to continue pursuing these administrative options as
they have for the past 6 months, the policies and practices will have an impact on
the resulting prison population from the baseline projection.

Accountability Strategy
Charge a state agency, independent body, or outside organization with periodically assessing the implementation
progress, the fiscal and public safety impact of these policies on various components of the state’s overall criminal
justice system, and the outcomes for people released from prison and under community supervision and the
communities where they return.

Justice Reinvestment in Michigan



Cost-Savings Analysis
The following analysis projects the impact of the policy options in strategy 3 on the base prison population projection
if the policies are enacted by April 1, 2009. These projections assume no changes to current trends in prison admissions or to the criminal code. Cost savings are based on projected savings as calculated by the Michigan Department
of Corrections that could be realized if the projections are accurate.

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

48,638

48,456

48,712

48,749

48,757

48,944

49,081

48,638

49,537

50,617

50,370

50,378

50,565

50,702

3a: 100–120% of
minimum sentence
to be served

0

-65

-515

-1,606

-2,585

-3,544

-4,315

3b: Limit time
served on first
parole revocation

0

-34

-223

-270

-273

-260

-282

3c: Ensure supervision for
all released from prison

0

-309

-674

-631

-386

-255

-284

-182

-876

-1,296

Combination 1:
Resulting population
from 3a + 3b

48,642

48,359

47,985

46,904

45,886

45,069

44,394

Combination 2:
Resulting population
from 3a + 3b + 3c

48,605

48,100

47,408

46,526

45,648

45,062

44,477

Combination 3:
Resulting population
from 3a + 3b + 3c + 3d

48,456

47,308

46,334

45,333

44,527

43,972

43,509

$15.6m

$31.2m

$62.4m

$62.4m

$90.7m

Base Prison
Population Projection
(See note on projections, p.5)

Alternate Projection
without SAI

3d: Parole board’s
administrative
post-ERD reduction

Estimated FY Savings
According to MDOC
from Combination 3

$0

$0*

-

-

-

-

(Savings from FY2010 baseline.)

Reinvestment in
Strategies 1, 2, and 3

Successful implementation of the policy options described
in strategies 1, 2, and 3 depends on upfront and sustained
reinvestment of a substantial portion of the projected savings.

FY2011 - 2015 CUMULATIVE COST SAVINGS: $262 million
*The Michigan Department of Corrections and the Parole Board have taken administrative measures to reduce the
population currently in prison past their earliest release dates. Some of these measures include expanding
community-based options and utilizing new risk assessments. These efforts were discussed and considered during
the working group process and reflect a consensus understanding of their rationale and scope. As a result of these
efforts, savings totaling $16 million will be generated in the FY10 budget.



Justice Reinvestment in Michigan

1995–2015: Past Prison Population,
Current Capacity,
Baseline Projection, and
Alternate Projection Without SAI

2009–2015: Baseline Projection,
Impact of Three Statutory Policy
Options, and Administrative PostERD Reduction

53,000

53,000

51,000

51,000

\

49,000

49,000

47,000

47,000

45,000

45,000

43,000

43,000

«:

41,000

41,000

39,000

39,000
37 ,000 L-..,---,-----.---.,---,--,--,....,r-r---,-----.---.,---,--,--,....,r-r---,----,
1995 '97 '99 '01 '03 '05 '07 '09 '11 '13 '15
'96 '98 '00 '02 '04 '06 '08 '10 '12 '14
-

1995–2015: Past Prison Population,
Baseline Projection, and
Three Combinations of Options
53,000
51,000

-

47,000
45,000
43,000
41,000
39,000
37 ,000 L---,---,-----.--.--.---,--,....,---,-----.--.--.---,--,....,---,-----.--.--.---,--,
1995 '97 '99 '01 '03 '05 '07 '09 '11 '13 '15
'96 '98 '00 '02 '04 '06 '08 '10 '12 '14
-

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

-

Baseline Projection

-

38: Parole Violator Up to 9m on 1st Revocation

-

3C: Max Outs Requiring 9m Supervision

_

3D: Parole Board's Post-ERD Administrative Actions

3A: 100-120% of Minimum Sentence to be Served

Prison Population-H istorical
Current Capacity
Baseline Projection
Baseline Without SAl

49,000

37,000

Prison Population-Historical
Baseline Projection
Combo #1: 100-120% + Parole Violator

-

Combo #2: 100-120% + Parole Violator+ Max Out

-

Combo #3: 100-120% + Parole Violator+ Max Out +
Parole Board's Post-ERD Action

Partial List of Criminal Offenses in Michigan with a
Statutory Maximum Sentence of Life Imprisonment
Murder 1st Degree
Murder 2nd Degree
Attempted Murder
Kidnapping
Rape
Criminal Sexual Conduct - 1st Degree
Criminal Sexual Conduct - 2nd Offense
Armed Robbery
Carjacking
Assault with Intent to Murder
Assault with Intent to Rob While Armed
Assault Pregnant Individual Causing Miscarriage/Stillbirth
Habitual Offender - 4th Offense
Bank Robbery / Safe Breaking
Narcotic/Cocaine Possession 1,000 or More Grams
Controlled Substance - Attempt Felony
Note on Base and Alternate Prison Population Projection:
Dr. James Austin, the projections consultant under contract
with CSG, was tasked by the justice reinvestment working
group to “certify” the projections used in this anlaysis. The
base projection takes into account the recent expansion of
the SAI program that is designed, in part, to reduce the expected length of stay for persons who complete the program.
The SAI is currently scheduled to sunset on September 30,
2009. Should this program be terminated, the population
projection would have to be adjusted to reflect this change
from current policy. An alternate projection is provided in this
report forecasting a spike in the prison population if SAI is not
continued.

Justice Reinvestment in Michigan



To learn more about the justice reinvestment strategy
in Michigan and other states, please visit:
www.justicereinvestment.org.

The Justice Center is a national, nonpartisan organization that works with policymakers to develop data-driven, consensus-based
strategies that increase public safety and strengthen communities. Assistance from the Justice Center is made possible in part
through funding support provided by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, a component of the U.S. Department of Justice, and the
Public Safety Performance Project of The Pew Charitable Trusts’ Center on the States.

This project was supported by Grant No. 2008-DD-BX-0685
awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of
Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics,
the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of
Crime. Points of view or opinions in this document are those
of the authors and do not represent the official position or
policies of the United State Department of Justice.
To learn more about the Bureau of Justice Assistance,
please visit: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/.

Research and analysis described in this report also have been
funded by the Public Safety Performance Project of The Pew
Charitable Trusts’ Center on the States. Launched in 2006 as
a project of the Pew Center on the States, the Public Safety
Performance Project seeks to help states advance fiscally
sound, data-driven policies and practices in sentencing
and corrections that protect public safety, hold offenders
accountable, and control corrections costs.
To learn more about the Public Safety Performance
Project, please visit: http://www.pewpublicsafety.org/.

Points of view, recommendations, or findings stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the
official position or policies of the United States Department of Justice, The Pew Charitable Trusts, Council of State Governments
Justice Center, or the Council of State Governments’ members.
Suggested citation: Council of State Governments Justice Center, Justice Reinvestment in Michigan: Policy Options to Deter Crime, Lower
Recidivism, and Reduce Spending on Corrections, (New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2009).

Council of State Governments
Justice Center
100 Wall Street
20th Floor
New York, NY 10005
tel:	 212-482-2320
fax:	 212-482-2344

4630 Montgomery Avenue
Suite 650
Bethesda, MD 20814
tel:	 301-760-2401
fax:	 240-497-0568

504 W. 12th Street
Austin, TX 78701
tel:	 512-482-8298
fax:	 512-474-5011

www.justicecenter.csg.org



Justice Reinvestment in Michigan

project contact:
LaToya McBean
646-383-5721
lmcbean@csg.org