Upload
glynn
View
49
Download
5
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Corrections Growth: A Long-Term Analysis of Growth in Michigan’s Department of Corrections. Balancing Our Priorities: Can We Safely Spend Less on Corrections? May 2, 2008. Citizens Research Council of Michigan. Founded in 1916 Statewide Non-partisan Private not-for-profit - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Corrections Growth:A Long-Term Analysis of Growth in
Michigan’s Department of Corrections
Balancing Our Priorities:Can We Safely Spend Less on
Corrections?May 2, 2008
2
Citizens Research Council of Michigan
• Founded in 1916• Statewide• Non-partisan• Private not-for-profit• Promotes sound policy for state and local
governments through factual research – accurate, independent and objective
• Relies on charitable contributions of Michigan foundations, businesses, and individuals
• www.crcmich.org
3
One Theme in Michigan Corrections Since 1973: Growth
• Michigan’s prison population has grown by 538 percent in the last 34 years
• Department of Corrections expenditure and workforce sizes have reached record levels
• Michigan is an outlier in national and Great Lakes states Corrections comparisons
• Looking forward, prison populations and Corrections expenditures are projected to rise
4Source: Michigan Department of Corrections Statistical Reports, Michigan Department of Corrections 2008 Prison Population Projection Report
Michigan’s Prison Population Growth: 1973-2007
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
Year
Num
ber o
f Pris
oner
s
Substantial Growth
Steady Growth
Stability
5
• The number of prisoners entering prison increases
• The length of time prisoners remain incarcerated increases
What Causes Prison Population Growth?
6
In Michigan, Both Have Increased • The number of prisoners entering prison has increased due to:• Swelling annual felony dispositions• Increasing recidivism rates• More technical rule violators
• The length of time prisoners remain incarcerated has increased due to: • Decreasing parole approval rates• Policy changes aimed at being ‘tough on crime’ (e.g. removing disciplinary credits and stiffer sentencing guidelines)
What Causes Prison Population Growth?
7Source: Department of Corrections Statistical Reports, FBI Uniform Crime Reports
(Data Compiled by The Disaster Center Website)
Felony Disposition Status of Michigan’s Reported Crimes: 1976-2006
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
Year
Oth
er R
epor
ted
Crim
es
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
Felo
ny D
ispo
siti
ons
Other Reported CrimeFelony Disposition
8Source: Michigan Department of Corrections Statistical Reports
Prison Commitments: 1976-2006
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006Year
Num
ber
of C
omm
itm
ents
Other CommitmentTechnical Rule Violators
9Source: Michigan Department of Corrections Statistical Reports, Department of Corrections MPRI Quarterly Status Report July 2007
Recidivism and Parole Approval Rates: 1976-2004
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
Year
Rate Parole Approval Rate
Recidivism Rate
10Source: Michigan Department of Corrections MPRI Quarterly Status Report July 2007, Department of Corrections Research Section May 1995, Department of Corrections Five Years After Report September 1997
Prisoners Serving Past Parole Eligibility*: 1988, 1997, and
2006
*Prisoners with parolable life sentences are not included in the ‘Serving Past Eligibility’ category
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
55000
1988 1997 2006Year
Num
ber
of P
riso
ners
Not EligibleServing Past Eligibility
17%28%
31%
11Source: CRC Calculations, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Annual Releases
Spreadsheet
Michigan’s Estimated Average Length of Stay: 1981-2005
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005Year
Leng
th o
f Sta
y (in
Mon
ths)
Average Length of Stay
12
How Does Prison Population Growth Affect Michigan’s Budget?
13
The Fiscal Effects of Sustained Prison Population Growth
• Corrections expenditures increased by nearly 5,000 percent in the last 34 years from $38 million to roughly $2 billion
• Michigan Corrections spending grew from 1.6 percent of total GF/GP expenditures in FY1973 to 21.5 percent by FY2007
• Since FY2000, Corrections spending has “crowded out” spending on other major GF/GP programs
14Source: Michigan Department of Civil Service, CRC calculations, U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics
Corrections and GF/GP Expenditures Compared to CPI: FY73-FY07
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
Fiscal Year
Inde
x Corrections ExpendituresInflation (Detroit CPI)GF/GP Expenditures Less Corrections
15
The Effects of Sustained Prison Population Growth on the State
Workforce• There were roughly 7 times more Corrections employees in 2006 than in 1973
• The percentage of the state classified workforce employed in Corrections rose from 5 percent in 1973 to 32 percent in 2006
16Source: Michigan Department of Civil Service
State Classified Workforce: FY73-FY06
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006Fiscal Year
Empl
oyee
s
State Workforce Less CorrectionsCorrections Workforce
17
The Effects of Sustained Prison Population Growth on Correctional
Facilities• There were 31 more correctional facilities, prisons and camps, in Michigan in 2006 than in 1976
• Michigan has exceeded its year-end net operating capacity in 16 of the last 30 years
18Source: Michigan Department of Corrections Statistical Reports
Prison Facilities, Population*, Net Operating Capacity: 1976-2006
*Annual prison population numbers do not include participants in the MDOC community residential program.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
Year
Num
ber
of F
acili
ties
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
Num
ber
of P
riso
ners
PrisonsCampsPrison PopulationNet Operating Capacity
19
National and Great Lakes States Comparisons
When compared to the U.S. and Great Lakes states averages, Michigan:
• has higher incarceration rates • has lower prison admissions rates• has a substantially longer average prisoner length of stay
• spends the largest percentage of its total state expenditures on Corrections
20Source: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics
Michigan, U.S., and Great Lakes States Incarceration Rates: 1977-
2006
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005Year
Inca
rcer
atio
n Ra
te (P
riso
ners
per
100
,000
Res
iden
ts)
Great Lakes AverageMichiganU.S. Less Michigan
21Source: CRC Calculations, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Annual Admissions
Spreadsheet
Michigan, U.S., and Great Lakes States Admissions Rates: 1977-2005
0
50
100
150
200
250
1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005Year
Pris
on A
dmis
sion
s (p
er 1
00,0
00 R
esid
ents
)
Great Lakes AverageMichiganU.S. Less Michigan
22Source: CRC Calculations, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Annual Releases
Spreadsheet
Michigan, U.S., and Great Lakes States Estimated Average Length of
Stay: 1981-2005
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Leng
th o
f Sta
y (in
Mon
ths)
Great Lakes AverageMichiganU.S. Less Michigan
23
What if Michigan’s Average Prisoner Length of Stay was one year less each year from 1990 to 2005?
• There would have been roughly 14,000 fewer Michigan prisoners in 2005
• Michigan’s 2005 incarceration rate would drop from 489 prisoners per 100,000 residents to 351
• At a cost of $28,743 per prisoner, Michigan’s 2005 Corrections expenditures would decrease by $403 million
• There would have been approximately 4,700 fewer Corrections employees in 2005 (assuming the prisoners to employee ratio remained the same)
24
U.S. 501 $41,354 $23,876 $143 3.30%
Illinois 351 51,507 21,622 94 2.90%Indiana 388 33,521 21,531 117 3.40%Minnesota 180 44,252 29,260 80 1.70%New York 326 60,713 42,202 151 2.90%Ohio 400 34,091 23,011 166 3.80%Pennsylvania 340 45,845 31,029 140 3.40%Wisconsin 380 41,845 28,932 187 3.30% Average 338 44,487 28,227 133 3.06%
Michigan 489 53,268 28,740 205 5.10%
Total Corrections Expenditures as a Percent of Total
State Expenditures
Total Corrections
Spending per Capita
Incarceration Rate (per 100,000 residents)
Average Corrections
Salary
Average Annual Costs Per Prisoner
Source: Pew Charitable Trusts Public Safety, Public Spending, Forecasting America’s Prison Population 2007-2011; Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2005; National Association of State Budget Officers, 2006 State Expenditure Report
*Numbers displayed in red are smaller than Michigan’s corresponding number.
Michigan, U.S., and Great Lakes States Incarceration and Spending Comparisons
2005
25
What Does the Future Hold for Michigan Corrections?
26
Five Years From Now
• Michigan’s prison population is projected to grow by 5,800 prisoners in the next five years
• By 2012 Michigan’s incarceration rate is projected to be 559
• CRC projects annual spending pressures to reach $2.6 billion by 2012
27Source: CRC Calculations, Michigan Department of Corrections Statistical Reports, Michigan Department of Corrections 2008 Prison Population Projection Report
Historical and Projected Prison Populations and Expenditures
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Year
Num
ber
of P
rison
ers
0
500,000,000
1,000,000,000
1,500,000,000
2,000,000,000
2,500,000,000
3,000,000,000
U.S.
Dol
lars
Prison PopulationCorrections Expenditures
28
Citizens Research Council of Michigan
CRC Publications available atwww.crcmich.org
Providing Independent, Nonpartisan Public Policy Research Since 1916