11

The MDOC Five Year Plan to Control Prison GrowthThe MDOC Five Year Plan to Control Prison Growth

Phase III: Long Term Policy OptionsPhase III: Long Term Policy Options

SUMMARY BRIEFSUMMARY BRIEF

Preliminary MDOC Proposal Preliminary MDOC Proposal Revising Michigan’s Sentencing Revising Michigan’s Sentencing

Guidelines:Guidelines:State and Local ImpactState and Local Impact

February 12, 2004 February 12, 2004

22

Michigan Sentencing GuidelinesMichigan Sentencing GuidelinesBACKGROUNDBACKGROUND

Sent to the Legislature in 1999 to set into statute categories of offenders who would Sent to the Legislature in 1999 to set into statute categories of offenders who would be required to be: Sentenced to prison (Presumptive Prison), Sentenced locally (Lock be required to be: Sentenced to prison (Presumptive Prison), Sentenced locally (Lock Outs), and those for whom judges have broad discretion (Straddle Cell Offenders).Outs), and those for whom judges have broad discretion (Straddle Cell Offenders).

Sentencing guidelines were created to reduce disparity, provide more logic to the Sentencing guidelines were created to reduce disparity, provide more logic to the sentencing process, and increase the predictability of the need for state and local sentencing process, and increase the predictability of the need for state and local resources. These goals, by and large, have been met.resources. These goals, by and large, have been met.

The impact of the guidelines was projected using 1995 sentencing data as the norm. The impact of the guidelines was projected using 1995 sentencing data as the norm. The projections on prison use – particularly for Straddle Cell felons – have proven to The projections on prison use – particularly for Straddle Cell felons – have proven to be inaccurate: The use of prison is much higher than anticipated.be inaccurate: The use of prison is much higher than anticipated.

The Sentencing Commission was to evaluate and report annually to the Legislature The Sentencing Commission was to evaluate and report annually to the Legislature about the impact of the guidelines on state and local resources and amend guidelines about the impact of the guidelines on state and local resources and amend guidelines as needed based on that impact assessment. as needed based on that impact assessment.

Probation violations were provisionally left out of the original guidelines – and were Probation violations were provisionally left out of the original guidelines – and were intended to be on the agenda at the next meeting. intended to be on the agenda at the next meeting.

The Commission never met again. State and local Impact was never measured, The Commission never met again. State and local Impact was never measured, revisions were never considered, probation violators continue to have no guidelines. revisions were never considered, probation violators continue to have no guidelines.

33

Sentencing Guidelines RevisionsSentencing Guidelines RevisionsWork Group Principles to Revise Michigan Sentencing GuidelinesWork Group Principles to Revise Michigan Sentencing Guidelines

Revisions to the guidelines structure will Revisions to the guidelines structure will notnot require any changes to require any changes to the Truth in Sentencing law.the Truth in Sentencing law.

To the extent that guidelines revisions reduce state level To the extent that guidelines revisions reduce state level imprisonment of lower risk felons, increased resources – beginning in imprisonment of lower risk felons, increased resources – beginning in the first year that the revisions are established – should be paid for the first year that the revisions are established – should be paid for with the cost savings generated from reduced incarceration costs. with the cost savings generated from reduced incarceration costs. Resources should include:Resources should include:

Funds for adequate supervision of felony probationers, and special Funds for adequate supervision of felony probationers, and special intensive supervision capabilities for probationers with higher risk levels.intensive supervision capabilities for probationers with higher risk levels.

Funds that will directly impact the availability of jail space.Funds that will directly impact the availability of jail space.

Additional funding for alcohol and drug services.Additional funding for alcohol and drug services.

44

Sentencing Guidelines RevisionsSentencing Guidelines RevisionsSUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY PROPOSALSUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL

The vast majority of all sentenced offenders The vast majority of all sentenced offenders will be included in the guidelines structure will be included in the guidelines structure and will increase the predictability of the and will increase the predictability of the guidelines on state and local resources.guidelines on state and local resources.

By increasing the upper limit of the By increasing the upper limit of the recommended sentencing range by 25% for recommended sentencing range by 25% for each violation handled by the courts - as is each violation handled by the courts - as is done for Habitual Offenders - the option of done for Habitual Offenders - the option of prison continues for higher risk offenders.prison continues for higher risk offenders.

Continued violation convictions by the court Continued violation convictions by the court would result in a progression of the original would result in a progression of the original min/max guideline so that the 2min/max guideline so that the 2ndnd violation violation would increase the min/max by 50%, the 3would increase the min/max by 50%, the 3rdrd violation by 75%, etc. thus accounting for violation by 75%, etc. thus accounting for increased risk as violations continue.increased risk as violations continue.

Consistent with the “Relative Risk Guiding Consistent with the “Relative Risk Guiding Principle,” some of the lockout cell Principle,” some of the lockout cell min/max’s would be adjusted downward, min/max’s would be adjusted downward, while ensuring that in most cases, the lower while ensuring that in most cases, the lower recommended limit (min/min) is 1 or 2 mos. recommended limit (min/min) is 1 or 2 mos.

Lower risk violators would continue to be Lower risk violators would continue to be Locked Out of prison. Locked Out of prison.

Reduces the number of D, E and F Crime Reduces the number of D, E and F Crime Class Straddle Cells for offenders who are not Class Straddle Cells for offenders who are not on probation or parole at the time of their on probation or parole at the time of their offense. The vast majority of these offenders offense. The vast majority of these offenders are already being sentenced locally.are already being sentenced locally.

Reduces the number of D, E and F Crime Reduces the number of D, E and F Crime Class Straddle Cells for offenders who are not Class Straddle Cells for offenders who are not convicted as Habitual Offenders. The vast convicted as Habitual Offenders. The vast majority of these offenders are also already majority of these offenders are also already being sentenced locally.being sentenced locally.

All offenders who have probation violation or All offenders who have probation violation or habitual offender status and who fall into a habitual offender status and who fall into a straddle cell are allowed to be sentenced to straddle cell are allowed to be sentenced to prison.prison.

More Lock Outs and fewer Straddle Cells More Lock Outs and fewer Straddle Cells means fewer felons sentenced to prison but means fewer felons sentenced to prison but the revisions follow existing sentencing the revisions follow existing sentencing practices across the state.practices across the state.

The revisions are thus consistent with current The revisions are thus consistent with current practices and make those practices the rule.practices and make those practices the rule.

Include Probation Violators: Revise Straddle Cells:

55

IMPACT SUMMARYIMPACT SUMMARYBased on Latest ProjectionsBased on Latest Projections

All vacant housing units opened as a All vacant housing units opened as a result of the result of the Five Year PlanFive Year Plan are are occupied by the summer of 2005 at an occupied by the summer of 2005 at an added cost of $2 million.added cost of $2 million.

Beginning in August of 2005, inmates Beginning in August of 2005, inmates will be placed in temporary emergency will be placed in temporary emergency housing at a cost of nearly $1 million.housing at a cost of nearly $1 million.

The beds at the two “mothballed” The beds at the two “mothballed” prisons would need to be fully funded prisons would need to be fully funded in FY 2006.in FY 2006.

All prison capacity – including All prison capacity – including “mothballed” beds – is exhausted “mothballed” beds – is exhausted during the summer of 2006.during the summer of 2006.

The annual cost of operating the beds The annual cost of operating the beds at the “mothballed” prisons is $66 at the “mothballed” prisons is $66 million.million.

Over a three year period, an estimated Over a three year period, an estimated 1,166 fewer felons would be sentenced 1,166 fewer felons would be sentenced to prison for 0 – 24 month terms. to prison for 0 – 24 month terms.

Equitable funding must be provided to Equitable funding must be provided to counties for community supervision, counties for community supervision, treatment and sanctions such as jail treatment and sanctions such as jail beds.beds.

Available beds for male prisoners will Available beds for male prisoners will last through calendar 2005, and last through calendar 2005, and temporary emergency housing for temporary emergency housing for inmates will be avoided with a cost inmates will be avoided with a cost savings of approximately $3 million.savings of approximately $3 million.

Prison capacity is maintained without Prison capacity is maintained without opening “mothballed” beds until nearly opening “mothballed” beds until nearly halfway through FY 2006.halfway through FY 2006.

Once the “mothballed” beds are on line, Once the “mothballed” beds are on line, projected capacity lasts until the projected capacity lasts until the summer of 2007.summer of 2007.

Without revised guidelines: With revised guidelines:

66

Sentencing Guidelines RevisionsSentencing Guidelines Revisions Local Impact and Reinvestment ProjectionsLocal Impact and Reinvestment Projections

The MDOC has projected cost avoidance projections, actual cost savings, The MDOC has projected cost avoidance projections, actual cost savings, and the costs of reinvestment to provide for local sanction and and the costs of reinvestment to provide for local sanction and

treatment options for 2005, 2006 and 2007. treatment options for 2005, 2006 and 2007.

Total cost savings/reinvestment would be $3.1 million in 2005, $9.5 in Total cost savings/reinvestment would be $3.1 million in 2005, $9.5 in 2006 and $11.1 million in 2007. 2006 and $11.1 million in 2007.

Each year, cost savings/reinvestment includes grant funds to counties and Each year, cost savings/reinvestment includes grant funds to counties and funds for probation supervision:funds for probation supervision:

2005: $2.8 million in grants and $318,200 for probation supervision2005: $2.8 million in grants and $318,200 for probation supervision 2006: $7.2 million in grants and $2.3 million for probation supervision2006: $7.2 million in grants and $2.3 million for probation supervision 2007: $8.1 million in grants and $3 million for probation supervision 2007: $8.1 million in grants and $3 million for probation supervision

77

Sentencing Guidelines RevisionsSentencing Guidelines Revisions Grant Funding: Reinvestment ProjectionsGrant Funding: Reinvestment Projections

ALL counties will receive additional grant funding for treatment and jails ALL counties will receive additional grant funding for treatment and jails commensurate with the number of additional felons expected to be commensurate with the number of additional felons expected to be

sentenced locally. sentenced locally. $2.8 million in 2005, $7.2 million in 2006, $8.1 million in 2007$2.8 million in 2005, $7.2 million in 2006, $8.1 million in 2007

Since about half of the additional local sentences would be concentrated in the Since about half of the additional local sentences would be concentrated in the state’s largest four counties - Wayne, Oakland, Kent and Macomb – they would state’s largest four counties - Wayne, Oakland, Kent and Macomb – they would receive about 51% of the reinvestment grant funding for 2005 ($1.4 million), receive about 51% of the reinvestment grant funding for 2005 ($1.4 million), 2006 ($4.2 million) and 2007 ($4.2 million).2006 ($4.2 million) and 2007 ($4.2 million).

Since about a third of the additional local sentenced would be concentrated in Since about a third of the additional local sentenced would be concentrated in the next largest 13 counties, they would receive about 32% of the reinvestment the next largest 13 counties, they would receive about 32% of the reinvestment grant funding for 2005 ($900,000), 2006 ($2.5 million) and 2007 ($2.6 million).grant funding for 2005 ($900,000), 2006 ($2.5 million) and 2007 ($2.6 million).

The remaining 66 counties would receive about 17% of the reinvestment grant The remaining 66 counties would receive about 17% of the reinvestment grant funding for 2005 ($500,000), 2006 ($1.4 million) and 2007 ($1.4 million).funding for 2005 ($500,000), 2006 ($1.4 million) and 2007 ($1.4 million).