1. 1 The MDOC Five Year Plan to Control Prison Growth Phase III: Long Term Policy Options SUMMARY BRIEF SUMMARY BRIEF Preliminary MDOC Proposal Revising Michigan’s Sentencing Guidelines: State and Local Impact February 12, 2004

2. 2 Michigan Sentencing Guidelines BACKGROUND  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 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 process, and increase the predictability of the need for state and local resources. These goals, by and large, have been met.  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 be inaccurate: The use of prison is much higher than anticipated.  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 as needed based on that impact assessment.  Probation violations were provisionally left out of the original guidelines – and were intended to be on the agenda at the next meeting.  The Commission never met again. State and local Impact was never measured, revisions were never considered, probation violators continue to have no guidelines.

3. 3 Sentencing Guidelines Revisions Work Group Principles to Revise Michigan Sentencing Guidelines  Revisions to the guidelines structure will not require any changes to the Truth in Sentencing law.  To the extent that guidelines revisions reduce state level imprisonment of lower risk felons, increased resources – beginning in the first year that the revisions are established – should be paid for with the cost savings generated from reduced incarceration costs. Resources should include: Funds for adequate supervision of felony probationers, and special intensive supervision capabilities for probationers with higher risk levels. Funds for adequate supervision of felony probationers, and special 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.

4. 4 Sentencing Guidelines Revisions SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL  The vast majority of all sentenced offenders will be included in the guidelines structure and will increase the predictability of the guidelines on state and local resources.  By increasing the upper limit of the recommended sentencing range by 25% for each violation handled by the courts - as is done for Habitual Offenders - the option of prison continues for higher risk offenders.  Continued violation convictions by the court would result in a progression of the original min/max guideline so that the 2 nd violation would increase the min/max by 50%, the 3 rd violation by 75%, etc. thus accounting for increased risk as violations continue.  Consistent with the “Relative Risk Guiding Principle,” some of the lockout cell min/max’s would be adjusted downward, while ensuring that in most cases, the lower recommended limit (min/min) is 1 or 2 mos.  Lower risk violators would continue to be Locked Out of prison.  Reduces the number of D, E and F Crime Class Straddle Cells for offenders who are not on probation or parole at the time of their offense. The vast majority of these offenders are already being sentenced locally.  Reduces the number of D, E and F Crime Class Straddle Cells for offenders who are not convicted as Habitual Offenders. The vast majority of these offenders are also already being sentenced locally.  All offenders who have probation violation or habitual offender status and who fall into a straddle cell are allowed to be sentenced to prison.  More Lock Outs and fewer Straddle Cells means fewer felons sentenced to prison but the revisions follow existing sentencing practices across the state.  The revisions are thus consistent with current practices and make those practices the rule. Include Probation Violators:Revise Straddle Cells:

5. 5 IMPACT SUMMARY Based on Latest Projections  All vacant housing units opened as a result of the Five Year Plan are occupied by the summer of 2005 at an added cost of $2 million.  Beginning in August of 2005, inmates will be placed in temporary emergency housing at a cost of nearly $1 million.  The beds at the two “mothballed” prisons would need to be fully funded in FY 2006.  All prison capacity – including “mothballed” beds – is exhausted during the summer of 2006.  The annual cost of operating the beds at the “mothballed” prisons is $66 million.  Over a three year period, an estimated 1,166 fewer felons would be sentenced to prison for 0 – 24 month terms.  Equitable funding must be provided to counties for community supervision, treatment and sanctions such as jail beds.  Available beds for male prisoners will last through calendar 2005, and temporary emergency housing for inmates will be avoided with a cost savings of approximately $3 million.  Prison capacity is maintained without opening “mothballed” beds until nearly halfway through FY 2006.  Once the “mothballed” beds are on line, projected capacity lasts until the summer of 2007. Without revised guidelines:With revised guidelines:

6. 6 Sentencing Guidelines Revisions Local Impact and Reinvestment Projections The MDOC has projected cost avoidance projections, actual cost savings, and the costs of reinvestment to provide for local sanction and treatment options for 2005, 2006 and 2007. Total cost savings/reinvestment would be $3.1 million in 2005, $9.5 in 2006 and $11.1 million in 2007. Each year, cost savings/reinvestment includes grant funds to counties and funds for probation supervision:  2005: $2.8 million in grants and $318,200 for probation supervision  2006: $7.2 million in grants and $2.3 million for probation supervision  2007: $8.1 million in grants and $3 million for probation supervision

7. 7 Sentencing Guidelines Revisions Grant Funding: Reinvestment Projections ALL counties will receive additional grant funding for treatment and jails commensurate with the number of additional felons expected to be sentenced locally. ALL counties will receive additional grant funding for treatment and jails commensurate with the number of additional felons expected to be sentenced locally. $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 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), 2006 ($4.2 million) and 2007 ($4.2 million).  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 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 funding for 2005 ($500,000), 2006 ($1.4 million) and 2007 ($1.4 million).

8. 8 Sentencing Guidelines Revisions Impact/Reinvestment in FY 2005 The Reinvestment Strategy Appropriations Law Protecting Counties Interests  Funding in all three categories – jail funds, residential treatment funds and non-residential treatment funds – is included in the FY 2005 budget as additional funding for counties, assuming the revisions to Sentencing Guidelines are passed with an effective date of June 1, 2004.  Impact begins in January 2005 so funding for FY 2005 would be approved by that time.  Funding in all three categories is set aside for each county and will be distributed through amended Comprehensive Corrections Plans under the Michigan Community Corrections Act. Application guidelines would be distributed in October 2004 and processed by January 2005.  The Appropriation law states that funds for jails are intended for county sheriffs to cover the additional costs of housing offenders through a grant program. Although it is doubtful that 100% of the diverted felons will be sentenced to jail, the funding formula assumes 100% will be sentenced to jail for 75 days – the statewide average length of stay for felons in 2003.  This application and funding process is nearly identical to the approach for the Drunk Driver Jail Reduction and Treatment Fund, passed by the Legislature in 2004 and supported by the Michigan Association of Counties (MAC), the Michigan Sheriff’s Association (MSA) and the Prosecuting Association of Michigan.