President’s Update
When it comes to making financial decisions, we often hear the expression “you get what you pay for” used as way to discourage a consumer from making the choice of a lower cost option rather than a more expensive one. While in many areas this is true, it’s not necessarily the case when it comes to corrections.
It seems like every month in the last year I have come across at least one article bemoaning the high cost of prisons in the state of Michigan. Prison costs have increased from 3% of the stategeneral fund in 1980 to 21% in 2013. The Department of Corrections budget for the current fiscal year is just over $2 billion. At a time when building consensus ‘across the aisle’ is nearly impossible, on the critical issue of corrections there is clear agreement – members of both parties are saying that we can no longer afford this cost.
Fortunately, there are more reliable and effective options available for growth, which have already been demonstrating great value and significant cost savings. The Council of State Governments has been analyzing the issue of corrections and Justice Reinvestment several times in Michigan since 2008. In the last two years alone, there have been five presentations to the Michigan Law Revision Commission on theSentencing and Justice Reinvestment Initiative. In its report to the legislature in February, the Commission shared research that revealed the positive impact realized by treatment programs that are delivered in the community versus treatment in prison. The report showed research proving programs delivered in the community have a greater impact on reducing recidivism. The results are even greater among participants who attend programs which are evidenced-based (based on a valid risk/need assessment) and have quality controls to ensure program fidelity. At KPEP we work constantly to make sure all of our programs meet these standards.
A specific example of a successful program is KPEP’s partnership with the MDOC with our Residential Sexual Assault Prevention Program. We began this program in November of 2009. Through the end of March 2014, 915 people had been admitted to this program. Of those discharged, 74% completed the program successfully, 23% returned to prison because of a treatment failure, and 3% walked away form the facility. Returning people to prison due to a treatment failure is an important part of this program designed to promote public safety by screening those out who are at high risk for recidivism.
As an important follow-up study, we recently looked at 48 graduates from the six-month period of October 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011. After one year, two of the 48 (4.2%) had returned to prison. After two years that number increased to four (8.3%) and after three years it was five (10.4%). So 43 or 89.6% remained out of prison for three years after completing the program. Consider the cost savings and impact on public safety through just this one program!
While much effort in recent years has been focused on prisoner re-entry programs and with great success, there remains a huge imbalance with the amount of money spent on probationers. We spent a total of $142 million on prison and parole programs in 2013 – $80 million for 43,000 inmates and $62 million for 18,000 parolees. By comparison, we spent only $28 million on 47,000 probationers. Can a greater investment in treatment programs for probationers help keep them out of the prisonsystem?
We have worked hard at KPEP to develop programs that have proven to be successful. We are prepared to move forward to respond to the needs of the state and the communities we serve with additional residential and outpatient programs.
As hearings continue on the budget for fiscal year 2015, we hope to see some of the reforms and recommendations implemented to further reduce the cost of incarceration in this state.