Citizens Resear
Resear
ch C
C
ouncil of
of Michigan
Michigan
Research
Council
ch
ouncil
Council
Citizens

Growth in Michigan’s Corrections System:
Historical and Comparative Perspectives

June 2008
2008
June
Rep
or
350
Repor
ort
or
tt 350
Repor
ort
Rep

CELEBR
ELEBR
ATING
TING 92 YEARS
EARS OF
OF INDEPENDENT
NDEPENDENT, NONP
ONP
AR
TISAN
ELEBRA
ONPAR
ARTISAN
A
AR
TISAN
ELEBRA
ONPAR
ARTISAN
UBLIC P
OLIC
ESEARCH IN
IN M
ICHIGAN
POLIC
OLICY
RESEARCH
MICHIGAN
PPUBLIC
YY R
OLICY

Board of Directors
Chairman
Kent J. Vana

Vice Chairman
Eugene A. Gargaro, Jr.

Treasurer
Jeffrey D. Bergeron

Jeffrey D. Bergeron

W. Frank Fountain

Paul Obermeyer

Ernst & Young LLP

Chrysler LLC

Comerica Bank

J. Edward Berry

Eugene A. Gargaro, Jr.

Irving Rose

General Motors Corporation

Masco Corporation

Edward Rose & Sons

Beth Chappell

Ingrid A. Gregg

Jerry E. Rush

Detroit Economic Club

Earhart Foundation

Rick DiBartolomeo

Marybeth S. Howe

Rehmann Group

National City Bank of Michigan

Terence M. Donnelly

Nick A. Khouri

Dickinson Wright PLLC

DTE Energy Company

Randall W. Eberts

Daniel T. Lis

W. E. Upjohn Institute

Kelly Services, Inc.

David O. Egner

Aleksandra A. Miziolek

Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt
& Howlett LLP

Hudson-Webber Foundation

Dykema

Jeffrey K. Willemain

ArvinMeritor, Inc.

Terence Thomas
St. John Health

Amanda Van Dusen
Miller, Canfield, Paddock
and Stone PLC

Kent J. Vana

Deloitte.

Advisory Director
Louis Betanzos

Board of Trustees
Chairman
Patrick J. Ledwidge

Vice Chairman
Mark A. Murray

Terence E. Adderley

W. Frank Fountain

Elliot Joseph

Keith A. Pretty

Kelly Services, Inc.

Chrysler LLC

St. John Health

Northwood University

Judith I. Bailey

David G. Frey

Daniel J. Kelly

Michael Rao

Frey Foundation

Deloitte. Retired.

Central Michigan University

Mark T. Gaffney

David B. Kennedy

Douglas B. Roberts

Michigan State AFL-CIO

Earhart Foundation

IPPSR- Michigan State University

Eugene A. Gargaro, Jr.

Patrick J. Ledwidge

Irving Rose

Masco Corporation

Dickinson Wright PLLC

Edward Rose & Sons

Ralph J. Gerson

Edward C. Levy, Jr.

Gary D. Russi

Guardian Industries Corporation

Edw. C. Levy Co.

Oakland University

Eric R. Gilbertson

Daniel Little

Lloyd A. Semple

Saginaw Valley State University

University of Michigan-Dearborn

Dykema

Roderick D. Gillum

Sam Logan

Lou Anna K. Simon

General Motors Corporation

Michigan Chronicle

Michigan State University

Allan D. Gilmour

Arend D. Lubbers

Ford Motor Company, Retired.

Grand Valley State University

Alfred R. Glancy III

Alphonse S. Lucarelli
William L. Matthews

S. Martin Taylor
Amanda Van Dusen

Jeffrey D. Bergeron
Ernst & Young LLP

Stephanie W. Bergeron
Walsh College

David P. Boyle
National City Bank

Beth Chappell
Detroit Economic Club

Mary Sue Coleman
University of Michigan

Keith E. Crain
Crain Communications Inc

Tarik Daoud
Al Long Ford

Unico Investment Company

Stephen R. D’Arcy
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

James N. De Boer, Jr.
Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt
& Howlett LLP

John M. Dunn
Western Michigan University

David O. Egner
Hudson-Webber Foundation

David L. Eisler

Thomas J. Haas
Grand Valley State University

Frank M. Hennessey
Hennessey Capital, LLC

Paul C. Hillegonds
DTE Energy Company

Mark A. Hoppe
David L. Hunke
Detroit Free Press

Ferris State University

Dorothy A. Johnson

John A. Fallon III

Ahlburg Company

F. Martin Johnson

Gerald D. Fitzgerald
Oakwood Healthcare Inc.

JSJ Corporation

Miller, Canfield, Paddock and
Stone PLC

Plante & Moran PLLC

Kent J. Vana

Kenneth J. Matzick

Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt &
Howlett LLP

Beaumont Hospitals

Paul W. McCracken
University of Michigan

Glenn D. Mroz
Michigan Technological University

Mark A. Murray
Meijer Inc.

Donald R. Parfet

Gail L. Warden
Henry Ford Health System

Jeffrey K. Willemain
Deloitte.

Leslie E. Wong
Northern Michigan University

Betty J. Youngblood

Apjohn Group LLC

Philip H. Power
The Center for Michigan

Citizens Research Council of Michigan is a tax deductible 501(c)(3) organization

Citizens Resear
ch C
ouncil of Michigan
rc
Co

Growth in Michigan’s Corrections System:
Historical and Comparative Perspectives

June 2008
Rep
or
t 350
Repor
ort

CITIZENS RESEARCH COUNCIL OF MICHIGAN
M A I N O F F I C E 38777 West Six Mile Road, Suite 208 • Livonia, MI 48152-3974 • 734-542-8001 • Fax 734-542-8004
L A N S I N G O F F I C E 124 West Allegan, Suite 1502 • Lansing, MI 48933 • 517-485-9444 • Fax 517-485-0423
CRCMICH.ORG

GROWTH IN MICHIGAN’S CORRECTIONS SYSTEM:
HISTORICAL AND COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES
CONTENTS
page
In Brief ........................................................................................................................................... v
I.

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

II.

Historical Perspectives: Periods of Population Growth and Stability ......................... 2
1973-1978: Period of Substantial Growth .............................................................................................. 2
1979-1984: Period of Stability ..................................................................................................................... 3
1985-1989: Period of Substantial Growth ............................................................................................. 3
1990-2002: Period of Steady Growth ...................................................................................................... 4
2003-2007: Period of Stability ................................................................................................................... 5

III.

Michigan’s Prison Population .................................................................................................. 8
Enduring Prison Population Growth ........................................................................................................ 8
Prison Intake Growth ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Prison Length of Stay Increases ............................................................................................................... 11
The Effects of Sustained Prison Population Growth ....................................................................... 14

IV.

How Michigan Compares ....................................................................................................... 17
National Comparisons ............................................................................................................................... 17
Prison Intake ........................................................................................................................................... 20
Length of Stay ........................................................................................................................................ 23
Spending .................................................................................................................................................. 26
Great Lake States Comparisons ............................................................................................................. 28
Prison Intake ........................................................................................................................................... 28
Length of Stay ....................................................................................................................................... 30
Spending ................................................................................................................................................... 31

V.

Future Outlook ......................................................................................................................... 33
Prison Populations....................................................................................................................................... 33
Spending .......................................................................................................................................................... 33
Workforce ....................................................................................................................................................... 35
Aging Population.......................................................................................................................................... 35
Health Care .................................................................................................................................................... 35

VI.

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 37

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

i

GROWTH IN MICHIGAN’S CORRECTIONS SYSTEM:
HISTORICAL AND COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES
TABLES
page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Michigan and U.S. Felony Dispositions: 1986 and 2004 ................................................................. 21
States With the Eleven Highest Incarceration Rates: 2005 ......................................................... 26
States With the Fifteen Highest Annual Per Prisoner Costs: 2005 ...........................................27
2005 Prison Populations, Incarceration Rates, Average Salary,
Annual Per Prisoner Costs in Great Lakes States ..................................................................... 31
2006 Total Corrections Expenditure Comparisons: Great Lakes States ................................32
Projected Prison Populations and Spending Pressures: 2008-2012 .......................................... 33
Projected Spending Pressures Versus Historical Forecasts: 2007-2011 ................................... 34

MAPS
page
1

ii

2006 Incarceration Rates by State .......................................................................................................... 18

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

GROWTH IN MICHIGAN’S CORRECTIONS SYSTEM:
HISTORICAL AND COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES
CHARTS
page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Michigan’s Prison Population Growth: 1973-2007 .............................................................................. 2
2007 Prison Population by Most Serious Offense ............................................................................. 7
Felony Disposition Status of Michigan’s Reported Crimes: 1976-2006 ..................................... 8
Prison Commitments: 1976-2006 ............................................................................................................ 9
Michigan’s Estimated Average Length of Stay: 1981-2005 ............................................................. 11
Parole Decisions: 1976-2006 .................................................................................................................... 12
Prisoners Serving Past Parole Eligibility: 1988, 1997, and 2006 .................................................... 13
Parole Approval and Recidivism Rates: 1976-2004 .......................................................................... 13
Corrections and General Fund-General Purpose Expenditures
Compared to Consumer Price Index: FY73-FY07 .................................................................... 14
State Classified Workforce: FY73-FY06 ............................................................................................... 15
Prison Facilities, Population, Net Operating Capacity: 1976-2006 ............................................ 16
U.S. and Michigan Incarceration Rates: 1977-2006 ........................................................................... 17
Michigan and U.S. Crime Rates by Type: 1976-2006 ....................................................................... 20
Michigan and U.S. Prison Committal Rates: 1977-2005 ................................................................. 21
2006 Michigan and U.S. State Parole Exits by Type ..........................................................................22
2004 Prison Population by Most Serious Offense ........................................................................... 23
2003 Prison Committals by Most Serious Offense .........................................................................24
2003 Prison First Releases by Most Serious Offense ..................................................................... 25
Michigan and Great Lakes States Incarceration Rates: 1977-2006 ............................................ 28
Michigan and Great Lakes States Crime Rates by Type: 1976-2006 ......................................... 28
Michigan and Great Lakes States Prison Committal Rates: 1977-2005 ................................... 29
2006 Michigan and Great Lakes States Parole Exits by Type ....................................................... 29
Michigan and Great Lakes States Estimated Average Length of Stay: 1981-2005 ............... 30
Corrections Healthcare Expenditures (Projected): 1997-2012 ................................................... 36

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

iii

iv

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

GROWTH IN MICHIGAN’S CORRECTIONS SYSTEM:
HISTORICAL AND COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES
In Brief
Today, the Michigan Department of Corrections
(MDOC) is the largest program that state government
operates directly, accounting for nearly 20 percent ($2
billion) of the current discretionary General Fund –
General Purpose budget and employing nearly onethird of the classified workforce. Corrections programs
growth is a direct result of the dramatic increase in the
number of inmates from 1973 to 2007, during which
time the population grew 538 percent, or roughly
42,000 prisoners, to 50,000 inmates. Official MDOC
projections reflect a continuation of the historical
trends over the next five years as the prison population is estimated to be slightly more than 56,000 by
the end of 2012.

fell, the number of felony dispositionsii rose over the
same period.

Michigan’s prison population grew despite a 42 percent reduction in the crime rate from 1976 to 2006.
While the total crime (violent and non-violent) rate

iii

Michigan’s prison population growth is the product of
a combination of several different factors including:
increases in felony dispositions, swelling prison commitments, higher recidivism ratesiii, and an increased
average prisoner length of stay. Of these, the principal contributing factor is an increased average prisoner
length of stay, which grew over 50 percent, from 28.4

A felony disposition is a court decision resulting in a felony
conviction.
ii

Recidivism rate is the percentage of first paroled prisoners
who returned to prison during their parole term, or within
four years if the parole term is longer than four years.

2005 Prison Populations, Incarceration Rates, Average Salary, Annual Per Prisoner Costs Compared to
Great Lakes States and U.S. Average

Prison
Population

Incarceration
Rate as a
Incarceration Percentage of
Rate
Michigan’s Rate
(per 100,000
residents)
351
71.80%
388
79.30%
180
36.80%
326
66.70%
400
81.80%
340
69.50%
380
77.70%

Crime
Rate Index
(per 100,000
residents)
3,631.80
3,780.00
3,488.40
2,554.30
4,014.00
2,841.70
2,901.70

Average
Corrections
Salary

Annual
Costs
Per
Prisoner

$51,507
33,521
44,252
60,713
34,091
45,845
41,845

$21,622
21,531
29,260
42,202
23,011
31,029
28,932

Illinois
Indiana
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin

44,919
24,416
8,874
62,743
45,854
42,345
21,110

Great Lakes Average

35,752

338

69.09%

3,316.00

44,487

28,227

U.S. Average

25,856

435

82.00%

3,900.50

41,354

23,876

Michigan

49,337

489

3,643.20

$53,268

$28,743

Sources: Pew Charitable Trusts “Public Safety, Public Spending, Forecasting Americas Prison Population 20072011”. FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment
and Wages, 2005.

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

v

months in 1981 to 43.5 months in 2005. Lower parole
approval rates and specific policy changes aimed at
being “tough on crime” are the primary causes of
longer prison stays.
Substantial and sustained prison population growth
since 1973 has caused the Corrections program in
Michigan to look very different than those of the surrounding Great Lakes statesiv. Michigan’s Corrections
program is out of line, substantially in some cases, in
regional and national comparisons.
Michigan had an average length of stay that was at least
one year longer than the national and Great Lakes
states averages each year from 1990 to 2005. If
Michigan’s average prisoner length of stay were one
year shorter from 1990 to 2005, CRC estimates that
Michigan would have:
•
•
•

Incarcerated roughly 14,000 fewer prisoners in
2005;
Spent about $403 million less in 2005; and
Employed approximately 4,700 fewer Corrections
employees in 2005.

The seven other states that border a Great Lake are Indiana,
Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin.

Michigan’s incarceration rate v (511 prisoners per
100,000 residents) was the ninth highest in the U.S. in
2006 and 47 percent larger than the average of the
Great Lakes states. This factor, along with Michigan’s
annual cost per prisoner figure (15th highest in the nation) and above-average Corrections employee salary ($9,000 more than the average of the other states
bordering the Great Lakes), has caused Michigan to
spend a larger percentage of its total state expenditures on Corrections (5.2 percent) than the national
average (3.4 percent).
Projections of future inmate growth portend continued growth in Corrections spending. The average annual increase in Corrections spending pressures related directly to prison population growth is projected
to be about $46 million, which will drive annual spending pressures to a level of approximately $2.6 billion
by 2012. The combination of prison population increases and economic factors will cause Corrections
spending pressures to grow at a faster annual rate than
they have over the last 34 years.

iv

vi

Incarceration rate is the number of prisoners per 100,000
state residents.
v

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

GROWTH IN MICHIGAN’S CORRECTIONS SYSTEM:
HISTORICAL AND COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES
Introduction
In many ways, the State of Michigan acts as a large financial institution, bankrolling services provided by
other institutions. About 80 percent of State expenditures are actually spent by local units of government,
school districts, doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, institutions of higher education, community mental
health programs, road builders, and many other agencies that do not employ classified employees of the
State of Michigan.
One large program that is directly provided by State
government is Corrections. As detailed in this report,
the growth of correctional expenditures has been dramatic over the last 35 years and, second only to the
increase in Medicaid expenditures, this growth has
been the largest contributor to the ongoing State
structural deficit. Given the magnitude of Corrections
expenditures, it will be extremely difficult to bring
long-term balance to the State General Fund budget1
without significant alteration of Corrections policy.

The first step toward policy change in Corrections is an
understanding of how we got here. It did not happen
overnight, but was the result of periods of steady-torapid growth punctuated by periods of relative stability. It is evident that the growth was precipitated by
changes in policy, notably, sentencing guidelines, truthin-sentencing, and parole policy. While this report is not
intended to identify the precise aspects of those policies that might be adjusted in order to slow the growth
of incarceration, it does lay the groundwork for CRC
research in the near future aimed at determining the
specific changes that hold the most promise.
The Citizens Research Council of Michigan received a
great deal of cooperation in assembling the data in this
report. In particular, we would like to thank the Michigan Department of Corrections, the Citizens Alliance
on Prisons and Public Spending, the Pew Charitable
Trusts Center on the States, and the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics.

For the purposes of this report, General Fund - General
Purpose and General Fund are used interchangeably to describe those state resources that are available for discretionary annual appropriation decisions by the Michigan Legislature.

1

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

1

CRC Report
Historical Perspectives:
Periods of Population Growth and Stability
1973-1978: Period of Substantial Growth
During this five-year period in the mid 1970s, Michigan’s
prison population grew from 7,874 to 14,944 prisoners
(an annual growth rate of 13.7 percent), the second
fastest rate of growth in the 34-year study period. This
wave of prison population growth followed three years
of prison population decline from 1970 to 1973. The
influx of prisoners in these years required the Department to hire an additional 2,300 employees. The combination of prison population and workforce growth
caused Corrections spending to grow at an average
annual rate of 26.6 percent from $38 million in FY73
to $125 million in FY78.
In a simplified model, two factors contribute to prison
population size: the number of prisoners entering
prison and the length of time that prisoners remain
incarcerated. In this time period, both increased. An

increase in the number of felony dispositions2 contributed to moderate growth of the annual prison commitment numbers. In 1974, the U.S. Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration developed a new program
to provide discretionary funds to certain local
prosecutor’s offices to be used to set up units devoted
to the prosecution of habitual offenders. The additional prosecutorial staff and resources resulted in
longer prison sentences for habitual offenders in
Michigan. This, in combination with the introduction
of mandatory sentences for certain drug and firearm
offenses, increased the length of stay for a number of
prisoners in this time period.

A felony disposition is a court decision resulting in a felony
conviction.
2

Chart 1
Michigan’s Prison Population Growth: 1973-2007

60,000

Number of Prisoners

50,000
Substantial Growth
Steady Growth
Stability

40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000

197
3
197
5
197
7
197
9
198
1
198
3
198
5
198
7
198
9
199
1
199
3
199
5
199
7
199
9
200
1
200
3
200
5
200
7

0

Year

Source: Department of Corrections Statistical Reports, Department of Corrections 2008 Prison Population
Projection Report.

2

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

Growth in Michigan’s Corrections System: Historical and Comparative Perspectives
Although it did not directly affect the average prisoner
length of stay during this time period, the ratification
of the statewide ballot Proposal B in 1978 removed the
graduated good-time credit system for certain (primarily assaultive) offenders sentenced after December 11,
1978, contributing to lengthier stays in prison in the
ensuing years. This good-time system offered 7 to 22
day sentence reductions for each month that a prisoner avoided misconduct.
1979-1984: Period of Stability
During the early 1980s, the prison population decreased at an annual rate of -0.3 percent. This was one
of two time periods, the other being from 2003
through 2004, that saw a net decrease in prison population. The stable population during the period slightly
slowed expenditure growth to an average annual rate
of 13.2 percent from $125 million in FY78 to $262 million in FY84. The growth of the Corrections workforce
was also marginally slowed with a net increase of approximately 1,100 employees. Although growing at a
slower rate than the 1970s, the Corrections expenditures and workforce did increase significantly in this
time period.
The growth in the workforce was partly the result of an
increased demand for parole officers. On average, 1,300
more prisoners were paroled annually from 1979 to 1984
than were paroled each year from 1976 to 1978. The
Department of Corrections also hired additional corrections officers to tighten security after the widely publicized 1981 prison riots in Michigan. The growth in Corrections spending was the result of a combination of
workforce growth and other inflationary spending increases, such as inmate health care costs3, which nearly
doubled from $15.7 million in FY79 to $27.1 million in
FY84, despite a slight drop in the prison population.
A number of factors contributed to the population stability during this time period. The Prison Overcrowding
Emergency Powers Act of 19804 permitted a 90-day
sentence reduction for the entire prison population
each time that the MDOC net operating capacity was
reached. This, in combination with the introduction of

3

Mental health care expenses are not included in these figures.

4

P.A. 519 of 1980.

disciplinary credits of up to seven days per month in
1982 for prisoners affected by the 1978 proposal “B”,
reduced the length of stay for many prisoners. Over
this period, parole approval rates reached near-historic
highs, averaging 68.5 percent annually. Also at work
were record low recidivism rates5, averaging 30 percent
annually. The lower recidivism rates were the result of
more prisoners being granted parole annually, roughly
1,400 more parole approvals in 1984 than 1979, and a
smaller percentage of paroled prisoners returning to
prison for technical rule violations6.
1985-1989: Period of Substantial Growth
In the late 1980s, the prison population grew at an unprecedented average annual rate of 16.8 percent. The
total number of inmates under State supervision increased from 14,658 at year-end1984 to 31,834 in 1989.
This is the largest net prison population change for a
five-year interval in Michigan’s history. Although
Michigan’s incarceration rate7 was already comparatively
high, it was the prison growth in this period that established Michigan as a stark outlier in regional and national
incarceration rate comparisons. The tremendous prison
population growth during this time period placed considerable strain on Michigan’s finances and altered the
composition of the state classified workforce.
Spending. The prison population expansion was evident in the 19.5 percent average annual growth rate of
Corrections expenditures, which more than doubled
in this time period. As a percentage of Michigan’s General Fund, Corrections expenditures rose nearly four
percentage points from 5.5 percent in FY85 to 9.1 percent in FY89. A significant portion of the growth in
expenditures was directly related to the operation and
maintenance of an additional 20 correctional facilities
and a growing Corrections workforce.
Recidivism rate is the percentage of first paroled prisoners who returned to prison during their parole term, or within
four years if the parole term is longer than four years.
5

Parole technical rule violators are parolees who have violated conditions of their supervision, such as reporting to a
parole officer or passing a drug test. The Parole Board determines whether to revoke parole in each case. Some cases
may include criminal behavior that was not prosecuted.
6

Incarceration rate is the number of prisoners per 100,000
state residents.
7

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

3

CRC Report
Workforce. From 1985 to 1989, the number of Corrections employees grew at an average annual rate of
17.8 percent, causing the Corrections workforce to
double in size. In contrast, the number of non-Corrections employees decreased at an average annual
rate of 0.6 percent. The percentage of the total classified workforce employed in the Department of Corrections rose from 13.5 percent in 1985 to 21.3 percent
in 1989.
Reasons for Growth. There were myriad factors contributing to the dramatic prison population growth
from 1985 to 1989. High profile crimes, such as the 1984
murder of an East Lansing police officer and a housewife by a parolee released under the Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act, often result in lower
parole approval rates. In 1985, parole approval rates
dropped nearly 10 percentage points from 1984.
Another significant contributor to the prison population growth was a 61 percent increase in annual felony
dispositions from 1985 to 1989. The growth in felony
dispositions drove an increase in the number of annual prison commitments, which grew from 7,154 in
1984 to 12,760 in 1989. Contributing to the escalation
in felony dispositions and prison commitments was the
mounting number of drug-related arrests in these
years, which translated into a 482 percent increase in
the number of drug-related prison commitments from
1985 to 1989. These increases mirrored national trends
with the initiation of the “War on Drugs”.
The 1988 repeal of the Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act, which had been employed nine
times since its adoption in 1980, contributed to the
prison population growth. Also at play was the complete removal of good-time credits for all prisoners
sentenced after April 1, 1987, making each incoming
prisoner eligible for only disciplinary credits, regardless of offense type. Both of these changes extended
the average length of stay for prisoners in Michigan.
In 1988, the Michigan Community Corrections Act8 was
enacted to ease jail and prison overcrowding by increasing sanctions and services available locally to

8

P.A. 511 of 1988.

4

nonviolent offenders. The act established the Michigan Office of Community Corrections and the State
Community Corrections Board, which issue grants to
local communities intended to support services such
as substance-abuse and mental illness treatment and
residential and employment placement for offenders
who otherwise would have been sentenced to prison.
Although it did not significantly affect annual prison
commitments during this time period, the Office of
Community Corrections did eventually contribute to
a decline in the percentage of felony dispositions resulting in prison sentences, from 33.5 percent in 1988
to 23.8 percent in 2006.
1990-2002: Period of Steady Growth
The 1990s were characterized by steady prison population growth, at an average annual rate of 3.6 percent.
Although at a slower rate than that of the late 1980s,
the growth caused the population to rise to 50,591
prisoners by year-end 2002. As in the past, expenditures and Corrections workforce growth mirrored that
of the prison population, each slowing to a steady average annual growth rate.
Michigan’s economy was thriving in the six years from
1995 to 2001, and State tax collections mirrored the
economy’s performance. The State was able to amass
significant reserves in its Rainy Day Fund and annual
General Fund spending grew at an annual rate of 4
percent compared with Corrections spending growth
of 5.3 percent annually over the same period. As a
result, the proportion of total General Fund expenditures allocated to Corrections increased only slightly,
from 15 percent in FY95 to 16 percent in FY01.
Two pivotal changes in policy during these years increased the size of Michigan’s prison population. The
first was the change in the composition of the Parole
Board from civil servants to appointees in 1992. The
second was the 1998 implementation of sentencing
guidelines developed and enacted by the Michigan
Legislature and a truth-in-sentencing policy (See side
box), which required each prisoner to serve 100 percent of the minimum sentence in a secure facility. The
effects of these changes were apparent in a 20 percentage point decrease in the parole approval rate, the
doubling of the number of technical rule violators returned to prison, and an 11 percentage point increase
in the recidivism rate from 1990 to 2002.

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

Growth in Michigan’s Corrections System: Historical and Comparative Perspectives
2003-2007: Period of Stability
From 2003 through 2004, Michigan’s prison population
declined by 1,760 prisoners, an annual rate of -1.8
percent. This was the largest net prison population
decrease for a two-year period in the last 34 years.

Corrections expenditures and workforce size also
decreased at comparable rates, as would be expected
with a sizable reduction in prison population.
The decreased prison population can be attributed to
two changes in policy, one of which was the Michigan

Michigan’s Sentencing Guidelines and Truth-In-Sentencing
In 1998, the Michigan Legislature enacted sentencing guidelines to be used for all felony offenses committed after
January 1, 1999. The enactment of the guidelines was tie-barred to the adoption of another legislative sentencing
policy requiring that offenders serve at least the entire minimum prison sentence imposed by the court in a secure
facility—a policy popularly called truth-in-sentencing.
In contrast to the judicial sentencing guidelines used from 1984 to 1998, the statutory sentencing guidelines reflect
policy decisions made by the Legislature. The guidelines were designed to meet a number of objectives: (1) treat
offenses against a person more severely than other offenses; (2) include guidelines for habitual offenders; (3)
incorporate prior criminal offenses; and (4) reduce sentencing disparities based on factors other than offense and
offender characteristics.
The sentencing guidelines categorize all felony offenses into six crime classes: (1) crimes against a person, (2) crimes
against property, (3) crimes involving controlled substances, (4) crimes against public order, (5) crimes against public
safety, and (6) crimes against the public trust. For each crime class, a grid was created with two dimensions, prior
record level and offense severity level. The prior record level is a number assigned to the defendant after seven
categories of the defendant’s criminal history are measured. The offense severity level is a number assigned to the
defendant after as many as 20 offense characteristics are measured.
Once the defendant is assigned a prior record level and offense severity level, the judge consults the appropriate grid.
The intersecting cell reflects the minimum sentence range for that offender and that particular offense. There are
three cell types within the sentencing guideline grids: (1) lock-out cells, which exclude a prison sentence for the
offender; (2) straddle cells, which give the judge discretion on whether to sentence the offender to prison; and (3)
presumptive prison cells, which mandate a prison sentence for the offender. Sentencing judges retain discretion both
within the guidelines, which provide a sentence range and not a single fixed term, and outside the guidelines by virtue
of the ability to depart from the guidelines’ range for substantial and compelling reasons.
The sentencing guidelines were enacted concurrent with truth-in-sentencing, a state law that requires offenders to
serve the entire minimum sentence in prison prior to being considered for parole. As a consequence of truth-insentencing, disciplinary credits and new additions to community residential programs were eliminated. The law applied
to assaultive crimes committed on or after December 15, 1998, and all other crimes committed on or after December
15, 2000.
In 1996, the Federal Government established the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive
(VOI/TIS) Grant program. The VOI/TIS program aimed to encourage and assist states in requiring violent offenders to
serve at least 85 percent of the sentence imposed by the courts. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Michigan
received a total of $109,359,281 million in VOI/TIS grants, or roughly $18 million annually, from FY96 through FY01. The
VOI/TIS program is no longer active and no further grants will be awarded.
It is notable that Michigan met the criteria of the VOI/TIS grant before the 1998 sentencing guidelines and truth-insentencing policy were enacted. When Michigan officially adopted a truth-in-sentencing policy in 1998, it far exceeded
the criteria of the VOI/TIS grant program. Many of the states that employ truth-in-sentencing apply it only to violent
offenders, offer disciplinary credits, and require that less than 100 percent of the minimum sentence be served.

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

5

CRC Report
Department of Corrections’ Five Year Plan to Control
Prison Growth (adopted in 2003), which promoted
alternative incarceration methods for low-level
offenders, drug offenders, and parole technical rule
violators. The plan also included a commitment to
improve parole guidelines, MDOC mental health care,
and prisoner re-entry. The other significant change in
policy was the 2002 reform of sentencing statutes and
parole policies associated with certain drug offenses.
The most prominent change to the sentencing
guidelines was the retroactive repeal of certain
mandatory sentencing statutes.
As a result of the Five Year Plan and drug sentencing
reform, the number of commitments declined by
1,366 from 2002 to 2004, parole approval rates rose
with an average of 900 more prisoners being paroled
each year than in 2002, and recidivism rates declined
slightly.
In the wake of two years of population decline, the
inmate population increased in 2005 and 2006, this
time at an average annual rate of 2.7 percent.
Corrections expenditures followed suit and rose 7.5
percent annually, but the Corrections workforce size
increased by only 168 employees at an average rate of
0.5 percent annually. The slowed Corrections
workforce growth appears to be the result of State

6

budget constraints.
In 2006, the high profile torture and murder of three
people by a prisoner re-released in error, caused the
entire Michigan criminal justice system to react with a
rising number of arrests, more sentences to prison,
fewer paroles, and more revocations of parole. This
exacerbated the growth of Michigan’s prison
population, which increased by 2,177 in 2006, the
largest annual increase since 1997.
The profound growth in 2006 did not extend through
2007. In fact, by year-end 2007, the prison population
decreased by 1,251, which is the largest annual decrease
in prison population in the last 34 years. The
population decrease was the result of aggressive
efforts by the MDOC to curtail the growth trends of
2006. These efforts included initiating Parole Board
reviews for certain drug, nonviolent, and medically
fragile prisoners and expanding and accelerating the
Michigan Prisoner Re-entry Initiative. Both of these
efforts were successful, with a record number of parole
approvals and a reduction in parole failures.
According to the Department of Corrections, the
prison population decrease of 2007 is not going to
extend through 2008, as the MDOC projects
population growth totaling 5,800 prisoners by 2012.

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

Growth in Michigan’s Corrections System: Historical and Comparative Perspectives
Profile of Michigan’s Prison Population: February 2007
In February 2007 Michigan had 51,404 prisoners: 96 percent of those prisoners were male and 4 percent female. Prisoner
ages ranged from 15 to 92 years, with an average prisoner age of 36 years. The racial breakdown of Michigan’s prison
population was 52 percent black, 45 percent white, 2 percent Hispanic, and less than 1 percent Asian, American Indian,
or other.
Over 62 percent of the inmates are serving his or her first prison term. The average cumulative minimum sentence is
8.2 years. Roughly 35 percent of all prisoners are serving sentences of 10 years or more. The average length of stay for
prisoners first released in 2007 was 4.3 years, or 51 months. Nearly 31 percent of the prison population is past parole
eligibility. Of those past parole eligibility, 76 percent have been denied parole throughout the current prison term and
24 percent have paroled but then returned as violators.
Pre-sentence investigation reports showed that 57 percent of the population had a history of drug and/or alcohol
abuse (34 percent with past drug and alcohol abuse, 15 percent with past drug abuse only, and 8 percent with past
alcohol abuse only). Twenty-five percent of prisoners have a past history of mental health issues.
According to the Department of Corrections, the offenses for which state prisoners are incarcerated include: 44 percent
violent crimes, 24 percent sex crimes, 23 percent nonviolent crimes, and 9 percent drug crimes (See Chart 2).

Chart 2
2007 Prison Population by Most Serious Offense
Drug Crimes,
4,626, 9%

Nonviolent
Crimes,
11,822, 23%

Violent Crimes,
22,617, 44%

Sex Crimes,
12,336, 24%

Source: Department of Corrections MPRI Quarterly Status Report July 2007.

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

7

CRC Report
Michigan’s Prison Population
Enduring Prison Population Growth

Prison Intake Growth

Despite short periods of decline and differences in
annual growth rates, the overarching theme of the last
34 years in Michigan Corrections is growth. With Corrections expenditures and workforce size consistently
expanding to record levels, the question of why
Michigan’s prison population has experienced such
substantial and sustained long-term growth is that
much more pressing.

Intuitively, one may think that increasing prison commitment numbers are directly related to increasing
crime rates. This has not been the case in Michigan,
where the crime rate fell by 42 percent in the last 30
years. Thus, Michigan’s prison intake growth, and subsequent incarceration rate growth, is not the result of
an increased number of crimes being committed.9
There is, however, a positive correlation between the
number of felony dispositions, which increased from
18,440 in 1976 to 52,031 in 2006, and the number of
prison commitments. This means that a higher percentage of the total reported crimes are resulting in
felony dispositions, which then results in more prison
commitments. Chart 3 shows that from 1976 to 2006,

As mentioned earlier, in a simplified model two factors contribute to prison population size: the number
of prisoners entering prison and the length of time that
those prisoners remain incarcerated. In Michigan’s
case, both have increased. With existing longitudinal
data, it is possible to identify the prominent contributing factors to increases in prison commitments and
lengthened prison stays.

The relationship between crime rates and incarceration
rates is explored in more detail in the ‘National Comparisons’ section.
9

Chart 3
Felony Disposition Status of Michigan’s Reported Crimes: 1976-2006

600,000

60,000
Other Reported Crimes
50,000

500,000

40,000

400,000

30,000

300,000
200,000

Felony Dispositions

20,000

Felony Dispositions

Other Reported Crimes

700,000

10,000

100,000

0

197
6
197
8
198
0
198
2
198
4
198
6
198
8
199
0
199
2
199
4
199
6
199
8
200
0
200
2
200
4
200
6

0

Year

Source: Department of Corrections Statistical Reports, FBI Uniform Crime Reports (Data Compiled by The
Disaster Center Website) www.disastercenter.com/crime/micrime.htm.

8

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

Growth in Michigan’s Corrections System: Historical and Comparative Perspectives
the number of reported crimes has fallen, but the number of felony dispositions has consistently increased.
Michigan’s increasing recidivism rates10, which steadily
grew from 36 percent in 1976 to 46 percent in 2004,
also have contributed to prison intake and population
growth. The effects of this change are cumulative. For
example, had the recidivism rate remained at 36 percent from 1976 to 2006 and all other variables remained the same, 10,000 fewer prisoners would have
reentered prison as parole violators. With each parole violator serving anywhere from a few months to a
few years in additional time, it is clear that higher recidivism rates have contributed to Michigan’s prison
For 1976 through 1997, the recidivism rate was defined
to b e the percentage of first paroled prisoners who
returned to prison during their parole term, or within four
years if parole term is longer than four years. From 1998
through 2004, the recidivism rate was defined to be the
percentage of first paroled prisoners who returned to
prison within two years of being released. The change in
definition caused annual recidivism rates from 1998 to
2004 to i n crease b e tween one and two points from
the previously reported recidivism rates.
10

population growth. In 2005, the Department of Corrections developed the Michigan Prison Re-entry Initiative (MPRI), which aims to lower recidivism rates by
providing additional resources and guidance to prisoners before and after parole (See box on page 10).
Many variables affect recidivism rates, and it is difficult
to quantify the effects of specific policy interventions
on changes in rates over time. From 1992 to 2002 there
was a nine-point increase in the recidivism rate, likely
associated to some extent with the 1992 restructuring
of the Parole Board from civil servants to appointees.
The Parole Board determines whether or not each parole technical rule violator is returned to prison. Given
that each technical rule violator returned to prison is
recorded as a parole failure, recidivism rates increase
when the number of technical rule violators returned
to prison increases. In this way, the decisions of the
Parole Board are directly related to recidivism rates. In
the 30 years from 1976 to 2006, the number of technical rule violators returned to prison annually has increased, accounting for only 9 percent of new prison
commitments in 1976 and for 26 percent of new prison
commitments in 2006 (See Chart 4).

Chart 4
Prison Commitments: 1976-2006
14,000
Number of Commitments

12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000

Other
Commitment

4,000

Technical Rule
Violators

2,000

19
76
19
79
19
82
19
85
19
88
19
91
19
94
19
97
20
00
20
03
20
06

0

Year

Source: Department of Corrections Statistical Reports.

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

9

CRC Report
Michigan Prison Re-entry Initiative
Preparing prisoners to leave prison and function in society is the primary goal of the Michigan
Prison Re-entry Initiative (MPRI). The MPRI aims to control future prison population growth
through lowering the recidivism rate for certain offenders. While expanding the program, as is
currently planned, will entail additional budgetary resources in the short term, in the long run
this program can yield cost savings. If Michigan can reduce its recidivism rate for offenders, it
can reduce the prison population and control a significant factor contributing to the escalating
costs of the state’s prison system.
There are three phases for each participant of MPRI:
Phase One—Getting Ready. Upon entry into prison the offender’s risks, needs, and strengths
are identified and prisoners are given individual assignments to reduce personal risk, address
needs, and build on strengths.
Phase Two—Going Home. This phase begins approximately six months before the offender’s
target release date. In this phase, highly specific re-entry plans are organized that address
housing, employment, and services to address addiction and mental illness.
Phase Three—Staying Home. This phase begins when the prisoner is released from prison
and continues until discharge from community parole supervision. In this phase, it is the
responsibility of the former inmate, human services providers, and the offender’s network of
community supports and mentors to assure continued success. Graduated sanctions are
utilized to respond to negative behavior.
According to the Department of Corrections, the impact of the MPRI will be reduced crime,
fewer victims, safer neighborhoods, better citizens, fewer returns to prison and reduced costs.
With primary MPRI test sites beginning in 2005, it is hard to determine the program’s
effectiveness, but early results indicate a 26-point improvement in the recidivism rates of the
program’s 10,191 participants. Statewide implementation of MPRI is projected for 2010.

10

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

Growth in Michigan’s Corrections System: Historical and Comparative Perspectives
Prison Length of Stay Increases
In Michigan, there are two primary contributors to increased average length of stay: changes in policy aimed
at being tough on crime and decreasing parole approval rates. Chart 5 shows that the average length
of stay for prisoners in Michigan has increased 57 percent from approximately 28 months in 1981 to 44
months in 2005.

In 1998, legislative sentencing reform created statutory minimum sentence ranges based on legislative
decisions. The sentencing reform was implemented
in conjunction with Michigan’s truth-in-sentencing
policy, which precluded the use of disciplinary and
good-time credits. The combination of longer statutory minimum sentence ranges and the exclusion of
good-time credits has led to longer average prison
stays.

Chart 5
Michigan’s Estimated Average Length of Stay: 1981-2005 (five-year smoothed average)*

Length of Stay (in Months)

60
50
40
30
20
10

19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01
20
03
20
05

0

Year

The average length of stay was approximated for each year by dividing the average prison population of the
previous five years by the average number of releases from that same time-period. This method was originally
presented in: Patterson, Evelyn, and Samuel Preston. “Estimating Mean Length of Stay in Prison: Methods and
Applications.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 24 (March 2008): 33-49

*

Source: CRC Calculations, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Annual Releases Spreadsheet www.ojp.usdoj.gov/
bjs/prisons.htm.

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

11

CRC Report
The Effects of Michigan’s Increased Prisoner Length of Stay
The increase in the average prisoner length of stay has had a profound effect on the growth of Michigan’s prison
population, annual Corrections expenditures, and Corrections workforce. When compared with national and Great
Lakes states averages, Michigan’s length of stay is at least one year longer each year from 1990 to 2005. The estimated
effects of a one-year reduction to Michigan’s average length of stay for each year from 1990 to 2005 include:
• Roughly 14,000 fewer Michigan prisoners in 2005
• A drop in the incarceration rate from 489 prisoners per 100,000 residents to 351 in 2005
• 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)

Decreasing parole approval rates have also contributed
to longer prison stays. The average annual parole approval rate was 66 percent in the years prior to the 1992
Parole Board switch and 54 percent in the years since.
From 1992 to 2006 there was an average of 20,839 pa-

role cases per year. Had the parole rate experienced
during the years before 1992 continued through 2006,
an average of 2,500 more prisoners would have been
released per year. Chart 6 shows a downward trend
of parole approval rates from 1976 to 2006.

Chart 6
Parole Decisions: 1976-2006

Percentage of Parole Decisions

100%
80%
60%

Parole Denial
Parole Approval

40%
20%

197
6
197
8
198
0
198
2
198
4
198
6
198
8
199
0
199
2
199
4
199
6
199
8
200
0
200
2
200
4
200
6

0%

Year

Source: Department of Corrections Statistical Reports.

12

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

Growth in Michigan’s Corrections System: Historical and Comparative Perspectives

Chart 7
Prisoners Serving Past Parole Eligibility: 1988, 1997, and 2006
55,000
50,000
45,000
Number of Prisoners

The decreasing parole
approval rates are also
evident in the number of
prisoners serving past
their parole eligibility,
which in 1991 was 5,687,
or 16 percent of the total population, and in
2006 was 15,950, or 31
percent (See Chart 7).

40,000
35,000
30,000

Not Eligible

25,000

Serving Past Eligibility

20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1988

1997

2006

Year

Source: 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.

Chart 8
Parole Approval and Recidivism Rates: 1976-2004
80%
Parole Approval

70%
60%
50%
Rate

40%
30%
Recividism Rate

20%
10%

200
4

200
2

200
0

199
8

199
6

199
4

199
2

199
0

198
8

198
6

198
4

198
2

198
0

197
8

0%
197
6

Another contributing
factor to increasing
lengths of stay was the
interplay between parole approval rates and
recidivism. As can be
seen in Chart 8, parole
approval rates decreased, while recidivism
rates increased. The two
are not necessarily directly related to each
other, but each is indicative of conservative parole approval and revocation practices by the
Michigan Parole Board.

Year

Source: Department of Corrections Statistical Reports, Department of
Corrections MPRI Quarterly Status Report July 2007.

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

13

CRC Report
The Effects of Sustained Prison Population Growth
Expenditures. From the perspective of the State budget, the most obvious consequence of prison population growth is the growth in Department of Corrections expenditures. Corrections General Fund
expenditures, which constitutes the entire support for
Corrections, grew in concert with prison population
growth, increasing by nearly 5,000 percent from FY73
to FY07. The growth in spending has caused MDOC

expenditures to absorb a larger portion of Michigan’s
General Fund budget. MDOC spending grew from 1.6
percent ($38 million) of total General Fund expenditures in FY73 to 20.7 percent ($1.87 billion) by FY07.
Chart 9 shows that Corrections expenditures have
grown significantly faster than General Fund expenditures in total (less Corrections) and inflation, as measured by the Detroit Consumer Price Index (CPI), over
the last 34 years.

Chart 9
Corrections and General Fund-General Purpose Expenditures
Compared to Consumer Price Index: FY73-FY07
6,000
5,000
Corrections
Expenditures

Index

4,000

Inflation (Detroit CPI

3,000
2,000

GF-GP Expenditures
Less Corrections

1,000

197
3
197
6
197
9
198
2
198
5
198
8
199
1
199
4
199
7
200
0
200
3
200
6

0

Fiscal Year

Source: Department of Civil Service, CRC calculations, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics www.bls.gov/cpi.

14

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

Growth in Michigan’s Corrections System: Historical and Comparative Perspectives
Workforce. A large portion of Corrections expenditure growth is attributable to Michigan’s growing Corrections workforce. There were roughly seven 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. The increase in Corrections
workforce was not mirrored in the state government
workforce. Overall, the number of state government
employees was lower in 2006 than it was in 1973 (See
Chart 10).
Facilities. Another component of mounting Corrections expenditures is the maintenance and operation
of Michigan’s correctional facilities. There were 31
more correctional facilities (prisons and camps) in
Michigan in 2006 than in 1976. In 2007, the Department

of Corrections closed five correctional facilities. It
should be noted that expenses related to building new
correctional facilities are not included in the annual
Corrections budget. Whereas the annual operating
budget for the Department of Corrections supports
operational costs of facilities, capital expenditures are
funded in the State Building Authority (SBA) portion
of the State budget.
The costs of construction and major renovation of
Corrections facilities are covered by the State Building Authority with long-term, tax-exempt, revenue
bonds. Payments towards outstanding debt to the SBA
are made annually using General Fund dollars. Since
1993, the Michigan Legislature has authorized approximately $500 million to be spent on prison construction and renovation.

Chart 10
State Classified Workforce: FY73-FY06

80,000
70,000

Employees

60,000
50,000

State Workforce
Less Corrections

40,000

Corrections
Workforce

30,000
20,000
10,000

19
73
19
76
19
79
19
82
19
85
19
88
19
91
19
94
19
97
20
00
20
03
20
06

0

Fiscal Year

Source: Department of Civil Service.

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

15

CRC Report
Prison Capacity. Even with the addition of new facilities, Michigan has exceeded its net operating capacity,
which is the total number of operational general
population beds located in Michigan’s institutions or
camps, at the end of 16 of the 30 years from 1976 to
2006. The net operating capacity changes frequently,
and is not always due to facilities being opened or
closed. For example, the net operating capacity rose
by 10,000 prisoners from 1993 to 1994 with the addition of only two correctional facilities. In this case, the
number of beds per cell was increased at some MDOC

facilities, thereby raising the net operating capacity.
The net operating capacity also increased when Michigan had approximately 1,500 prisoners housed in Virginia each year from 1998 through 2000.
Each method of expanding Michigan’s net operating
capacity has unique advantages and disadvantages that
must be weighed against the perceived cost and capacity benefits. Unfortunately, in Michigan’s case, demand typically exceeds supply with regards to prison
bed space (See Chart 11).

Chart 11
Prison Facilities, Population*, Net Operating Capacity: 1976-2006
60,000

160

50,000

120
40,000

100

30,000

80
60

20,000

40
10,000

20

Prisons
Camps
Prison Population
Net Operating
Capacity

0

197
6
197
8
198
0
198
2
198
4
198
6
198
8
199
0
199
2
199
4
199
6
199
8
200
0
200
2
200
4
200
6

0

Number of Prisoners

Number of Facilities

140

Year

Annual prison population numbers do not include prisoners participating in the MDOC community residential
program.

*

Source: Department of Corrections Statistical Reports.

16

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

Growth in Michigan’s Corrections System: Historical and Comparative Perspectives
How Michigan Compares
National Comparisons
For all but a few years since as early as 1945, Michigan’s
incarceration rate has been above the U.S. incarceration rate. Chart 12 shows that there was a diminishing
difference between Michigan’s incarceration rate and
that of the U.S. from 1977 to 2006.

The difference between Michigan’s incarceration rate
and that of other states bears examination. Undoubtedly, there are many factors at play, but ultimately,
prison populations grow when the number of prisoners and/or the length of time that those prisoners remain incarcerated increase.

550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

Michigan
U.S. less Michigan

19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01
20
03
20
05

Incarceration Rates
(Prisoners per 100,00 Residents)

Chart 12
U.S. and Michigan Incarceration Rates: 1977-2006

Year

Source: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm.

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

17

18

Source: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm

Map 1
2006 Incarceration Rates by State
(Number of Prisoners per 100,000 State Residents)

CRC Report

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

Growth in Michigan’s Corrections System: Historical and Comparative Perspectives

Crime Rates and Incarceration Rates
In the United States, a considerable amount of academic research and policy debate has centered on the existence
and nature of the relationship, if any, between crime rates and incarceration rates. Undoubtedly, there is some
relationship between the two, since without crime there would be no need for incarceration. Likewise, it is possible
that through the deterrence and incapacitation of criminal offenders that incarceration has had some dampening
effect on the prevalence of crime and ultimately crime rates. At issue has been how closely, and in what ways, crime
and incarceration rates are related.
From the information compiled and presented in this report, two conclusions can be made about the relationship
between crime and incarceration rates:
1. Michigan’s historical incarceration rate growth was not the product of increasing crime rates, but was most
prominently influenced by changes in criminal justice policy and practices; and
2. Crime rates are affected by a complex set of factors, which includes, but is not limited to incarceration rates
Given that the annual crime rate declined by 42 percent and the violent crime rate remained stable from 1976 to 2006,
Michigan’s historical incarceration rate growth was not caused by increased crime rates. As the timeline portion of this
report exhibits, incarceration rate growth in Michigan was principally the result of specific changes in the policies and
practices at all levels of the criminal justice system (e.g. stiffer prosecutorial practices for habitual offenders, the
removal of good-time credits, decreasing parole approval rates, and a growing number of technical rule violators).
There has been much research examining the effect of increased incarceration on crime. According to a recent literature
review conducted by the Vera Institute of Justice*, increasing incarceration rates were one of a number of factors that
are credited with the crime rate reductions across the U.S. since 1980. Other factors contributing to decreased crime
rates include an increase in the number of police per capita, a reduction in unemployment, and increases in real wage
rates and education levels. Looking forward, the Vera Institute found that although incarceration rates contributed to
crime reduction in the past, there was nearly unanimous agreement among the studies reviewed that the continued
growth in incarceration will prevent considerably fewer crimes than past incarceration rate increases did.
*

Don Stemen, “Reconsidering Incarceration: New Directions for Reducing Crime,” Vera Institute of Justice, New York, New York,
January 2007.

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

19

CRC Report
Prison Intake
As was observed earlier, the relationship between
crime rates and incarceration rates is complicated. The
number of reported crimes at least in some way, influences the number of felony dispositions, which then
influences annual prison commitments. The margin
between Michigan’s annual crime rates and the U.S.
annual crime rates decreased from 1976 to 2006, with

the two being roughly equivalent since 1992 (See
Chart 13). During the three years from 1983 to 1985
the margin between Michigan and U.S. crime rates was
as large as ever, but Michigan’s incarceration rate was
lower than the U.S. incarceration rate; further evidence
that Michigan’s higher property and violent crime rates
have not driven the divergence in the incarceration
rates between Michigan and the U.S.

Chart 13
Michigan and U.S. Crime Rates by Type: 1976-2006

7,000
Crime Rate
(Reported Crimes per
100,000 Residents)

6,000

U.S. Violent
Crime Rate

5,000

U.S. Property
Crime Rate

4,000
3,000

Michigan Violent
Crime Rate

2,000
1,000

Michigan
Property Crime
Rate

19
76
19
79
19
82
19
85
19
88
19
91
19
94
19
97
20
00
20
03
20
06

0

Year

Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program, www.disastercenter.com/crime.

20

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

Growth in Michigan’s Corrections System: Historical and Comparative Perspectives

Table 1
Michigan and U.S. Felony Dispositions: 1986 and 2004

Felony Dispositions

U.S. (Less MI)
Michigan

1986
557,800

2004
1,030,657

24,964

48,263

Percent Change
Percent Change
in Felony
Felony Disposition Rate
in Felony
Dispositions
(per 100,000 residents) Disposition Rate
1986-2004
85%

1986
251

2004
377

1986-2004
50%

93%

273

478

75%

Sources: Michigan Department of Corrections Statistical Reports, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Court
Sentencing of Convicted Felons Bulletins

According to the most recent data available, Michigan
has had a proportionally higher number of felony dispositions than the U.S. total from 1986 to 2004 (See
Table 1). The number of felony dispositions in Michigan and the U.S. both rose sharply from 1986 to 2004,
but the number in Michigan increased at a faster rate.
Despite having a proportionately higher number of
felony dispositions, Michigan had a markedly lower

admissions rate than the U.S. from 1980 to 2005 (See
Chart 14). This is due to the fact that a smaller percentage of Michigan’s felony dispositions result in
prison sentences than the other states. In 2004, 23
percent of Michigan’s felony dispositions resulted in
prison sentences, while 40 percent of U.S. felony dispositions resulted in prison sentences. Michigan’s reduced percentage of felony dispositions sent to prison
is the result of the efforts of Michigan’s Office of Com-

Chart 14
Michigan and U.S. Prison Committal Rates: 1977-2005
250
Prison Committals
(Per 100,000 Residents)

U.S. less Michigan
200
150
100

Michigan

50

19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01
20
03
20
05

0

Year

Source: CRC Calculations, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Annual Admissions Spreadsheet www.ojp.usdoj.gov/
bjs/prisons.htm.

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

21

CRC Report
munity Corrections, which has provided resources to
individual communities to foster and encourage alternatives to incarceration.

parole population to prison for either a new sentence
or a technical rule violation. This is aligned with the
U.S. state average, which was also 17 percent. Chart
15 shows that Michigan had a larger percentage of successful 2006 exits from parole than the total from the
other reporting states.

Across the United States, a significant percentage of
state prison admissions are the result of parole failures. In 2006, Michigan returned 17 percent of its total

Chart 15
2006 Michigan and U.S. State Parole Exits by Type*

Percentage of 2006 Parole Exits

60%

Michigan

50%
40%
U.S.

30%
20%
10%
0%
Parole Success

*

Technical Rule
Violation

New Sentence

Other

The “Other” category includes parole absconders, deaths, and jurisdiction transfers.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Probation and Parole in the United States 2006 www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
pandp.htm.

22

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

Growth in Michigan’s Corrections System: Historical and Comparative Perspectives
Length of Stay
In order to accurately compare the average length of
incarceration in Michigan with that of the other states,
consideration must be given to the differences in the
composition of the prison populations by offense

type. A comparison of Michigan’s prison population
to the U.S. average reveals that a larger percentage of
Michigan’s population is composed of violent and sex
offenders and a smaller percentage of offenders are
nonviolent and drug offenders (See Chart 16).

Chart 16
2004 Prison Population by Most Serious Offense1

50

Michigan

Percent of Prison Population

45
40
35

U.S.

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Violent

1

Nonviolent

Drug

Sex

For each inmate, only the offense that resulted in the longest minimum sentence was recorded.

Source: Michigan Department of Corrections 2004 Statistical Report, Bureau of Justice Statistics Prisoners in
2006 Bulletin.

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

23

CRC Report
Two factors contribute to Michigan having a higher
percentage of violent and sex offenders in prison. The
first is that Michigan annually commits a higher percentage of violent and sex offenders to prison than
the other reporting U.S. states. In 2003, 30 percent of

Michigan’s incoming prisoners were violent offenders
and 10 percent were sex offenders. That same year,
only 22 percent of the reporting states’ prison admissions were violent offenders and six percent were sex
offenders (See Chart 17).

Percentage of New Prison Comittments

Chart 17
2003 Prison Committals by Most Serious Offense

50%
45%
40%
35%

Michigan

U.S.

30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Violent

Nonviolent

Drug

Sex

Source: Michigan Department of Corrections 2003 Statistical Report. Bureau of Justice Statistics, National
Corrections Reporting Program 2003 www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dtdata.htm#ncrp.

24

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

Growth in Michigan’s Corrections System: Historical and Comparative Perspectives
The other reason that Michigan has proportionally
more violent and sex offenders in prison is that parole
approval rates for prisoners sentenced for violent
crimes and sex offenses have dramatically decreased.
The parole approval rate for violent offenders has gone
from 61.2 percent in 1990 to 37.5 percent in 2005. The
parole approval rate also dropped for sex offenders,
from 46.5 percent in 1990 to 13.8 percent in 2005.
Thus, over time offenders who would have been previously paroled based on a higher parole approval rate
are now remaining incarcerated. This has caused the
length of stay for violent and sex offenders in Michigan to increase.
According to the Urban Institute Justice Policy Center11, the average length of stay for Michigan prisoners

released for the first time in 2003 was 3.7 years, or 44.4
months. This is 1.2 years longer than the national average length of stay, which was 2.5 years, or 30 months.
Chart 18 shows the most serious offense of the 2003
releases for Michigan and the other reporting U.S.
States.
Given that Michigan released the same percentage of
violent offenders and only a slightly larger percentage
of sex offenders, the 1.2-year gap between Michigan’s
average length of stay and that of the other reporting
states does not appear to be the result of differences
among offense types of the 2003 releases. Thus, controlling for offense type, Michigan has a longer average length of stay than the other reporting states.
Michigan’s longer average length of stay is a principal
contributor to the state’s proportionally larger incarceration rates.

Amy Solomon, Gillian Thomson, Sinead Keegan “Prisoner
Reentry in Michigan“ Urban Institute Justice Policy Center,
Washington, D.C., October 2004.
11

Chart 18
2003 Prison First Releases by Most Serious Offense*
Michigan

50
Percentage of 2003 Releases

45
40
U.S.

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Violent

*

Nonviolent

Drug

Sex

Prisoners released after serving time for parole or probation violations were not included.

Source: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center Prisoner Reentry in Michigan Report, Bureau of Justice Statistics
Prisoners in 2003 National Corrections Reporting Program www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dtdata.htm#ncrp.

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

25

CRC Report
Spending
Of the ten states with higher incarceration rates than
Michigan in 2005, the average annual operating cost
per prisoner in 2005 was $15,744. This was substantially lower than Michigan’s annual per prisoner cost
of $28,743. This is not surprising since the states with

higher incarceration rates are predominately in southern regions where wages, utilities, and facility operation costs are considerably lower than in Michigan.
States with incarceration rates comparable to
Michigan’s tend to have lower per prisoner operating
costs (See Table 2).

Table 2
States With the Eleven Highest Incarceration Rates: 2005
State
Louisiana
Texas
Mississippi
Oklahoma
Alabama
Georgia
Missouri
South Carolina
Arizona
Florida
Average
Michigan

2005 Prison
Population
36,083
151,925
19,335
23,245
27,003
51,404
30,803
22,464
31,411
86,563
48,024
49,337

2005
Incarceration Rate
797
691
660
652
591
572
529
525
521
499
604
489

Annual Costs
Per Prisoner
$ 13,009
14,622
13,428
16,986
13,019
17,017
14,183
13,170
19,795
22,211
15,744
28,743

Source: Pew Charitable Trusts “Public Safety, Public Spending, Forecasting Americas Prison Population 20072011” www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Public%20Safety%20Public%20Spending.pdf

26

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

Growth in Michigan’s Corrections System: Historical and Comparative Perspectives
According to a recent report from the Pew Charitable
Trusts12, in 2005, Michigan had the 15th highest annual
operating cost per prisoner in the country. Of the 14
states that had a higher annual per prisoner cost, the
average prison population size was 27,005, which was
notably lower than Michigan’s prison population of
49,337. Michigan also had the highest incarceration rate
among these states (See Table 3). Nationally, the states
with annual per prisoner costs similar to Michigan tend
to have prison populations, and incarceration rates,
lower than Michigan’s.

According to the National Association of State Budget Officers13, Michigan spent the largest percentage
(5.2 percent) of its total state expenditures on Corrections in 2006. This is almost two percentage points
above the national average, which was 3.4 percent.
Michigan’s total Corrections spending per capita was
also higher than the national total, with Michigan
spending roughly $70 more per capita on Corrections
than the U.S. total. Both of these comparisons further illustrate that Michigan is spending more per prisoner than states with comparable incarceration rates,
causing it to allocate proportionally more of total state
expenditures to the Department of Corrections.

“Public Safety, Public Spending, Forecasting Americas
Prison Population 2007-2011 Report,“ Pew Charitable Trusts,
Washington, D.C., June 2007.

13

12

“Fiscal Year 2006 State Expenditure Report,” National Association of State Budget Officers, Washington, D.C., December 2007.

Table 3
States With the Fifteen Highest Annual Per Prisoner Costs: 2005
State
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
New York
Alaska
Maine
California
Wyoming
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Connecticut
Minnesota
Washington
Wisconsin
Vermont
Average
Michigan

2005 Prison
Population
2,767
10,385
62,743
2,781
1,905
168,982
2,047
42,345
22,143
13,121
8,874
17,320
21,110
1,542
27,005
49,337

2005
Incarceration Rate
189
239
326
414
144
466
400
340
394
373
180
273
380
247
312
489

Annual Costs
Per Prisoner
$ 44,860
43,026
42,202
42,082
35,012
34,150
33,048
31,029
30,244
29,527
29,260
29,005
28,932
28,846
34,373
28,743

Source: Pew Charitable Trusts “Public Safety, Public Spending, Forecasting Americas Prison Population 20072011” www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Public%20Safety%20Public%20Spending.pdf.

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

27

CRC Report
Great Lake States Comparisons

Chart 19
Michigan and Great Lakes States Incarceration Rates: 1977-2006
600
Incarceration Rate
(Prisoners per 100,000 Residents)

500
400

Michigan

300
200
Great Lakes States

100
0

19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01
20
03
20
05

Similar to the national
comparisons, Michigan’s
incarceration rate has
been above the average
of the other seven states
bordering one of the
Great Lakes14 for some
time. In the last 30 years,
the
gap
between
Michigan’s incarceration
rate and that of the
other Great Lakes states
has increased (See
Chart 19). In 2006,
Michigan’s rate was 47
percent higher than the
average of the comparison states, up from 20
percent in 1984.

Year

Prison Intake
Source: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm.

Chart 20
Michigan and Great Lakes States Crime Rates by Type: 1976-2006
7,000
6,000

Michigan Violent
Crime Rate

5,000
4,000

Michigan Property
Crime Rate

3,000
Great Lakes
Average Violent
Crime Rate

2,000
1,000
0
19
76
19
79
19
82
19
85
19
88
19
91
19
94
19
97
20
00
20
03
20
06

Crime Rate
(Reported Crimes per 100,000 Residents)

Michigan’s crime rate has
consistently been higher
than the average of the
other Great Lakes states
(See
Chart
20).
Michigan’s traditionally
higher crime rate (and
specifically, the violent
crime rate) most assuredly affected the number and offense composition of new prison
commitments, but differences in crime rates
do not necessarily produce incarceration rate
differences.

The seven other states
that border a Great Lake are
Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota,
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
14

28

Great Lakes
Average Property
Crime Rate

Year

Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program, www.disastercenter.com/crime

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

Growth in Michigan’s Corrections System: Historical and Comparative Perspectives

Chart 21
Michigan and Great Lakes States Prison Committal Rates: 1977-2005
250

Prison Admissions
(per 100,000 Residents)

Michigan

100
Great Lakes Average
50

Year

Source: CRC Calculations, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Annual Admissions
Spreadsheet www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm.

Chart 22
2006 Michigan and Great Lakes States* Parole Exits by Type

Percentage of 2006 Parole Exits

60.0%

Michigan

50.0%
40.0%

Great Lakes States Average

30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Parole Success

*

Illinois did not report
data.

150

0

As is the case nationally,
a significant percentage
of the Great Lakes
states’ prison admissions
are the result of parole
failures. In 2006, Michigan returned 17 percent
of its total parole population to prison for either
a new criminal offense
or a technical rule violation. This is slightly
higher than the Great
Lakes average 15, which
was 15 percent. Chart 22
shows that Michigan had

15

200

19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01
20
03
20
05

Relative to the average of
the other Great Lakes
states, the number of individuals committed annually to prison in Michigan per 100,000 residents
has fluctuated considerably since 1993 (See
Chart 21). Overall,
Michigan’s rate has remained around 138,
whereas the average of
the other states has consistently increased since
the early 1990s. The development of the Office
of Community Corrections in 1988 contributed
to Michigan’s controlled
prison admissions rate by
increasing sanctions and
services available locally
to nonviolent offenders.
Michigan’s comparatively
higher incarceration rates
were not the product of
Michigan’s comparatively
low admissions rates.

Technical Rule
Violation

New Sentence

Other

Illinois and Indiana did not report complete data and were excluded.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Probation and Parole in the United States
2006 www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pandp.htm.

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

29

CRC Report

Length of Stay

that the average length of stay for Michigan grew rapidly in the late 1980’s and was, on average, 16 months
(1.3 years) longer than the average of the other Great
Lakes states from 1990 to 2005.

There is limited data detailing the composition of the
Great Lakes states prison populations by offense type.
Without this data it is not possible to control for offense type when comparing the average prisoner
length of stay of Michigan and the Great Lakes states,
which is critical for the purposes of doing cross-state
comparisons of this nature. However, given that Michigan was a stark outlier in national length of stay comparisons, which did control for offense type, it is reasonable to assume that offense type is not the primary
cause of Michigan’s longer average length of stay when
compared to the Great Lakes states. Chart 23 shows

Michigan’s average length of stay is substantially longer
than the average of the other Great Lakes states. As
was mentioned before, if Michigan’s average length of
stay were comparable to the average of the other
Great Lakes states from 1990 to 2005, then Michigan’s
2005 incarceration rate would have dropped from 489
to 351 prisoners per 100,000 residents, which is only
slightly higher than the Great Lakes average rate of 338
prisoners per 100,000 residents. Michigan’s tendency
to keep prisoners incarcerated longer is a principal
contributor to the state’s proportionally higher incarceration rates.

a larger percentage of successful 2006 exits from parole than the average of the other comparison states.

Chart 23
Michigan and Great Lakes States Estimated Average Length of Stay: 1981-2005 (five-year smoothed
average)

Length of Stay (in Months)

60
50

Michigan

40
30
20

Great Lakes State Average

10

19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01
20
03
20
05

0

Year

Source: CRC Calculations, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Annual Releases Spreadsheet www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
prisons.htm.

30

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

Growth in Michigan’s Corrections System: Historical and Comparative Perspectives
Spending
In 2005, Michigan’s average annual Corrections employee salary was roughly $9,000 more than the average of the other Great Lake states and Michigan’s an-

nual operating cost per prisoner was roughly $500
higher (See Table 4).

Table 4
2005 Prison Populations, Incarceration Rates, Average Salary, Annual Per Prisoner Costs
in Great Lakes States
Incarceration
Incarceration
Rate
Rate as a
Average
Annual
Prison
(per 100,000
Percentage of Corrections
Costs
Population
residents)
Michigan’s Rate
Salary
Per Prisoner
Illinois
44,919
351
71.8%
$ 51,507
$ 21,622
Indiana
24,416
388
79.3%
33,521
21,531
Minnesota
8,874
180
36.8%
44,252
29,260
New York
62,743
326
66.7%
60,713
42,202
Ohio
45,854
400
81.8%
34,091
23,011
Pennsylvania
42,345
340
69.5%
45,845
31,029
Wisconsin
21,110
380
77.7%
41,845
28,932
Average
Michigan

338
49,337

489

69.1%

$44,487

$28,227

$53,268

$28,743

Sources: Pew Charitable Trusts, Public Safety, Public Spending, Forecasting Americas Prison Population 20072011; Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2005

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

31

CRC Report
In 2006, 5.2 percent of Michigan’s total state expenditures were spent in the Department of Corrections.
This is over two points above the average of the other
Great Lakes states, which was 2.9 percent. Michigan’s
total Corrections spending per capita was $82 more
than the average of the other comparison states. Since

the cost per prisoner among the Great Lakes states is
comparable, Michigan’s proportionately higher Corrections expenditures are the direct result of its elevated incarceration rate and higher average Corrections employee salary.

Table 5
2006 Total Corrections Expenditure Comparisons
Great Lakes States

Illinois
Indiana
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin

Total
Corrections
Expenditures
(millions)
$ 1,131
667
433
2,834
1,967
1,860
1,091

Total Corrections
Expenditures
as a Percent of
Total State Expenditures
2.6%
3.1%
1.7%
2.7%
3.7%
3.5%
3.3%

Total
Corrections
Spending
per Capita
$ 88
106
84
147
171
150
196

Average

1,426

2.9%

$135

Michigan

2,189

5.2%

$217

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2006 State Expenditure Report, www.nasbo.org/Publications/
PDFs/fy2006er.pdf.

32

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

Growth in Michigan’s Corrections System: Historical and Comparative Perspectives
Future Outlook
Prison Populations

Spending

Prison populations have increased continually
throughout the last 34 years. In these years, prison
population and Corrections expenditures have exhibited a strong positive correlation. For this reason, projecting prison populations based on current policies
and practices provides a rough benchmark to help
gauge spending pressures that will confront policy
makers in the future.

Using these prison population projections, estimates
of future spending pressures were developed. The
addition of nearly 1,200 prisoners to the system each
year will add, on average, $46 million to the DOC budget alone. Combined with other expected operational
cost economic increases not exclusively stemming
from prison population increases, total projected 2012
Department of Corrections spending pressures will
grow to over $2.6 billion (See Table 6). Projections of
the other future expenses were developed by partitioning the DOC budget into five spending areas: employee compensation, hospital costs, pharmaceutical
costs, mental health services expenses, and other expenses. A specific growth factor was applied to the
FY08 base amount for each area.

The Department of Corrections annually projects
prison populations for the next five years. In February
2008, the Department released its figures through
2012, which indicate populations will rise by 5,800 inmates or just over 11 percent (slightly over 2 percent
annually) between the end of 2007 and the end of 2012.

Table 6
Projected Prison Populations and Spending Pressures: 2008-2012
(Dollars in Millions)
Year
2008*
2009
2010
2011
2012

Projected
Prison
Population
51,434
52,140
53,638
55,164
56,134

Projected
Spending
Pressures
$ 1,996.1
2,118.5
2,250.9
2,415.7
2,593.8

Projected Increase in Spending
Pressures Attributable to
Prison Population Growth
$ 41.5
44.1
47.3
50.8

* FY08 General Fund appropriated amount
Source: CRC Calculations, Department of Corrections 2008 Prison Population Projection Report
www.michigan.gov/documents/corrections/02-01-08_-_Section_401_223262_7.pdf

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

33

CRC Report
Projected Spending Pressures Versus Historical Trends
The projected spending pressures presented above increase annually at a rate of 6.8 percent. This is markedly
higher than the 3.9 percent annual growth rate of the expenditure forecast derived from the Corrections
spending trends of the last 34 years. When the Corrections spending patterns of the last seven years are
used to create an expenditure forecast, the annual growth rate is 5.1 percent. The margin between the growth
rates of the projected spending pressures and each of the historical expenditure forecasts indicates that the
annual cost per prisoner is projected to rise. Table 7 compares the projected spending pressures of this
report with two expenditure estimates, using historical average growth rates to project future spending.
Table 7
Projected Spending Pressures Versus Historical Forecasts*: 2007-2011
(Dollars in Millions)
Projected
Projected
Spending
Spending
(separate growth factors)
(1973-2007)
2008
$1,996.1
$1,996.1
2009
2,118.5
2,041.0
2010
2,250.9
2,147.6
2011
2,415.7
2,256.0
2012
2,593.8
2,326.5
Annual Growth
Rate

6.8 percent

3.9 percent

Projected
Spending
(2000-2007)
$1,996.1
2,058.9
2,196.6
2,342.9
2,439.2
5.1 percent

To develop these expenditure forecasts, the statistical relationship between prison population size and MDOC expenditures
for each time period was modeled with a mathematical function. Then the MDOC projected annual prison populations
were entered into each mathematical function, yielding annual MDOC expenditures consistent with the statistical relationship
of each time period.

*

Source: CRC Calculations

34

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

Growth in Michigan’s Corrections System: Historical and Comparative Perspectives
Workforce
The expanding prison population will also place pressure on the Corrections workforce. Despite recent
budget constraints slowing the growth of the Corrections workforce, the addition of roughly 5,800 prisoners in the next five years will likely necessitate an increase in the size of the Corrections workforce. While
technology and other measures may be employed to
delay and mitigate the hiring of additional correctional
officers and parole officers, MDOC will be forced to
increase staff to ensure the safety of those being supervised as well as those responsible for supervising
prisoners.
Aging Population
Michigan Department of Corrections statistics show
the average age of prisoners to be increasing, from 30.6
years in 1985 to 36 years in 2007. With an increasing
average length of stay in prison, this aging trend can
be expected to increase. The Michigan Department
of Corrections reports that the percentage of new
prison admissions age 40 and older has increased substantially, from 18.6 percent of the total in 1988 to 24.3
percent of the total in 2004. This increase has occurred
as the percentage of those 19 years and under has declined. An aging prison population portends additional
spending pressures as health care costs rise commensurate with prisoner age. Generally speaking, older
prisoners will require additional and more expensive
kinds of medical care.
Health Care
In addition to higher spending resulting from growth
in the number of prisoners, the Department of Cor-

rections budget will be confronted with cost increases
associated with prisoner health care. In 1976, the
United States Supreme Court ruled that prison inmates have a constitutional right to health care and
withholding such care constitutes cruel and unusual
punishment under the 8th Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution16. Therefore, the State of Michigan is mandated to provide health care services to those individuals under its supervision. Prisoner health care costs
are largely unavoidable and will have to be addressed
through additional general fund allocations. Increases
in these costs will follow, generally, the health care
spending trends projected for the general population.
The Department of Corrections spent over $274 million on prison health care in FY06. The Department
implemented managed care for the provision of health
services in 1997, helping to moderate the growth in
health care costs. Despite the implementation of the
managed care model, the average annual per prisoner
health care cost jumped from $4,227 in FY97 to $5,492
in FY06, a 30 percent change. This rise is attributable
to a number of factors, including increased referrals
to specialists outside the prison setting and more hospital stays for prisoners. The State’s prisoner health
care bill is also directly affected by the health status
of individuals entering prison. Chronic diseases (e.g.,
diabetes, high blood pressure), substance abuse, and
mental illness, are examples of ailments afflicting prisoners when they enter the system that subsequently
become the responsibility of the State. As the cost of
treating these ailments rises and the number of prisoners afflicted with these conditions increases, the
spending pressures facing the Department of Corrections can be expected to escalate concomitantly. The
increased use of pharmaceuticals may add to overall
health care spending in the Department.

16

U.S. Supreme Court, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976).

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

35

CRC Report
Total inmate health expenditures rose from $189 million in FY97 to $274 million in FY06, an annualized
growth rate of 4.2 percent. This growth path suggests
that annual health care spending will rise $15 million
per year during the five-year forecast period for this
component of the Corrections budget. As result, in
FY12, the state’s annual prisoner health care bill will
be $364 million, almost two times larger than it was in
FY97 (See Chart 24). As the average age of the prison
population rises, these costs will climb even higher.

It is important to recognize that the State will shoulder the entire burden of these health care cost increases. The inmate population is not eligible to participate in either the Medicare or Medicaid programs.
As a result, health care costs for individuals who would
be covered by these programs outside of the prison
setting and subject to federal/state cost-sharing (Medicaid) or covered with federal dollars (Medicare) will
have to be paid with State of Michigan resources.

Chart 24
Corrections Healthcare Expenditures (Projected): 1997-2012

$3,000

Dollars in Millions

$2,500
$2,000
Non-Healthcare

$1,500

Healthcare

$1,000
$500

201
1

200
9

200
7

200
5

200
3

200
1

199
9

199
7

$0

Year

Source: Department of Corrections Statistical Reports, CRC Calculations.

36

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

Growth in Michigan’s Corrections System: Historical and Comparative Perspectives
Conclusion
This report has documented the growth of the Michigan prison system and has provided comparisons with
the experiences in other states. Corrections has grown
rapidly over the past 35 years and has assumed a magnitude at which it has become central to the solution
of the Michigan structural deficit problem. Unless the
growth path is altered so that the program can be supported by projected revenues, the difficult budgetary
decisions of the past seven years will only be repeated.

It is unlikely that any single policy change will accomplish the task. Numerous alternatives will need to be
explored in order to develop a policy that will achieve
the desired results. Whether the rate of prisoner intake
is reduced, the length of stay shortened, or other
changes adopted, however, the fiscal benefits resulting
from any reforms aimed at controlling inmate population and spending growth will have to be weighed
against any risks to public safety that might ensue or
other programs that might have to be expanded.

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

37