Act No 524, Public Acts of 2002, p. 2.
Governor Engler cut the state corrections budget by $12,602,500 through Executive Order 2002-22. The majority of these cuts, effect specific institutions and would only reduce Option I savings by $1,077,000.
Incarceration refers to the fact that if criminals are in prison, they are unable to commit other crimes. The theory of deterrence holds that would-be criminals will not commit crimes if they know that punishment awaits, while rehabilitation involves changing the thought patterns of prisoners so that they will not commit further crimes once released.
Telephone interview of Leo Lalonde, director, public information office, Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), by Mackinac Center for Public Director of Fiscal Policy Michael LaFaive, Feb. 28, 2003.
The U.S. Census Bureau estimated Michigan’s population in 2001 at 9,990,817. The number of institutions and offenders comes from the (MDOC) “2001 Annual Report,” p. 61-62, which is accessible on the Internet at http://www.michigan.gov/corrections/1,1607,7-119-1441_1523---,00.html. Population estimates are accessible on the Internet at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26000.html.
MDOC Annual Report 2001, p. 18.
Act No. 524, p. 2.
This appropriation was reduced by $100,000 in Gov. Engler’s Executive Order 2002-22.
This appropriation was reduced by $200,000 in Gov. Engler’s Executive Order 2002-22.
MDOC web site, “Positive Drug Tests Reduced,” accessible on the Internet at http://www.michigan.gov/corrections/0,1607,7-119-9741_9745-29054--,00.html.
MDOC web site, “Increase in Funding,” accessible on the Internet at http://www.michigan.gov/corrections/0,1607,7-119-9741_9745-29060--,00.html.
MDOC web site, “Number of Offenders in Treatment,” accessible on the Internet at http://www.michigan.gov/corrections/0,1607,7-119-9741_9745-29063--,00.html.
MDOC web site, “Treatment in Prisons and Camps,” accessible on the Internet at http://www.michigan.gov/corrections/0,1607,7-119-9741_9745-29066--,00.html.
Becca Hamrin, “The Straight Dope: Drug Testing and Treatment in the Correctional System,” State Trends, Council of State Governments, Spring 1999, p. 3-4, accessible on the Internet at http://stars.csg.org/trends/1999/spring/sp99st3.pdf. See also “Third Quarter News,” home page of Prof. Charles W. Thomas, accessible on the Internet at http://web.crim.ufl.edu/pcp/html/398news.html, and Segal and Moore, “Weighting the Watchmen: Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Outsourcing Correctional Services, Part II: Reviewing the Literature on Cost and Quality Comparisons” Reason Public Policy Institute, Part II, p. 11.
Segal and Moore, Part II, p. 13, 16.
Act No. 524, p. 2.
Much of the material in this section is derived from Morgan O. Reynolds, “Privatizing Probation and Parole,” National Center for Policy Analysis Policy Study 233, June 2000, accessible on the Internet at http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s233/s233.html.
Reinventing Probation Council, “Transforming Probation Through Leadership: The ‘Broken Windows’ Model,” Center for Civic Innovation at The Manhattan Institute and the Robert A. Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, July 2000, p. 3, accessible on the Internet at http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/broken_windows.htm.
Act No. 524, p. 2.
Marilyn Peterson and Tumai Burris, “Line Item and Boilerplate Summary: Corrections Fiscal Year 2001-2002,” p. 7.
Act No 524, p. 2.
This appropriation was reduced by $27,000 in Gov. Engler’s Executive Order 2002-22.
Profile taken from “Community Residential Programs” section of the MDOC website, accessible on the Internet at http://www.michigan.gov/corrections/0,1607,7-119-1435-5035--,00.html.
Act No. 524, p. 2.
Ibid., p. 3.
This appropriation was reduced by $750,000 in Gov. Engler’s Executive Order 2002-22.
MDOC web site, “Education: The Highest Priority,” accessible on the Internet at http://www.michigan.gov/corrections/0,1607,7-119-9741_9747---,00.html.
This is the actual appropriation based on Act No. 524. However, in December, 2002 Gov. John Engler signed Executive Order 2002-22, which reduced spending on specific correctional facilities by $12,602,500. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy has subtracted this figure from the original GF/GP appropriation before calculating possible savings from outsourcing the entire system.
Segal and Moore, Part II, Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c, p. 3.
Alexander Volokh, “A Tale of Two Systems: Cost, Quality, and Accountability in Private Prisons,” Harvard Law Review, May, 2002, Vol. 115, No. 7, p. 1868.
Segal and Moore, “Weighing the Watchman: Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Outsourcing Correctional Services, Part I, Employing a Best-Value Approach to Procurement,” p. 3.
American Corrections Association, “Facts About the Accreditation Process,” p. 7. This document is not dated.
Segal and Moore, Part I, p. 12.
Volokh, from the section entitled, “Evidence from the Studies,” p. 1877.
Segal and Moore, Part I, p. 4.
Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, Florida Legislature, “Review of Bay Correctional Facility and Moore Haven Correctional Facility,” Report No. 97-68, April, 1998.
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Year-End 2001 Report, “Prisoners in 2001,” p. 8.
National Conference of State Legislatures web site, “Tennessee Considers, Retreats from Large-Scale Prison Privatization,” ,” May, 1998. Accessible on the Internet at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cj/cjl40598.htm.