Michigan Community Corrections

Michigan Community Corrections

Chapter 1: Introduction

Community corrections have gained acceptance across the United States as a response to the growing costs of traditional correctional settings. Their increased use is based on the fact that such programs are generally cheaper, because they entail shorter periods of control, but also thought to be more effective than residential prisons and jails in reducing future criminal behavior. In Ohio, community-based alternatives to prison were established in HB 1000, also known as the Community Corrections Act (CCA). Under this bill, non-residential prison alternatives were established that would allow lower level felons to be diverted from expensive state penal institutions into cheaper community based programs.

Over time, community alternatives expanded across the state and became an integral part of the correctional scene. By FiscalYear 2000, CCA programs expanded to 85 of Ohio's 88 counties. Typically, these facilities and programs house non-violent, first and second time offenders who might be sentenced to prison if not for the community alternative. It is reported that in 2000, over 8,698 offenders were diverted from the state prison system and 18,344 offenders from local jails (Michigan DRC website). According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Michigan has a smaller proportion of its correctional population in prison and jail than other states in the mid-West, and the nation (Glaze, 2002), and this may be reflective of the state use of community corrections systems. Currently, community based alternatives to prison are either state run programs, or county run programs that are subsidized by the state. There are also nonprofit organizations throughout the state that administer programs such as halfway houses, which are also subsidized by the state. Nationwide, however, there is an expanding notion of community corrections that goes beyond the concept of sending offenders to locked facilities: More and more states and communities are experimenting with less and less restrictive forms of supervision and treatment, and are seeing treatment programs as part of a vital system that rehabilitates offenders. On November 5, 2002, Michigan voters defeated a proposal to amend the Michigan Constitution to allow, with some restrictions, a first- or second- time offender charged with, or convicted of, illegal possession or use of a controlled substance to request treatment in a residential treatment facility in lieu of a period of incarceration.

Essentially, the amendment would have allowed treatment instead of incarceration for first- and second-time drug offenders. While the view of every voter cannot be known, the leading opponents of Issue One contended that sentencing reform did not need to be achieved through the constitutional amendments, and that the implementation costs of the initiative were prohibitively expensive. Some Issue One opponents also voiced strong support for the concept of treatment instead of prison for non-violent drug offenders, particularly through the use of drug courts. Leading opponents of the initiative also pledged that should the state's economy improve, more funds would be found to expand drug treatment options.

As new treatment regimens are considered, questions still remain about the extent to ...