Michigan Department of Corrections Trends in Key Indicators Through December 2018 (Data as of 3/19/2019)
Michigan
Department of Corrections
Trends in Key Indicators
Through December 2018
(Data as of 3/19/2019)
Nearly 9 decades of Year End Prisoner Populations and Commitments
2
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
55,000
1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 2021
Total Prisoner Population* Prison Commitments**
*Includes Community Residential Programs (CRP - Halfway Houses) prisoners when appropriate.**Prison Commitments includes Additional Sentence Imposed Commitments for existing prisoners.
Michigan Department of Corrections
Historical Prisoner Population and Commitments
31,000
32,000
33,000
34,000
35,000
36,000
37,000
38,000
39,000
40,000
41,000
42,000
43,000
44,000
45,000
46,000
47,000
48,000
49,000
50,000
51,000
52,000
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Mo
nth
ly P
op
ula
tio
n
Start of Year
Michigan Department of Corrections
ACTUAL PRISON POPULATION SINCE 1991
More recently, after growth of 20,000+ inmates in 16 years, a decline of 8,650
in 5 years, and 3 years of stability, the prison population decline continues.
51,554March 2007
----------------Peak Population
3
38,761December 2018
----------------Down to
1995 prison levels*
*And 1993-1994 total prisoner population levels whenMichigan had halfway houses (CRP)
54,48255,545 56,155
59,35760,177
58,113
55,592
53,422
50,862 50,641 50,81749,201
47,480 47,347 46,68445,626
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
55,000
60,000
65,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Michigan Department of Corrections
Total Felony Court Dispositions (Offenders)
Front End Impact: After peaking in 2007, annual felony court dispositions
continue a slow downward trend for an eleventh year.
4
21.9%
20.3%20.9%
21.7%
20.7%
19.4% 19.3%
20.3% 20.2%20.7%
21.6% 21.7% 21.5%21.0%
19.7%20.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Michigan Department of Corrections
Prison Commitment Rate*
* The prison commitment rate is the percentage of all felony court dispositions that are sentenced to prison.* The prison commitment rate is the percentage of all felony court dispositions that are sentenced to prison.
5
Front End Impact: The prison commitment rate continues to remain in a fairly
narrow, 19-22%, range since 2003.
48,19047,620
50,599
52,597
50,570 50,717
53,992
55,605 55,17154,581
53,375 53,87254,854
57,23057,899
58,497
52,893
49,176
47,52846,812
45,219 44,99144,089
43,098
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Michigan Department of Corrections
Year-End Probation Population
6
Front End Impact: The felony probation population increased from 2005
through 2010 to a record high, but has since declined by more than 25%.
3,333
3,479
4,228
3,706
3,494 3,481
3,643
3,359
2,850
2,632
2,481 2,507
2,6342,705
2,556
2,405
2,2492,169
2,073
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Michigan Department of Corrections
Probation Violator Intake*
*Includes probation technical violators and probationers with a new sentence.
7
Front End Impact: Probation violator intake has decreased from 2002 and data
through 2018 showed a continued decline to 50% since 2002.
9,169
9,5849,424
8,809 8,922
9,610
11,050
10,311
9,811
10,241
11,094
10,705
9,715
9,2959,158
8,7568,882
9,2378,983
8,664
8,085
7,695 7,593
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Michigan Department of Corrections
Prison Intake*
*Includes new court commitments, probation violators (technical or new sentence), parole violators new sentence, and escapee new sentence.
8
Front End Impact: Annual prison intake decreased by 21% from 2007 to 2011 and then
increased for 2 years. Through the end of 2018, the decline since 2013 continues, to levels
not seen since before 1988.
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Michigan Department of Corrections
Prison Intake by Cumulative Minimum Term in Months
0-12 13-24 25-60 61+ (incl. life)
9
Impact on Length of Stay: Since 2013, the intake decline has been in the 0-12 and 13-24
month min term groups while the 25 month and up min terms have remained fairly stable.
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Michigan Department of Corrections
Percent of Prison Intake by Cumulative Minimum Term in Months
0-12 13-24 25-60 61+ (incl. life)
10
Impact on Length of Stay: As a proportion of intake, the shift has been from the 0-12
month min terms to the 25 month and up groups with 13-24 months remaining stable.
47.046.1
48.949.9 49.2 48.7
50.148.7 48.7
50.148.7
44.042.6
44.0
41.943.2
42.2
44.1 43.7
45.4
49.648.6
47.5
49.9
51.7 52.251.4
53.354.7
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Michigan Department of Corrections
Prison Intake by Average Cumulative Minimum Term in Months*
11
Impact on Length of Stay: The decline of shorter minimum terms and proportional shift to
longer terms shows in the growth of the average minimum term.
*Excludes Intake for Life terms
Prison Intake Comparison by Crime Groups
12
Involving
Death
5%
Sexual
Offense
12%
Other
Assaultive
29%
Other
Non-Assaultive
36%
Drug
18%
2018
Involving
Death
4%
Sexual
Offense
10%
Other
Assaultive
28%
Other
Non-Assaultive
44%
Drug
14%
2007
Average Cumulative Minimum Term:3.7 years
Average Cumulative Minimum Term:4.6 years
Involving
Death
5%
Sexual
Offense
12%
Other
Assaultive
29%
Other
Non-Assaultive
36%
Drug
18%
Intake(2018)
Prison Intake & Population by Crime Groups
Involving
Death
22%
Sexual
Offenses
20%Other
Assaultive
34%
Other
Non-Assaultive
16%
Drug
8%
Population
(12/31/2018)
13
Average Cumulative Minimum Term:4.6 years
Average Cumulative Minimum Term:11.2 years
Other
Non-Assaultive
23%
Drug
9%
Assaultive
68%(includes
Involving Death and Sexual Offenses)
2007 Peak Prison Population
Prison Population Comparison by Crime Groups
Involving
Death
22%
Sexual
Offenses
20%Other
Assaultive
34%
Other
Non-Assaultive
16%
Drug
8%
Current
Population (12/31/2018)
14
Average Cumulative Minimum Term:8.2 years
Average Cumulative Minimum Term:11.2 years
68.2%
64.6%
61.1%
63.3%
57.4%
55.0%
57.9%
55.3%
51.3% 51.5%
47.3% 47.7%48.4%
51.8% 51.5%
54.7%
51.7%52.5%
58.1%
62.4%
55.9%
65.5% 65.0%
67.6%
65.1%
68.0%
71.2%72.2%
71.5%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Michigan Department of Corrections
Parole Approval Rate
15
Impact on Length of Stay: The parole rate hovers at record highs, as first hearing
prisoners become prepared to successfully reenter society before parole board review.
17,597 17,67317,225
20,03720,460
21,568
22,255
23,74724,109
23,583
20,915
21,902
23,770
22,164
26,752
21,800
17,110
15,847 16,02015,593 15,604
14,848 14,586
12,664
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Michigan Department of Corrections
Parole Board Decisions
16
Impact on Releases: As prisoners are better prepared for society and approvals at their first
parole hearing increase, the need for subsequent and overall hearings declines.
Pre-ERD
60%
Life
9%
Post-ERD
23%
PVT 8%
2007 Peak Prison Population
Status of Earliest Release Date (ERD)
17
Pre-ERD
74%
Life
12%
Post-ERD
10%
PVT
4%
Current
Population(12/31/2018)
9,078
9,465
8,758
10,506
9,682
9,133
10,001
10,697
11,752
11,344
10,284 10,240
12,429
11,557
13,542
12,138
11,162
9,361
10,554
10,110 10,019
10,601
9,886
9,193
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Michigan Department of Corrections
Moves to Parole
18
Impact on Releases: Years of declining prison intake will eventually be reflected in
declining moves to parole.
12,753 12,713 12,57313,047
13,653 13,706
14,545
15,592
17,449
18,104
17,168
16,029
18,362
20,379
22,237 22,183
20,129
18,21817,964
16,767
15,609 15,658
14,589
13,607
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Michigan Department of Corrections
Year-End Parole Population Under Active Supervision*
* Includes Interstate Compact parolees here and Residential Reentry
19
Impact on Releases: The parole population peaked in 2009, and has since declined by
39% due to successful parole completions & relatively stable moves to parole.
851
969
1,051
1,174
1,299
1,449
1,629
1,699 1,714
1,925 1,929
1,781
1,713
1,655
1,502
1,188
1,126
961
898
849 833
647
555507
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Michigan Department of Corrections
Discharges on the Maximum Sentence
20
Impact on Releases: Since peaking in 2005, discharges on the maximum continue over
a decade of decline due to the higher parole approval rate.
45.744.9
43.5
41.9
39.3 39.1
40.8 40.6
36.5
33.2
31.530.6
29.0
30.331.0
29.8
28.129.1
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Michigan Department of Corrections
3-Year Return to Prison Rate*
* Includes cases that were returned to prison on Parole Technical Violations or for a New Sentence within three years of parole release.
21
Impact on Returns: Since establishing the baseline for recidivism in 1998, the 3-Year Return
to Prison Rate has been consistently maintained in a range of 28-32% for eight years now.
890
1,033
1,2881,345
1,259
1,1661,195
1,441
1,644
1,802
1,879
2,0201,985
2,0251,970
1,794
1,525
1,406 1,393
1,267
1,1591,105
1,029989
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Michigan Department of Corrections
Parole Violator New Sentence Intake
22
Impact on Returns: The parole violator new sentence (PVNS) intake resulting from new
felony prosecutions while on parole continues its decline for the tenth year.
1,916
2,577
2,668
3,1103,186
3,111
3,2363,289
2,161
3,013
2,859
3,157
2,094
1,878
2,127
2,373
1,893
2,698
2,020
1,686
1,854
1,958
1,691
1,596
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Michigan Department of Corrections
Parole Technical Violator Returns to Prison
23
Impact on Returns: Parole technical violator returns (PVT returns) to prison have
declined to twenty year lows and are down over 50% from the 2002 high.
Factors Driving the Prison Population
A. Felony Court Dispositions Down
B. Prison Commitment Rate Stable
C. Probation Population Down
D. Probation Violators to Prison Down
E. Prison Intake Down
F. Intake Average Min Term Up
G. Parole Approval Rate Stable
H. Parole Decisions Down
I. Moves to Parole Down
J. Parole Population Down
K. Max Discharges Down
L. 3-Year Return to Prison Rate (Recidivism) Stable
M. Parole Violator New Offense Returns (PVNS) Down
N. Parole Technical Rule Violator Returns (PVT) Down
Summary Nearly ALL Favorable
24
Projecting the Prison PopulationA. The Model originally purchased from the National Council on Crime and
Delinquency in 1987. The Model has been extensively adapted and customized by MDOC staff over the years.
B. The Model is a Monte Carlo prison population simulator that uses numerous probability distributions to mimic prisoner transitions through MDOC.
C. Probability distributions that drive the Model are build from MDOC enterprise data systems through extensive data extraction, transformation, and analysis before loading into the Model.
D. Data analysis breaks prisoner data down into 50 offense / max term groupings each with up to 6 min term for a total of 300 pairs which allow particular attention to 0-24 month sentences that have the greatest influence on 3 to 5 year population projections.
E. Rebuilt data is then “fine tuned” in the Model by back-projecting against two years of actual historical trace vectors to ensure a valid basis to project the future.
F. Trend analysis forms the basis for the future yearly intake assumptions that must be fed to the Model for disaggregation and projection.
G. Last February’s projection was 99.2% accurate at the end of December 2018 – projecting 321 prisoners higher than actual.
25
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Model Intake1981-2018
26
Projection Assumptions: While Yearly Intake appears declining Monthly Intake
flattened out in 2017. Thin line shows the wild variations that occur in the raw monthly
intake counts. Thick line within the wild variations shows the embedded trend.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Male New Court Commitments2010-2018
27
Projection Assumptions: Male New Court Commitments appear to remain flat.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Male Probation Violators2010-2018
28
Projection Assumptions: Male Probation Violators also appear to remain flat.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Female New Court Commitments2010-2018
29
Projection Assumptions: Female New Court Commitments appear to have rebounded
in late 2017 and may continue upward.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Female Probation Violators2010-2018
30
Projection Assumptions: Female Probation Violators also appear to have rebounded
but in mid-2017 and may still increase.
31
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Intake + PVT + PVNS versus Parole Moves1981-2018
Intake+PVT+PVNS Paroles
Projection Assumptions: Thick line (Parole Moves) is a delayed echo of the Thin line
(Intake+PVT+PVNS) suggesting a couple of more years of Parole Moves decline.
Projection Assumptions
A. Model Intake Slightly Up1. Male New Court and Probation Violation Commits stay flat
2. Female New Court and Probation Violation Commits rise slightly
3. 2019 up 1.0%, 2020 up 0.7%, 2021 up 0.9%, then flat at that level
B. Parole Approval Rate Stable1. Maintains at 2018 level
C. Parole Decisions Down1. Fewer eligible even with the same approval rate yields less
D. Moves to Parole Down1. Follows less Parole Decisions
E. Parole Violator New Offense Returns (PVNS) Down1. Follows less Moves to Parole
F. Parole Technical Rule Violator Returns (PVT) Down1. Also Follows less Moves to Parole
32
37,000
38,000
39,000
40,000
41,000
42,000
43,000
44,000
45,000
46,000
47,000
48,000
49,000
50,000
51,000
52,000
53,000
Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19 Jan-20 Jan-21 Jan-22 Jan-23
Nu
mb
er
End of Month
Michigan Department of Corrections
ACTUAL AND PROJECTED PRISON POPULATION
Actual Prison Population 02/2019 Prison Population Projection
33
The new prison population projection anticipates a continued but
slowing decline as a baseline forecast absent any new initiatives.