As frigid winds whipped the snow into frothy mounds on Lansing’s street corners, state legislators, corrections officials, attorneys, and staff from nonprofit groups crowded into an upper room of Michigan’s capitol building with a mission in mind. The density of bodies in the packed chamber produced enough warmth to subdue the icy cold. But as one speaker after another approached the microphones and began to talk about reforming corrections policy, it was clear that the winds of change were keeping pace with the blasts outside.

Prison Fellowship Michigan staff and representatives of Justice Fellowship, Prison Fellowship’s criminal justice arm, attended the event—both to advocate for the involvement of faith-based organizations in corrections reform and to support reforms that align with restorative justice principles.

The Growing Corrections Crisis

The crisis that pulled all of these participants together on January 23 impacts not only Michigan but also many other states across the country. Michigan’s prison population has more than quintupled in the past three and a half decades, and its corrections costs consume nearly a quarter of the budget’s general revenue funds. Similar stories capture headlines in Virginia, where corrections spending has doubled in the past eight years; in California, where the government is staggering under the financial burden of caring for a growing number of ill inmates; and in Florida, where lawmakers are even proposing to house offenders in tents because of overloaded prisons. West Virginia, Kentucky, and Washington are also scrambling to deal with their own unsustainable situations.

This coast-to-coast crisis, however, extends beyond budget deficits and an increasing number of our citizens locked behind bars. Our corrections systems are also failing to deliver the public safety benefits promised. Research demonstrates only a loose and inconsistent link between incarceration and lower crime rates. With an average, nationwide recidivism (rearrest) rate of two-thirds, and parole failures representing one-third of prison admissions, the money poured into corrections is not producing the peace and security our communities need.

The leaders in Lansing called for reforms that hold promise in deterring criminal behavior, lowering rates of re-offense, and reducing spending on corrections. The policy platform discussed contains specific proposals to increase public safety in Michigan with cost-efficient methods. Stakeholders’ efforts in Michigan are coalescing to push a reform bill through the state’s legislature this spring. However, all states would benefit by applying the principles contained in Michigan’s reform framework.

Here are some highlights.

Reducing Risk to the Public

The primary principle that states must adopt is simple: Focus corrections spending on reducing risks to the public. This means prioritizing offenders who actually threaten our safety. It also means concentrating corrections money and energy on lowering the risk of re-offense—by helping empower offenders to avoid future criminal behavior. Corrections costs will decrease as fewer people cycle through our prisons.

We certainly expect this kind of strategic focus, prioritization, and commitment to positive outcomes from other government departments. We would be incensed, for example, if the Department of Transportation spent billions to construct guard rails along Montana’s cattle paths. And we would certainly cry foul if the Department of Defense decided to move troops from defending the hills of Afghanistan to barricading New Zealand. Our corrections systems act just as irresponsibly when they imprison or intensively supervise offenders who pose minimal risk to the public and when they fail to employ practices proven to lower offenders’ likelihood of recommitting crimes.

The reform ideas generated in Michigan demonstrate practical ways that corrections policies can focus on risk. These include:

• Assess the risk level of offenders on probation and create various tiers of supervision intensity based on their risk. Think of it this way: A simple leash can rein in a dachshund, but a heavy chain would be more appropriate to control an aggressive pit bull. 
  
  We would deem putting the heavy chain around the neck of a dachshund excessive and burdensome. The same is true of imposing intensive interventions on low-risk offenders. Significant research, in fact, shows that such disproportionate treatment actually increases their chances of re-offending. Rather, let’s opt for the supervisory equivalent of the lighter leash.
  
  At the same time, focusing energy on high-risk offenders can promote their positive behavior. When we free supervision officers to channel their time and energy into high-risk offenders, we increase our safety.
• Develop a more proportionate response to probation and parole violations—a response that acknowledges risk. Delivering long prison sentences to people who commit minor, technical violations of their supervision makes little sense, especially when short and swift responses to these violations have proven more effective in compelling compliance.
  
  For example, a program in Hawaii demonstrates the effectiveness of such a proportionate approach. Offenders in Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation Enforcement (HOPE) program are guaranteed punishment for noncompliance within a week’s time. Using short jail stays and drug treatment as possible sanctions, the program has yielded remarkable results: Arrest rates for HOPE probationers are three times lower than comparison probationers.
• Help probationers and parolees reintegrate into society by helping them find and keep a job. Because a job is essential to success in our communities, this lowers offenders’ risk levels. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy reports that multiple job training programs have been able to reduce criminal behavior and save money by preventing ex-offenders from returning to prison. These programs would be an excellent part of any state’s corrections strategy.
• Develop incentives to motivate positive behavior. States could follow Arizona’s example and relax supervision requirements as offenders participate in treatment and training programs and demonstrate good behavior. Offering people rewards for changing their lifestyles gives them an excellent incentive to become productive, peaceful members of our communities. By following this practice, Arizona has been able to save considerable corrections costs.
• Make room in prison for the high-risk offenders. Another wise part of Michigan’s plan is to grant parole to all inmates who have completed the entirety of their minimum imposed sentence, have participated in rehabilitation programs while in prison, and are not charged with serious, violent crimes. Removing these offenders from prison creates space for those who are truly dangerous. It also allows low-risk offenders to reunite with their families and begin contributing positively to our communities once they have proven their readiness.