Policy Options for Humanely Reducing Recidivism in Michigan By Nevo Polonsky Executive Summary
Background
Recidivism is a problem that makes our communities less safe, results in negative health outcomes for prisoners and their families, and costs taxpayers money. In Michigan, people of color are disproportionately incarcerated at higher rates. Consequently, recidivism disproportionately increases the total length of time for which people of color are incarcerated. Longer prison stays lead to more negative intergenerational effects, which can create a cycle where communities of color are continually impacted by incarceration. Failing to effectively address recidivism exacerbates existing racial health and incarceration disparities in Michigan. Michigan has made great strides toward reducing recidivism rates and has seen positive results with the Michigan Offender Success Model. However, there are other cost-efficient evidence-based policies that Michigan can implement to further reduce recidivism in a way that promotes prisoners’ wellness. Two promising policy options are implementing a prison nursery in Michigan’s female-only prison, Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility, and implementing statewide free transportation to promote prisoner visitation. Other states have implemented similar policies and, if adopted in Michigan, these options would likely reduce recidivism while saving the state money in the long run. This analysis assesses three different policy options to reduce recidivism: a prison nursery in Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility, increased spending for educational programming, and free statewide transportation for prison visitation. Each policy is assessed using three criteria: recidivism reduction, annual cost, and prisoner wellness. Using these criteria, I recommend implementing a prison nursery in Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility and a free statewide transportation program. These policies will reduce recidivism in a way that is cost-effective while promoting prisoner and community wellness. I do not recommend increasing spending for educational programming because it is less cost-effective, has a less clear path to implementation, and is less impactful in promoting prisoner and family wellness than the other two policy options. 30
Starting in the 1970s, policymakers began to view incarceration as the most effective method for reducing crime.1 Harsher sentencing and increased drug arrests led to a boom in prison populations across the country, including a three-fold increase in Michigan’s prison population between 1978 and 2006.1-3 Increasing prison populations, combined with the relatively stagnant national 3-year recidivism rate of 40% between 1994 and 2007, meant more people were returning to prison each year.4 Michigan recently reported its lowest 3-year recidivism rate in history, at 26.7%.5 However, that means 26.7% of released prisoners are still not contributing socially or economically to their community and are continuing to cost taxpayer dollars. Incarceration also leads to a variety of negative short-term and long-term health, career, and social outcomes that impact incarcerated individuals and their families. While there is no widely regarded acceptable level of recidivism, a 3-year recidivism rate of 26.7% is still too high. If the criminal justice system successfully prepares prisoners for re-entry, then the cost of their return to prison can be avoided. In fiscal year (FY) 2019-20 Michigan allocated about $2 billion for the state’s prison system, with about 97% of this budget originating from the state’s general fund.6 A large portion of this cost stems from the resources spent on prisoners annually. The average cost to Michigan is about $197,000 per prisoner, based on the average 4.2-year sentence for a new prisoner in Michigan and 2015’s average annual cost of $47,000 per prisoner in Michigan.7,8 Investing in cost-efficient policy options that support prisoners to reduce recidivism will therefore save Michigan money in the long run. The financial rationale for reducing recidivism is supplemented by examining the negative effects that incarceration has on an individual’s physical and mental health, and thus their life course. Prisoners are at a higher risk of exposure to infectious diseases due to shared personal hygiene items, poor nutrition, and poor ventilation, while the stress of being incarcerated results in a weaker immune response.9 Consequently, prisoners are at risk of developing weaker immune responses while being
