• Those prisoners identified as needing more intensive preparation and support are transferred to an "in-reach" center, i.e. a prison closer to home.
• The top priority for community transition teams is placed on developing a plan for finding work or becoming employable as well as setting up stable housing.
• Based on individual needs, prisoners are linked with services in the community such as substance abuse treatment, mental health services, or sex offender therapy.
• Parole officers act as case managers for the transition teams and determine a graduated series of sanctions for parolees who misbehave. 
• Phase Three: Staying Home - the community and discharge phase begins when the prisoner is released from prison and continues until discharge from community parole supervision. The responsibility of the former prisoner, human services providers, and the offender's network of community supports and mentors to assure continued success. This phase involved the final three major decision points of the transition process:
1. Supervision and services - providing flexible and firm supervision and services.
2. Revocation decision making - using graduated sanctions to respond to behavior.
3. Discharge and aftercare - determining community responsibility to "take over" the case.
• One way that the initiative altered how the MDOC worked with parolees was to move their release date to earlier in the week so that they immediately meet with their parole agents, rather than have the entire weekend to get into trouble without any supervision.^[8]

Evaluation    summarize any evaluation findings that policy or program effectiveness

• MPRI has begun to see initial signs of success.^[9]
• Overall crime has gone down in Michigan:
• The total number of serious crimes reported dropped from about 380,000 in 2006 to about 330,000 in 2009.
• The number of reported violent crimes fell from 56,778 in 2006 to 49,547 in 2009.
• Conviction of parolees has gone down:
• The number of parolees returning to prison for new crimes fell from 2,020 in 2006 to a projected 1,836 in 2010.
• Return to prison rates are done.
• Before MPRI one in two parolees returned to prison within three years.
• That number has improved to approximately one in three parolees.
• About 2,800 fewer parolees have returned to prison than would have been expected prior to MPRI.
• The prison systems has seen a relative rate reduction of 33% fewer returns to prison for parole violations or new crimes compared to baseline expectations. 
• There are 1,793 fewer returns to prison through mid-May of 2010 than projected. 
• Michigan's annual recidivism rate in 1998 was 45.7%, and as of 2006 it was 36.4%
• In 2009, Michigan's overall parole revocation rate was 195 in 1,000 parolees. 
• The prison population in Michigan has decreased.
• The number of prisoners has safely decline from 51,554 to about 44,000 since March of 2007.
• There are 7,500 fewer people behind bars.
• Of the 25,000 prisoners in intensive reentry units or standard MPRI prison in-reach facilities, over 22,500 (92%) had been paroled by the end of 2009. 
• The state has been able to close 14 correctional facilities.
• Spending on prisons is down.
• MPRI has helped reduce spending on prisons by $293 million annually.
• Without the changes of the past eight years, the State's $1.9 billion Corrections budget would be about 33% higher.^[10] 

Status    indicate whether this policy or program has been adopted in more locations or remains a proposal 

• The Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative has continued as a staple of the Michigan Department of Correction's programs and mission. 
• San Francisco Reentry Council: "The lessons learned in Michigan that could be applied to CDCR include a need for flexibility, promotion of community leadership, implementation of a full-blown reentry model, appropriate resource allocation, allowing resources to be controlled by local communities, and parole supervision that is augmented by services."^[11]

Point of View    quotations from those in support or opposition to this policy or program 

• The Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative has won substantial national attention for its fairly rapid success from organizations such as the Urban Institute, the PEW Center on the States, the National Institute of Corrections, Public Policy Associates, Inc., the Justice Center, the American Civil Liberties, and the National Juvenile Justice Network.
• The Reentry Council of the Justice Center cited the MPRI as an example for its recommendation for other communities to "create and maintain forums for project oversight, information sharing, communication, and problem-solving across agencies and organizations.^[12] 
• The PEW Center on the States has lauded the Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative for its success. In a report published in April 2011, the Center reported that the state's recidivism rate dropped 18.2% between 1999 and 2000 for parolees committing technical violations of their release. The Center also found that returns to prison for new crimes increased 21% during the same period. Despite the fact that Michigan's repeat offender rates are still "a mixed bag," the report stated that post-study information demonstrates that the MPRI is having a positive effect on the state's recidivism rates.^[13][14]
• The National Institute of Corrections has used the Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative as a model for programmatic collaboration. "Though MPRI is still in its early stages of implementation, it has already generated a better than 25% decrease in recidivism by prisoners who have transitioned through the MPRI process. These gains illustrate the power of partnership and its culmination in a mutual capacity-building that can effect the change necessary to protect our neighborhoods. By maintaining a focus on systems thinking, sustaining a unified commitment, organizing and structuring partnerships, and catalyzing change, the MPRI Model is one example of how collaboration and part- nership can build capacity and improve the safety of local communities."^[15]
• The MPRI has also received attention from The Crime Report, in its new article titled, "Getting Prison Numbers Down - For Good." "MPRI won considerable national attention, and the endorsement of legislative leaders, community organizations and the Chamber of Commerce, concerned about correction’s drain on state spending and taxes. Some prosecutors and elected officials opposed the MPRI. Its leaders struggled against the resistance of entrenched corrections practitioners and union and political forces with an interest in keeping prisons open. Nevertheless, in a relatively short time MPRI achieved a significant impact. Parole approval rates increased by 15% in two years and returns to prison for technical or “rule-breaking” parole violations fell 22%. These changes were in large part responsible for reductions in Michigan’s prison population from a high of 51,544 in March 2007 to 44,113 at the end of 2010, or a total of more than 14.4%. The state closed prisons and cut corrections costs."^[16]
• In 2009, the American Civil Liberties Union stated in a report, "Michigan inspires hope as a concrete example of the change in incarceration policies that the United States so desperately needs."^[17] 
•  
• In an audit for FY2010, the Michigan Office of Internal Audit Services found that the DOC processes for developing MPRI contracts and selecting contractors were not effective. It also found that the DOC efforts to monitor and evaluate MPRI contracts were not effective, and noted several weaknesses in the contracts for Special Needs, Risk Reduction, and Capacity Building. In its report, the Office of Internal Audit Services made ten recommendations based on its findings.^[18]

Contact     contact information for sponsor of this policy or program 

Twyla Snow

Policy and Strategic Planning Administration

Michigan Department of Corrections

P.O. Box 30003

Lansing, Michigan 48909

Phone: 517-373-3653

Fax: 517-241-5080

E-mail: snowts@michigan.gov

www.michigan.gov/corrections

Bibliography    link to any additional readings or websites related to this policy or program 

• "Internal Audit Report: State of Michigan Department of Corrections, Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative Contracting Practices February 2011." Office of Internal Audit Services, http://www.thecenterformichigan.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/MPRI_audit.pdf. 
• "Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative 2010 Progress Report: Making Strides in Public Safety." Public Policy Associates, Inc., Funded by the Michigan Department of Corrections, http://www.mi.gov/documents/corrections/MPRI_2010_Progress_Report_343664_7.pdf.
• Michigan Prisoner Reentry Brochure, http://www.michigan.gov/documents/MPRI_brochure_107472_7.pdf.  
• "Report to the Legislature: MPRI Expenditures and Allocations Report." http://www.michigan.gov/documents/corrections/03-01-11_-_Section_403_346820_7.pdf. 
• "State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America's Prisons." April 2011. PEW Center on the States, http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Pew_State_of_Recidivism.pdf. 
• http://www.michigan.gov/corrections/.