COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS FUNDING
by
Karen Firestone
Fiscal Analyst

October 1999


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author of this paper would like to thank Mike Hansen and Gary Olson for their assistance, and extend a special thank-you to Lynda Davis for typing as well as creating tables and graphs.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

-- The Budget for the Department of Corrections and Office of Community Corrections

THE COMPARISON

-- Results of the Comparison

-- Other Observations

-- Discussion

CONCLUSION

Appendix I

Appendix II


INTRODUCTION
Community corrections refers to programs established at the local level of government that provide both a diversion from a prison sentence and rehabilitation within the community that was harmed by an offender's wrong-doing. By punishing and providing corrective programming for the offender within the community, it is hoped that the offender will assimilate into the community, no longer engage in unlawful activity, and will, therefore, never again be at risk of a prison sentence. Offenders involved with community corrections are on probation, but the programs they enter and the supervision they receive may be more extensive than traditional probation. Because community corrections programs are designed at the local level of government, each county may offer different services. Community corrections programs include probation residential services, substance abuse treatment, and work release programs, to name a few.

Michigan's Community Corrections Act, Public Act (PA) 511 of 1988 (MCL 791.401-791.414), was enacted over 10 years ago. In accordance with other state's community corrections acts, the statute provides partial State funding for locally developed programs. Michigan's PA 511 was designed to reduce incarceration rates both in State prisons and in local jails. By providing grants to communities, the Act encourages counties(1) to establish Community Corrections Advisory Boards (CCABs) and prepare a comprehensive corrections plan. The purpose of the State funding, according to the Act, is:

... to encourage the participation in community corrections programs of offenders who would likely be sentenced to imprisonment in a state correctional facility or jail, would not increase the risk to public safety, have not demonstrated a pattern of violent behavior, and do not have a criminal record that indicates a pattern of violent offenses.

A comprehensive corrections plan must include a description of how programs will reduce State prison commitment rates and maintain public safety, according to statute. The plan, along with a request for funding of programs described in the plan, is submitted by the local CCAB to the State Community Corrections Board, which approves the plan and grants funds based on the amount requested and available resources.

The fiscal year (FY) 1998-99 Appropriations Act for the Department of Corrections (DOC) required a comprehensive statewide evaluation of community corrections by an independent third party to assess the efficacy of State and local plans and the impact of policies on minimizing admissions to prison. The report, for which only the executive summary has been released, is expected to focus on the effectiveness of community corrections programs in terms of recidivism among the program participants, rather than focusing on the number of offenders arriving at the prison gate. When viewed in this way, community corrections becomes a program of intervention in the criminality of an offenders and measures its strength in targeting offenders into appropriate and well-designed programs.

Although it is a basic study of community corrections programs, this Senate Fiscal Agency issue paper examines State funding for community corrections programs to determine if the Community Corrections Act can be associated with changes in prison commitments and crime rates within communities receiving State funding. Through this view of community corrections programs in Michigan, it is hoped that the reader will become familiar with the Community Corrections Act, the State budget for community corrections, and the ability of community corrections to divert felons from the prison door.


BACKGROUND
Identifying prison-bound offenders is difficult, because the characteristics of probationers (convicted individuals who are not incarcerated) and low level offenders sentenced to prison are very similar. Therefore, community corrections programs may reach offenders who were not prison bound, increasing the punishment that otherwise might have been imposed. A direct correlation between community corrections acts and reductions in prison commitments may only represent a decrease in the number of crimes committed within a given community or changes in judicial sentencing patterns. While the majority of counties have submitted comprehensive corrections plans and received State grants for programs included in the plans, 10 counties have not received State funding(2), allowing for an analysis of the difference in sentencing patterns between counties that have received State funding and those that have not.

If State-funded community corrections grants have enabled communities to reduce prison commitment rates, either by improving use of jail space to incarcerate offenders more effectively or by providing alternatives to incarceration, then counties receiving grants should have decreased their incarceration rates. Conversely, counties that do not receive the grants should continue to commit the same percentage of offenders to prison. Additionally, counties that have received State community corrections grants should have increased awareness of corrections issues, as demonstrated by reductions in court disposition and crime rates.

This issue paper, which compares the crime and court disposition information for counties not receiving State community corrections grants with the information for counties of similar demographic makeup that receive State funding for community corrections programs, found that State funding of community corrections programs seems to have changed the disposition of felony offenses in the funded communities. The changes observed, however, do not preclude the possibility that factors other than State funding for community corrections programs have had a positive effect on prison commitment rates.

The Budget for the Department of Corrections and Office of Community Corrections
The DOC budget has grown significantly in recent years, from $614.6 million in FY 1988-89 to $1.4 billion in FY 1997-98, an increase of 123%. As Table 1 illustrates, the recent growth is primarily associated with the growth of the prison population. The DOC budget, however, includes funding for other nonprison corrections programs, such as probation supervision and community corrections. Respectively, these programs grow in response to an increase in the number of convictions or number of nonprison sentences requiring probation supervision, and to growth in alternatives to prison. Table 2 provides the funding history from inception of the Office of Community Corrections (OCC), an appropriations unit of the DOC budget. During the period, funding for the appropriations unit has increased from $14.1 million in FY 1988-89 to $47.4 million in FY 1997-98, or 236%. Not all of this funding is appropriated for PA 511 programs, however.

Table 1
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 
ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS AND PRISON POPULATION
Fiscal Year GF/GP

(In Millions)

 Prison 

Population1
1988-89  614.6  31,834 
1989-90  684.7  34,209 
1990-91  808.1  36,293 
1991-92  866.6  38,628 
1992-93  978.9  38,942 
1993-94  1,107.3  40,501 
1994-95  1,177.6  41,112 
1995-96  1,268.8  42,349 
1996-97  1,299.3  42,426 
1997-98  1,368.6  43,821
-----------------------------------
1 Prison population is recorded for the calendar year-end in the middle of the fiscal year.

Source: Appropriations - SFA Appropriations Report Prison population - 1997 Statistical Report, Michigan Department of Corrections

In FY 1996-97, the County Jail Reimbursement Program (CJRP) was transferred into the OCC appropriations unit to reimburse counties, based on criteria specified in the appropriations act, for incarcerating felons who otherwise would have gone to prison. Although the funding is appropriated in the OCC unit, the reimbursement is overseen by the Audit and Internal Affairs section of the DOC, not the OCC. The CJRP, which accounted for 39% of the FY 1997-98 appropriation for the OCC, is not tied to the comprehensive corrections plans submitted by the CCABs. Counties that do not participate in comprehensive corrections plan grants or submit community corrections plans, as well as counties that do, can receive reimbursement through the CJRP.

As Table 2 shows, the funds for comprehensive corrections plan grants and probation programs funding have increased by 101% from $12.6 million in FY 1988-89 to $25.3 million in FY 1997-98. Of the funds appropriated for the OCC in FY 1997-98, community corrections plan grants and probation programs funding represented 53% of the funding in this unit. The operations and public education category provides support for counties participating in PA 511 programs as well as outreach to communities that are nonparticipating and represents about 3% of the funding. The remaining 5% of the funds appropriated in this unit, or $2 million, was designated to assist counties in constructing or remodeling local facilities.


Table 2
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS FUNDING
(millions)
Fiscal Year Comprehensive corrections plan grants and probation programs funding Operations and public education Jail space utilization funds1 Federal substance abuse grants Total 
1988-89 $12.6  $0.5  $1.0  $0.0  $14.1 
1989-90 15.9 0.8 1.0 0.0 17.7
1990-91 20.7 0.9 1.0 0.8 23.4
1991-92 20.4 1.1 0.5 0.8 22.8
1992-93 18.5 1.2 0.0 0.8 20.5
1993-94 17.6 1.2 0.0 0.7 19.5
1994-95 20.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 21.4
1995-96 20.7 1.5 4.0 0.0 26.2
1996-97 23.3 1.5 14.1  0.0 38.9
1997-98 25.3 1.5 20.6  0.0 47.4
-------------------------------
1 These amounts include CJRP funding in FY 1996-97 of $14.1 and FY 1997-98 of $18.6.

Source: SFA Appropriations Report.

Currently, of the 83 counties in Michigan, 73 submit comprehensive plans to the State Community Corrections Board for plan approval and funding. Grants provided by the State do not cover all of the costs of programs used by the counties, nor are all programs offered by counties funded with State grants. A program that is not performing as expected may be suspended from funding by the State Community Corrections Board. Funds for the suspended program may be transferred to another program by the Board or lapsed to the General Fund.

THE COMPARISON

The effect of community corrections funding on prison commitment rates was assessed by comparing unfunded counties with funded counties. In order to find counties similar to the unfunded counties, the factors associated with criminal activity have to be examined. Crime has been associated with a number of community factors including population size, age of population, amount of urbanization, and income, to name a few. Because so many factors can affect crime, and therefore, prison commitment rates, selection of a comparison group requires some control for the factors that are associated with increased crime in order to isolate the effect community corrections funding has on prison commitments. If some community factors or variables are not eliminated, commitment patterns could reflect, for example, a county's ability to house its criminal population, differences in jail size, or the number of judges rendering decisions in a jurisdiction.


The three variables that were selected for comparison were population, urbanization, and per capita income, because these statistics are easily obtained through the decennial census. However, when individual counties that were unfunded were compared with individual counties that were funded, it became apparent that no satisfactory matches could be found. Therefore, the unfunded counties were blended into a group by averaging the demographics of the individual counties.(3)

By matching the change or growth in the three variables - population, urbanization, and per capita income - between the 1980 and 1990 censuses, two groups of counties matching the unfunded group were found. Table 3 illustrates how the county data were averaged for the unfunded group to show the process that was followed for obtaining group information. Two groups with matching rates of change for certain demographics were selected from the funded circuits to compare with the unfunded county group. Appendix II provides more detail about the matches among groups, including the statistical significance of the matches.

Table 3
UNFUNDED GROUP AVERAGING
   Urbanization Population Per Capita Income
Circuit Court District 1980 1990 1980 1990 1980 1990
Livingston  14.6%  18.61%  100,289  115,645  $8,323  $17,327 
Clare, Gladwin  8.15  13.84  43,779  46,848  5,390  9,306 
Hillsdale  21.46  23.17  42,071  43,431  6,121  11,198 
Branch  30.79  30.12  40,188  41,502  6,449  10,033 
Newaygo, Oceana  6.90  6.82  56,919  60,656  5,669  10,039 
Van Buren  15.88  14.23  66,814  70,060  6,108  11,233 
Shiawassee  50.60  51.43  71,141  69,770  6,948  12,039 
Lenawee  61.23  62.87  89,948  91,476  6,957  12,654 
Average  26.21%  27.64%  63,894  67,424  $6,496  $11,854 

This comparison looks at trends in court dispositions(4), prison commitment rates, probation rates, and crime rates among the groups of counties that do not receive community corrections grants and makes comparisons with the two groups of counties that receive funds (referred to in Figures 1 to 4 as "Funded 1" and "Funded 2"). According to the Community Corrections Act, funding is available to counties in order to reduce the number of offenders sent to State correctional facilities or jail. Although the number of court dispositions and the crime rate do not directly reflect this goal, the amount of crime in a community and the willingness of the community to prosecute offenders will affect the number of offenders available to be diverted. Additionally, it may be assumed that a community that sponsors community corrections programs in a formal manner (i.e., completes a plan grant application) is aware of crime within the community and works toward lowering the crime rate.

Results of the Comparison

Figure 1 shows that the average number of court dispositions follows a similar trend for the unfunded and funded counties. It is interesting to note that each group of circuit courts experienced an increase in the number of dispositions beginning in about 1988, with a peak in dispositions occurring in 1991. The Legislature, in 1988, enacted a package of crime bills that created new crimes, increased penalties for many existing crimes, and introduced mandatory drug sentencing.

Figure 1

Prison commitment rates and probation rates are the percentage of felony convictions sentenced to prison, and to probation or probation and jail, respectively. As seen in Figure 2, which shows the average prison rate for unfunded and funded counties, the use of prison sentences has gradually increased from 1981 until about 1992 when their use begins to decrease. In 1995, the prison rate appears to be increasing again. Figure 3 shows the probation rates for the same period. The probation sentence is imposed at a constant rate until 1992, when its use begins to increase. These trends appear to approximate one another for the three groups considered, however, counties that have not received State funding appear to send a slightly higher percentage of their dispositions to prison, and use probation/probation and jail less frequently. Although no clear pattern emerges, the data suggest that there are differences in the rate of prison and probation/probation and jail sentences and that these differences may be connected to State funding of community corrections programs.

Figure 2

Figure 3


Figure 4 shows the average nonindexed crime rate for the groups of circuits courts. Nonindexed crimes include mostly nonviolent crimes that would make offenders eligible for community corrections programs. These data present an inconclusive picture of the impact of community corrections funding, because the nonindexed crime rate is lower for communities without funding than the communities with funding, and the rate varies more for funded counties. Between 1981 and 1996, Funded Group 1 reduced its nonviolent crime rate by 4%, whereas the Unfunded Group and Funded Group 2 increased 11% and 46%, respectively.
Figure 4

Other Observations
As seen in the figures above, the trends for use of prison and probation may indicate that circuit courts receiving community corrections grants send a lower percentage of offenders to prison than do counties not receiving the grants. There is not conclusive evidence, however, that community corrections grants alone directly affect sentencing trends. Some of the other factors, a few of which are controlled for in this study, may have an effect on the trends observed in the data.

Because other factors could have an impact on the results of the study, an alternative method of measuring the effect of State funding was undertaken. By observing several specific crimes and measuring the percentage of dispositions sentenced to prison, probation, or jail(5), the effect of all State funding, both through community corrections grants and through the CJRP, can be observed.(6)Table 4 shows the dispositions for four crimes that have various relationships to community corrections funding and CJRP reimbursement.(7) The data indicate that crimes that are the target of State funding have had reduced admission to prison or increased use of probation, and that crimes that are not the target of community funding have no appreciable difference in the overall commitment rate. The results of the comparison of Table 4 are discussed below.

Table 4
DISPOSITION RATES OF SELECTED CRIMES1
  
Number of 
Dispositions		 Prison Probation Jail
OUIL III        
1988 512 24% 46% 8%
1991 1,151 32% 44% 6%
1994 1,427 26% 56% 3%
1997 2,068 31% 59% 1%
Retail Fraud        
1988 300 29% 31% 19%
1991 2,692 26% 35% 12%
1994 2,707 22% 38% 9%
1997 2,773 21% 43% 9%
Possession of less than 25 grams      
1988 2,104 23% 62% 7%
1991 3,386 20% 68% 3%
1994 2,972 16% 68% 3%
1997 3,639 16% 66% 2%
Armed Robbery        
1988 860 97% 1% 1%
1991 1,023 96% 3% 1%
1994 948 94% 5% 1%
1997 700 96% 2% 2%
----------------------The category "other" dispositions has not been included due to relevance. Percentages will not equal 100.

Counties are reimbursed for incarcerating certain drunk driver felons in local facilities through the CJRP. Offenders convicted of operating under the influence (OUIL) may also qualify for PA 511 programs. As seen in the data, the prison commitment rate for these offenders changes very little over time. However, the use of probation, which includes offenders sentenced to both probation and jail, has overtaken the use of straight jail time.


The CJRP will reimburse for retail fraud offenders housed in jails primarily if they are prosecuted under the habitual offender statute. Individuals committing this offense could be eligible for PA 511 funded programs, as well. Although the number of offenders convicted of retail fraud has increased, the prison commitment rate and the jail commitment rate have decreased.

Like retail fraud offenders, the number of offenders committed to prison for possession of a controlled substance under 25 grams has decreased over time. In this case, however, the number of offenders convicted of the crime has varied within a given range rather than increasing like retail fraud. Jails housing offenders for this drug law violation could be reimbursed through the CJRP due to the offenders' sentencing score under the Supreme Court sentencing guidelines. Also, offenders could qualify for PA 511 programs.

In contrast, armed robbery would not be reimbursed by the CJRP nor, in general, would offenders qualify for PA 511 programs. The number of dispositions for this crime has decreased just as the overall crime rate has decreased. Over time, the prison commitment rate for armed robbery has remained constant, which might be expected, since this crime is not targeted by community corrections grants or other county funding.

In addition to diverting felons from prison, a goal of the funding according to the Act is to improve jail usage. Data are not available to determine whether movement from the jail disposition category to the probation disposition category represents a net decrease in jail use or an increase in the sanction (jail and probation instead of just jail). Overall, however, the data suggest that community corrections funding and CJRP reimbursements are reducing commitments to prison of offenders who commit targeted crimes while commitment rates for crimes not being targeted seem to be unaffected.

Discussion
Both the comparison between unfunded and funded counties and the examination of individual crimes' prison commitment rates suggest that State funding for community corrections programs reduces the percentage of dispositions committed to prison. However, State funding to local units of government is not the only force driving the commitment rate over the time period observed. In fact, although the prison commitment rates and probation rates of unfunded and funded groups are different, it is interesting to note that the disposition trends of the funded and unfunded groups follow a very similar pattern. Some of the other forces affecting commitment rates that could be causing unfunded and funded groups to trend together are discussed below.

The average number of dispositions or caseload among the funded and unfunded groups of circuit courts observed has increased since 1982. Despite this increase in the number of offenders sentenced, prison capacity remains constant unless new construction is authorized. This may cause judges to view prison as a fixed resource and to dispose of an increasing number of offenders by using local resources: probation or probation and jail.

Another reason that the trends between funded and unfunded circuits are similar could be word of mouth. Circuits without State funding still have contact with the OCC and may even have developed community corrections initiatives that are not State funded, or were State funded for a short period of time. Because community corrections programs may offer benefits other than reduced admissions to State prison, such as reduced recidivism, counties may develop community corrections programs without applying for State funding.

Additionally, circuit court probation agents in all counties are State employees, and report to the DOC. Probation agents prepare a presentence investigation report for crimes subject to Supreme Court sentencing guidelines and for all crimes under statutory guidelines. The report concludes with a recommended sentence. Thus, in this indirect way, the policies developed by the DOC may have influence on the use of community corrections or probation by local units.

CONCLUSION
By comparing groups of circuit courts without State funding for community corrections programs and circuit courts with State funding, it appears that the funding has had an effect on the trends in prison commitment rates and probation rates. The magnitude of the change, however, and the importance of State funding cannot be determined from this study. There are many other factors that have an impact on the use of community corrections programs, some of which have been outlined here. A more in-depth survey of the question should be able to trace the State funds, and determine the uses of the funds compared with the incarceration rate in each county, in order to assess more conclusively the impact of State funding on the prison and jail commitment rates.

Appendix I
CCAB FY 1999 STATUS ISSUES AND/OR NOTES
Branch County established a CCAB in the early 90's; CCAB was disbanded in 1993. During FY '97 County officials expressed interest in re-establishing the CCAB. OCC provided assistance to County regarding alternative sanctions and services and process for modifying previous comprehensive plan and the preparation and submittal of a proposal and application for funds. The prison commitment rate was 17.5% (21 of 120) in 1996 and 12% (16 of 132) during 1997 and 16% (16 of 101) during January-September 1998. OCC will continue to work with County regarding preparation and submittal of updated County plan.
Clare/Gladwin Clare County prison commitment rate below state rate; ADP of jail is greater than rated design capacity. Gladwin prison commitment rates below state rates; ADP of jail over 90% of rated design capacity. CCAB formed but limited activity since 1991.
Hillsdale Prison commitment rates are among the highest among Michigan's counties. This refers not only to the overall prison commitment rate but also to virtually all SGL and offense categories. Lower guideline offenders have historically and continue to account for the majority of dispositions in the County (e.g., more than 58% of the dispositions are for offenders with SGL min/min of 0; this compares to 48% for the state; the January-September 1998 prison commitment rate of 32% for this group is more than 5 times the state rate). The rate of incarceration for felony offenders (99%) is the highest among Michigan counties and the available data suggests the use of incarceration has increased since November, 1996. While the rate of incarceration has not changed since November of 1996, length of stay of jail inmates has increased and the ADP of inmates from Hillsdale has increased from 27 to 50. No CCAB. There were several meetings during FY '97 and early FY '98 with county officials regarding creation of a CCAB and development of a local plan. Lack of follow up by County; OCC will continue to work with the County.
 

Given the sentencing patterns within the County, new sentencing guidelines will certainly have major impacts on local system.
Lenawee Overall prison commitment rates among highest of Michigan counties: 47% (100 of 211) in 1995; 47% (110 of 236) in 1996; 42% (96 of 227) during 1997 and 44% January-September 1998. Offenders with lower SGL guidelines account for the majority of the County's felony dispositions and an unusually large proportion of the County's prison commitments. Only 7% of felons are sentenced to straight probation; statewide 33% of felons are sentenced to straight probation. Rated design capacity of jail is 156; ADP was 165 in 1997 and 170 in 1998. OCC had several meetings with County officials during FY '96, FY '97 and FY '98 relative to reactivating the CCAB, updating the County's comprehensive plan, and preparing a proposal and application for funds.

Limited follow up by County.
Livingston Prison commitment rate was 23% (70 of 346) in 1994, 18% (74 of 421) during 1995, 40% (97 of 243) in 1996, 28% (114 of 402) during 1997 and 23% during January-September 1998. High prison commitment rates for low guidelines offenders (1996, 1997, and January-September 1998 rates for SGL Min/Min of 0 and SGL Min/Max of 18 are double the state rates) and OUIL III rate was 80% in 1996, 64% in 1997 and 67% January-September 1998. The rated design capacity of the Livingston County jail increased from 61 to 205 in September 1996. Jail was utilized to capacity shortly after the expansion. CCAB established, no Comprehensive Community Corrections Plan. Periodic inquiries. OCC expected a proposal and application to be submitted during FY '98.
Newaygo No CCAB. Prison commitment rate less than 20%. Rated design capacity of jail is 212; 1997 ADP of 169. Approximately 42% of inmates are boarders from other jurisdictions.   
Oceana County developed comprehensive plan during 1994, but elected not to apply for program funds. Prison commitment rate 6% in 1995, 14% in 1996, 25% (22 of 88) during 1997 and 13% during January-September 1998. Renting beds to other jurisdictions. No FY '95, '96, '97, '98, '99 application.  
Shiawassee Prison commitment rate increased from 24% in 1995 to 28% in 1996 to 39% in 1997 then decreased to 32% in January-September 1998. Commitment rates for priority population groups (SGL Min/Min 0, SGL Min/Max 12, OUIL III, and SGL Min/Min 12) above state rates. CCAB has been activated with intended purpose of developing a local comprehensive plan. It is expected that a local plan will be presented to the State Community Corrections Board by July/August 1999.
Van Buren  A comprehensive plan was developed in 1992; FY '93 application for funding was not approved. The County elected not to resubmit for FY '93, FY '94, FY '95, FY '96, FY '97, or FY '98. The prison commitment rate was 19.9% (64 of 322) in 1996, 15% in 1997 and 11% January-September 1998. Renewed interest within County and it is anticipated that a proposal will be prepared by the County for presentation of the State Board of Community Corrections in July/August 1999.

Source: Biannual report to the Legislature pursuant to Public Act 511 of 1998 Section 12(2) and Public Act 321 of 1998, Section 804, March 1999, prepared by the Office of Community Corrections.


Appendix II
Comparisons between funded and unfunded groups are based on the rate of change in urbanization, population, and per capita income between 1980 and 1990. The court disposition data, which are the basis of the trend analysis, were published in the annual Statistical Report of the Department of Corrections. The crime statistics are provided in an annual report by the State Police and the demographics were provided by the Office of Demography, Department of Management and Budget.

The circuit court data were averaged for the unfunded group, and two groups with matching rates of change for certain demographics were selected from the funded circuits and, as shown in Table 5 below. As illustrated in Figure 5, the annual population of the groups was compared to determine whether there was a correlation among the groups of circuit courts. Indeed, a high correlation of population trend was found, even though Funded Group 2's population was lower than that of the other groups. The correlation between the unfunded group of circuit courts and the first basket and second basket of funded counties resulted in r scores of .99 and .98 respectively. Given this level of confidence, it was expected that the effects of the Community Corrections Act through State funding would result in different outcomes for court disposition, incarceration, and probation rates as seen in circuit court data, and crimes rates for nonindexed crimes.

Table 5

DEMOGRAPHIC EVALUATION OF STUDY GROUPS
  Urbanization % Change Population % Change Per Capita Income % Change
  1980 1990   1980 1990   1980 1990  
Circuit Court
                  
Unfunded Group (a) 26.21% 27.64% 1.43% 63,894  67,424  5.52% 6,495.62 11,853.61 82.49%
Funded Group 1 (b) 37.33  38.53  1.20  64,289  69,020  7.36  6,309.61 11,464.55 81.70 
Funded Group 2 (c) 30.05  30.05  1.53  58,954  58,954  0.95  6,232.46 11,392.98 82.80 
------------------------------------------------ 
(a) Includes Livingston; Clare and Gladwin; Hillsdale; Branch; Newaygo and Oceana; Van Buren; Shiawassee; Lenawee

(b) Includes Midland; St. Joseph; Ionia and Montcalm; Kalkaska, Crawford, and Otsego; Alger, Luce, and Schoolcraft; Clinton and Gratiot; Allegan; Arenac, Ogemaw, and Roscommon

(c) Includes Cheyboygan; Tuscola; Alpena, Alcona, Montmorency, and Presque Isle; Wexford and Missaukee; Monroe; Huron
Figure 5


1. The Act refers to cities, counties, or county advisory boards. No city has formed a CCAB, and several CCABs are made up of multiple counties.

2. Counties may develop community corrections programs even though they do not apply for or receive State funds. The community corrections plans for counties that do not receive State funds are detailed in Appendix I.

3. Court disposition data are available only by circuit court, so the counties' demographics were combined into the multicounty, circuit court format. In two cases, counties with State funding share a circuit with counties that do not receive funding. The 51st Circuit, which includes Lake and Mason Counties and the 23rd Circuit, which includes Iosco and Oscoda Counties, were excluded from both the funded and the unfunded groups, because Mason and Iosco receive funding. Also, circuits that were split as the result of a rearrangement of the circuit courts in 1995, were excluded. The study's time frame is from 1981 to 1996, and PA 511 was enacted in 1988.

4. A court disposition is a determination of an offender's guilt of committing an offense. The information about the offender's sentence is captured on the Basic Information Report (BIR) by the county and transferred to the DOC for processing. The information about the sentence is reported by the DOC in its annual Statical Report. Multiple convictions of an offender are treated as separate dispositions.

5. "Jail" includes fines, restitution, and costs.

6. Most crimes that qualify for PA 511 funding are also reimbursed under the qualification of the CJRP. Therefore, the effect of an individual funding source cannot be measured in isolation.

7. These data are also from the BIR. However, they are reported differently with split sentences and jail and probation together, being recorded with straight probation. Also, there is a category for other sentences, such as delayed and suspended sentences and Holmes Youthful Trainee Act probation, which tend to relate to deferred prosecution and are not discussed here because of relevance.