>>Tom Ivako: We're happy to have you with us.

I'm Tom Ivako, with the Center for Local,
State and Urban Policy, also known as Close Up.

I'm happy to welcome you on behalf
of the Ford School and Close

Up to Weill Hall for today's event.

It's sure to be an engaging discussion

and one of the most important policy
topics facing the state of Michigan today,

reform and our corrections system.

And I'd like to point out that we will have
time at the end of the panel discussion

for question-- for questions
and answers with the audience.

We have some cards and pencils
placed around the auditorium.

If you have a question, please write it down
on one of the cards and then hold your hand up.

We'll have some people come by
to pick up those cards from you.

Today's event is co-sponsored by Close Up
and the Ford School and has been organized

by Professors Jeffrey Morenoff and David
Harding from the University of Michigan as well

as Jeffrey Padden from Public
Policy Associates, Incorporated.

Mr. Padden is serving as the moderator today
and he will introduce the rest of the panelists,

but it's my pleasure to first
introduce Mr. Padden.

Jeffrey Padden is the founder and
President of Public Policy Associates,

a firm that works across the nation in public
policy research, development and evaluation.

Mr. Padden began working in corrections
policy in 1975 when he was first elected

to the Michigan House of Representatives.

He chaired the House Committee on
corrections for eight years and served

on the Judiciary Committee chairing the
subcommittee on sentencing guidelines.

For the past six years Mr. Padden
has led Public Policy Associates work

with the Michigan Department of Corrections and
the Michigan Counsel on Crime and Delinquency

and the Leadership of the Michigan
Prisoner Reentry Initiative,

the topic of today's discussion.

Mr. Padden's experience of over thirty
years in public policy has included roles

as Deputy Director of the
Michigan Department of Commerce,

Director of the Governor's Human
Investment Project and five terms

in the Michigan House of Representatives.

He holds a Bachelor's Degree from Wayne
State University and a Master's Degree

from the Kennedy School at Harvard, please
join me in welcoming Mr. Jeffrey Padden.

[ Applause ]

>> I am very happy to be a part of this panel
discussion today on the Policy and Politics

of the Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative and
particularly to be doing it here in Ann Arbor

at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy.

The folks who participate in the work of this
school are uniquely interested in and committed

to improving public policy in Michigan and
around the country, so it's a good thing

that you're here to learn a little bit more
about the Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative.

As promised, we will be talking not
just about the policy issues themselves,

but also about the politics,
transforming the way state government

or any big state government agency does
business is a stunningly difficult challenge and

yet that is exactly the challenge that the
MPRI has undertaken under the leadership

of Governor Grandholm and Director Pat Caruso.

It's-- it's important that it
has been framed and is, in fact,

is an initiative that's aimed
at improving public safety.

My experience in corrections policy over
the past thirty plus years has shown me

that there really is sort of a false choice
that had been set up between doing the things

that would prepare a prisoner
for successful reintegration

into the community or being tough on crime.

The Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative
resolves that false choice by showing

that those really are one in the same.

If we prepare people better to
reintegrate into society, then we are,

in fact, protecting the public better.

I will talk a little about-- I will
give you a bit of an overview of--

of the Prisoner Reentry Initiative but
before I do that I want to let you know

who are the members of this very
illustrious and well qualified panel.

Pat Caruso has been a very creative director
of the Michigan Department of Corrections.

I'm not going to read the bios that
you were handed as you walked in--

in the door, but I'll tell you what
I really know about these people.

Pat has been willing to take
risks and it requires a risk taker

to undertake the profound transformation
that the department has been undergoing

in the past seven years and the
policy apparatus that surrounds it.

So, what we have in Pat Caruso is a leader who
has been unafraid of taking on the challenges

of making that big powerful transformation,

which involves not just changing the
written policies but changing attitudes,

changing culture, reeducating how many
workers, sixteen thousand currently.

>> Down to sixteen.

>> Jeffery Padden: Down to sixteen thousand
employees of the Department of Corrections,

every single one of them has
to learn what's different

about the Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative.

So, Pat has been the kind of leader
who would take on that challenge.

In Representative Alma Wheeler Smith
and John Proos, we have a republican

and a democrat in the opposite order.

Let's see if I can keep that straight;

Democratic Chair of the House
Appropriation Subcommittee on Corrections

and the Republic Vice-Chair of that committee.

Together, they are responsible for shaping
a good portion of the budget decisions.

They sometimes consult with
the Senate on that I guess.

But, at least on the House side they
are the two leaders who are responsible

for shaping the funding decisions, and of
course, funding dramatically affects policy.

You've heard that bipartisanship

and collaboration are dead
in the Michigan legislature.

Alma and John are leaving breathing
evidence that that's not quite true.

I have watched them collaborate over
the last several years to learn more

about the policy issues involved
in the MPRI and to try to figure

out how the legislature can play a constructive
role in supporting the transformation that Pat

and the Governor have been proposing.

And finally, on the panel is Peter Luke
and I've known Peter Luke for a long time

and I told him a little while ago
that it's hard for me to think of him

as grizzled veteran reporter since I ran
across you first many, many years ago.

But, Peter is-- is a very astute observer
of the Lansing Policy and Political scene.

So, having Peter as a member of this panel
lets all of you and all of us take a step back

from what-- what Pat and Alma and John
are deeply embroiled in every single day

and tell you what he sees
from that outside perspective.

So, that's our-- that's our panel
and I think we are all very fortunate

to have them with us today.

A quick bit of history about the MPRI,

this was one of Governor Grandholm's
initial policy initiatives.

And, in fact she had embraced
it prior to becoming Governor.

The planning for this began in her very first
year in office, in fact, within a few months

of Governor Grandholm taking
office and the first real efforts

around implementation took
place less then two years later.

It's important to understand MPRI
is an evidence based practice.

That means it's based on
research that's been done all

around the country over the past twenty years.

We were never able to invent anything like the
MPRI when I was a member of the legislature

because the research base simply wasn't there

to justify a major retooling
of corrections such as this.

It's organized into three phases.

The in prison, which is the getting ready phase,
the going home phase, which connects community

with prisons in a way that's profoundly
different then used to be the case.

It used to be that the prison walls
didn't just keep prisoners in.

It kept everyone else not.

The staying home phase is-- is the
process of making sure that all--

all of the progress toward
reducing risks while folks are

in prison continues once
folks are in the community.

I mentioned that Pat Caruso has presided
over these profound cultural changes

and it is not easy for folks who have been
employed at the Department of Corrections

for ten, twenty, thirty years saying,
"Well gee, next Monday morning we're going

to be doing business differently."

Big challenge, and takes a lot of effort,
a lot of planning, a lot of preparation.

It is really amazing for me to stand here after
being involved in the MPRI since 2003 and say,

"It is now a state wide initiative with eighteen
regions serving all eighty three counties

and that every prisoner who is-- who comes into
the Michigan prisons is touched by the MPRI."

There is a strong focus on employment readiness
because employment is one of the factors

that really effects the likelihood
that somebody will be able

to successfully reintegrate into the community.

And that employment readiness is
supported by the close collaboration

between the Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative
and Michigan's Employment Delivery System.

The MPRI has gone from zero to serving
about eleven thousand prisoners per year.

That's everybody who comes in the front door.

They all get what's referred to as a
compass assessment, which assesses the risks

and strengths of each prisoner transition.

Accountability plans are then
built based on those specific risks

and those plans guide the service delivery
in prison and out into the community.

Over time, everybody who's released will
be a part of the MPRI and that will amount

to something like twelve thousand prisoners
per year and they won't all get the same thing.

This is not a one size fits all program at all.

In fact, the MPRI is most effective
in serving, in reducing the risk posed

by moderate and high risk prisoners.

The MPRI is a complete system change, so it
really requires everybody to be involved.

The-- the promise made by Governor
Grandholm was one of the important strengths

of this initiative and very
complimentary to that is that--

is that the Governor had exactly
the right team to implement.

And Pat Caruso and former
Deputy Director Dennis Shrantz

and Director Caruso's top management team, they
have all been unrelenting in moving this thing

from zero to a hundred in a
very quick period of time.

The fact that's it's driven by evidence
of what reduces recidivism I think is one

of the things that gives it credibility.

If we were just talking about providing
services to be nice to prisoners,

I think we know what the results would
be in terms of its sustainability

within the legislature and the public.

So, it is a state level strategy
that focuses on public safety,

but provides within a broad framework
lots of local flexibility and leadership.

There have been-- there's
preliminary evidence of what works.

We are still not to the point where we
can establish a firm causal relationship

between what the MPRI is doing and
the results that are being achieved,

but all the preliminary indications
are very positive.

It used to be that one out of
two prisoners would go back

to prison within twenty four months.

Now, that's more like one out of three.

That's a huge increase, a huge
improvement and that means that there are

over two thousand prisoners
who would have come back,

who would have been expected
to come back who didn't.

That translates into real
crimes that did not happen.

The prison population is down dramatically
and that translates into huge cost savings

for the state of Michigan or will over time.

There are a number of other indications
of the kind of success that the MPRI has--

has enjoyed and over time we expect
that to-- to continue to grow.

The prior research indicated that
for medium and high risk prisoners,

results as good as a 50 percent reduction
in return to prison rate is possible.

We haven't got there yet with the MPRI,
but the MPRI is really the first effort

in the whole country to integrate lots of
different practices at the in prison level,

the transition point and the
community level to pull together all

of those practices into one big system change.

So, with that I do want to turn to our
panel and we'll start with Pat Caruso.

Pat is the Director of the department.

I know everybody is eager to hear what the--

what the MPRI looks like
from your point of view.

>> Pat Caruso: Thank you very much
Jeff and thank you to the university

for again hosting this discussion.

I often talk about reentry as an
opportunity that grew from crisis

and the crisis was an incredible economic
crisis that struck our state in 2001,

ahead of most of the rest of the country.

And it caused us to stand back and
look at what was going on and that led

into obviously the election of a new
Governor, Jeff mentioned the Governor came

in with this already on her radar.

And so I've been fortunate to have
been part of this from the very start.

I've been the Director now for seven
years, and was actually Deputy Director

of the prison system at the
time of the election.

I'm not sure we would have gotten here--

we certainly wouldn't be here
now had that crisis not occurred.

We were at a point where the Department of
Corrections budget consumed twenty five percent

of the general fund of the state of Michigan.

One in three state employees
was just not sustainable

and we had gotten there really the way
almost every other state got there,

because what happened in Michigan was just
like any other state where through a series

of policy decisions sometimes
driven by politics,

but I honestly would say often times driven by
good intentions but good intentions not based

on evidence that those policies
would actually make any difference

in terms of making people safer.

Through the implementation of a lot of policies
which became law our prison population started

to just go through the roof and that's
what happened all around the country.

And so, we created scenarios in communities all
over the state where we were the main employer.

You know, I'm from the Upper Peninsula
and we have prisons all across the

UP where good people come to work
every day and work in our prisons.

They didn't create this scenario; they're just
part of it, but they do rely on those jobs

and those communities rely on this job.

And that story is something that has
been repeated all over the United States.

In Michigan we decided we had to make a change
before most other states made that decision

and we did that initially because
we couldn't afford to do it.

But, one of the things we realized very early on
is that the way we were running the Department

of Corrections, the way we were incarcerating
people, the way we looked at what our focus was,

we were not making the citizens
of our state safer.

They were not safer because as Jeff
mentioned one in two came back who got out.

They were not safer for spending
two billion dollars

of the general fund running a prison system.

Monies that could be available for something
else whether its public education or healthcare,

housing or transportation, whatever it is,
things that might make a bigger difference,

police on the streets that we weren't
holding up our end of the bargain

if our mission is to protect the public.

And so, we made a decision to change how we
ran the department and to change the culture

in the department and to start to focusing on
success and start measuring our success based

on what happened as people went through
that system and when they got out.

And, that's what we're here to talk about
today in some of the underlying pieces of that,

the political part of it,
which is very interesting.

I have a book I often refer to
which talks about how over a period

of decades our country converted from
a military industrial based economy

to a prison industrial based economy and though
it sounds very offensive and I was offended

when I first heard it, I will tell
you there's a lot of truth to that

and though we certainly do not overtly
incarcerate people to provide jobs,

we have created an economy that relies
on those big prisons and the numbers

of people we incarcerate to provide jobs.

And there's tremendous moral
implications of that,

but it is the circumstances
we found ourselves in.

As we decided to change the direction we were
going and as we decided to put policies in place

in our system that would result in a lower
population in our prison system we had

to face the politics of what that would mean
and so all of these communities around the state

who in many cases we had forced to take
prisons, we put them in the communities

who either wanted them or because
they were desperate for jobs

or they did not have the
political ability to stop us.

So, we forced those prisons in.

Now, love their prisons, and now saying hey,
we're successful, our populations dropping.

I can guarantee you there are not any
communities in Michigan who think success looks

like you're closing their biggest employer.

And that was the message
that we have had to deliver.

I've delivered that message personally
in many communities in the state.

The politics of that are very difficult.

I have faced employees on picket
lines whose prison was closing

and whose jobs were being
eliminated who would have a job,

but perhaps an hour from where they worked.

Faced employees holding signs which read such
disturbing things as blood on your hands, Jenny,

referring to the Governor and talking to me
about keeping with them at every minute a binder

with the information on every parolee who
failed and I always say to them if you're going

to keep a binder on every parolee who failed,
I hope you have a stack to the ceiling

of the thousands who have succeeded, because we
really can't talk about one without the other,

because this is the ultimate human business.

Our detractors will always say the
default argument is always don't do this,

something bad will happen.

I'm going to give you a clue.

Something bad will happen.

Something bad happens no matter what we do.

We can eliminate parole.

We can cut it in half.

We can increase it.

In my world, something bad will happen.

If we are going to structure our lives
around a fear something bad will happen,

we should have all stayed home today,

because something bad could have
happened before we got here.

Something bad might happen yet
while we're here or on our way home.

We have to be strong enough and
courageous enough to make policy based

on what evidence tells us and
what really protects people,

not a fear of something bad will happen.

Interestingly, there's also been
the political pushback from groups

who are our natural advocates, though I think
that many of the advocates have been pleased

to see the cultural change in our
department and the focus on success.

They are also many individuals
who are frustrated

by perhaps things not taking place
as quickly as they would like.

Sometimes a belief that-- I often hear that
we have an incentive to keep our population

up because the Federal Government
gives us X amount of dollars

for every prisoner we have incarcerated.

That is not true.

If anyone believes that to be true
that is not true, but I do hear that.

I have had people who are advocating
for a smaller population tell me

that we intentionally release the
people we believe are the most dangerous

and the most likely to fail because
then we'll be able to say, "See,

we told you we tried but it doesn't work."

We can go back to the good old
days of a big prison system.

I will tell you those are not the good
old days and if we go back to having

to refill those prisons, we have failed.

Three years ago, exactly this week three
years ago, we hit our highest population ever.

It was 51,554 prisoners.

Today we have 44,900 people
incarcerated in Michigan.

We were down to about 1700 women.

We have reduced the population of women
incarcerated in Michigan by about 30 percent,

a very significant reduction in the numbers
of women who are in prison in Michigan.

The issue is Michigan is length of stay.

People do a lot of time in Michigan going back
to the policies I talked about whether it's

because of consecutive sentencing you must
complete this sentence before you finish

that one.

Whether it's because of the long
indeterminate sentencing we have in Michigan.

We have people doing one day to life.

Whether it's because of the
fear of being accused

of early release, something I hear all the time.

Parole is not early release.

We are in a system where Judges
sentence you to a minimum sentence.

The max is set by statute based on the crime.

The Judge has no discretion over that.

Parole is not an early release.

Not a day goes by that I don't read

about this huge early release program
I'm running in the state of Michigan.

No one's getting out early.

We have no legal authority
to get anyone out early.

What we have done is change our culture to
focus on collaboration inside our prison,

inside our communities to focus on success.

We have made a decision in the worst economy in
the country to reinvest one third of our savings

into the types of activities and opportunities

which the evidence tells us will
allow offenders to be more successful.

Additional programming in prisons,
additional beds in our communities for those

who need some kind of residential
treatment, additional tethers,

GPS tethers where the parole board
feels comfortable with someone outside

of prison if they have that resource.

We've hired two hundred additional
agents in the last year.

So, we're reinvesting our money,
something other states are not doing.

We are trying to focus on what really makes
people safer and making decisions based

on risk not making decisions just based on
emotion or based on fear and especially fear

of being wrong, because as I
said, something bad will happen.

These are human beings.

We're all human beings on
every side of this equation.

One hundred percent of those for whom
we're responsible are convicted felons

and so that is what we in our
business deal with every day.

People ask me every day don't you
live in fear of the one bad crime.

This is a business where that is-- you're
always one phone call away from that happening.

But, if we're afraid of that happening,
then we're in the wrong business.

We've got to find something else to do,
because I would suggest that the citizens

of this state look to us to make
the decisions that make them safer

and I am 100 percent convinced, 100
percent convinced what we are doing

in this state is making our citizens
safer and our communities safer.

And as we are able to successfully reduce
that population and reinvest those monies

in our communities in activities and behaviors

that make communities safer
then we have come full circle.

I tell people frequently, it may be
an opportunity that grew from crisis,

but if we were today to not have
ever experienced that crisis,

if today Michigan wins the equivalent of the
lottery and money is never going to be an issue,

forever, I would not change the direction we're
going, because we're going the right direction

and I am convinced we're doing the right thing.

And I'm going to close my remarks with
that and turn it to my fellow panelists

and we'll be happy to take
questions later in the presentation.

>> Alma Wheeler Smith: Thank
you Director Caruso.

I'm Representative Alma Wheeler Smith and I'm in
my fourteenth year in the Michigan legislature

and I have a couple of different
perspectives on MPRI.

When I started in the Senate on the
Corrections Subcommittee we were in a period

of let's keep them in as long as we
can, maximum sentences were being served

and what I learned early is that 95
percent of these folks are coming out.

And they need to come out into a community
with some skills and some abilities behind them

that allow them to come out safely.

And at that point in time and when I was in
the Senate it was in the mid and late 90's,

we were not doing a lot of rehabilitation and
prisoners were not coming out with the skills,

the training or the education that they
needed to turn things around for themselves

and their families when they
entered they community.

And one day as I was serving on the-- when I
served on the County Commission the sheriff

of Washtenaw County came to me and
looked me dead in the eye and said,

"I am not the mental health
institution for the state of Michigan."

And I thought, what is he talking about.

And so he went on to elaborate.

He said you know, almost a third
of the people that I'm seeing

in the county jail have mental health
issues and we are incarcerating them instead

of putting them into a health facility where
they can get the real help that they need.

Yes, they've committed crimes.

Yes our fellow citizens have called and
said, "There's this guy and I feel threatened

because he's walking around my house muttering
and you have to do something about him."

So, he ends up in jail.

After a number of those arrests and after a
number of incidents, sometimes assaultive,

they would end up in the prison system of the
state of Michigan with no mental health help.

We were incarcerating for a long
time as the Director pointed out.

And it wasn't doing us any good.

We would return people with mental
health problems back to the streets

of their communities without any backup.

The MPRI program started out
in the community, at release.

And some of us would argue
that that was the wrong point.

We should have started with the
intake and worked people through,

but as the director pointed out we were in
an economic crunch and we needed to deal

with the people who were coming out.

We needed to make sure that they had an
opportunity for employment, for housing

and for healthcare and MPRI was designed
in its pilot phases to have some community

or each of the five communities
address certain issues

that they thought were key to their communities.

Some took on healthcare.

Some took on housing and
others took on employment.

Let's see what happens if we
can tackle a specific area

of need for the returning population.

The evidence base that we've garnered
over the last few years when MPRI has been

in place has show that it really is
a combination of all three working

in each community and we are
trying to get a program together

that actually has those three threads at work
as we try to weave a safety net for people

who are returning to the community.

The-- yes people are going
to fail when they come out.

Prior to MPRI we had some
spectacular failures of our parolees.

And they were headline issues.

I was on the school board in the
Southline Community School District

and we had three young people murdered
in Oakland County by a parolee.

That was a tragedy for the community, but it
was something that could not have been foreseen

by the parole board, certainly was
addressed as quickly as possible

but the legislatures response was a lack of
understanding of the fact that we are, in fact,

dealing with human beings and that
there will be a spectacular failure,

which becomes an anecdotal reason
that we wrap public policy around.

So, we took that once incident
and all parole stopped.

It was a fascinating look at the line
that the department will often show us

of how paroles went up and
then suddenly there's a plunge.

Well, when you see that plunge,
there was one anecdotal incident

and there you go; no parole is happening.

And then finally the parole board gains a little
courage and the legislature backs off a bit

and you see the parole rate go back up.

We can't in good conscience and in good public
policy approach our issues and our policy

with an anecdotal incident that makes
us respond with lasting policy changes

that have done very little for public safety,
but a whole lot for increasing the cost

of the prison system in the state of Michigan.

I would like to tell you I remember when
the population was 7000, but I don't.

I started working when the population
was probably at about 15,000.

And we have seen a dramatic increase because
of policy decisions that were made on length

of sentence and the fact
that we wanted to punish.

We were tough on crime and we had to
be tougher than our neighboring states.

Michigan has the long-- the more difficult
sentencing guidelines in the country.

And we really are not flexible about what we do.

Our parole board, as the director pointed
out, has been given some confidence

in the decisions they make because we have some
evidence based instruments in the system at use

so that they can look at what the
prisoner has done in the way of programming

and education while in the system, whether
or not they can be successful on the outside

by the coping skills that they've learned on
the inside and that they're able to demonstrate.

But we have to change the policy that is
behind the length of sentence and we have

in the last few years begun an effort to look
at the sentencing guidelines and reexamine them

and make a decision, Senate
and House, on whether

or not adjustments can be made
in those sentencing guidelines.

We're not finding great success in that area.

So, we look at another approach.

You know do we offer good time for prisoners?

We canceled that out and with it
went a couple of good programs,

but canceling out good time meant that
people were unable to get out early.

They could only get out past
their minimum release date.

So, we were holding people longer yet again.

The change that we're looking
for in the good time

or 85 percent minimum would let us
release more prisoners from the system.

Prisoners are safer to be released, safer
for public safety because they pose less

of a risk then those who are past their earliest
release date who have been held in the system,

rejected by the parole board one to four times,
but are still beyond their earliest release date

and become those individuals that we
tell the department you have to look

at to find that next release cohort from.

And the department would have a lot more
success for the community and for public safety

if they could look at who are
at 85 percent of their minimum,

but the comeback is we have truth
in sentencing here in Michigan.

Well, there are a whole lot of
states every state in the state,

in the country has truth in sentencing.

But what we find is that Michigan is
truthful at 100 percent and 36, I believe,

other states are truthful at 85 percent, and the
Federal Government is truthful at 85 percent.

It becomes a rhetorical question of what is
truth and truth is what you tell people it is.

And if we tell people truth
is 85 percent of a sentence,

then that you know should fulfill the rhetorical
question of what is truth in sentencing.

We had challenging economics that began this
process toward the Michigan prisoner reentry

initiative and then we were hit with
Calamity Jane in terms of a national collapse

in the economy, which exacerbated where we are

and how quickly we are looking
at changes in public policy.

But, we aren't changing in haste
to create a more dangerous climate

for the citizens in the community.

We are acting again with what we believed
was good evidence based information

that lets us make decisions on who can
leave the system and who can stay in longer.

The more confidence we can
give our parole board in making

that decision is certainly
helpful to the outcome.

So, we have increased the use of GPS systems
and we have gone from GPS that is not real time

to real time GPS so that our parole agents have
the opportunity to see exactly where somebody is

and at any moment in time to know when they are
violating boundaries that are put around people

that they should never see, never talk
to and that has given the parole board

and the communities a lot more
confidence in who is in the community.

The MPRI program has certainly created
challenges for communities that have facilities.

As the director pointed out, we assign
some facilities to certain communities

and then others were you know
begging us to take them for jobs.

I was with the Director when we were closing
a camp in the UP and then went with one

of my colleagues on a tour of the prisons in the
UP and the hostility that I encountered on that,

the early prison section we did three.

It was interesting because we were sure
they were there to announce a closure.

And we finally allayed that concern and said,
"No, we're here to see how you're working

with MPRI, how it's working for you, what
kinds of changes you think we need to make."

There are some changes I would
still like to see in MPRI

and one of them is having a recommendation
come from the people in the prison system

who work closely with the prisoners.

I think the guards and the social workers and
the medical staff are key components of the time

in prison that people spend and certainly
have an opportunity to recognize who is ready

to be released and who should
probably never be released,

and to make that recommendation
to the parole board.

How that's done to protect their privacy

so that they're not creating a hostile
environment for their own workplaces.

This is a discussion I will have
with the Director, but there a number

of things I think we can continue to do
and we will continue to work on as we move

through our phase of the last budget process
for me, hopefully not for Representative Proos.

>> John Proos: Thank you for that endorsement.

[Laughter] I'm John Proos, State
Representative from Michigan's great southwest.

For those of you who weren't aware,
I-94 doesn't end at about exit 75.

It keeps going all the way to the
border and along Lake Michigan

and along the border of Indiana too.

So, I have the good fortune of
living in the great southwest

and can take this discussion any number of ways.

You've been given a very good overview
obviously from the director and Jeff,

thank you for inviting us and the
good folks at Gerald R. Ford School.

It's great to be here as a great Spartan
grad also, so I appreciate that very much.

We did joke Peter and I on the way in and
he says, "Boy, this is the time to be here

at the University of Michigan
during the final four", right.

Isn't that what you said?

Exactly. [Laughter] And we
commented, we commented

and we're not quite sure what time the
[Inaudible comment] that's exactly right.

>> [Inaudible background comment]

>> John Proos: That's right.

Did you like that?

That's how legislatures put
it in the reporter's mouth.

We can take it in any number
of ways the discussion.

I think what I'll do is provide a perspective
that I have being in my third and final term

in the House of Representatives and having
spent now three years and my fourth year

with Representative Smith as my chairman on
the appropriations subcommittee for corrections

and I made the comment earlier today, we were
all together, the Director and many of the folks

from the department as it related to looking
at the sentence passed version of the budget

and beginning the work that Alma just mentioned.

We're beginning now in the House of
Representatives based upon the budget itself

and joking said, "We took in
a lot of information today.

It's like drinking through a fire hose with the
depth and the breadth of this particular budget,

the two billion dollar budget or just under
the two billion dollar budget that we have.

Because it is so complicated from my perspective
as a legislator I came in to this budget

in the very early days of MPRI's roll out, which
at that point was just simply a pilot program;

a pilot program in eight counties.

My home county of Berrien was one of those
counties that was participating in it

and was encouraged by the
early wrap around services.

You know Berrien County has-- has several
communities that bring an awful lot

of folks back to our home communities
after they've served time in prison

and one of the early lessons I learned
is, is that we in aggregate parole

or release the entire population of our
prison system about every three years

or thereabout I think is how the numbers go
and as Alma had said, 95 percent get out.

We're going to have them back in our community.

So, the question is what are we doing to insure
the level of public safety we would like to see

and what are we doing to insure that it
isn't just a bus ticket home and good luck,

but how can we make sure that those folks
are given the best services possible.

What that has done in a couple of different ways

in our local communities is create
some partnerships with agencies

and providers who can assist in that process.

What a novel concept.

It's great that we're doing that.

I think community corrections was probably
envisioned to be that in the previous days,

when community corrections was something
different than what it is today.

But the challenge that has come from that
though is that in this era of declining revenues

yet increasing responsibilities and goals
and objectives to take care of folks

in our communities who are
finding themselves in hard times.

That cost shift has impacted our local
providers pretty significantly as they tried

to assist the department and the
parole board when they send folks back

to our communities in those
wrap around services.

Alma and I just today, in fact, after we
finished the hearing spent a few moments quietly

after the reporters jumped us and we discussed
a couple of those challenges in our communities.

Transportation is one of the first challenges,
of course, that many communities face.

Unlike some of our larger urban areas I live in
more of a rural area if you had to call it that,

and we don't have very good
transportation services available to folks

who don't have driver's licenses and can't
drive, or they don't have access to vehicles.

And then when talking today with or in this
past couple of months with the Director

of the Michigan works agency that has Berrien,
Cass and Van Buren, southwest Michigan area

and is a very good supporter of
MPRI provides many of the services

for those particular individuals
coming back to our community,

when they do come back helping them
to achieve a skill level necessary

to even enter the workforce again.

He is finding that of the 511 current numbers of
parolees in Berrien, Cass and Van Buren County,

he is able to place only
about 10 percent in jobs.

Now, when MPRI was a pilot in Berrien
County he was placing anywhere between 50

and 60 percent he said, and any
number of reasons why the 30,

to 40 to 50 percent were not being placed.

But we're at a time right now
where we know that there is a glut

of employees with certain degrees of talent.

Those folks who are unemployed today
are competing now for those jobs

and competing pretty fiercely for those jobs
and at the same time we're finding ourselves

with many more people coming
out of our prison system

with felony convictions and
now seeking those jobs.

And also, it takes a pretty courageous
employer these days to decide

that they'd take an MPRI individual
or an individual who, in fact,

is coming out of our prison system.

So, we're facing many significant
challenges and I think threats.

I think a threat that also exists, which
is why Alma and I worked very closely

to inform our incoming freshman representatives
of what MPRI was and is and is it continues

to become a part of our community
operations in all of our counties,

all 83 counties we worked
closely together to try with--

with our friends at Public Policy Associates
to insure that we get some information to them,

because in term limits folks, people
are turning over all the time.

They don't have nearly the same information or
understanding of what it is that's happening

in our communities and what's happening
in the Department of Corrections.

I'll remind you even after three full
years I'm just barely dangerous enough

to understand what's going on.

And that has shifted almost
entirely the public policy debate

in our legislature making it all the more
difficult for representative Smith and others

to pursue the policy discussion as it
relates to good time, because it's very easy

to just simply take the sound bite of you
mean to tell me ten years isn't ten years.

I'm going to run into him in
the grocery store in three--

in seven years or seven and a half years.

And there is a very strong push on the
prosecutors of Michigan to say, "Absolutely not.

We're not going to overturn good time."

Why would we do that and then tell our victims

and victim's families, sorry
that isn't the truth.

And as Alma said, "The truth
is what we tell them."

Well, at this point we're telling them ten
years if that is, in fact, the minimum sentence.

So we find ourselves really with an educational
process for all of the new representatives

and senators who make these
public policy decisions.

So, I give a great deal of
credit to the department

for working in this very challenging time.

This is one department of many obviously in
the state that has an awful lot to deal with,

but we can come at this from a very
succinct and direct position that we agree

on wholeheartedly regardless of republican or
democrat, which is how can we make sure that--

that the services that are provided, whether
in the prison or outside of the prison allow

for the best opportunities for public safety
and for the success of that person coming back

into our community as a citizen contributing
to the benefits that our state provides.

Clearly, those are the goals and objectives
that the Department of Corrections has

and that we have as public policy makers.

The hope and goal would be that we continue
to educate our colleagues about how we can get

to the end of that process with success,
and it's not going to be an easy situation.

In particular, the greatest threat
is exactly what both Director Caruso

and Representative Smith just said,
"There will be a bad thing that happens"

and it will likely point to a parolee
and quite possibly a parolee on MPRI.

And when that happens the contraction
in the legislature is likely

to make it even more challenging
from a public policy perspective,

which is why the education is so critical today.

So, I'll leave it at that point and I'm sure the
questions will lead us in many new directions

and it's great to be on the
panel and be here today.

Thank you.

>> Peter Luke: The State Senator seat that John
wants to-- is running for this year, Harry Gast,

from Saint Joe's said, "In 1988 that
prison costs were eating us alive."

Harry was Chairman of the Senate
Appropriations Committee at that point

and in 1986 the Department of Corrections budget
was 389 million and in the budget he was dealing

with in FY 89 it had grown to 633 million.

And we all know now it's a billion nine.

In terms of the media's role in all of
that, there is an axiom in journalism,

particularly in the assignment
desk at TV stations,

particularly in Detroit, if it bleeds, it leads.

And crime stories have a real hold
on the public's imagination in a lot

of ways and obviously ratings grabbers.

Another kind of journalism is, you
know, what do you put in the lead?

Who, what, when, where, how and why.

Most crime stories don't have a why to them.

A lot of bad things happen.

If there is a why or if a why can be
implied to a story that story has legs.

So, why did a crime occur?

Well a perpetrator committed it,
but how was he allowed to commit it?

Well, he was let out of prison
early through a special program.

Well, that turns a story into something more
than just a crime, but bureaucratic culpability,

it allows journalism to lay blame
to explain why something happened

in a case, when they otherwise couldn't.

And there have been, you can look
at those specific stories and what--

what that has done to the state budget.

It's-- I think that explains billions in costs
over the last 30 years going back to 1984

when I think one or two parolees murdered
a Meridian township police officer

and an East Lansing woman that
was in the Blanch administration

and that set off a huge wave
of prison construction.

In 1992 Leslie Allen Williams murdered
four girls and that set off another round

of construction and that's how we
got to a prison population of 51,000.

We not only denied parole but we
built a lot of prisons in the state.

And I think what-- what happened
in that case was at the time

of the Williams' case Michigan's
economy was growing.

We wound up with 3 point 8 percent unemployment
rate by 1999, if you can imagine that right now.

And so, you general fund revenue was
growing at about 8 percent a year.

And so, I think the state
could afford to build prisons.

It could afford to keep prison-- prisoners
in prison longer and still provide state aid

to municipalities, a reasonable
amount of state aid

to universities, K-12 education and the like.

In fact, I asked then Governor Engler
in his third term what he would--

thought of the prospect that correction
spending would ever exceed the amount

of money the state spends on-- state aid
to higher education as California had done

in the last 90's and we said,
"Oh, that'd be terrible."

Well, as we found out in the decade
of the 2000's when the economy--

when we began shedding what will probably be

about 869-900,000 jobs this decade,
everything got cut but prisons.

You know you look at what's the cost
situation here and now compared to 2000?

It's obviously higher.

You know municipalities claim they've
been shorted 3 billion dollars

in statutory revenue sharing payments
over the course of that decade.

We're down 2000 law enforcement
personnel across the state

and I think an interesting thing
happened and it was probably in 2007

and I think that was kind of a sea change.

The budget shut down-- the state shut down
for the first time and they raised taxes

and that fall they raised taxes
on business by 700 million dollars

to the new Michigan business tax.

And I think what's happened since then is
that the business community has become engaged

and there was a second point of view to
you know prison quote unquote "reform."

In the past any attempts to
shave the prison population

or make policy changes was basically shut

down because those you know
legislators properly feared

that a bad outcome would be
harmful to their political careers.

And now what you're seeing is that the business
community is playing an active role in saying

that a 50 thousand plus prison
population in the midwest state

where the midwest average is closer--

in the low 30 thousands was
simply economically unsustainable.

And so you have-- you know you have
hearings now in Lansing where they're talking

about you know presumption
of parole at 100 percent.

Senate republicans want to
apply that to new inmates only.

The Detroit Regional Chamber of
Commerce testifies now you have

to apply it to all prisoners.

So, I think that editorial boards are much more
inclined to support policies like the MPRI.

And I think its, the problem right now is that
it's subject to the next bad case in a lot

of ways and in part because the
administration hasn't explained the policy.

And I think one of the things they need-- I
think the public is prepared to accept that--

if you polled people and say, ask them,
"Should the mentally ill be in prison?"

They'd probably say no.

Should parolees-- is it better for a
parolee to be able to read or not to read,

and they would probably say, "Yea, it's
a good thing that they know how to read."

So, I think if you break it up into different
parts I think there's broad public support you

know for policies like the MPRI.

I think one of the issues is that in the
case of term limits its going to be subject

to change by a next administration.

You know, that's one of the issues
involving the parole policies.

Right now it's-- it's executive decision
making that the next governor could rescind

as the previous governor did by you know
certain parole board policy changes.

You know I think some of that
needs to be put in a statute.

And, you know I think one of the things that
you know that the public needs to be kind

of made aware that it's kind of like a holistic
system and prisons aren't much different

than any other kinds of institutions.

You know almost educational--
they are educational institutions.

You know you go in a prison,
you'll learn a lot of new things.

And you'll-- you'll learn how to do better the
things that got you in there in the first place.

So, I think if you explain to the
public well, what are we doing here?

What are we doing with this program?

What are we doing in prison?

We're essentially remediating the failures.

It's failures of siting in general.

And, you know if you did another poll you'd
say, "Should the drop out age be 16 or 18."

I think most people would say 18.

And so I think the public
understands that you know a minimum

of a high school education is a good thing.

And so if a kid doesn't have that,
it should be provided some how.

You know job skills, you know all that stuff.

You know its interesting that
if you-- there's that number.

It works across purposes.

We talked about the mentally ill in prison
and the Department of Community Health budget

that the Senate passed last week
contains a 53 million dollar cut

to nonmedicate community mental services.

So, when people involved in the MPRI process
come out of prison and through that process,

you know are they going to be able
to get mental health treatment?

Are they going to be able to get job training?

And so, I think unless it is kind of-- a
sustained effort is made to educate the public

as to what this is, not only that saves
money but it will keep you safer, the better.

Because I think that you know a new
Governor is probably most vulnerable

in their first 18 months, 2
years in office and that's

when the perception of them is largely set.

And so, you know if something does
bad happen, you know the next governor

and the next legislature is going to
be really inclined to close the doors.

And, you know what they don't-- they
don't have to build prisons you know,

because they've got lots of empty
prisons out there to refill.

But I think there is a sea change and you know
I think the business community understands

that they're never going to get a
tax cut unless they figure out a way

to reduce you know the cost of
government and the rest of the cost

of government has been shaved
down so much in the last decade

that prisons are really the
only place you can look at.

>> Tom Ivako: Okay, well let's
thank our panel for their comments.

[Applause] Thank you to the panel.

And Representative Alma Wheeler Smith has a--

a command performance as
you all know in this town.

Representative Smith is running for Governor.

And she is about to head off
to an endorsement meeting.

>> Alma Wheeler Smith: Yes.

>> Tom Ivako: So, we wish you well with that.

>> Alma Wheeler Smith: I do apologize.

Thank you John.

>> John Proos: No problem.

>> Alma Wheeler Smith: Appreciate it.

[Applause]

>> Tom Ivako: We have about 20 minutes left.

[ Inaudible background discussion ]

>> Tom Ivako: Thank you.

And thank you for participating.

>> Alma Wheeler Smith: Thank you.

>> Tom Ivako: Representative
Andy Kandrevas, there he is.

Andy, Freshman legislator
from my neck of the woods,

represents part of the district
I represented in ancient times.

Thank you for being part of this.

And we may turn to you as-- as these-- if
there's a question you want to deflect John.

>> John Proos: Absolutely.

Tom Ivako: Feel free.

>> John Proos: Absolutely.

[Laughter] Kandrevas is great,
he'll take care of it for all of us.

>> Tom Ivako: We do have about 20 minutes
to go and we have a stack of questions here.

If anybody else has a question write it
down on a card and pass it to the edge

and Bonnie will pick it up
and bring it down to me.

And so to the panelists I'll ask that you try
to be reasonably succinct in your answers,

be complete but succinct so that we can
get through as many of these as possible.

Let's-- let's start with this.

This is a pretty profound question.

The questioner says, "Our state's
prosecutors seem obsessed with confinement

and fear any action which reduces
our state's prison population.

That being the case, what chance do
any of us have, us broadly speaking,

to affect policy change in this direction?"

And we'll throw that to Pat first.

>> Pat Caruso: I'll start on that.

I guess-- I don't agree that
they are obsessed with it.

In fact, we have many prosecutors who are
actively involved at the community level

with our reentry work who have been
fabulous to work with in terms of looking

at policies within their own communities.

But it is fair to say that prosecutors
have a different role in the system.

Their job is on the front end.

They deal with prosecuting
people, sending them to prison

so you're dealing with a
different piece of that.

And-- and I think part of it is, excuse me,
prosecutors like many others you know run

for their jobs every four years on a
partisan basis and they're subject to the--

the feelings and the sense from their
communities and those prosecutors

who feel they have the support of their
community and the ability to stand up

and not have to spout a certain rhetoric will
do that and you see that happen from many

of our-- our longer term prosecutors.

Those who come from a community
where they may not feel they can do

that aren't, because that's the process.

They're representing the
people and their community.

But, I mean I deal with prosecutors a lot as a
group, have a very good relationship with them

and as-- as a group I know they
support much of what we're doing.

In fact, their association testified in
support of the legislation which is looking

at capping sentences at 120 percent with
the presumption of parole at 100 percent.

They support that package.

>> I think Peter said it best.

It's a matter of eduction in
the communities and right now

if the public's perception is one thing of
what MPRI is or perhaps there is no perception

of what MPRI then the prosecutors really
have no need to educate the public about it.

That's not their role in the
process as the director says.

She's absolutely right about
that, and they run for office.

So, if there isn't a direct
impact locally with--

with the public perception of the
successes or perhaps the pitfalls

that need additional assistance in the local
community to provide transportation let's say

in the communities in Benton Harbor,
Southwest Michigan, Coloma Watervliet,

where I represent then the prosecutor really
doesn't have a whole lot of need nor cause

to want to try to push that along if you will.

That's not to say that prosecutor Cotter

in this case isn't interested
in seeing success with MPRI.

In fact, he is and is very closely allied with
the sheriff of Berrien County, Paul Bailey,

who is very interested in the success
of that program and also has concerns,

which may come up in our conversation
today, but I think Peter said it best,

it's a matter of education in the local
communities [Audio cuts off] on his behalf.

That's much more on the side of those
of us on the backside of it if you will,

the public policy side and
the corrections parole side.

>> Peter Luke: I think some
of the objections really are--

fall on the whole issue of accelerated parole
and [Audio cuts off] and the whole idea was

to get that down to a range between 100 and 200.

I think the prosecutors are-- get
concerned about specific cases.

But what's their alternative?

Are they saying, "Well, no
we should keep them in--

in broadly speaking 150 percent of
their-- of their minimum, 175 percent.

So, I think form a policy standpoint
they really haven't articulated that.

I think most of them do agree that you
know it doesn't you know make much sense

to keep somebody in you know for
years longer than they need to be.

But, I think under the old policies that
did make their life easier you know.

I mean when people weren't getting out you know
they were probably pretty happy about that.

And so any change-- any change to that you
know is going-- is going to raise alarm bells.

>> And the role of the prosecutors in play
has certainly been one of the central elements

of politics at the MPRI in a variety
of ways, both positive and negative.

Let's move on to another question.

If the MPRI leads to fewer prisoners, which
means fewer prisons and fewer prison jobs,

how do you get buy-in from corrections employees
and let's hear from Pat Caruso on that.

>> Pat Caruso: Well, that-- that certainly
is a challenge and I challenge our employees.

I say to our employees, "We do not
incarcerate people to provide jobs."

And it is very difficult
for corrections employees

if you are a prison based corrections employee.

We have grown on the field side.

If you look at where the increases have
been in our budget and our operations,

we have 33 percent increase on the
field side and we've hired more agents

and we've put more money into the community.

But, if you are someone who came out of the
prisons, which I did until I was the director,

I only worked in the prison
system in our department.

You're very committed to that and you
believe because you were always told that.

I mean that's-- people are in there forever

and then the longer you stay the more
likely the community is to be safe

and so that is an education process in our
part and its something that we have undertaken,

internally our department where
we talk about this all the time.

We have formalized it into
training with our employees.

We want them to see the same facts and
statistics and evidence that we give

to the legislators and to the public.

Things like, the research shows that
there's no correlation between length

of stay and likelihood of reoffense.

Staying an extra year or two
doesn't make you likely to succeed.

Things like, there's not a correlation
between misconduct in prison and we're talking

about not serious misconduct,
like serious assault.

But, the run of the mill misconducts we write
like out of place and disobeying a direct order,

there's not any correlation
between that and success on parole.

Our employees need to know that.

Many of employees get this.

I have employees contact me, particularly
correction officers all the time saying,

"Here's someone the parole
board ought to be looking at.

He or she is a waste of my tax dollars.

I wouldn't care if they lived next door to me."

I do here that frequently.

>> As a follow up question you talk about
how you educate employees in the department

and there's been a huge effort
along those lines.

What about the reward system?

Do people who understand and embrace the MPRI
find themselves more likely to be promoted

and have successful careers in corrections
these days or is it neutral in that respect?

>> Pat Caruso: I remember quite
a few years ago it was probably

at least six years ago employees saying exactly
that to me because I mean any smart person

if you work in a business you
look at what the bottom line

of that business is and what the mission is.

And you understand where the future is
and certainly the future in our department

for several years has been
revolving around reentry,

which I refer to as get out and stay out.

And those people who were able to
conceptualize that and operationalize it

in what they do clearly have been
more successful in our department.

>> Okay so they look at the direction

of the department [Audio cuts
off] helping the MPRI succeed.

>> Pat Caruso: We have had many corrections
officers and other prison employees

who have transitioned on to the field
side because they see that as the future,

not just because their prison was closing
but because they saw that as something

that was rewarding in the future
of corrections in Michigan.

>> Jeffrey Padden: Okay, let's
turn to Representative Proos.

How can we engage more republican legislators
to support policies that are supportive

to prisoners and former offenders?

Now there's obviously an assumption behind that.

Is it--

>> John Proos: Well we're
all absolutely against MPRI.

We proved that already right?

[Laughter]

>> Jeffrey Padden: What is your sense

about how your caucus views the MPRI
relative to the democratic caucus?

Is this beyond just you and
Representative Smith a partisan issue or not?

>> John Proos: I think it's
probably less partisan

like most everything else
in the legislative process.

It's much less partisan than what you
read on the front page of the newspaper.

I think Peter did a good job of identify
that sensationalism is what leads if you will

and the sensational arguments that we
have over budgets and shutdowns and things

like that lead the news stories and legitimately
so, and are there tensions, absolutely.

Are there tensions as it relates
to good discussions about issues

like this and certainly there are.

I come at it from the perspective
that education is the key to it.

And certainly I asked an awful
lot of questions of the Director

of the department of one of my colleagues.

It was mentioned that the prosecutors have
challenges with some of the discussion today,

good time legislation and so forth.

If we educate our colleagues
about the impact, the benefits--

the cost benefit analysis and trying our best

to understand what a compass
analysis of a prisoner is.

What does that work?

What does that mean?

It's mainly from a perspective of-- and
I said in my opening statements too Jeff,

if we don't educate ourselves of it, it's easier

to take the perspective, no
thank you, keep em all in.

And term limits has had an impact on that
and that's not the purpose of today's debate,

but I'm suggesting to all of us who are
dealing with this particular issue that if--

that if legislators are coming in in the
droves that they do because of term limits,

they won't have near the
same understanding of it.

>> Jeffrey Padden: Okay to Peter
Luke, Peter I think you said

that the administration hasn't
explained the policy very effectively

to the public in general.

Did I hear you right?

>> Peter Luke: No, I don't think
they have and I was thinking about it

that maybe we shouldn't call
these policies anything.

Maybe we should just kind of slowly shift
direction and because if you have a situation

where you release-- say the legislature enacts
a program where instead of serving 100 percent

of your sentence if you behave behind bars,
well you'll serve 85 percent of your minimum.

Well if somebody in that cohort goes out again

and does something wrong,
that policy will be blamed.

And it seems to me none of that
takes you know statutory change,

so you can't do that under the radar.

But, I think with MPRI you know I think
hopefully they can gradually just bake all this

stuff into-- into the system and so it
isn't seen like a stand alone policy,

but it's more a can do well
food, clothing, healthcare.

>> Jeffrey Padden: Okay, well in terms of
helping to build a base of public understanding,

you know an event like this might help.

But, but what is the right strategy for the
department of corrections and the legislature

and the governor's office to employ,
to connect with the mass medial

to get the message out to the public?

>> Peter Luke: You know if you had
a prison population that it was

about the midwest average, you know tuition at
the University of Michigan wouldn't be 11,000

for undergrad, it might be 8,000, right.

Anybody want 3,000 dollars, you know.

>> Jeffrey Padden: I think all the folks in this
room are on scholarships, so it may not be a--

>> John Proos: Depends on whose running for
the legislature, that's a great argument.

>> Peter Luke: But you know you can't,
or do you want a tax cut or do you want--

you know anything you want out of the
budget, there's a fixed cost to everything.

And you know is there a level
of altruism in the community.

But, I think you can take it at another level.

If you look at a community like Detroit
right, everybody talks about you know--

most everybody here isn't
going to be a crime victim.

But if you live in the city of Detroit,
there's a much better chance that you're going

to become a victim of crime or you
know if you live in Flint or Saginaw.

You know you look at Flint,
Saginaw, Pontiac and another one.

I mean probably Detroit, they all have
nationally really extremely high crime rates.

And so from just a recidivism standpoint,
if somebody's less likely to come out

and commit a crime I think
that's how you sell it.

You know like Alma said, you're going to
get, everybody's going to get out, right.

So, what kind of person are you letting out?

If you can make the case we're letting

out a better person right,
then they should support that.

>> Jeffrey Padden: Alright,
well it's very easy to imagine.

In fact, you don't have to imagine it.

You can read it in the papers, those stories
of the horrendous crimes committed by parolees.

It's very easy to point to an individual who
committed a crime against another individual

and tell that story in the most vivid terms.

How do you tell the story about
a crime that didn't happen?

And there have now been hundreds or possibly
thousands of crimes that would have happened

if not the MPRI that did not take place.

So, can you tell a story through the
media that says last night at 8:00 p.m.

when Peter Luke drove into his
driveway he got out of his car,

went into his house and was not mugged?

How do you make that a news story?

>> Peter Luke: Well, it's hard you know.

I mean you-- you can take a specific example of
you know and a human interest story a guy gets

out of prison and you know he
gets his associate's degree

and now he's working at-- at a car dealer.

>> Jeffrey Padden: That's not a story.

>> But that makes it about the prisoner
and doesn't make it about the victim

who turned out not to be the victim.

>> Jeffrey Padden: That's a sign that the
legislature is working together isn't it?

>> John Proos: I mean people want
the sensationalism to some degree.

>> Jeffrey Padden: So I think that's
one of the challenges that's faced

in telling the story powerfully and publically.

We're saying that the public is safer
but are you as an individual safer?

How do you know that you're safer
then you would have been otherwise?

It's a challenge that just sits out there.

I do want to go back to Pat Caruso.

Pat you made a passing comment about the
prison industrial complex and that the notion

of maintaining a large prison population
simply to keep jobs is a moral issue.

Now we did have a question from
somebody that went right to that point.

Is it cheaper for the state to house someone
in prison or to potentially be adding them

to the welfare roles and pick up the bill on
any negative externalities that may result?

You know we're turning people
loose into a bad economy.

Well, you know why should
they get the jobs instead

of the folks who haven't committed a crime?

Talk about how that's a moral issue.

>> Pat Caruso: Well clearly there is a
lot of moral issues surrounding this.

You know, do we-- do we keep people in
prison who are otherwise good candidates

for parole because they don't have a job.

You know, do we-- we're not
running the poor house.

It's so-- there are all kinds of issues there.

Do we keep people in prison,
because if we don't keep them

in prison the prison will close
and people will lose their jobs?

I mean there's issues that revolve around that,
but the fact is that when we spend so much money

to run a massive prison system, there are
dollars that would otherwise go into our economy

that would be creating jobs for other people,
would be reducing the cost of tuition,

would be all sorts of things out there
and its something we have to face.

And I mean if there are people who need
to be in prison until the day they die,

then they ought to be in
prison until the day they die.

But, it's-- it's a smaller number.

There's a comment that I am
widely credited with having made.

It's known around the country.

I actually stole this but I'm going to say
it anyway, and that is that we need to decide

who we are mad at and who we are afraid
of and that prison beds ought to be saved

for those individuals we are afraid
of, and not those we are mad at.

And there may be people who went to prison
and we were rightfully afraid of them,

but over a period of years changes have occurred
in them and now we're just made at them.

We have a lot of people in prison in this
country and in this state and who stay

in prison because we're mad at them.

If we're willing to pay an average in Michigan
of 32,000 dollars a year to be mad at people,

I don't know that that makes
very good economic sense.

And I don't think it makes
good moral sense either.

>> Jeffrey Padden: Now we
only have a few minutes.

It's 5:26 and we finish at 5:30, so
this will be the lightening round

and I'll start with a really hard question.

What role does mental illness
play in the rate of recidivism

and how does the MPRI address that?

And I'll make that a toss up
and John or Pat can grab it.

>> Pat Caruso: I probably should just grab it.

>> John Proos: It's significant, I know that.

I know that.

It is very significant and I think that's one

of the significant challenges we face is getting
our arms around how we address that population

and the same can be said for drug-- drug
offenders, drug courts and there's an attempt

to do that plus some in-reach
mental health and drug--

addressing some of the drug concerns
that we have in the prison system.

>> Pat Caruso: Representative Proos is right.

Our inability to come to terms with these issues
in our communities results in many people coming

to prison who otherwise would not have.

If you look at mental illness,
the ability to access care

through local community health boards based
on what the laws say, the inability to do

that results in behaviors
that land people in prison.

When you're in prison there
actually is a mental health system.

It's not a good place to access that,
but there is a system that's structured

at getting people back out
into that is a challenge.

I will say one are where reentry has
really succeeded are the numbers that deal

with individuals formally incarcerated,

mentally ill who have transitioned
successfully back to the community.

It's probably one of our highest
success rates that we've seen.

>> Jeffrey Padden: Another quick question.

Doesn't earned time or time off for good
behavior or for doing positive things in prison

and the MPRI go hand in hand,
if so, how do they fit together?

>> John Proos: Earned time is a debate that
has not been flushed out nearly as well

as it should be at this point in time.

It's been easy to have an encampment
and it's probably pretty fair

to say it's a republican encampment and a
democratic encampment at this point in time.

And the argument has been that earned time is--

is the best way for us to reduce the cost in
our prison system because we'll be letting a lot

of people out that should go out or
get out at 85 percent or there abouts.

I would say, and in fact, it's
partially discussed today,

but that debate has not been well
fleshed out at this point in time.

I suspect that we're going to continue to try

to thread together how a good time
would be successful for an MPRI.

But remember, we're dealing with the community
and other interest groups that may not have

as much knowledge about what MPRI is
doing both successfully moving forward

and I'd caution if I could just briefly.

We have to also make sure that we decide
what it is that we're using as the numbers

to identify success or failure or a modicum
of success for MPRI and right now I don't know

that there's a good understanding
of what success is termed to be.

>> Jeffrey Padden: Well it depends
on what you earned time for.

If you earned time for not
misbehaving that's one thing.

If you earned time for you know a GED, an
Associate's Degree any kinds of benchmarks

that MPRI, you know you need to
hit in order to be successful,

I think they fit together perfectly well.

>> Pat Caruso: I agree.

I think they do too.

And one of the things that
we sometimes forget is

that the concept doesn't
automatically get anyone out of prison.

What it does is make people eligible to be
seen by the parole board in an earlier date.

So, if someone is, in fact, a low risk
person who is a likely candidate for success

in the community, then the parole board is able

to parole them sooner then they
would otherwise be able to.

>> Jeffrey Padden: Very good.

Well, I apologize to those of you who posed
questions that we did not have a chance

to address, but we are out of time and
I want to be respectful of your time,

the time of the panel and not to mention the
wonderful crew who have been covering this.

I do want to thank the Center for Local State
and Urban Policy and the Gerald R. Ford School

of Public Policy and the University
of Michigan for hosting this--

this wonderful event and especially
I want to thank Director Pat Caruso,

Representative John Proos, our
wonderful reporter Peter Luke

and Representative Alma Wheeler
Smith for participating as panelists,

and please thank them once again.

[Applause]