Kim Faison, Assistant Coordinator: 734-240-7110
Toll Free: 888-354-5500
125 East Second Street, Monroe, MI 48161
Program Purpose and History
Monroe County Community Corrections provides alternative sanctions and services as sentencing options for local eligible offenders, at the discretion of the court, with the goal of rehabilitating offenders and reducing the occurrence of repeat criminal offenses that result in a term of incarceration in jail or prison and/or community supervision.
Local control and management is promoted, enhanced and increased through the support of the State, County and local program provider’s partnership in the management of the offenders. The State provides funding for alternative sentencing options and the funding is renewed yearly with the approval of a County’s Comprehensive Plan. The State prison commitment rate dropped 12.8% since PA 511 was adopted in 1988, indicating Community Corrections Programs are efficiently working towards the PA 511 goal throughout the State of Michigan.
Community Corrections Act
Michigan legislators passed Public Act 511, better known as the Community Corrections Act, in response to the increasing prison commitment rate and the rising costs associated with keeping offenders locked up, behind bars. The Michigan Office of Community Corrections (OCC) was established under the direction of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC). The Community Corrections Act established a statewide policy and a funding process for locally designed and administered community corrections programs.
The Act requires the development of alternatives to incarceration that:
- protect the public
- punish the offender
- hold the offender accountable
- increase restitution to victims of crime
- provide needed rehabilitative services (e.g. substance abuse, mental health counseling, job training and placement, educational opportunities) and utilize valuable jail space for the more serious, violent criminals.
State Board Priorities:
Reduce or minimize prison admissions for: (a) offenders with sentencing guidelines within the straddle cells, especially those with a PRV greater then or equal to 35 excluding G&H, (b) probation violators; and (c) parole violators.
Offenders within the presumptive prison group should not be targeted as a group, jurisdictions should examine sentencing options on a case-by-case basis to determine if local programs are appropriate alternatives to a prison commitment. Probation violators are a priority population since: 1) technical violations are not addressed in the statutory guidelines and 2) violators account for a significant proportion of prison commitments.