Correctional spending reducing

The issue of correctional spending reducing seems to be one of the most relevant for recent U.S. economy. This problem is long being the prior for our country. However, there are states that stand out from the common crowd. The Michigan is the first of them without a doubt. Going to comment the survey questions on appropriate topic, it is important to start with the first one, which requires general background only. There is no doubt that Michigan state spends too much on prisons and corrections. According to official stats, prison expenditures only in 1996 were $1.2 billion. Moreover, Phil Morise claims in next way: “Nowadays, corrections in Michigan cost $5 million a day, or $2 billion a year, to run Michigan’s prison system, whose population stands at 50,200 and is projected to top 56,000 within five years. Michigan’s incarceration rate is 31 percent higher than the Midwest average”(Morise). Thereby, there is the clear dreadful trend towards expenditures increasing. Stating that Michigan spends too much on prisons and corrections, it is important to outline that there is not a talk about excess or waste. There is the talk about expenditures and the entire state budget volume ratio. In 1996 entire correction expenditures took for about 5% of total state’s budget.

Appropriate quantities grew last few years: “In 2008, corrections spending in Michigan was $2.08 billion, $1.9 billion of which was spending from the general fund. This represents 5.2% of all state expenditures and 20% of all general fund appropriations in the state, an increase from 5% in 1983” (James). This quote was placed to show the nature of too high Michigan prison and corrections expenditures.

Previous part was about the general background of analyzed topic, and were used as an answer to one of survey questions – do you think Michigan spends too much, too little or about the right on prisons and corrections? In the aspect of entire state’s budget incomes, the answer “too much” is right here. In other words, we talk about the necessity, which was raised by such factors as higher rate of crimes and average higher rate of terms in prison staying in comparison to other states. Now, let’s pay attention to next given questions. It looks like two of them do not allow to get the nature of problem and to answer them consequently. In other words, they restrict the options of respondents. There is the talk about third and fourth questions. This idea is based on one significant point. Third and fourth questions do not enable respondents for comparative analysis providing. They would be proper for problem acquainted specialists only. In its turn, the question that tells readers about 15% percent from entire Michigan’s budget spent to prisons and correction allows to estimate the topic properly. Even simple layman knows that state’s budget expenditures includes numerous points, thereby, imposed percentage of one of them by itself arouses suspicion. This question gives the widest range of options to answer it as the background for estimates and comparative analysis is presented here.

To sum up, previous comment is useful to get the idea that the way of question wording, style and content are extremely important to give needful options for respondents to answer it. Thereby, we took good experience towards proper and improper approaches to interviewing and questions structuring.