Issue Brief: Mississippi Department Of Corrections Accountability .
Report to the Mississippi LegislatureIssue Brief: Mississippi Department ofCorrections Accountability ProgramInventory#652April 13, 2021
The Mississippi LegislatureJoint Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure ReviewPEER CommitteeSENATORSREPRESENTATIVESKEVIN BLACKWELLVice ChairCHARLES YOUNGERSecretaryLYDIA CHASSANIOLDEAN KIRBYCHAD McMAHANSOLLIE NORWOODJOHN POLKTELEPHONE:(601) 359-1226TIMMY LADNERChairRICHARD BENNETTCEDRIC BURNETTCAROLYN CRAWFORDBECKY CURRIEJERRY TURNERPERCY WATSONPost Office Box 1204Jackson, Mississippi 39215-1204FAX:(601) 359-1420James A. BarberExecutive DirectorOFFICE:Woolfolk Building, Suite 301-A501 North West StreetJackson, Mississippi 39201www.peer.ms.govApril 13, 2021Honorable Tate Reeves, GovernorHonorable Delbert Hosemann, Lieutenant GovernorHonorable Philip Gunn, Speaker of the HouseMembers of the Mississippi State LegislatureOn April 13, 2021, the PEER Committee authorized release of the report titled Issue Brief:Mississippi Department of Corrections Accountability Program Inventory.Representative Timmy Ladner, ChairThis report does not recommend increased funding or additional staff.
Table of ContentsLetter of Transmittal . iIssue Brief Highlights .vPurpose of Issue Brief . 1MDOC’s Estimated Expenditures and FTEs by Accountability Program for Fiscal Years 2019and 2020 . 2Inventory of Mississippi’s Prison-Based Intervention Programs for Fiscal Years 2019 and2020 and Identification of those Programs Supported by High-Quality Research . 6Selected MDOC Performance Measures from FY 2016 to FY 2020 . 12Appendix A: FY 2019 and FY 2020 Annual Total Estimated Expenditures and FTEs for MDOC’sAccountability Programs Categorized by Budget Unit . 16Appendix B: Descriptions of MDOC Accountability Programs including Annual TotalEstimated Expenditures for FY 2019 and FY 2020, Categorized by Broad Category . 20Appendix C: Defining Elements of Research, by Level of Research Quality . 29Appendix D: Type of Vocational Skill Training Offered, by Mississippi AdultCorrectional Facility . 30Appendix E: Prison-Based Alcohol and Drug Abuse Treatment Programs with No KnownHigh-Quality Research Showing their Effectiveness in Reducing Recidivism, byMississippi Adult Correctional Facility . 31Appendix F: High-Quality Research-Based Programs that Could Replace Mississippi’sPrison-Based Adult Correctional Intervention Programs without Known High-QualityResearch . 32Appendix G: Description of Prison-Based Intervention Programs Offered by One or Moreof Mississippi’s Adult Correctional Facilities during Fiscal Years 2019 and 2020,Categorized by Quality of the Research Supporting the Program . 35PEER Report #652iii
List of ExhibitsExhibit 1: MDOC’s Total Estimated Expenditures by Broad Category in FY 2019 and FY 2020.3Exhibit 2: Annual Expenditures and FTEs for the Ten MDOC Accountability Programs withthe Largest Expenditures, Accounting for over 75% of MDOC’s Total EstimatedExpenditures in FY 2019 and FY 2020 . 4Exhibit 3: Inventory of Mississippi’s Adult Prison-Based Intervention Programs for FY 2019and FY 2020, Reported by Correctional Facility, Quality of Research Supporting theProgram, and Estimated Direct Program Expenditures 8Exhibit 4: Average Prison Population in Mississippi’s Adult Correctional Facilities, by Month,From FY 2016 to FY 2020 .12Exhibit 5: MDOC’s Drug Admissions (i.e., Possession and Intent to Distribute and Sale) fromFY 2016 to FY 2019 .13Exhibit 6: Percentage of Mississippi Prisoners Re-Incarcerated within 36-Months of Releaseby Fiscal Year .14Exhibit 7: Prison Violence in Mississippi’s Correctional Facilities from FY 2016 to FY 2020 .15Exhibit 8: Correctional Officer Vacancy Rate for Each State-Operated Facility and a Total forRegional Facilities and Private Prisons .15ivPEER Report #652
Joint Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure ReviewIssue Brief HighlightsApril 13, 2021Mississippi Department of Corrections Accountability ProgramInventorySummary: The Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) expends over half of its financialresources on providing for the health and safety of inmates, maintaining the security of the state’sprisons, and total costs of housing state inmates in private prisons and county-owned regional facilities.While expenditures on adult prison-based intervention programs account for less than two percent ofMDOC’s total estimated expenditures, research shows a high likelihood that the long-term return ondollars invested in well-run intervention programs, shown by high-quality research to be effective inreducing recidivism, will exceed costs, in some cases by large amounts.BackgroundMISS. CODE ANN. Section 27-103-159 (1972) requires the development of an inventory of state agencyprograms/activities for use in the budgeting process, including estimated expenditures, FTEs, andidentification of intervention programs. MDOC began working with legislative staff in 2014 to create anaccountability program inventory and provide a more detailed overview of its expenditures and staffresponsibilities.Key TermsAccountability ProgramDefined by PEER as a discrete set ofactivities upon which state resources areexpended, designed to achieve a specificoutcome(s) or objective(s).Intervention ProgramDefined by the Results First Initiative as asystematic set of activities or practices thatengage specific participants to achieve adesiredoutcome(s),e.g.,preventrecidivism, and that may be subjected toexperimental review for efficacy.Direct Program ExpendituresIncludes dollars spent on individualsdirectly responsible for providing theintervention program to inmates and onmaterials used to teach or implement theprogram.What were MDOC’s total expenditures in FY 2019and FY 2020?MDOC’s estimated expenditures totaled approximately 343.8 million in FY 2019 and approximately 348.5million in FY 2020.What were MDOC’s largest expenditures in FY 2019and FY 2020?By major object, MDOC expended over half of its budgeton contractual services, 58% ( 199 million) in FY 2019 and61% ( 213 million) in FY 2020.The chart below shows MDOC’s top three largestexpenditures by accountability program for FY 2019 andFY 2020. As shown in the chart, MDOC’s largestexpenditures were for providing onsite medical care andhousing state inmates in private prisons and countyowned regional facilities.Performance Measure Facts Reportedby MDOC in FY 2020 MDOC’s prison population slightlydeclined.MDOC’s recidivism rate was 37.4%.Mississippi’s prisons were more violent.MDOC has a large number of vacantcorrectional officer positions.PEER Report #652v
How much did the twenty-one adult correctional facilities spend on adult prison-basedintervention programs, including level of research quality, during fiscal years 2019 and 2020?Mississippi’s twenty-one adult correctional facilities housing state inmates reported approximately 11.3million ( 5.8 million in FY 2019; and 5.5 million in FY 2020) in total estimated direct program expenditureson prison-based intervention programs in FY 2019 and FY 2020. Expenditures on prison-based interventionprograms accounted for less than two percent of MDOC’s total estimated expenditures during both fiscalyears.As shown in the chart to the right, approximately 46% of thetotal estimated direct program expenditures for prison-basedintervention programs were on programs shown to be effectivein reducing recidivism by high-quality research. However, it isnot known whether these programs are being implemented withfidelity to program design.Also, as shown in the chart, expenditures for interventionprograms with no known high-quality research supporting theireffectiveness in reducing recidivism accounted for 54% of totalintervention program expenditures. A majority of theseexpenditures were for life skills and various alcohol and drugabuse treatment programs.What steps can the state’s adult correctional facilities take to improve the impact of adult prisonbased intervention program dollars on reducing recidivism?1. Move financial resources out of intervention programs with no known high-quality research on theireffectiveness into programs that high-quality research shows to be effective in reducing recidivism.2. On an ongoing basis, evaluate the implementation of all programs supported by high-qualityresearch to ensure programs are delivered with fidelity to the critical elements of program design.To achieve the monetized benefits that will accrue to the state and society from a reduction inrecidivism, it is more effective to faithfully execute a few high-quality programs than to executemany high-quality programs poorly.MDOC’s Adult Prison-Based Intervention Program Facts There is wide variation in the intervention programs (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy, vocationaleducation, religious programs) offered by each of the state’s twenty-one adult correctional facilities. Only one program, Restorative Justice, meets the high standard of “evidence-based” research set forthin MISS. CODE ANN. Section 27-103-159 (1)(a) (1972). Six prison-based programs or program categories met the standard for high-quality research basedon levels 3, 4, or 5 of the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale. PEER identified thirteen programs supported by high-quality research showing their effectiveness inreducing recidivism that could be implemented by the correctional facilities in place of programsunsupported by known high-quality research in Mississippi’s inventory.Issue Brief: Mississippi Department of Corrections Accountability Program Inventory April 2021For more information, contact: (601) 359-1226 P.O. Box 1204, Jackson, MS 39215-1204Representative Timmy Ladner, Chair James A. Barber, Executive DirectorviPEER Report #652
Issue Brief: Mississippi Department of CorrectionsAccountability Program InventoryApril 13, 2021Accountability Program Inventory BackgroundMISS. CODE ANN. Section 27-103-159 (1972) (H.B. 677, 2014 Regular Session) requires: the development of an inventory of state agency programs/activities for use in the budgeting processbeginning with the Mississippi Departments of: Corrections, Education, Health, and Transportation; estimated expenditures and full-time equivalent (FTE) positions for each agency program; the categorization of programs as intervention or nonintervention and all intervention programs as evidencebased, research-based, promising, or other; and, the identification of agency and program premises, goals, objectives, outputs, and outcomes, as well as anyother indicator or component staff consider to be appropriate, such as evidence of a program’s adherenceto best practices.For purposes of the program inventory and in order to distinguish programs from budget programs, a program in theinventory is known as an accountability program, which PEER defines as a discrete set of activities upon whichstate resources are expended, designed to achieve a specific outcome(s) or objective(s). All programs provided by orfunded through state government are included in the inventory, regardless of funding source or who carries out theprogram (e.g., state employees, contractors). The collection and reporting of performance and expenditure data atthe accountability program level allows legislators and agency staff to obtain a deeper understanding of whatagencies are accomplishing with public funds.Purpose of Issue BriefThe purpose of this issue brief is to provide policymakers with an inventory ofMississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) accountability programs for fiscalyears 2019 and 2020, including expenditures and FTEs for each program. The briefalso includes selected performance measures reported by MDOC from FY 2016 toFY 2020.To estimate MDOC’s expenditures and FTEs by accountability program, PEER revieweddata reported in the state’s accounting system, Mississippi’s Accountability System forGovernment Information and Collaboration (MAGIC), and the state’s human resourcesystem, the Statewide Payroll and Human Resource System (SPAHRS). PEER alsoreviewed performance and intervention program data submitted by MDOC.In order to determine which of the MDOC’s intervention programs are shown to beeffective by high-quality research1 if properly implemented,2 PEER examined the ouse-database).1PEER defines high-quality research as an evaluation for which the program received a ranking of at leastlevel three on the Maryland Scientific Scale, which requires a control group (see MISS. CODE ANN. Section27-103-159 (1) (g)).2Unless intervention programs shown to be effective through high-quality research are implemented withfidelity to program design, they will not achieve the reductions in recidivism reported in the research.PEER Report #6521
MDOC’s Estimated Expenditures and FTEs by AccountabilityProgram for Fiscal Years 2019 and 2020Creation of MDOC’sAccountability ProgramInventoryBeginning in 2014, toprovide the Legislature witha more detailed overview ofexpenditures and staffresponsibilities, MDOC andLegislative staff: worked to changeMDOC’s budget fromone budget unit witheleven budget programsto eleven budget unitswith twelve budgetprograms; established cost centersin MAGIC to estimateexpenditures andidentified staff inSPAHRS for each ofMDOC’s accountabilityprograms; and, identified prison-basedintervention programsin Mississippi’s twentyone adult es3totaledapproximately 343.8 million in FY 2019 andapproximately 348.5 million in FY 2020. By majorobject, MDOC expended approximately 90% of itsfunding on contractual services and salaries,wages, and fringe benefits during both fiscal years.MDOC’s total estimated expenditures increased from 343.8 million in FY 2019 to 348.5 million in FY 2020.By major object, MDOC expended over half of itsbudget on contractual services, 58% ( 199 million) inFY 2019 and 61% ( 213 million) in FY 2020. MDOC’scontractual services expenditures were primarily formedical services, inmate housing provided by privateprisons and regional facilities, food services, andinstitutional utilities.Salaries, wages, and fringe benefits made upapproximately 29% ( 101 million) of MDOC’s totalestimated expenditures in FY 2019 and approximately28% ( 98 million) in FY 2020. In FY 2020, salaries,wages, and fringe benefits at the three state-operatedprisons accounted for approximately 57% of totalpersonnel expenditures, followed by 31% withincommunity corrections, and 10% for staff located inMDOC’s central office. As of January 31, 2021, MDOChad 2,490 positions, 1,653 employees, and 837vacancies, a total vacancy rate of 34%.During both fiscal years reviewed, by budget unit andbudget program, Medical Services, Private Prisons, and Regional Facilities accounted forover 50% of MDOC’s estimated expenditures.MDOC expends over half of its financial resources on providing for the health andsafety of inmates, maintaining the security of the state’s prisons, and housing stateinmates in private prisons and county-owned regional facilities.To compile MDOC’s accountability program inventory for FY 2019 and FY 2020, PEERused data reported by MDOC in MAGIC and SPAHRS.4 The accountability programinventory is an additional way to report MDOC’s total estimated expenditures presented3PEER estimated accountability program expenditures by using data reported in MAGIC and SPAHRS. Itshould be noted that there are differences between MDOC’s expenditures in the program inventory andexpenditures reported in MDOC’s FY 2021 and FY 2022 budget requests submitted to the Legislative BudgetOffice (LBO) because expenditures are estimated for each accountability program using the two databases,and due to the timeframe in which agency budgets are submitted to LBO.4In 2014, PEER began the process of identifying MDOC’s accountability programs by interviewing MDOC’sstaff and reviewing the Department’s employee data, organizational chart, legislative budget requests, andother internal documents.2PEER Report #652
on page 2. The inventory allows legislators to drill down into MDOC’s budget tounderstand how much the Department expends on activities within each of its budgetunits and programs. Appendix A on page 16 provides estimated expenditures and FTEsby accountability program for each of MDOC’s eleven budget units.In FY 2019 and FY 2020, PEER identified 59 accountability programs and classified eachprogram in the following four broad categories: prison operations and institutional services (e.g., institutional security, medicalcare, food services, private prisons, regional facilities, local confinement); general agency and facility administration (e.g., executive management, humanresources, property management and building services); community corrections (e.g., probation and parole services, community workcenters, restitution centers, parole board); and, education and training of inmates (e.g., intervention programs).As shown in Exhibit 1 on page 3, accountability program expenditures in the prisonoperations and institutional services category totaled approximately 260 million (75% oftotal estimated expenditures) in FY 2019 and 268 million (77% of total estimatedexpenditures) in FY 2020. The next largest expenditures were for general agency andfacility administration which totaled approximately 45 million (13% of total estimatedexpenditures) in FY 2019and 40 million (11% oftotalestimatedexpenditures) in FY 2020.Communitycorrectionsexpenditures accounted forapproximately 10% of totalestimated expenditures inboth fiscal years. Asdiscussed on page 7,MDOC spends less than 2%of its total estimatedexpenditures on educationand training programs forinmates.5Exhibit 2 on page 4 provides annual estimated expenditures and FTEs6 for the ten MDOCaccountability programs with the largest expenditures, accounting for 75% of MDOC’stotal estimated expenditures in FY 2019 and FY 2020. In both fiscal years, by5Because MDOC contracts with regional facilities and private prisons to house state inmates, the totalestimated expenditures reported on intervention programs for the accountability program inventory in thissection do not include regional and private facility expenditures. For a breakdown of intervention programsself-reported by the county-owned regional correctional facilities and private prisons, refer to discussionbeginning on page 6.6PEER calculated FTEs for each accountability program by dividing the number of person hours expendedon the program for each fiscal year by 2,080 (i.e., the total person-hours that one full-time employee is paidfor in one year, which is equal to 52 weeks multiplied by 40 hours per week).PEER Report #6523
accountability program, the cost to provide inmates medical care (onsite and offsite) andthe cost to house state inmates in private prisons were MDOC’s largest expenditures.Exhibit 2: Annual Expenditures and FTEs for the Ten MDOCAccountability Programs with the Largest Expenditures, Accountingfor 75% of MDOC’s Total Estimated Expenditures in FY 2019 and FY2020FY 2019Program CategoryAccountability ProgramPrison Operations andInstitutional ServicesOnsite Medical Care provided through aContractTotal Cost to House State Inmates in PrivatePrisonsTotal Cost to House State Inmates in CountyOwned Regional Correctional FacilitiesInstitutional SecurityDebt Service for Private PrisonsOffsite Medical Care (e.g., hospital, specialtycare)Probation and Parole ServicesExecutive ManagementCommunity CorrectionsGeneral Agency andFacility AdministrationPrison Operations andInstitutional ServicesFood ServicesLocal Confinement ReimbursementTotalEstimatedExpenditures 53 Million (15%)FTEs0.00 44 Million (13%)0.00 39 Million (11%)0.00 33 Million (10%) 22 Million (6%) 21 Million (6%)716.180.000.00 16 Million (5%) 14 Million (4%)211.8417.19 12 Million (3%) 7 Million (2%) 261 Million (75%)10.240.00FY 2020Program CategoryAccountability ProgramPrison Operations andInstitutional ServicesOnsite Medical Care provided through aContractTotal Cost to House State Inmates in PrivatePrisonsTotal Cost to House State Inmates in CountyOwned Regional Correctional FacilitiesInstitutional SecurityOffsite Medical Care (e.g., hospital, specialtycare)Debt Service for Private PrisonsProbation and Parole ServicesFood ServicesCommunity CorrectionsPrison Operations andInstitutional ServicesGeneral Agency andFacility AdministrationPrison Operations andInstitutional ServicesExecutive ManagementLocal Confinement ReimbursementTotalEstimatedExpenditures 53 Million (15%)FTEs0.00 53 Million (15%)0.00 38 Million (11%)0.00 29 Million (8%) 24 Million (7%)646.240.00 22 Million (6%) 16 Million (5%) 10 Million (3%)0.00217.478.56 10 Million (3%)12.8 8 Million (2%)0.00 263 Million (75%)Note: In this exhibit, all expenditures are rounded to the nearest million. Percentages do not total to 100%because expenditures in this exhibit are for the ten MDOC accountability programs with the largestexpenditures, accounting for 75% of total estimated expenditures in FY 2019 and FY 2020.Appendix B on page 20 provides a brief description of all MDOC accountability programs, including totalestimated expenditures for FY 2019 and FY 2020.Source: PEER analysis of data reported in MAGIC and SPAHRS.4PEER Report #652
As shown in Exhibit 2 on page 4, MDOC expended approximately 73 million ( 52 million 21 million) in FY 2019 and 77 million ( 53 million 24 million) in FY 2020 onproviding onsite and offsite medical care (separate accountability programs) to inmate’sin MDOC’s custody. Combined, these two accountability programs accounted for overtwenty percent of MDOC’s total estimated expenditures and were MDOC’s largestexpenditures in both fiscal years.7 According to MDOC’s legislative budget request, in FY2020, the cost per inmate per day for medical care was approximately 13.10.During both fiscal years, Centurion of Mississippi, LLC, (Centurion)8 provided onsitemedical, dental, pharmacy, and mental health care services to inmates in MDOC’scustody at the three state-operated facilities, the county-owned regional correctionalfacilities, private prisons, community work centers, restitution centers, and theGovernor’s mansion. Pursuant to its contractual agreement with the medical servicesprovider, MDOC is responsible for the costs of all offsite specialty care referrals,emergency room visits, transportation (e.g., ambulance), and inpatient admissions forhospital care expenses. In a review of MDOC’s offsite medical care expenditures inMAGIC, PEER determined a majority of these expenditures were for miscellaneousservices provided in a hospital setting (e.g., emergency room visits, overnight hospitalstays, surgical procedures).As shown in Exhibit 2 on page 4, in both fiscal years, MDOC’s next largest expenditure,by accountability program, was the cost to house state inmates in private prisons.Expenditures for this program increased from 44 million in FY 2019 to 53 million in FY2020. According to MDOC’s legislative budget request, private prison expendituresincreased due to the transfer of inmates from Parchman to the Tallahatchie CountyCorrectional Facility. MDOC’s goal during FY 2021 is to transfer inmates from theTallahatchie County Correctional Facility to another private prison at the same or lowerper diem rate.9 According to MDOC’s monthly fact sheet published on its website, as ofFebruary 1, 2021, there were no state inmates housed within the Tallahatchie CountyCorrectional Facility.7Refer to Appendix A on page 16 for additional medical services expenditures (e.g., offsite security)accounting for approximately one percent of MDOC’s total estimated expenditures in FY 2019 and FY 2020.8As of October 6, 2020, MDOC entered into an emergency contract with VitalCore Health Strategies, LLC,(VitalCore) to replace Centurion as MDOC’s onsite medical care service provider for a period of one year(October 6, 2020 to October 5, 2021).9During FY 2020, the cost per day per state inmate housed at the Tallahatchie County Correctional Facilitywas 63.72. According to MDOC, the cost per day per state inmate housed either at the East, Marshall, orWilkinson County Correctional Facility ranged from a low of 30.15 to a high of 42.94 in FY 2020.PEER Report #6525
Inventory of Mississippi’s Prison-Based InterventionPrograms for Fiscal Years 2019 and 2020 and Identificationof those Programs Supported by High-Quality ResearchIt is important to note that the financial and programmatic data collected from Mississippi’s adultcorrectional facilities for prison-based intervention programs presented in this issue brief are selfreported by MDOC and the facilities and are unaudited.Defining High-Quality ResearchPEER defines “high-quality research”as any research study meeting eitherof the following two standards: the definition of “evidence-basedprogram” included in MISS. CODEANN. Section 27-103-159 (1)(a)(1972): “a program or practicethat has had multiple-siterandomized controlled trialsacross heterogeneouspopulations demonstrating thatthe program or practice iseffective for the population;” or,Level 3, 4, or 5 of the MarylandScientific Methods Scale (SMS).Appendix C on page 29 presents thedefining elements of research, bylevel of research quality.Mississippi’stwenty-oneadultcorrectional facilities housing stateinmates reported approximately 11.3million ( 5.8 million in FY 2019; and 5.5million in FY 2020) in total directexpenditures on prison-based interventionprograms in nine broad program areas forFY 2019 and FY 2020.PEER created an inventory of prison-basedintervention programs10 offered by the state’stwenty-one correctional facilities (stateoperated, regional (county-operated), andprivate) 11 for fiscal years 2019 and 2020.The correctional facilities reported offeringadult prison-based intervention programs innine broad program areas: cation(post-secondary),vocationaleducation, alcohol and drug abuse treatment,cognitive behavioral skills training andtherapy, multi-purpose programs, restorativejustice, life skills, and religious programs.Exhibit 3 on page 8, provides a list of Mississippi’s adult prison-based interventionprograms for FY 2019 and FY 2020, being offered by correctional facility and categorizedby quality of research supporting the program’s effectiveness in reducing recidivism.Each facility provided direct program expenditures, which include dollars spent onindividuals directly responsible for providing the program to inmates and on materialsused to teach or implement the program. These expenditures were self-reported by thefacilities and have not been audited for accuracy by PEER. Several of the programs inthe exhibit, located at the county-owned regional correctional facilities and private10The Results First Initiative defines an intervention program as a systematic set of activities or practicesthat engage specific participants to achieve a desired outcome(s), e.g., prevent recidivism, and that may besubjected to experimental review for efficacy.11While there were state inmates housed at the Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility during FY 2020,PEER did not include programs offered to inmates at this private prison. As of February 1, 2021, MDOChas transferred all state inmates out of the Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility and into other facilitiesin the state.6PEER Report #652
prisons, were provided to inmates by volunteers (e.g., community colleges, localchurches, and community groups) at little or no cost to the facility or the state.As shown in Exhibit 3, the type and number of programs offered at each facility varywidely. While all of the facilities reported offering some type of life skills training, none ofthe programs reported were offered at all facilities. For instance, twenty facilities offeredalcohol and drug abuse treatment, eighteen facilities offered correctional education(basic skills), seventeen facilities had religious programs and services, and twelvefacilities reported offering vocational education. Appendix D on page 30 lists the type ofvocational skill training provided by facility. As the appendix shows, the facilities offervocational education in a combined total of twenty-three skill areas.In both FY 2019 and FY 2020, prison-based intervention program expendituresaccounted for less than 2% of MDOC’s total estimated expenditures. However, ResultsFirst reports a high likelihood that the long-term return on dollars invested in well-runintervention programs that high-quality research shows to be
Purpose of Issue Brief The purpose of this issue brief is to provide policymakers with an inventory of Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) accountability programs for fiscal years 2019 and 2020, including expenditures and FTEs for each program. The brief also includes selected performance measures reported by MDOC from FY 2016 to FY 2020.
The Mississippi State Board of Education, the Mississippi Department of Education, the Mississippi School for the Arts, the Mississippi School for the Blind, the Mississippi School for the Deaf, and the Mississippi School for Mathematics and Science do not discriminate on the
The Mississippi State Board of Education, the Mississippi Department of Education, the Mississippi School for the Arts, the Mississippi School for the Blind, the Mississippi School for the Deaf, and the Mississippi School for Mathematics and Science do not discriminate on the
The Mississippi State Board of Education, the Mississippi Department of Education, the Mississippi School for the Arts, the Mississippi School for the Blind, the Mississippi School for the Deaf, and the Mississippi School for Mathematics and Science do not discriminate on the
The 33rd Annual Mississippi Water Resources Conference was held April 23-24, 2003 at the Eagle Ridge Conference Center in Raymond, Mississippi. CONFERENCE SPONSORS: Mississippi Water Resources Research - GeoResources Institute U.S. Geological Survey, Mississippi District Office Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality's Offices of Land and
Mississippi State Board for Community and Junior Colleges Mississippi State Board of Medical Licensure Mississippi State Board of Nursing Mississippi State Medical Examiner’s Office Mississippi State Fire Academy Mississippi Veterinary Medical Association Other State Hospitals Private Sector Support Agencies Network 8 Incorporated
and associations of local government in their efforts to improve governance at the grassroots and to deliver services to the citizens of Mississippi. The center does not take an advocacy role in the Mississippi State University Extension Service Municipal Government in Mississippi Mississippi. Mississippi.
The Mississippi State Board of Education, the Mississippi Department of Education, the Mississippi School for the Arts, the Mississippi School for the Blind, the Mississippi School . English Language Arts, Grades 3-8 Blueprint Interpretive Guide MAP-3-8-ELA 4 1.0 Purpose Statement Test blueprints contain information about individual tests .
DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY Telangana University Dichpally, Nizamabad -503322 (A State University Established under the Act No. 28 of 2006, A.P. Recognized by UGC under 2(f) and 12 (B) of UGC Act 1956)
