Annual statistical report : summary statistics for the Division of Prisons & the Division of Adult Probation and Parole

              2007-2008
Annual Statistical Report
North Carolina
Department of Correction 2010-2011 North Carolina Department of Correction
Alvin Keller
Nicole E. Sullivan
Secretary of Correction
Research and Planning ManagerTable of Contents
Table of Contents...................................................................................................ii
List of Tables and Figures....................................................................................iv
Overview of the North Carolina Department of Correction...................................6
Vision Statement.................................................................................................................6
Strategic Issues....................................................................................................................6
Office of Research and Planning............................................................................7
Supporting Successful Decisions........................................................................................7
I. Division of Prisons...........................................................................................10
Costs of Incarceration for the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year......................................................10
I.A. Prison Admissions.........................................................................................................11
Prison Admission Trend...................................................................................................11
Type of Admissions..........................................................................................................11
Admissions by Sentencing Grids......................................................................................12
Crime Type of 2010-2011 Prison Admissions..................................................................13
I. B. Prison Population..........................................................................................................16
Prison Population Trend...................................................................................................16
Prison Population by Sentencing Grids............................................................................16
Crime Type of End of FY 2010-2011 Prison Population.................................................18
Inmate Activities...............................................................................................................19
Work................................................................................................................................19
Programs..........................................................................................................................20
Escapes and Captures........................................................................................................21
Inmate Disciplinary Infractions........................................................................................21
I.C. Prison Releases.............................................................................................................24
Prison Release Trend........................................................................................................24
Type of Release.................................................................................................................24
Time Served by Inmates Released in the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year....................................25
I.D. Prison Population Projections.......................................................................................27
II. Division of Community Corrections...............................................................29
Cost of Sanctions..............................................................................................................30
II.A. Probation......................................................................................................................31
Probation Entry Trend.......................................................................................................31
Crime Type of 2010-2011 Probation Entries....................................................................31
Probation Population by Sentencing Grids.......................................................................32
Type of Probation Exits....................................................................................................33
II.B. Post-Release Supervision.............................................................................................35
Post-Release Entry Trend.................................................................................................35
Post-Release Population by Structured Sentencing Grids................................................35
Type of Post-Release Exits...............................................................................................36
II.C. Parole...........................................................................................................................37
Parole Entry Trend............................................................................................................37
Crime Type of Parole Population.....................................................................................37
Type of Parole Exits..........................................................................................................38
ii
II.D. Community Corrections Demographics.......................................................................39
II.E. Intermediate Sanctions for Supervised Offenders........................................................40
II.F. Supervised Offender Programs & Special Initiatives...................................................42
Community Service Work Program:................................................................................42
Electronic Monitoring/ GPS:............................................................................................42
Domestic Violence Offender Control:..............................................................................42
Transition Services:..........................................................................................................43
Limited English Proficient (LEP) Offender Program:......................................................43
Victim Notification Program:...........................................................................................44
II.G. Supervised Population Projections...............................................................................45
III. Criminal Justice Partnership Program............................................................46
III.A. Day Reporting Centers................................................................................................47
Type of Admissions..........................................................................................................47
Admissions by Sentencing Grid.......................................................................................47
DRC Program Utilization.................................................................................................48
Type of Exits.....................................................................................................................49
III.B. Satellite Substance Abuse Programs...........................................................................51
Type of Admissions..........................................................................................................51
Admissions by Sentencing Grid.......................................................................................51
SSA Program Utilization..................................................................................................52
Type of Exits.....................................................................................................................54
III.C. Resource Centers.........................................................................................................55
Type of Admissions..........................................................................................................55
Admissions by Sentencing Grid.......................................................................................55
RC Program Utilization....................................................................................................56
Type of Exits.....................................................................................................................57
IV. Division of Alcoholism and
Chemical Dependency Programs......................................................................59
IV.A. Community-Based Substance Abuse Treatment:.......................................................61
DART Cherry....................................................................................................................61
Enrollment in DART-Cherry............................................................................................61
Exits from DART-Cherry.................................................................................................63
Black Mountain Substance Abuse Treatment Center for Women....................................64
IV.B. Prison-Based DACDP.................................................................................................66
Screening and Referral for Prison – Based Programs.......................................................66
IV.C. Intermediate DACDP Programs..................................................................................68
IV.D. Long-Term Treatment Programs................................................................................71
Private Treatment Centers.................................................................................................72
V. Correction Enterprises.....................................................................................75
VI. Appendices.....................................................................................................77
Appendix A. DOC Populations by County of Conviction...................................................77
Appendix B. Listing of Division of Prisons Facilities.........................................................81
Appendix C. Listing of the DCC Judicial District Offices..................................................85
iii
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1: Authorized Budget and Actual Expenditures......................................................................6
Table I.1: Daily Cost per Inmate for Fiscal Year 2010-2011: State Prisons..................................10
Table I.2: Daily Cost per Inmate for Fiscal Year 2010-2011: Private Contract Prisons.................10
Figure I.A.1: Total Admissions by Crime Class..............................................................................11
Figure I.A.2: Prison Admissions......................................................................................................12
Table I.A.1: Misdemeanor Prison Admissions...............................................................................12
Table I.A.2: Felony Prison Admissions...........................................................................................13
Figure I.A.3: Crime Type of 2010-2011 Prison Admissions............................................................14
Table I.A.3: Crime Type of 2010-2011 Prison Admissions by Felon/Misdemeanant Status..........14
Table I.A.4: Demographics of All Prison Admissions: Fiscal Year 2010-2011............................15
Figure I.B.1: Prison Population by Crime Class..............................................................................16
Table I.B.1: Misdemeanant Prison Population................................................................................17
Table I.B.2: Felony Prison Population.............................................................................................17
Figure I.B.2: Crime Types of Prison Population on June 30th of Each Year...................................18
Table I.B.3: Crime Type of Prison Population on June 30, 2011....................................................18
Table I.B.4: Inmate Work Assignment by Work Category.............................................................19
Table I.B.5: Inmate Program Assignments......................................................................................20
Table I.B.6: Inmate Disciplinary Infractions for 2010-2011...........................................................22
Table I.B.7: Demographics of Total Prison Population on June 30, 2011......................................23
Figure I.C.1: Prison Releases...........................................................................................................24
Figure I.C.2: Type of Releases........................................................................................................24
Table I.D.1: Prison Population Projections......................................................................................28
Table II.1: Cost of Sanctions for Fiscal Year 2010-2011................................................................30
Figure II.A.1: Probation Entries by Crime Class.............................................................................31
Figure II.A.2: Probation Entries by Crime Type.............................................................................32
Table II.A.1: Misdemeanor Sentencing Table for Probation Population on June 30, 2011............32
Table II.A.2: Felony Sentencing Table for the Probation Population on June 30, 2011.................33
Figure II.A.3: Probation Exits in the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year..........................................................34
Figure II.B.1: Post-Release Entries by Fiscal Year.........................................................................35
Table II.B.1: Felony Sentencing Table for the Post-Release Population on June 30, 2011............36
Figure II.B.2: Post-Release Exits in the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year.....................................................36
Figure II.C.1: Parole Entries by Fiscal Year....................................................................................37
Figure II.C.2: Crime Type of Parole Population on June 30, 2011.................................................38
Figure II.C.3: Parole Exits in the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year................................................................38
Table II.D.1: Demographics of All Community Corrections Supervision Admissions..................39
Table II.D.2: Demographics of All Community Corrections Supervision Population....................39
Table II.E.1: Intermediate Sanction Utilization in the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year...............................40
Table II.F.1: Victim Notification Program in the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year.......................................44
Table II.G.1: Probation/Parole Officer Supervision Projections Level 1 – 3 and half of Level 4 Offenders (Absconders Excluded*) for June 30th............................................................................45
iv
Table II.G.2: Surveillance Officer Case Supervision Projections for June 30th (Absconders, half of Level 4, and all Level 5 offenders)...............................................................................................45
Figure III.A.1: Referral Sources for DRC Admissions....................................................................47
Table III.A.1: Misdemeanor Admissions to DRC Programs for the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year..........48
Table III.A.2: Felony Admissions to DRC Programs for the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year.....................48
Table III.A.3: DRC Program Utilization Data FY 2010-2011........................................................49
Figure III.A.2: DRC Type of Exits..................................................................................................50
Table III.A.4: Demographics of DRC Admissions July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011................50
Figure III.B.1: Referral Sources for SSA Admissions.....................................................................51
Table III.B.1: Misdemeanor Admissions to SSA Programs for the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year...........52
Table III.B.2: Felony Admissions to SSA Programs for the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year......................52
Table III.B.3: SSA Program Utilization Data FY 2010-2011.........................................................53
Figure III.B2: SSA Program Type of Exits.....................................................................................54
Table III.B.4: Demographics of SSA Admissions July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011.................54
Figure III.C.1: Referral Sources for RC Admissions.......................................................................55
Table III.C.1: Misdemeanor Admissions to RC Programs for the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year.............56
Table III.C.2: Felony Admissions to RC Programs for the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year........................56
Table III.C.3: RC Program Utilization Data FY 2010-2011...........................................................57
Figure III.C2: RC Program Type of Exits.......................................................................................58
Table III.C.4: Demographics of RC Admissions July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011...................58
Table IV.A.1: 2010-2011 Enrollment for DART Cherry................................................................62
Figure IV.A.1: DART Cherry Enrollment Trends 28-day Program................................................62
Figure IV.A.2: DART Cherry Enrollment Trends 90-day Program................................................63
Table IV.A.2: Demographics of DART Cherry Enrollment............................................................63
Table IV.A.3 DART-Cherry Exits....................................................................................................64
Table IV.A.4: 2010-2011 Enrollment for Black Mountain.............................................................65
Table IV.A.5: 2010-2011 Black Mountain Exits..............................................................................65
Table IV.B.1: 2010-2011 Referrals to DACDP Programs by Prison Diagnostic Centers...............66
Table IV.C.1: 2010-2011 Enrollment in Intermediate DACDP Programs......................................68
Table IV.C.2: 2010-2011 Exits from Intermediate DACDP Programs...........................................69
Table IV.C.3: Demographics of DACDP Intermediate Treatment Enrollment...............................70
Table IV.D.1: 2010-2011 Enrollment in Long-Term Treatment Programs.....................................71
Table IV.D.2: Demographics of Long-Term Treatment Programs.................................................71
Table IV.D.3: 2010-2011 Exits from Long-Term Treatment Programs..........................................72
Table IV.D.4: 2010-2011 Enrollment in Private Treatment Facilities............................................73
Table IV.D.5: Private Alcohol/Drug Treatment Centers Enrollment..............................................73
Table IV.D.6: 2010-2011 Exits from Private Treatment.................................................................74
Table V.1: 2010-2011 Average Daily Enrolment in NCCE............................................................75
Figure VI.A.1 Prison Entries by County of Conviction: Fiscal Year 2010-2011............................77
Figure VI.A.2: DCC Entries by County of Conviction: Fiscal Year 2010-2011............................78
Figure VI.A.3: Prison Population by County of Conviction: June 30th, 2011...............................79 6
Overview of the North Carolina Department of Correction
The North Carolina Department of Correction, one of the largest agencies in State government, is responsible for the custody, supervision, and rehabilitation of adult offenders sentenced to community/intermediate punishments or prison. The Department is comprised of four operational divisions that manage offenders directly, as well as numerous administrative support sections. The major Divisions include the Division of Prisons, the Division of Community Corrections, the Division of Alcoholism and Chemical Dependency Programs and Correction Enterprises.
In 1998, the Department developed a long-range strategic plan, which is based on the following vision statement and strategic issues:
Vision Statement
We, the employees of the Department of Correction, envision an organization respected by the citizens of North Carolina for its effectiveness in responding to the problem of crime in our society and working collaboratively with others to prevent crime through community involvement. We see an organization providing public safety, opportunities for offenders to become productive citizens, and growth and development for employees. We see ourselves contributing to the creation of a society of law-abiding, responsible citizens.
Strategic Issues
• Lead proactively regarding corrections issues.
• Develop and train employees for personal and professional growth.
• Deliver effective services and programs using research and advanced technology.
• Emphasize cost efficient management of resources and accountability for high quality results.
At the end of the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year, the Department of Correction had 20,005 permanent employees, primarily working directly with offenders in the community or in prisons. The Department is funded through legislative appropriations and receipts (e.g., Correction Enterprises). The total authorized budget and actual expenditures for the Department of Correction over the past five fiscal years are shown in the table below.
Table 1: Authorized Budget and Actual Expenditures
Fiscal Year
North Carolina Department of Correction Authorized Budget
Actual Expenditures
Percent Change in Actual Expenditures over Previous Year
2010-2011
$1,365,379,681
$1,359,887,583
1.59%
2009-2010
$1,403,028,420
$1,338,634,477
-8.53%
2008-2009
$1,508,499,024
$1,463,425,417
12.11%
2007-2008
$1,311,798,560
$1,305,322,344
8.97%
2006-2007
$1,208,819,047
$1,197,827,113
6.97% 7
Office of Research and Planning
Supporting Successful Decisions
The Office of Research and Planning is part of the Secretary’s Office and provides support services within the Department of Correction. The mission of the Office of Research and Planning is to assist the department and staff to make informed decisions that will result in successful outcomes. Staff includes research and evaluation analysts, policy development analysts, correctional planners, and statisticians.
The Research section of the Office coordinates a variety of internal and external evaluation projects. Research assists staff to evaluate effectiveness, modify policies and programs, and report outcomes to policy makers. Research activities include the following:

Obtain and organize topical information on research topics.

Prepare statistical and topical reports.

Conduct evaluations.

Provide data and methodology review for evaluations.

Approve human subject research involving staff and offenders under the supervision of the Department of Correction.

Provide technical assistance for conducting evaluations.
The Planning/Policy Analysis section of the Office provides consultation and technical assistance in strategic planning and policy analysis to the sections and divisions in the Department. Planning and policy analysis activities include the following:

Develop a structure and process for planning.

Conduct trend analyses and organizational assessments.

Organize and facilitate meetings of work groups engaged in planning and policy analysis.

Research, gather and organize information for policy and programming decisions.

Consult on methods to implement and monitor plans and policies.

Analyze information on science-based program interventions and best practices.
The Decision Support section of the Office provides aggregate statistical information and software applications to assist Department managers and staff to make effective decisions. Decision Support activities include the following:

Provide answers to statistical questions about offenders.

Develop computer programs to extract aggregate offender data.

Analyze and interpret statistical information.

Develop software applications to provide information about offenders.

Provide internet-based decision support training.

Prepare population forecasts and utilize simulation models.
The Program Development section of the Office provides consultation and technical assistance to departmental managers and staff to implement new and effective programs that cross division lines. Program development activities include the following:

Identify sources of information and contacts on effective prison, probation and substance abuse programs.

Coordinate and facilitate work groups to develop program proposals.

Assimilate materials to market new program concepts with internal and external groups.

Prepare implementation plans for new probation, prison and/or substance abuse programs. 8

Develop methods for assessing the effectiveness of new programs.
The Grants Management section identifies, solicits, applies for and manages all federal grants being sought and awarded to the Department. Grants management includes ensuring compliance with all appropriate federal and state laws, regulations and guidelines. Additional grants management responsibilities include:

Seek grant funding opportunities to support departmental priorities and initiatives

Develop grant proposals and applications

Advise and assist project directors within divisions regarding project implementation and progress

Provide information, updates and reports as requested to the Secretary’s Office, NC General Assembly, legislative committees and other federal, state and local boards, commissions, task forces, etc

Respond to external requests for agency letters of support
The Office of Transition Services (OTS) was established in September 2006 to coordinate all internal activities related to transition and reentry. OTS provides assistance to internal and external stakeholders in developing policies and procedures, shaping new programs and providing training for staff in effective transition and reentry. One of the major roles of this section is to serve as a clearinghouse for resource materials related to transition and reentry. OTS staff is working with local communities to establish local reentry partnerships/networks. These networks consist of service providers at the local level to address housing, employment, treatment, transportation, child care, health care, education and training. Technical assistance and support is provided to the networks in an effort assist communities with providing services the offender population. Additional staff responsibilities include:

Managing federal and state grants awarded to the Department that support successful offender transition and reentry;

Providing staff support to workgroups and advisory boards designed to support successful offender reentry;

Maintaining a statewide database of state and local resources
OTS Accomplishments for 2010-2011

Successfully completed the Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI) grant which was operational from May 2007 through June 30, 2011. PRI was operational in three counties (Nash/Edgecombe, New Hanover and Mecklenburg) and designed to provide pre and posts release employment services to participants. The project served 283 offenders and assisted 142 with securing employment. The average wage was $8.00. The grant was funded by the US Department of Justice and the US Department of Labor.

Successfully completed the Offender Employment and Training Initiative (OETI) project which was operational from May 2009 through June 30, 2011. OETI was designed to provide employment assistance for offenders in 11 counties including Durham, Guilford, Forsyth, Buncombe, Cumberland, Rowan, Pitt, Gaston, Alamance, Mecklenburg and Wake. The project provided direct employment services to 3,929 offenders. Employment was secured for 416 offenders with an average hourly wage of $8.97. Job Developers enrolled 104 offenders into various types of short-term vocational training opportunities. The granted was funded by the N.C. Dept of Commerce, Division of Employment and Training.

Successfully completed the Certified Communications project which was operational from February 2009 through June 30, 2011. The grant provided 197 inmates at Wake Correctional 9
Center, Fountain Correctional Center and New Hanover Correctional Center an opportunity to receive short-term training and national certifications in low voltage wiring applications. Courses included Home Audio and Entertainment Systems, Integrated Voice mail and Messaging, Intro to Telecommunications, Intro to Network Cabling Copper-Based Systems, Intro to Network Cabling and Fiber Optic Based Systems. The grant was funded by the N.C. Governor’s Crime Commission.

OTS was instrumental in creating the NCDOC Transition and Reentry group in May of 2011. It consists of representation from each division and is designed to address issues within the agency and external issues that could impact offender transition and reentry. The group meets quarterly to discuss updates, transition/reentry initiatives across the state and how this state can better prepare offenders for their transition process.

OTS collaborated with the NCDMV to finalize the new policies that will specifically assist inmates and /or ex-offenders with addressing barriers related to obtaining Drivers License and State I.D. The new policy was effective September 1, 2011in all DMV offices across the state. The policy is designed to provide the DMV offices with a uniformed way of servicing the offender population throughout the state.

OTS worked with the Division of Prisons to create an Official Release Document. This document was created in response to concerns from Social Security Administration and other service providers about verification of incarceration and date and time of release.

OTS launched the new county resource database in September 2011 to provide released offenders, Probation and Parole Officers, Prison Case Managers and Social Workers and other interested parties with a searchable database of community resources in each of North Carolina’s 100 counties.

OTS worked with DMV to create The DMV FACT SHEET. It is a quick reference guide for offenders to reflect NC DMV policy and how to assist inmates of the Department of Correction in planning their reentry back into society. It addresses driver license eligibility requirements that will assure ease in obtaining a driver license clearance as well as a driver license or identification card issuance. 10
I. Division of Prisons
The Division of Prisons is responsible for the custody, supervision, and rehabilitation of inmates. As of June 30, 2011 there were 67 state prisons in North Carolina and three private non-profit contracted facilities. In order to protect the community, staff, and inmates, the Division of Prisons classifies prisons, inmates, and prison beds according to prison security designation, inmate custody classification, and bed security levels, respectively.
The Secretary of the Department of Correction assigns the security designation of the prison based on the physical design and structure of the prison, the type of cells in the prison (e.g. single cells, dormitories), and the intensity and type of staff supervision (e.g. armed, unarmed). As of June 30, 2011 there were 15 close, 23 medium, and 29 minimum security state prisons, and three minimum security contracted facilities.
The Division receives felons and misdemeanants with prison sentences ranging from a minimum of 90 days for certain misdemeanors to life imprisonment or death for crimes such as rape or murder. Prison staff classify the individual inmate’s custody by analyzing factors such as current crime, length of sentence, past criminal history, and past prison behavior record. At the end of FY 2010-2011, 46 percent of inmates in the prison population were assigned to medium custody, 36 percent to minimum and 18 percent to close custody.
The Division provides rehabilitative activities for inmates. These activities include jobs, educational programs, vocational programs, cognitive behavioral interventions, substance abuse interventions, mental health interventions, and religious services.
Costs of Incarceration for the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year
The Department calculates the average cost of incarcerating minimum, medium, and close custody inmates annually. The figures include the direct costs of inmate supervision/custody and programs/activities, and indirect administrative costs for Department support of prisons. The daily cost of incarcerating one inmate ranged from $64.36 in minimum custody to $93.57 in close custody, with an average of $76.02 in 2010-2011 compared to an average of $74.34 in FY 2009-2010. The Department also had contracts with two private non-profit minimum security substance abuse treatment facilities and one private non-profit minimum security community re-entry facility during the year.
Table I.1: Daily Cost per Inmate for Fiscal Year 2010-2011: State Prisons
Inmate Custody Level
Average Daily Population
Daily Cost Per Inmate
Minimum
13,385
$64.36
Medium
19,559
$77.30
Close
7,473
$93.57
Average
40,362
$76.02
Table I.2: Daily Cost per Inmate for Fiscal Year 2010-2011: Private Contract Prisons
Private Facility
2010-2011 Average Daily Population
Daily Cost Per Inmate
Mary Frances Center
91
$89.02
Evergreen Rehabilitation Center
94
$68.41 I.A. Prison Admissions
Prison Admission Trend
During FY 2010-2011, there were 28,975 admissions to North Carolina prisons. Figure I.A.1 shows the total number of admissions beginning in FY 2000-2001, by felony and misdemeanant status.
Figure I.A.1: Total Admissions by Crime Class 05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00000-0101-0202-0303-0404-0505-0606-0707-0808-0909-1010-11Fiscal YearEntriesTotalFelonMisdemeanant
Fiscal Year
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
Total
23,299
23,760
23,593
25,326
26,070
27,257
27,936
28,535
30,350
28,164
28,975
Admissions to prisons increased by 2.9% during FY 2010-2011, with 811 more admissions than in FY 2009-2010. This increase is not significantly different than the average 2.0% rate of increase for the last ten fiscal years. Prison admissions have increase in all but 2 (2002-2003, 2009-2010) of the last 10 fiscal years.
Type of Admissions
There are four types of admissions to prison: direct admissions, probation revocations, parole/post-release supervision revocations, and safekeepers/pre-sentence diagnostic inmates. Direct admissions result from a court-imposed active sentence to prison. Revocations are violations of the conditions of probation, parole, or post-release supervision, including committing new crimes. Safekeepers are un-sentenced defendants admitted to prison when detention in the local jail poses a danger to the inmate or when medical care is needed. Pre-sentence diagnostic admissions (PSD) are inmates who have been convicted, but the judge requests an assessment before sentencing.
More than half (54%) the prison admissions in FY 2010-2011 were probation revocations1 or parole/post-release revocations and 43% were from direct admissions. Safekeepers and pre-sentence diagnostic admissions accounted for 3% of admissions. Figure I.A.2 shows prison admissions by type.
1 Fifty-three percent of prison admissions due to revocation is not the same as the probation revocation rate. These prison admissions comprise a subset of offenders who had a probation revocation for technical violations or new crimes. It is computed as a percentage of offenders entering prison, whereas the probation revocation rate is the percentage of offenders who exited community supervision.
11
Figure I.A.2: Prison Admissions 15,11843112,3791,04702,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,00016,000DirectProbation RevocationParole/Post-Release RevocationSafekeeper/PSDAdmission TypeEntries
Admissions by Sentencing Grids
The Structured Sentencing Act became effective in 1994. This sentencing policy prescribes sentencing options for judges based on the severity of the crime and the prior record of the offender. Judges are provided with specific sentencing options for the type and length of sentence that may be imposed. DWI admissions and pre-structured sentencing inmates are sentenced under different laws. Tables I.A.1 and I.A.2 illustrate the distribution of FY 2010-2011 prison admissions for misdemeanants and felons.
Table I.A.1: Misdemeanor Prison Admissions
Prior Record Level
Crime Class
I
II
III
Non-Structured
Total (%)
A1
117
404
1,362
0
1,883
(20%)
1
433
908
3,098
0
4,439
(46%)
2
33
155
186
0
374
(4%)
3
4
4
14
0
22
(<1%)
DWI
36
1
0
2,770
2,807
(30%)
Total
623
1,472
4,660
2,770
9,525
%
(7%)
(15%)
(49%)
(29%)
Convictions for Class 1 misdemeanors represent the largest group of misdemeanor prison admissions. Offenses in Class 1 included larceny (31%), traffic violations (27%), and non-trafficking drug (20%). Convictions for Driving While Impaired (DWI) were the next largest contributors to misdemeanor admissions. These convictions were not part of Structured Sentencing but rather the Safe Roads Act of 1983. The third most numerous crime class for misdemeanor admissions to prison were Class A1. Almost all of the Class A1 offenses were assaults (88%). The remainder of the misdemeanor offenses resulting in an admission to prison included worthless checks, assaults, property, and public order offenses.
Seventy-nine percent of all felony prison admissions in FY 2010-2011 were for Class F through Class I offenses. Class H offenses represented the largest group of felons admitted to prison with
12
13
7,162 (39%) of all admissions in FY 2010-2011. The majority of Class H admissions were for breaking and entering (32%), followed by larceny (21%), and by non-trafficking drug crimes (17%). Class I offenses made up the next largest group, 67% of which were for non-trafficking drug offenses but also included breaking and entering (14%) and forgery (7%). Class G offenses included drug (non-trafficking) offenses (28%), as well as public order crimes (25%), robbery (18%), and drugs trafficking (13%). Sexual offenses (22%), public drugs trafficking (18%), order crimes (19%), and Habitual DWI (16%) were the most frequent Class F offenses.
Table I.A.2: Felony Prison Admissions
Prior Record Level
Undefined
or
Crime Class
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Non-Structured
Total (%)
A
63
7
9
3
0
1
5
88
(<1%)
B1
63
38
14
10
2
1
0
128
(<1%)
B2
85
95
46
23
5
2
0
256
(1%)
C
160
206
214
319
154
120
15
1,188
(6%)
D
340
272
146
91
22
25
5
901
(5%)
E
406
409
178
144
41
32
0
1,210
(7%)
F
511
524
316
241
89
59
5
1,745
(9%)
G
556
763
593
465
113
98
0
2,588
(14%)
H
1,211
2,292
1,492
1,269
459
431
8
7,162
(39%)
I
447
1,028
621
553
195
243
0
3,087
(17%)
Other
1
0
0
0
0
0
49
50
(<1%)
Total
3,843
5,634
3,629
3,118
1,080
1,012
87
18,403
(%)
(21%)
(31%)
(20%)
(17%)
(6%)
(5%)
(<1%)
Note: The totals from tables I.A.1 and I.A.2 do not include safekeeper and pre-sentence diagnostic admissions.
The remaining felony classes contain the most serious offenses. Class A offenses include first degree murder and carry a punishment of death or life without parole. One Class B1 offenses was for first degree murder the all other Class B1 offenses were sexual assaults. Most B2 admissions were for second degree murder (76%) followed by sexual assaults (14%) and first degree murder (9%). In Class C, 66% of admissions were habitual felon, 13% of admissions were for sexual assault, and 8% of admissions were for assault. Sixty-four percent of Class D admissions were for robbery, 13% for burglary, and 8% for manslaughter. Finally, Class E admissions were mostly for crimes against a person including assaults (46%), robbery (17%), and kidnapping and abduction (13%).
Crime Type of 2010-2011 Prison Admissions
Overall, 66% of the 2010-2011 prison admissions were for felony crime convictions. Crimes resulting in a prison sentence are grouped in one of three categories: public order, property, and crimes against a person. The most frequent crime type for prison admissions was public order. This crime type accounted for 46% of all admissions during FY 2010-2011. This crime type included drug offenses trafficking and non-trafficking (5,898), driving while impaired (3,048), traffic violations (1,681), and habitual felon (778). Among public order crime admissions, 60% were felons.
Property crimes accounted for 30% of all prison admissions. The most frequent offenses in this category were larceny (3,035) and breaking/entering (3,024). Other offenses included fraud (1,275), burglary (322), forgery (300), and auto theft (239). The majority of admissions (75%) for property crimes were felons. Figure I.A.3 shows the number of admissions by crime type for FY 2010-2011 prison admissions.
Figure I.A.3: Crime Type of 2010-2011 Prison Admissions 8,578 (30%)12,830 (46%)6,476 (24%)44 (< 1%)02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,000Crimes Against a PersonProperty CrimesPublic Order CrimesNot ReportedCrime TypeEntries
Note: This chart does not include safekeeper and pre-sentence diagnostic admissions.
There were 6,476 admissions for crimes against a person, which accounted for 24% of all prison admissions in FY 2010-2011. Forty-seven percent of these crimes were assaults (3,054). This category also included robberies (1,455), sexual offenses (894) and homicides (549). As with property and public order crimes, the majority (67%) of crimes against a person were felon admissions. Table I.A.3 shows 2010-2011 admissions by crime type and felon and misdemeanant statuses.
Table I.A.3: Crime Type of 2010-2011 Prison Admissions by Felon/Misdemeanant Status
Crime Type
Felon
Misdemeanant
Undefined
Total
(%)
Crimes Against a Person
4,315
2,161
6,476
(24%)
Property Crimes
6,409
2,169
8,578
(30%)
Public Order Crimes
7,638
5,192
12,830
(46%)
Not Reported
3
3
38
44
(<1%)
Total (%)
18,365
9,525
38
27,928
(66%)
(34%)
(<1%)
Note: This total does not include safekeeper and pre-sentence diagnostic admissions.
14
15
Table I.A.4: Demographics of All Prison Admissions: Fiscal Year 2010-2011
Female
Male
Age Category
White
Black
Other
White
Black
Other
Total
13-18
26
38
2
242
675
80
1,063
(4%)
19-21
132
103
4
902
1,866
198
3,205
(11%)
22-25
294
178
15
1,504
2,235
313
4,539
(16%)
26-30
437
224
28
1,732
2,327
362
5,110
(18%)
31-35
367
178
21
1,423
1,798
303
4,090
(14%)
36-40
320
157
14
1,220
1,465
201
3,377
(12%)
41-45
241
172
13
1,079
1,334
132
2,971
(10%)
46-50
154
123
8
855
1,161
82
2,383
(8%)
51-55
74
72
5
519
687
34
1,391
(5%)
56-60
27
18
1
182
332
18
578
(2%)
61-65
11
5
0
87
73
5
181
(<1%)
66-70
3
0
0
24
21
2
50
(<1%)
71+
5
0
0
21
10
1
37
(<1%)
Total
2,091
1,268
111
9,790
13,984
1,731
28,975
(%)
(7%)
(4%)
(<1%)
(34%)
(48%)
(6%) I. B. Prison Population
Prison Population Trend
On June 30, 2011, there were 41,030 offenders in the prison system, representing a 2.3% increase from the previous fiscal year. Figure I.B.1 shows the prison year end population from FY 2000-2001 by felon-misdemeanant status. The prison population had continued to grow over the previous ten years with a slight decrease in the 2010 end population. The ten year period shows an average growth of 2.8%. There were 200 safekeepers in the prison population on June 30, 2011.
Figure I.B.1: Prison Population by Crime Class 05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,000200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011Fiscal Year EndingPopulationTotalFelonMisdemeanant
Date
6/30/01
6/30/02
6/30/03
6/30/04
6/30/05
6/30/06
6/30/07
6/30/08
6/30/09
6/30/10
06/30/2011
Population
31,899
33,021
33,583
35,205
36,663
37,467
38,423
39,326
40,824
40,102
41,030
Prison Population by Sentencing Grids
Although 34% of prison admissions in FY 2010-2011 were misdemeanants, this group comprised only 6% of the population on June 30, 2011. This is largely due to shorter sentence lengths for misdemeanor offenses. Thirty-eight percent of misdemeanant inmates in the prison population at the end of the fiscal year were incarcerated for Class 1 offenses. Three-quarters of these convictions were for larceny (33%), traffic violations (28%) or drugs (non-trafficking) charges (17%). Most had a Prior Record Level of II or III. Thirty-eight percent of misdemeanants in the population were convicted for DWI and another 21% were incarcerated for a Class A1 offense. The majority of Class A1 convictions were for assaults (87%). Table I.B.1 shows the crime class and prior record level for misdemeanants in prison at the end of FY 2010-2011. 16
17
Table I.B.1: Misdemeanant Prison Population
Prior Record Level
Crime Class
I
II
III
Undefined or Non-Structured
Total (%)
A1
19
80
425
0
524
(21%)
1
46
98
782
0
926
(38%)
2
3
12
38
0
53
(2%)
3
1
1
2
0
4
(<1%)
DWI
6
0
0
925
931
(38%)
Other/Undefined
0
0
0
4
4
(<1%)
Total
75
191
1,247
929
2,442
(%)
(3%)
(8%)
(51%)
(38%)
The profile of the felon inmate population was very different from the profile of felon admissions to prison. Class A-E offenses represented 21% of prison admissions during 2010-2011 but accounted for 61% of the prison population on June 30, 2011. These felons with long sentences remain in the population over an extended period of time and account for the projected growth in the prison population in the next few years. For example, consider the difference in the admissions for Class A offenders and the number in the population. There were 88 Class A admissions last fiscal year and on June 30, 2011 there were 1,757 in the population. The sentence for these offenders is either life in prison or death. Table I.B.2 shows crime class and prior record level for inmates in prison at the end of the fiscal year.
Table I.B.2: Felony Prison Population
Prior Record Level
Crime Class
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Undefined or Non-Structured
Total
A
911
116
89
48
8
10
575
1,757
(5%)
B1
739
519
254
179
37
32
0
1,760
(5%)
B2
1,098
1,212
614
382
84
47
0
3,437
(9%)
C
767
1,161
1,567
2,367
942
900
743
8,447
(22%)
D
1,600
1,376
1,017
763
229
183
301
5,469
(14%)
E
675
730
383
396
121
108
4
2,417
(6%)
F
1,069
790
549
437
190
182
43
3,260
(8%)
G
866
837
743
753
238
260
3
3,700
(10%)
H
627
1,301
1,138
1,221
610
740
53
5,690
(15%)
I
154
362
247
301
122
166
3
1,355
(4%)
Other
15
2
0
0
0
2
1,077
1,096
(2%)
8,521
8,406
6,601
6,847
2,581
2,630
2,802
38,388
Total (%)
(22%)
(22%)
(17%)
(18%)
(7%)
(7%)
(7%)
Note: The totals from tables I.B.1 and I.B.2 do not include offenders committed as safekeepers.Crime Type at End of FY 2010-2011 Prison Population
Figure I.B.2 illustrates the crime types of the prison population at the end of the fiscal years for 2000 through 2011. There have been changes in the composition of the prison population during this time period, and these changes may continue over time. The proportion of public order crimes in the prison population has increased over the past eleven years, from 29% of the population in 2000 to 35% in 2011. There has been a decrease in the proportion of both crimes against a person and property offenses in the prison population. Crimes against a person comprised 52% of the population in 2000 and decreased to 49% in 2011. The proportion of property offenses in the prison population has decreased over the past eleven years, from 19% of the population in 2000 to 16% in 2011.
Figure I.B.2: Crime Types of Prison Population on June 30th of Each Year PersonPropertyPublic Order05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,000200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011Fiscal Year EndPrison Population
Note: These totals do not include offenders committed as safekeepers.
Crimes against a person comprised the largest proportion of convictions for inmates in the prison population on June 30, 2011. The most frequent of these crimes were sexual offenses (25%), followed by robbery (23%) and second degree murder (17%). Approximately 11% of the prison population on June 30, 2011 was incarcerated for first degree murder. Inmates committed for public order crimes were the second most numerous. The most frequent of these crimes included drug crimes (40%) and habitual felon convictions (36%). Nine percent of inmates in prison for public order crimes were convicted for DWI. Inmates committed for property crimes represented the smallest proportion. The most frequent crimes in this category included breaking and entering (36%) and larceny (23%). Table I.B.3 shows the crime type of inmates in prison at fiscal year end by felon and misdemeanant statuses.
Table I.B.3: Crime Type of Prison Population on June 30, 2011
Crime Type
Felon
Misdemeanant
Undefined
Total (%)
Crimes Against a Person
19,233
572
0
19,805
(49%)
Property Crimes
6,070
468
0
6,538
(16%)
Public Order Crimes
13,074
1,402
0
14,476
(35%)
Not Reported
1
0
10
11
(<1%)
Total (%)
38,378
2,442
10
40,830
(94%)
(6%)
(<1%)
18
19
Inmate Activities
The Division of Prisons coordinates a wide range of inmate work, educational, and rehabilitative programs. Inmates are required to either work full-time or participate in a full-time program. Only inmates who pose a security risk, have health problems, or are in the admissions process are exempt from the policy.
Work
In each prison facility, inmates are assigned a variety of jobs. Inmates are paid an incentive wage, which is set by statute for the majority of these duties. Currently the incentive wage ranges from $.40 to $1.00 per day depending on the work assignment. Most inmates who work (82%) do so inside prison facilities. Table I.B.4 shows the average daily assignment by each category of job.
Table I.B.4: Inmate Work Assignment by Work Category
Inmate Work Assignments
In Prison Facilities
Average Daily Assigned During 2010-2011
Unit Services
6,488
Food Service
3,582
Correction Enterprises
2,096
Prison Maintenance
2,033
Construction
531
Other Jobs
1,779
Outside Prison Facilities
Road Squads
2,112
Community Work Crews
119
State and Local Government
733
Work Release
723
Total
20,196
Unit Services - The largest assignment in prison facilities is Unit Services. Prison inmates in these jobs perform janitorial and general maintenance duties. This assignment provides a relevant job skill and is beneficial to the prison system because it reduces the cost of operating the facilities.
Food Service – Inmates work in the kitchens of all prison facilities preparing and serving food to other inmates. This assignment provides a relevant job skill and is beneficial to the prison system because it reduces the cost of operating the facilities.
Correction Enterprises - Correction Enterprises is a separate division of the Department of Correction, which administers industries at prison sites. Enterprise jobs provide opportunities to put close and medium custody inmates to work inside prisons. Inmates are employed making car license tags, street and highway signs, farming, food processing, printing, sewing, laundering, and manufacturing. These jobs teach workers job skills and a work ethic which will enable them to find employment upon release from prison. These jobs pay up to $3 per day based on skills required for the job. 20
Prison Maintenance - Prison inmates are also involved in grounds keeping, light construction, repair, and maintenance projects at prisons. These jobs include roofing, plumbing, electrical wiring, and other unit improvements.
Construction - In addition to cleaning and maintaining prisons, some inmates are assigned to new prison construction projects. Inmates are generally chosen based on pre-existing skills in the construction industry. Like the other categories of work, this experience gives inmates valuable work experience prior to release and helps to reduce the cost of new prison construction.
Road Squads - Minimum and medium custody inmates work on the state's roads, patching potholes, clearing right-of-ways and picking up litter. Medium custody inmates work under the supervision of armed correctional officers. Minimum custody inmates work under the direction of Department of Transportation employees.
Community Work Crew and State and Local Government Agencies - Minimum or medium custody inmates are assigned to Community Work Crews. One correctional officer supervises a crew of inmates who perform short-term, labor-intensive projects such as hurricane cleanup, litter cleanup, painting schools and cleaning school buses. State and local government agencies have labor contracts for inmates to work for these agencies, often involving janitorial services and grounds keeping.
Work Release - Inmates who have proven themselves trustworthy for limited release from custody are allowed to leave the prison unit for jobs. These inmates are nearing their release date and work for businesses in the community. North Carolina started the first work release program in the country in 1957. Inmates on work release receive prevailing market wages from their employers, but must pay a room-and-board fee to the prison unit. For FY 2010-2011 inmates paid the Department of Correction $3,285,549 in per diem and $1,123,820 for transportation and job-related expenses. They also paid child support and restitution totaling $1,052,598. During this period inmates paid an additional $1,094,552 for personal expenses, spousal support and other family expenses.
Programs
Inmates are recommended for participation in programs based on interests, abilities, needs and whether the time remaining on their sentence allows completion of the program. At large institutions, academic and vocational education programs are offered to inmates on a full-time basis. These programs are offered on a part-time basis at other institutions.
Table I.B.5: Inmate Program Assignments
Average Daily Assignment for 2010-2011 Fiscal Year
Full Time
Part Time
Academic Education
2,077
2,103
Vocational Education
1,676
577
Life Skills Programs
148
3,232
Academic Programs - The Division of Prisons works with the Community College System to provide a full range of academic programs in prison. Adult basic education (ABE) is the primary academic program for inmates. ABE provides to adult and youth inmates the basic knowledge and skills necessary to become literate. Educational programs also prepare inmates for meaningful and satisfying roles as working, contributing members of society. One hundred percent of prison facilities offer academic programs for inmates. In FY 2010-2011, 2,294 inmates passed the General Education Development (GED) test, 879 earned AA Degrees, 64 21
received college diplomas and 5 earned BA Degrees. Associate degree programs are offered by the Community College System, and bachelor degree programs are offered at two prison sites through Shaw University, a private university based in Raleigh, NC. In addition, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has offered correspondence courses to inmates for more than 30 years. The Department of Correction contracts with the university to provide Independent Studies courses and a limited number of university credit classroom courses
Vocational Programs - A wide variety of vocational programs such as computer literacy, food service training, electrical engineering technology, brick masonry, and job readiness are provided through local community colleges. Participation in these programs can help inmates obtain work with Correction Enterprises or a work release assignment. There were 1,276 Vocational Certificates awarded in the last fiscal year.
Life Skills Programs – Life skills programs include several types of programs such as parenting skills, and Cognitive Behavioral Intervention (CBI). CBI programs teach offenders new ways of thinking that can lead to changes in their behavior and actions, and ultimately affect their criminal conduct. CBI programs use a combination of approaches to increase an offender’s awareness of self and others. This awareness is coupled with the teaching of social skills to assist the offender with interpersonal problems. These specific types of intervention programs assist offenders in “restructuring” their thought process and teaches “cognitive skills” to assist in basic decision-making and problem-solving. These programs are lead by prison or community college staff that have been trained by the Department of Correction.
Escapes and Captures
The primary goal of the Department is to protect the community. However, some inmates escape from prison each year though most are apprehended. In 2010-2011 there were 16 escapes. Minimum custody inmates are often on work release and participate in other activities in the community. Many escapes are the result of the minimum custody inmate not returning to the prison on time from his/her job, so a capture is recorded the same day. Of the 16 inmates who escaped during the 2010-2011 fiscal year 15 were captured by July 1, 2011.
Inmate Disciplinary Infractions
Inmate conformity to prison rules is necessary for the orderly, safe, and secure operation of correctional facilities. Effective, fair, and consistent disciplinary procedures enhance the orderly operation of the facilities and reinforce appropriate behavior and responsibility. The disciplinary offenses were reclassified in November 2000 into four classes from five, and all substance possession offenses (e.g., alcohol or drugs) are now Class A. The most serious offenses remain in Class A, and Class D offenses are the least serious infractions. An inmate can be charged with an attempt to commit an offense, and that attempt is in the same class as the infraction itself.
In FY 2010-2011 there were 65,067 infractions (see Table I.B.6), which is a 3% increase over the number of infractions during the FY 2009-2010. More than 12% (8,068) were Class A infractions, of which 20% were for substance possession. The next most frequent Class A offense was Involvement with Gang or STG, with 19% in FY 2010-2011. There were 19,571 Class B infractions, including sexual act, damaging property, weapon possession, interfering with staff and lock tampering. The majority of the infractions in FY 2010-2011 were for Class C offenses, accounting for 49% (32,136) of the total infractions for the year. Out of these, 14,446 (45%) were for disobeying an order. Other Class C infractions include profane language, fighting, unauthorized leave, bartering, threatening staff, and theft of property. Possession of unauthorized items (including clothing and money), being in an unauthorized location, and gambling are some of the infractions that make up the Class D infractions. 22
Table I.B.6: Inmate Disciplinary Infractions for 2010-2011
Class
Infraction
Count
A
Substance Possession
1,607
Assault Staff (with Weapon, Throwing Liquids or Sexual Intent)
965
Refuse to Submit to a Drug/Breath Test
375
Assault Person with Weapon
923
Involvement with Gang or STG
1,521
Fight Involving Weapons
344
Other Inmate Assault
139
Attempt Class A Offense
826
Other
1,368
Class A Total
8,068
B
Sexual Act
3,230
Damage State/Another’s Property
853
Lock Tampering
1,872
Weapon Possession
968
High Risk Act
1,383
Interfere with Staff
584
Threaten to Harm/Injure Staff
1,701
Other
8,980
Class B Total
19,571
C
Disobey Order
14,446
Profane Language
7,479
Unauthorized Leave
2,064
Fighting
3,052
Create Offensive Condition
261
Barter/Trade or Loan Money
888
Misuse or Unauthorized Use of Phone/Mail
996
Theft of Property
1,269
Unauthorized Funds
344
Other
1,337
Class C Total
32,136
D
Unauthorized Items (No threat contraband)
1,967
Unauthorized Location
1,984
Gambling
314
Illegal Clothing
495
Other
532
Class D Total
5,292
Total Infractions
65,067 23
Presumptive punishments are established for each infraction such as: confinement in disciplinary segregation for up to 60 days, demotion in custody, sentence reduction credits, and suspension of privileges, including radio, organized sports, visitation, or other leisure time activities. There is also an administrative fee of ten dollars paid by inmates found guilty of committing an infraction, to offset the costs of staff time.
Table I.B.7: Demographics of Total Prison Population on June 30, 2011
Age
Female
Male
Category
White
Black
Other
White
Black
Other
Total
13-18
4
10
0
85
346
47
492
(1%)
19-21
52
59
5
564
1,779
176
2,635
(6%)
22-25
175
149
14
1,311
2,864
402
4,915
(12%)
26-30
285
172
22
1,897
3,446
692
6,514
(16%)
31-35
297
173
24
1,904
3,530
623
6,551
(16%)
36-40
259
136
16
1,753
3,001
449
5,614
(14%)
41-45
228
174
16
1,682
2,536
308
4,944
(12%)
46-50
163
108
9
1,499
2,266
179
4,224
(10%)
51-55
96
75
7
1,029
1,349
117
2,673
(7%)
56-60
35
29
2
545
697
52
1,360
(3%)
61-65
19
9
0
330
282
26
666
(2%)
66-70
11
2
1
147
102
7
270
(<1%)
71+
10
0
0
105
51
6
172
(<1%)
Total
1,634
1,096
116
12,851
22,249
3,084
41,030
(%)
(4%)
(3%)
(<1%)
(31%)
(54%)
(8%) I.C. Prison Releases
Prison Release Trend
During FY 2010-2011, there were 28,048 releases from prisons a 0.3% decrease in releases from the previous year. Figure I.C.1 shows prison release by year beginning with FY 2000-2001.
Figure I.C.1: Prison Releases 16,00018,00020,00022,00024,00026,00028,00030,000200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011Fiscal Year Ending
Fiscal Year
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
Releases
22,806
22,638
23,034
23,709
24,618
26,457
26,986
27,637
28,860
28,889
28,048
Type of Release
Releases from prison are affected by sentencing policies. Inmates are usually released from prison due to the expiration of their sentence, released on post-release (under structured sentencing) or on parole (sentences prior to Structured Sentencing). The majority (83%) of releases from prison in fiscal year 2010-2011 were due to the expiration of an inmate’s sentence. Table I.C.2 shows the exit type for inmates released from prison during Fiscal Year 2010-2011.
Figure I.C.2: Type of Releases 1,019 (4%)23,269 (83%)2,529 (9%)1,021 (4%)210 (<1%)0500010000150002000025000Expiration of SentenceParolePost-ReleaseRelease Safekeep/PSDOtherExit TypeRelease
24
25
The number of inmates on post-release supervision continues to increase steadily. In 1998-1999 there were only 235 releases on post-release, 1,051 in 2000-2001 and 2,529 in FY 2010-2011. These are releases of inmates incarcerated for Class B1 to Class E offenses under Structured Sentencing. Inmates who exit prison on post-release have a mandatory nine months of supervision upon release.
The releases due to parole have decreased steadily over the past few years, since only non-structured sentence inmates are eligible for parole. In fiscal year 1998-1999, 21% of prison exits were for parole, 13% in 2000-2001 and only 4% of prison exits for FY 2010-2011. This decrease in parole type exits is expected to continue since the proportion of the prison population sentenced prior to Structured Sentencing will continue to decrease.
Safekeeper and Pre-sentenced diagnostic (PSD) releases are un-sentenced inmates who are held temporarily in prison. Most prison exits in the category labeled “Other” were court ordered releases, but also included the death of the inmate, Interstate Compact, and execution. There was no execution in 2010-2011.
Time Served by Inmates Released in the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year
North Carolina enacted numerous sentencing laws in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s that govern when and how inmates are released from prison. In 1994, North Carolina enacted Structured Sentencing guidelines. The purpose of Structured Sentencing is to reserve prison for the most serious and chronic offender, and to incarcerate those offenders for longer periods of time. Less serious and less chronic offenders receive punishments in the community, or shorter prison sentences. Structured Sentencing abolished discretionary parole release and authorized judges to set a minimum and maximum sentence for felons and a flat sentence for misdemeanants, based on the severity of the crime of conviction and the prior record level of the offender. Felony Structured Sentencing inmates must serve the entire minimum sentence and may serve the maximum sentence, an additional 20% above the minimum sentence. For example, an inmate must serve 5 years and may serve up to 6 years unless he/she earns credits off the maximum sentence for good behavior, working and participating in programs. Therefore, all felony inmates sentenced under Structured Sentencing will serve at least 100% of their minimum sentence.
In FY 2010-2011, 16,665 Structured Sentencing felons were released from prison. Inmates can earn 2, 4, or 6 days per month off their sentence for good behavior, working, and participating in programs. These inmates served, on average, 24.34 months in prison, serving 110% of their minimum sentence. These releases reflect inmates with relatively short sentences for less serious offenses. The amount of time served increases each year as inmates who receive longer sentences under Structured Sentencing are released. This increase is expected to continue for several years.
Judges order misdemeanants to serve a specific sentence and they can earn 4 days per month off their sentence for good behavior, working, and participating in programs. For example, a misdemeanor inmate who has a sentence of 4 months must serve 3.5 months and may serve up to 4 months. During this period there were 6,341 Structured Sentencing misdemeanants released, having served an average of 3.66 months and 97% of their sentence.
Prior to Structured Sentencing, inmates were sentenced under several different sentencing laws which allowed the Parole Commission to release inmates early from prison to parole. The major determinants of when inmates were released from prison under these parole-eligibility laws depended on the good time and gain time credits the inmate earned. Prior to Structured Sentencing, as soon as the inmate entered prison, he/she was awarded good time credits which reduced the sentence by 50%, and he/she could also earn additional gain time credits off of the sentence for positive behaviors. 26
In FY 2010-2011, there were 150 non-Structured Sentencing felons released from prison for the first time. Those who were paroled and then returned to prison were excluded from these calculations. Since these inmates represented some very serious offenses, they served an average of 209 months before release. These inmates served, on average, 51% of their court-imposed sentences, due to good time, gain time and parole eligibility rules. During this period, 3,125 non-Structured Sentencing misdemeanants were released from prison; the majority was serving time for Driving While Impaired (DWI) convictions that fall under the Safe Roads Act. These inmates served, on average, 6.3 months and 48% of their court-imposed sentence due to good time, gain time and parole eligibility rules. 27
I.D. Prison Population Projections
Table I.D.1 shows 10-year prison population projections by fiscal year. The prison population projections were completed in two parts. The Sentencing Commission prepared prison population projections for all offenders sentenced on or after July 1, 2010 (new entries). The Department of Correction prepared projections for all offenders in prison as of June 30, 2011 (resident prison population). The final combined projections take into account the decline of the resident prison population (structured sentencing releases, parole releases, and “max-outs”) and the buildup of the new inmates (new sentences, probation revocations, parole revocations, and post-release supervision revocations). Added to these figures is the estimated number of safekeepers and DWI offenders held in the state prison system.
North Carolina's Justice Reinvestment Act represents the most significant change to the state's criminal sentencing laws since the Structured Sentencing Act was implemented in 1994. It is a data-driven bipartisan approach to criminal justice policy. The Justice Reinvestment Act is designed to help manage the growth of the prison population by creating better outcomes for offenders through targeted programming and treatment to reduce recidivism.
Pre-JRA (Justice Reinvestment Act) Projection: Projection for FY 2012 - FY 2021 based on the policies and practices of the criminal justice system as it existed prior to the implementation of JRA. This projection is based on empirical information from FY 2011 and accounts for the impact of changes to the felony punishment chart from the 2009 legislative session and changes to earned time credits effective June 2011. Overall, this projection assumes that the criminal justice policies and practices represented by the empirical information from the past year will continue throughout the ten-year projection period.
JRA (Justice Reinvestment Act) Projection: Projection for FY 2012 - FY 2021 based on assumptions about how the criminal justice system will operate under JRA. This projection has the following limitations: 1) No empirical data on the changes under JRA will be available until a few years after implementation as cases are processed through the court and correctional systems and result in a new empirical base; and 2) The current simulation model was designed to simulate the processes of the criminal justice system as it existed prior to the passage and implementation of JRA and, as a result, the model’s accuracy in incorporating the changes under JRA into the projection is limited. 28
Table I.D.1: Prison Population Projections
Current Projections
Fiscal Year End
Previous Projections as of June 30
Pre-JRA Projections as of June 30
JRA Projections as of June 30
Expanded Operating Prison Capacity
Standard Operating Prison Capacity
2011/12
41,987
40,392
39,142
40,170
34,355
2012/13
42,013
40,340
38,999
40,926
34,937
2013/14
42,267
40,310
39,062
40,926
34,937
2014/15
42,562
40,402
39,091
40,926
34,937
2015/16
42,898
40,432
39,047
40,926
34,937
2016/17
43,220
40,548
39,135
40,926
34,937
2017/18
43,664
40,689
39,291
40,926
34,937
2018/19
44,208
40,848
39,490
40,926
34,937
2019/20
44,840
41,050
39,699
40,926
34,937
2020/21
N/A
41,342
39,976
40,926
34,937
Prepared February 2012 by the Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission in conjunction with the Department of Correction’s Office of Research and Planning
The Pre-JRA Projection and the JRA Projection both indicate a decline in the prison population. The lower projected prison population under the Pre- JRA Projection can be attributed to changes in demographic trends (including the decrease in the rate of growth for North Carolina’s population, particularly for males ages 16-24) decreases in crime trends, and the enactment of policy changes prior to JRA. After years of growth, the prison population has leveled off and has actually declined for the first time in a decade. From FY 2000 through FY 2009, the prison population increased each year over the previous fiscal year, with an average yearly increase of 3%. From FY 2009 to FY 2011, there was a net decline (0.3%) in the prison population. At the beginning (July) of each of the past three fiscal years, the prison population has remained stable. The prison population has been declining since July 2011, primarily as a result of policy changes to earned time credits that went into effect in June 2011. It is expected to decline further as a result of the policy changes under JRA
1 Expanded Operating Capacity (EOC) is the number of inmates housed in dormitories that operate at varying percentages (not to exceed 130%) beyond their Standard Operating Capacity (SOC), plus the number of single cells with one inmate per cell, plus the number of single cells that house two inmates per cell that meet American Correctional Association (ACA) standards for space per inmate.
2 Standard Operating Capacity (SOC) is the number of single cells with one inmate per cell plus the number of inmates who can be housed in dormitories by dividing the gross square feet of each dormitory by 50 square feet and rounding to the closest double bunk configuration. 29
II. Division of Community Corrections
The Division of Community Corrections provides supervision of offenders sentenced to probation or released from the Division of Prisons on parole or post-release supervision. Probation and Parole officers supervise offenders in the community by enforcing compliance with the conditions of probation, parole or post-release supervision, and monitoring offender behavior. As of June 30, 2011 there were 108,140 offenders under the supervision of the Division of Community Corrections.
The Structured Sentencing Act (SSA), enacted in 1994, provides judicial guidelines to sentence offenders to a community punishment, intermediate punishment, or active sentence in prison. The SSA prioritizes prison resources for the most serious and chronic offenders and shifts some less serious, less chronic offenders from prison sentences to intermediate punishments in the community. Intermediate punishments are designed to be very intrusive and intense, restricting the offender’s liberty while they remain in the community; community punishments are not as restrictive. The judge determines whether to order an intermediate or a community punishment based on the seriousness of the offense and the offender’s prior criminal record. An offender placed on intermediate punishment requires at least one of the following sanctions: special probation, residential community corrections (RCC), electronic house arrest (EHA), intensive supervision (ISC), day reporting center (DRC) or drug treatment court (DTC). Examples of community punishments are traditional probation, community service, and victim restitution.
DWI, parole, non-North Carolina, non-judgment and deferred prosecution cases are not included in the intermediate and community populations, but are supervised by Probation and Parole officers according to orders of the court, Interstate Compact Agreement, and/or the Parole and Post Release Commission.
Offenders on probation, parole, or post-release are supervised based on the conditions imposed, their behavior, assessed risk of re-arrest and assessed needs. Probation and Parole Officers supervise low risk/low need cases with traditional probation strategies, primarily in an office setting. Offenders assessed at higher risk/needs levels have more rigorous contact requirements in their home and work environments following an individualized case plan. An offender who violates their conditions of supervision may subsequently receive additional sanctions from the court or Parole and Post Release Commission, or other supervision requirements mandated by the officer through delegated authority, such as requiring increased Community Service hours or drug screening. Officers are also responsible for supervising special populations such as sex offenders and domestic violence offenders.
Officers refer offenders to rehabilitative services and work with other agencies to encourage participation in programs such as substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, educational, and vocational training. Additionally, officers are responsible also for a wealth of administrative work associated with serving the courts such as presentence investigations and processing new cases.
The Division of Community Corrections also administers the Criminal Justice Partnership Program (CJPP). The CJPP is a grant program to county governments to operate community corrections programs. County advisory boards determine the type of community corrections program to operate (e.g., day reporting centers, satellite substance abuse programs or resource centers). There are 95 counties involved in the Partnership initiative this fiscal year. These programs provide varying degrees of structure and monitoring to offenders, and a range of rehabilitative services. 30
Cost of Sanctions
The Department calculates an average cost of sanctions annually. The figures include the direct costs of supervision and indirect administrative costs. The average daily cost of supervising one offender ranges from $3.57 for offender supervision to $13.28 for Electronic House Arrest/Sex offenders (GPS).
Table II.1: Cost of Sanctions for Fiscal Year 2010-2011
Division of Community Corrections Programs
Daily Cost Per Offender
Offender Supervision
$3.57
Community Work Service Program
$1.29
Drug Screening (per specimen)
$4.14 (per specimen)
Criminal Justice Partnership (Sentenced Offender Programs)
$11.62
Electronic House Arrest/ Sex Offenders (GPS)
$13.28 II.A. Probation
Probation Entry Trend
During FY 2010-2011, there were 63,880 new offender entries to probation, a 3% decrease from the past year’s entries. Figure II.A.1 shows probation entries by felon or misdemeanant status.
Figure II.A.1: Probation Entries by Crime Class 10,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00000-0101-0202-0303-0404-0505-0606-0707-0808-0909-1010-11Fiscal YearProbationersTotalFelonMisdemeanant
Fiscal Year
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
Total
62,746
62,262
61,350
62,556
63,208
66,024
68,595
67,884
65,917
63,880
The vast majority (72%) of entries to probation were misdemeanants. Felons represent 28% of the probation entries for FY 2010-2011 and the rest are of unknown type. The proportion of felons to misdemeanants has remained very consistent over the past ten years (average 27% felons to 72% misdemeanants for the past 10 years).
Crime Type of 2010-2011 Probation Entries
The crimes of offenders entering probation supervision are grouped into one of three categories: public order, property, and crimes against a person. The most frequent crime type for probation entries was public order crimes, accounting for 56% of all entries to probation during FY 2010-2011. The predominant public order crimes, contributing the majority of entries to probation this fiscal year, were drug offenses with 13,380 (38%), driving while impaired with 11,160 (31%) and other traffic violations with 7,174 (20%).
Property crimes accounted for 29% of all entries to probation. The most frequent offense in this category was larceny with 8,645 (46%) probationers, followed by breaking and entering with 3,693 (20%), fraud with 2,537 (14%), other property offenses 1,685 (9%), forgery with 759 (4%) and worthless checks with 715 (4%).
There were 9,047 entries to probation for crimes against a person, contributing 14% of all entries to probation for FY 2010-2011. The majority of these crimes were assaults with 6,845 (76%). This category also includes sexual offenses with 787 (9%) and robbery with 628 (7%).
31
Figure II.A.2: Probation Entries by Crime Type 417 (1%)9,047 (14%)35,642 (56%)18,774 (29%)0500010000150002000025000300003500040000Crimes Against a PersonProperty CrimesPublic Order CrimesOthersCrime TypeEntries
Probation Population by Sentencing Grids
The Structured Sentencing Act prescribes punishments in the community based on the seriousness of the crime and criminal history. The probation population on June 30, 2011 was 103,882. Sixty-two percent of this population was misdemeanant offenders. Table II.A.1 shows the distribution of the misdemeanant population by their primary offense sentence.
Table II.A.1: Misdemeanor Sentencing Table for Probation Population on June 30, 2011
Prior Record Level
Crime Class
I
II
III
Undefined or Non-Structured
Total (%)
A1
1,877
2,570
2,028
22
6,497
(10%)
1
10,202
11,830
8,324
67
30,423
(47%)
2
2,384
2,813
1,217
10
6,424
(10%)
3
813
760
404
3
1,980
(3%)
Non-Structured Sentencing Crimes
0
0
0
19,427
19,427
(30%)
Undefined
0
0
0
17
17
(<1%)
Total
15,276
17,973
11,973
19,546
64,768
%
(24%)
(28%)
(18%)
(30%)
Almost half (47%) of the misdemeanant probation population was convicted of Class 1 offenses. The most frequent crime categories in the Class 1 offenses were traffic violations (27%), larceny (25%), drug offenses (22%), other offense against a person (6%), breaking and entering (5%), and fraud (4%). Class 2 contributes 10% to misdemeanant probationers, with the primary offenses in this class being other public order offenses (23%), traffic violations (19%), assaults (18%), and worthless checks (17%). Class A1 offenses contribute 10% to the misdemeanant population, the majority of which were assaults (87%). The remaining class, Class 3, consists largely of non-trafficking drug offenses (47%), larceny convictions (26%), and other property offense (12%).
The second largest group of misdemeanors under supervision was probationers with non-Structured Sentencing crimes, which comprised 30% of the population at the end of the fiscal year. These offenders were sentenced for Driving While Impaired under separate legislation, the Safe Roads Act of
32
33
1983. Other non-Structured Sentencing offenders included Interstate Compact and offenders supervised under Deferred Prosecution.
Table II.A.2: Felony Sentencing Table for the Probation Population on June 30, 2011
Prior Record Level
Undefined or
Crime Class
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Non-Structured
Total (%)
E
1,115
792
40
14
1
0
23
1,985
(5%)
F
1,575
1,068
535
51
6
5
84
3,324
(9%)
G
1,417
1,711
982
496
10
2
25
4,643
(12%)
H
6,277
5,057
2,139
1,172
278
21
326
15,270
(39%)
I
3,878
3,765
1,642
769
142
147
322
10,665
(28%)
Non-Structured Sentencing Crimes
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,450
2,450
(6%)
Undefined
144
73
17
12
0
0
208
454
(1%)
14,406
12,466
5,355
2,514
437
175
3,438
38,791
Total %
(37%)
(32%)
(14%)
(6%)
(1%)
(<1%)
(9%)
Note: The Undefined category contains offenders that had missing crime information.
The felony sentencing table above describes felons in the probation population at the end of FY 2010-2011. The felony crime class with the largest number in the probation population is Class H, representing 39% of all felons on probation. The offenses in this crime class included breaking and entering (23%), drug charges (22%), fraud (21%), and larceny (21%). Class I offenses represented 28% of probationers with felony convictions, largely non-trafficking drug offenses (70%) and breaking and entering (9%). Classes E, F and G represented the smallest proportion of felons with a structured sentence on probation on June 30, 2011. Though the majority of these crimes were drug offenses (26%), these classes also included more serious crimes such as assault (13%), sexual offenses (13%), and robbery (12%).
Type of Probation Exits
Of the 66,434 probation exits in fiscal year 2010-2011, 15% were completions. In order to exit probation supervision as a completion the offender must serve the entire term sentenced by the court and meet all conditions of probation.
Revocations represent 36% of all exits from probation (probation revocation rate). An offender is revoked due to non-compliance with the conditions of probation which includes committing a new crime. Probation may also be revoked for technical violations of probation such as positive drug tests, non-reporting, and failing to attend treatment among others. The exits classified as Elect to Serve (2%) are often combined with the revocations for an overall revocation rate, because the offender will elect to serve his or her suspended sentence rather than comply with additional sanctions imposed as a result of the violation process. Both exits result in incarceration in state prisons or county jails. Early terminations, which accounted for 33% of exits, may be a successful or unsuccessful end of probation supervision. The court may satisfactorily terminate probation for several reasons. These may be cases in which all conditions of probation were met early and the supervision ended. Other possibilities for exits in the early termination category are considered unsuccessful. Examples are, probation cases in which the offender absconded and is not apprehended within three years of the order for arrest date (case is moved to unsupervised probation with District Attorney approval) or probation ended due to incarceration on an unrelated conviction.
Figure II.A.3: Probation Exits in the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year 9,488 (14%)1,400 (2%)22,108 (33%)23,559 (36%)9,879 (15%)0500010000150002000025000CompletionRevocationEarly TerminationElect to ServeOther Exits
Finally, the “Other Exits” category includes exits due to the offender’s death, the closure of a case sentenced in another state but supervised in North Carolina through an Interstate Compact Agreement, or other termination not further described.
34
II.B. Post-Release Supervision
Post-Release Entry Trend
During the FY 2010-2011, there were 2,430 entries to post-release supervision. The number of post-release supervision entries has increased steadily since FY 1996-1997 due to the Structured Sentencing Act. Figure II.B.1 illustrates this increase.
Figure II.B.1: Post-Release Entries by Fiscal Year 05001,0001,5002,0002,5003,00000-0101-0202-0303-0404-0505-0606-0707-0808-0909-1010-11Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
Total
1,041
1,151
1,403
1,428
1,688
1,764
2,027
2,124
2,246
2,240
2,430
Post-release supervision provides oversight during the period of re-entry in the community for serious offenders who have been sentenced and served prison terms. This form of supervision was incorporated into the Structured Sentencing Act for offenders who serve long prison sentences and need control and assistance readjusting to life outside of the correctional institution. All offenders serving a prison sentence for a Class B1 through E felony conviction are supervised for nine months to five years, depending on the offense, after completion of their required prison term.
Post-Release Population by Structured Sentencing Grids
The Sentencing Grid in Table II.B.1 reflects the population on post-release supervision at the end of FY 2010-2011. The number of offenders in the grid is relatively small due to the long prison sentences for the offenses in these sentencing grid cells. This is the ninth year offenders convicted of Class B2 offenses have entered post-release, and only the seventh year that Class B1 offenders have been released on post-release because of the long active sentences for those crimes. As a result, the distribution of the offenders on post-release supervision will not adequately reflect the prison population convicted of these crimes for many years.
There were 2,358 inmates on post-release at the end of this fiscal year. This figure reflects a 3.82% increase over the population of 2,268 at the end of the previous fiscal year. More offenders on post-release supervision on June 30, 2011 were convicted of Class C offenses than any other offenses. Within Class C the majority of the offenders were habitual felons (53%), followed by sexual assaults (33%) and assaults (6%). All inmates released to post-release supervision for conviction of sexual offenses are supervised for five years. The majority of Class E convictions were assaults (44%). Other crime categories for Class E offenses on post-release supervision were robbery (17%), kidnapping and abduction (17%), and sexual assault (8%). Among inmates supervised for Class D offenses, 59% had 35
robbery convictions. The other predominant crime categories in Class D were sexual assault (13%), burglary (12%) and manslaughter (11%). As a group, offenders on post-release on June 30, 2011 had most recently been incarcerated for sex offenses (21%), robbery (21%), assault (17%), and as habitual felons (19%).
Table II.B.1: Felony Sentencing Table for the Post-Release Population on June 30, 2011
Prior Record Level
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Undefined
or Non-Structured
Total (%)
Crime Class
B1
11
2
0
0
0
0
0
13
(<1%)
B2
72
24
22
4
0
0
0
122
(5%)
C
185
178
170
202
49
48
2
834
(35%)
D
218
199
111
55
12
6
0
601
(25%)
E
261
268
116
80
18
16
0
759
(32%)
Undefined
9
7
4
1
0
0
8
29
(1%)
756
678
423
342
79
70
10
2,358
Total %
(32%)
(29%)
(18%)
(15%)
(3%)
(3%)
(<1%)
Type of Post-Release Exits
The majority (75%) of exits from post-release supervision were completions. When the offender completes this period of supervision, the sentence for which the offender was placed on supervision is terminated. An offender on post-release supervision may be revoked for a technical violation such as positive drug tests, non-reporting, failing to attend treatment, or for additional criminal convictions. There were 490 revocations. Fifteen offenders died and supervision was otherwise terminated for 87 offenders.
Figure II.B.2: Post-Release Exits in the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year 102 (4%)490 (21%)1,735 (75%)03006009001,2001,5001,8002,100CompletionRevocationOther Exits
36
II.C. Parole
Parole Entry Trend
During FY 2010-2011, there were 1,520 entries to parole supervision. Overall, there has been a steady decline in parole entries over the past nine years with 2009-2010 being an exception. This year there was a 9.8% decrease over last year. Figure II.C.1 illustrates this trend.
Figure II.C.1: Parole Entries by Fiscal Year. 1,0002,0003,0004,00000-0101-0202-0303-0404-0505-0606-0707-0808-0909-1010-11Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
Total
3,187
2,435
2,097
1,841
1,831
1,870
1,767
1,690
1,584
1,669
1,520
The decline in entries to parole was due to the adoption of Structured Sentencing. The Structured Sentencing Act eliminated parole for offenders sentenced under those laws. The inmates who are eligible for parole were sentenced for convictions under other sentencing laws. Non-Structured Sentencing inmates comprised less than 10% of the prison population on June 30, 2011. Forty percent of the entries to parole this fiscal year were sentenced under DWI laws.
Crime Type of Parole Population
There were 1,900 offenders on parole supervision on June 30, 2011. Figure II.C.2 shows the crime types of the parole population. The majority of this population was convicted of crimes against a person (52%). The majority of which were homicides (505), out of which 153 were first degree murder, 320 second degree murder and 32 manslaughter. This was followed by robbery (212), assault (117) and sex offenses (114). Public order crimes that this population was convicted of included drug offenses (260) and driving while impaired (176). The most frequent property crimes were burglary (131), larceny (63), and forgery (30).
37
Figure II.C.2: Crime Type of Parole Population on June 30, 2011 69 (4%)546 (29%)288 (15%)997 (52%)02004006008001,0001,200Crimes Against a PersonProperty CrimesPublic Order CrimesOther
Type of Parole Exits
The majority (58%) of exits from parole supervision were completions. There were 74 (4%) exits from parole supervision due to revocation. An offender on parole supervision may be revoked for the same reasons as probation and post-release cases. The “Other” category includes cases in which there was a closure of a case supervised in North Carolina but sentenced in another state, a successful or unsuccessful termination, or the offender died.
Figure II.C.3: Parole Exits in the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year 623 (38%)74 (4%)943 (58%)02004006008001,000CompletionRevocationOther Exits
38
39
II.D. Community Corrections Demographics
Table II.D.1: Demographics of All Community Corrections Supervision Admissions
Female
Male
Age Category
White
Black
Other
White
Black
Other
Total
13-18
444
465
60
1,682
2,286
383
5,320
(8%)
19-21
904
984
100
2,846
3,244
506
8,584
(13%)
22-25
1,405
1,183
128
3,446
3,715
632
10,509
(15%)
26-30
1,588
1,128
150
3,598
3,614
689
10,767
(16%)
31-35
1,299
842
143
2,796
2,930
608
8,618
(13%)
36-40
1,134
713
117
2,378
2,287
418
7,047
(10%)
41-45
939
597
70
2,036
2,116
268
6,026
(9%)
46-50
774
465
33
1,792
1,810
183
5,057
(7%)
51-55
374
246
12
1,176
1,267
113
3,188
(5%)
56-60
178
111
7
585
648
35
1,564
(2%)
61-65
69
49
1
297
276
21
713
(1%)
66-70
31
10
2
134
119
4
300
(<1%)
71+
13
9
1
69
43
2
137
(<1%)
Total
9,152
6,802
824
22,835
24,355
3,862
67,830
(%)
(13%)
(10%)
(1%)
(34%)
(36%)
(6%)
Table II.D.2: Demographics of All Community Corrections Supervision Population
Female
Male
Age Category
White
Black
Other
White
Black
Other
Total
13-18
288
313
57
1,193
1,673
292
3,816
(4%)
19-21
992
1,127
106
3,469
4,149
721
10,564
(10%)
22-25
1,946
1,809
192
5,274
5,929
1,099
16,249
(15%)
26-30
2,573
1,950
256
6,135
6,329
1,521
18,764
(17%)
31-35
2,223
1,661
193
4,841
5,370
1,265
15,553
(14%)
36-40
1,965
1,295
173
4,220
4,005
899
12,557
(12%)
41-45
1,695
1,107
97
3,728
3,574
579
10,780
(10%)
46-50
1,406
869
73
3,272
3,032
344
8,996
(8%)
51-55
764
455
26
2,161
2,100
194
5,700
(5%)
56-60
333
232
10
1,097
1,170
82
2,924
(3%)
61-65
138
89
5
568
542
41
1,383
(1%)
66-70
54
28
3
254
194
8
541
(<1%)
71+
22
12
1
168
105
5
313
(<1%)
Total
14,399
10,947
1,192
36,380
38,172
7,050
108,140
(%)
(13%)
(10%)
(1%)
(34%)
(35%)
(7%) 40
II.E. Intermediate Sanctions for Supervised Offenders
Intermediate sanctions are those which are more severe and restrictive than traditional probation but less severe and restrictive than prison. Intermediate sanctions are also more costly than traditional probation but less costly than incarceration in prison. They provide graduated punishment or control in the community by increasing or decreasing supervision based on the offender’s behavior. Confinement in prison or jail always remains an option for noncompliance with the court or Parole/PRS Commission’s conditions. The six intermediate sanctions in North Carolina are listed in the table below.
Table II.E.1: Intermediate Sanction Utilization in the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year
Began in
Population
Sanction
Fiscal Year 2010-2011
as of June 30, 2011
Intensive Supervision
10,484
5,696
Electronic House Arrest/EM
1,513
605
Day Reporting Centers
1,288
755
Continuous or Non-continuous Split Sentence/ Special Probation
6,348
2,300
Residential Community Correction Facility
1,434
558
Drug Treatment Court
613
578
Intensive Supervision: The Division continued operation of the Intensive Sanction during the fiscal year. Probation and Parole officers work with Surveillance Officers to supervise cases which require intensive supervision. The Surveillance provides assistance in several areas, one of which is to help with intensive supervision by making curfew checks.
Electronic House Arrest (EHA): The Division continued its operation of the EHA Sanction during the fiscal year, combining officer contact with radio/computer technology to monitor the offender. The computer, radio, and communication technologies provide assistance with control elements of supervision while Division Intermediate officers focus on supervision and treatment components. In this most restrictive community sanction, offenders are allowed to leave their residence only for treatment, employment, or educational purposes.
Day Reporting Centers: Criminal Justice Partnership funded centers continued operations across the state, focusing on program/service delivery to offenders. Offenders assigned to this sanction report to the center on a structured and frequent basis, receiving such services as substance abuse treatment, vocational training, GED, and cognitive behavioral interventions. County government or non-profit agency employees operate the centers, with the Division’s Intermediate Officers supervising the offenders and serving as case managers while maintaining a presence within the facilities.
Continuous or Non-Continuous Split Sentence/Special Probation: A split sentence is imposed by the court and includes a period of incarceration, up to 6 months, which the offender must serve. The offender may have a sentence which allows him to serve only on weekends. In a continuous sentence, the offender serves time with no break (e.g., serves 6 months continuously instead of having sentence broken into weeks and weekends).
Residential Treatment: Residential treatment facilities, operated outside the scope of the Division, exist to address specific treatment or behavior needs. Offenders ordered to participate in this sanction must spend a specific period of time living within the facility, usually from a 30-day period to as much 41
as a two-year period. Most residential programs are operated by the non-profit sector, although the Department of Correction does operate two residential treatment programs, DART Cherry therapeutic community and Black Mountain Substance Abuse Treatment Center for Women.
Drug Treatment Court: Drug Treatment Court uses a team approach that includes representatives from several local District stakeholders. After determining the needs of the Drug Treatment Court participant, a common case plan is developed with each member of the team having a specific role. The participant is placed under the supervision of a Drug Treatment Court Probation Officer. The probation officer provides community corrections case management. 42
II.F. Supervised Offender Programs & Special Initiatives
The Division of Community Corrections offers a number of programs for offenders to participate in during their period of supervision. These programs assist in supervision and provide a specialized intervention to offenders.
Community Service Work Program:
The Community Service Work Program provides oversight of offenders ordered to perform community service hours for criminal offenses, including DWI offenses. Offenders are assigned to perform service to local communities in an effort to promote rehabilitation and restore or improve the community. Over 3,300 agencies utilize community service offenders. The coordinators' role has expanded to include court processing throughout the state. The 223 Community Service Coordinators enrolled 63,598 offenders in the Community Service Work Program. Offenders completed 1,904,532 hours. The types of work performed were general labor, skilled labor, professional labor, and litter pick-up. The total dollar value of the hours performed based on the type of labor was $13,987,350. Community service fees were collected in the amount of $8,324,980.30
Electronic Monitoring/ GPS:
Session Law 2006-247 (H1896) required the Department of Correction to establish a sex offender monitoring program using a continuous satellite based monitoring system to monitor sex offenders in the community starting January 1, 2007. Offenders subject to monitoring include those under probation, parole, or post-release supervision, as well as certain offenders who have completed their periods of supervision or incarceration and no longer have supervision requirements, but who are subject to lifetime tracking pursuant to statute. G.S. 14-208.40(a) establishes two categories of offenders who are subject to GPS monitoring: (1) any offender classified as a sexually violent predator, is a recidivist, or was convicted of an aggravated offense (Mandatory GPS); and (2) any offender who has committed an offense involving the physical, mental, or sexual abuse of a minor and requires the highest possible level of supervision and monitoring based on the results of a risk assessment known as the STATIC-99 (Conditional GPS). Both categories require that the offender be convicted of a reportable conviction and is required to register as a sex offender. Offenders in the mandatory category also fall into the lifetime tracking category, and will remain under GPS once any supervision or incarceration period ends.
Domestic Violence Offender Control:
The Division of Community Corrections recognizes that domestic violence offenders are a special population that requires unique case management expectations and a higher level of control and treatment during supervision.
The goals of the program are to:
 Provide close supervision and control of domestic violence offenders

Enhance the safety of domestic violence victims

Ensure that the batterer completes treatment

Coordinate the efforts of the courts, law enforcement, treatment providers and victim advocates
At the close of FY 2010-2011, approximately 2,500 offenders were being supervised through the Domestic Violence Program. Domestic Violence case management combines effective use of supervision tools designed to assist the victim and control the offender along with treatment resources to break the cycle of violence 43
The Division of Community Corrections mandates three-hour Domestic Violence training for all field staff. From July-September, 2008 all current staff were trained and all new field employees are now required to complete the training within the first forty five days of hire. The training is contained on a CD so that staff can view the training at their work stations rather than traveling to a traditional training site. Each District has a copy of the training and is able to provide our community partners and Criminal Justice Partnership Program staff with the training. The training is comprehensive and covers the topics which are relevant to community supervision of Domestic Violence offenders.
The Division of Community Corrections continued to maintain partnerships with Batterer’s Intervention Programs, Victim Agencies, and Treatment Accountability for Safe Communities by maintaining Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) which outlines local processes, protocol and roles of each party. DCC will continue to develop partnerships at the state level with local and state agencies, coalitions, and victim service providers to bring a voice from across the spectrum to work together to provide best practices in shaping the Domestic Violence Program.
DCC will continue to look at additional resources that will follow evidence based practices in effectively supervising this highly volatile population while providing the officer with the necessary tools to maintain offender accountability and to protect the victim.
Transition Services:
The Division of Community Corrections works in collaboration with other divisions in the Department of Correction to provide support to offenders as they transition from prison to community supervision and after the period of supervision ends. DCC is very instrumental in the planning, developing and implementing strategies that will have a positive impact on individuals who are seeking to be reunited with their family and community.
The DCC program staff spends a significant amount time assisting offenders that are transitioning back to the community each year. Each year many offenders are being released without any place to go. The staff work in collaboration with prison case managers and the probation field staff to locate stable residences for returning offenders, and encourage field staff to establish relationships within their communities so that once an offender is released they will be able to have some services. In times such as these it has become increasingly difficult to find homes for the homeless and especially the homeless sex offender population.
Limited English Proficient (LEP) Offender Program:
Because North Carolina has such a diverse population, the Division of Community Corrections population consists of offenders from many different cultures and ethnic groups. Many of these offenders are not fluent in English and it has been a challenge to effectively communicate with and assist this portion of the population. Because Hispanics make up the largest portion of the Limited English Proficient population, DCC has had many of the forms as well as the Risk Needs Assessment Offender Self Report translated into Spanish. Although, there are still barriers for those offenders who do not read Spanish, DCC has been able to utilize a telephone translation service to assist the staff with offenders who speak languages other than English. The telephone translation service was utilized 632 times during Fiscal Year 2010-2011. 44
The program has and will continue to:
 Look at ways to increase the number of bilingual staff throughout the Division.

Provide the Spanish version of the brochure “Completing Probation Successfully” to offenders, community partners, families and the public.

Contract with a telephone translating service so that officers can utilize their translation service during office visits.

Identify additional forms that need to be translated.

Enhance the web page for the LEP Program so that staff can have access to tools to assist them with this population.
Victim Notification Program:
The Division of Community Corrections established an Automated Victim Notification Program to meet the division’s responsibilities in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, General Statute 15A-837. Legislation mandated the Division of Community Corrections to notify victims of specific crimes committed on or after July 1, 1999. The division has carried the notification process a step further than mandated in that we give every victim the opportunity to be notified and we will register victims only upon their request.
The notification process was established as a centralized victim notification program to ensure the accuracy of the automated notification letters that generate by updates made to offender records in the OPUS (Offender Population Unified System) computer system. There are 26 different letters that cover the above mandated notifications. Each day the system generates approximately 150 notices explaining conditions of the offenders’ supervision or movements into or out of an intermediate sanction, violations, hearings, absconding, capture, restitution modifications, terminations, discharges, or death. The program is staffed by 3 personnel in the Administrative Program section in the DCC Administrative office, 1 statewide advocate notification coordinator and 2 information processing assistants. There are 4 Division Advocate Notification Coordinators, 1 assigned to each Division, working home as duty station.
Table II.F.1 shows the “snap-shot” numbers of victims that have registered for services and the offenders tied to those victims as of the end of the fiscal year. Also shown are the numbers of notification letters sent during the fiscal year.
Table II.F.1: Victim Notification Program in the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year
Division
Offenders
Victims
Notification Letters
First
615
903
6,261
Second
1,337
1,723
11,300
Third
888
1,306
6,335
Fourth
510
789
5,221
Administrative
170
273
755
Total
3,520
4,994
29,872 45
II.G. Supervised Population Projections
Each year the Office of Research and Planning projects the total number of offenders who will be under probation, post-release and parole supervision at the end of the fiscal year. The statistical model projects the supervision population based on aggregate data trends. The primary factors that influence the population projections are the projected number of entries to supervision and the estimated average length of stay for various supervision levels. The population projection integrates Structured Sentencing probation entry projections for the next five years provided by the North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission. Length of stay and entries to probation for Driving While Impaired, post-release supervision and parole are derived by Research and Planning staff based on historical trends. Beginning in FY 2011-2012, Probation and Parole officers will supervise offenders in Levels 1-3, as well as respond to lower level offenders’ non-compliance. Surveillance officers will be responsible for monitoring compliance to the Offender Accountability Reporting (OAR) program of offenders in Levels 4 and 5, and their caseload goal is expanded to 120 with a combination of OAR offenders and absconders.
The analysis shows that Probation and Parole officer resources remain below the level required to meet the supervision caseload goal of 60. Surveillance officer resources are also below the level required to meet a caseload goal of 120 absconders. The tables below show the projections for the end of year population, and the current position resources versus projected staffing needs for active cases and cases in absconder status.
Table II.G.1: Probation/Parole Officer Supervision Projections Level 1 – 3 and half of Level 4 Offenders (Absconders Excluded*) for June 30th
Fiscal Year
Projected End Of Year Supervision
Population On
June 30
Required
Officer
Resources
Current Officer Resources
Additional Resources Needed
FY 11-12
89,263
1,488
1,469
19
FY 12-13
93,662
1,561
1,469
92
FY 13-14
99,285
1,655
1,469
186
FY 14-15
103,394
1,723
1,469
254
FY 15-16
105,672
1,761
1,469
292
Table II.G.2: Surveillance Officer Case Supervision Projections for June 30th (Absconders, half of Level 4, and all Level 5 offenders)
Fiscal Year
Projected End Of Year Supervision
Population On
June 30
Required
Officer
Resources
Current Officer Resources
Additional Resources Needed
FY 11-12
33,721
281
248
33
FY 12-13
34,925
291
248
43
FY 13-14
36,550
305
248
57
FY 14-15
37,744
315
248
67
FY 15-16
38,445
320
248
72
*An absconder is an offender on probation who is actively avoiding supervision by making his/her whereabouts unknown to the supervising officer. The Division of Community Corrections currently assigns the responsibility for capturing absconders to surveillance officers. Once the absconder is captured, he/she returns to active supervision by the Probation and Parole officer. 46
III. Criminal Justice Partnership Program
The Criminal Justice Partnership Act of 1994 expands sentencing options by adding community-based sanctions for offenders receiving non-prison sentences. The Act created the Criminal Justice Partnership Program (CJPP), which provides state funds to help counties create sentenced offender and pretrial release programs. A local advisory board is responsible for developing, implementing, operating, monitoring, and evaluating a local community corrections plan.
The goals of the CJPP are to reduce recidivism, reduce the number of probation revocations, reduce alcoholism and other drug dependencies among offenders, and to reduce the cost of incarceration. The populations eligible for Criminal Justice Partnership Program services are: intermediate punishment offenders (misdemeanor or felony, and especially probation violators) and offenders serving terms of parole/post-release supervision.
The types of programs eligible for CJPP grants include: Day Reporting Centers, Substance Abuse Services, and Resource Centers, targeting intermediate punishment offenders. As of June 30, 2011, 95 of the 100 counties in North Carolina are participating in the Partnership operating 83 programs. These programs include 18 Day Reporting Centers, 42 Satellite Substance Abuse programs, and 23 Resource Centers.
Although, the counties have wide latitude on program design, all of the sentenced offender programs provide some combination of substance abuse treatment, education and employment services. Day Reporting Centers combine sanctions and services. Offenders must report as required and participate in assigned services. Satellite substance abuse centers provide a range of treatment services, on-site and off-site. Resource Centers coordinate a variety of program interventions, some on-site and others off-site.
The CJPP average cost per offender per day for the 2010-2011 fiscal year for the Sentenced Offender was $19.70 for Day Reporting Centers, $10.79 for Satellite Substance Abuse Centers and $10.29 for Resource Centers. Cost is calculated by dividing total grant expenditures and DOC associated costs by the average offender daily population. These reported costs do not take into consideration expenditures funded by the county or any other outside sources.
CJPP local programs store data in and report data from a computer system called the CJPP Information Management System (IMS). The data was extracted from the IMS system as of November 5, 2011. Data for participants in the Sentenced Offender programs was also obtained from the Department of Correction's Offender Population Unified System (OPUS) as of November 5 – December 24, 2011. III.A. Day Reporting Centers
Day Reporting Centers (DRC) are facilities that serve as an intermediate punishment. Offenders are required to report and comply with a structured schedule that includes activities such as obtain/maintain employment, individual counseling, treatment, cognitive behavioral interventions, life skills training, educational or vocational classes, employment training, and/or community work projects.
Type of Admissions
Offenders eligible to attend a DRC include those sentenced by the court to an intermediate punishment, those required to attend by the Post-Release Supervision and Parole Commission as a condition of a term of parole, post-release supervision, or probationers required to attend by the court as a result of a probation violation.
During the 2010-2011 fiscal year, there were 1,617 admissions to DRC programs. Of the offenders admitted to local DRC programs during the fiscal year, the state courts referred 892 (55%), 679 (42%) were from a probation violation court order, and 46 (3%) admissions were referred by the Parole Commission.
Figure III.A.1: Referral Sources for DRC Admissions 679 (42%)892 (55%)46 (3%)05001,0001,500State CourtsProbation ViolationParole CommissionReferral SourceAdmissions
Admissions by Sentencing Grid
Of the offenders admitted to the Day Reporting Centers, 40% were misdemeanants. More than half (64%) of all misdemeanants were convicted of Class 1 crimes. Crimes in Class 1 included non-trafficking drug offenses, larceny, assault, other traffic violations and breaking and entering. The next two largest misdemeanant crime class contributors to CJPP admissions were Class 2 and Class A1. The majority of offenders convicted of crimes in Class 2 were convicted of public order and assault, and the large majority of those in Class A1 were convicted of assault.
47
48
Table III.A.1: Misdemeanor Admissions to DRC Programs for the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year
Prior Record Level
Undefined
Crime Class
I
II
III
or Non-Structured
Total (%)
A1
13
36
27
1
77
(12%)
1
127
182
103
2
414
(64%)
2
25
40
15
0
80
(12%)
3
10
23
14
0
47
(7%)
Other/Undefined
25
4
1
0
30
(5%)
Total
200
285
160
3
648
(%)
(31%)
(44%)
(25%)
(<1%)
The majority (60%) of Day Reporting Center admissions for the 2010-2011 fiscal year were felony offenders. Seventy percent of the felony offenders admitted were convicted for Class H or I offenses. The most frequent Class G, H, and I offenses were non-trafficking drug offenses, larceny, and breaking and entering. Class I offenses also included forgery and fraud, and Class G offenses also included robbery and other public order crimes.
Table III.A.2: Felony Admissions to DRC Programs for the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year
Prior Record Level
Crime Class
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Total (%)
E
35
23
3
4
0
0
65
(7%)
F
19
18
4
1
0
0
42
(4%)
G
49
51
16
12
0
0
128
(13%)
H
170
163
68
20
10
1
432
(45%)
I
63
96
48
28
5
7
247
(25%)
Other
27
16
4
5
1
2
55
(6%)
363
367
143
70
16
10
969
Total (%)
(37%)
(38%)
(15%)
(7%)
(2%)
1%
DRC Program Utilization
There were 2,259 offenders that utilized DRC services during fiscal year 2010-2011, which represents 92% of the yearly service goal. Table III.A.3 shows utilization figures and service goals for each DRC program. 49
Table III.A.3: DRC Program Utilization Data FY 2010-2011
Location
Population on July 1, 2010
Entries
Exits
Offender Utilization
Yearly Offender Service Goal
Percent of Offender Goal Utilized
Cost Per Day Per Offender
BERTIE
41
34
41
75
118
64%
$13.60
BUNCOMBE
24
108
65
132
59
224%
$16.49
CUMBERLAND
18
53
43
71
122
58%
$28.63
DURHAM
47
70
65
117
157
75%
$23.71
FORSYTH
80
212
224
292
299
98%
$15.35
GASTON
12
103
90
115
179
64%
$25.26
GUILFORD
34
96
99
130
152
86%
$29.90
HALIFAX
22
83
75
105
104
101%
$18.89
HERTFORD
24
33
47
57
69
83%
$20.94
LENOIR
36
24
37
60
69
87%
$16.13
MECKLENBURG
79
125
114
204
199
103%
$17.12
MOORE
30
108
102
138
184
75%
$13.30
NEW HANOVER
44
92
94
136
129
105%
$13.78
NORTHAMPTON
19
35
39
54
70
77%
$19.71
ONSLOW
31
49
60
80
88
91%
$22.49
RANDOLPH
40
217
196
257
159
162%
$8.50
WAKE
37
128
131
165
214
77%
$56.42
WAYNE
24
47
47
71
93
76%
$18.38
TOTAL
642
1,617
1,569
2,259
2,464
92%
$19.70
Type of Exits
There were 1,569 exits from DRC programs during FY 2010-2011. Seven hundred forty-eight (48%) were exited by successful completion, and a large majority of those went on to either complete their period of supervision or are still being actively supervised. The second most frequent type of exit from DRC programs is a probation technical violation 573 (36%). This occurs when an offender commits a technical violation of a specific condition, such as failing a drug test. The “Other” category includes 74 (5%) offenders who transferred from the program, never reported to the program, were inappropriate for the program, or were released for medical reasons. Figure III.A.2: DRC Type of Exits 74 (5%)573 (36%)174 (11%)748 (48%)0200400600800Successful CompletionUnsuccessful RemovalProb Tech ViolationsOtherExit TypeExits
Table III.A.4: Demographics of DRC Admissions July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011
Female
Male
Age Category
White
Black
Other
White
Black
Other
Total
13-18
10
13
1
41
123
12
200
(12%)
19-21
26
24
1
80
220
20
371
(23%)
22-25
24
32
0
73
178
7
314
(19%)
26-30
16
23
0
61
127
3
230
(14%)
31-35
33
15
1
42
70
2
163
(10%)
36-40
18
12
0
36
46
1
113
(7%)
41-45
12
7
0
21
33
1
74
(5%)
46-50
12
6
1
22
36
0
77
(5%)
51-55
3
3
0
8
23
2
39
(2%)
56-60
1
1
0
9
14
0
25
(2%)
61-65
0
1
0
0
6
0
7
(<1%)
66-70
1
0
0
1
1
0
3
(<1%)
70+
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
(<1%)
TOTAL
157
137
4
394
877
48
1,617
(%)
(8%)
(<1%)
(24%)
(54%)
(3%)
(10%)
50
III.B. Satellite Substance Abuse Programs
CJPP substance abuse treatment programs provide substance abuse services that may include education, out-patient counseling, aftercare, residential, and in-patient services to offenders.
Type of Admissions
Offenders eligible to attend a SSA include those sentenced by the court to an intermediate punishment (e.g., intensive supervision program, house arrest with electronic monitoring, residential program, Drug Court or special probation), those required to attend by the Post-Release Supervision and Parole Commission as a condition of a term of parole or post-release supervision or probationers required to attend by the court as a result of a probation violation. Probation and Parole officers may also use delegated authority to refer an offender to a SSA in response to a violation.
During FY 2010-2011, there were 2,118 admissions to SSA programs. Of the offenders admitted to local SSA programs during the fiscal year, the state courts referred 376 (18%), 1,721 (81%) of admissions were referred by probation officers, or were from a probation violation court order, and 21 (1%) admissions were referred by the Parole Commission.
Figure III.B.1: Referral Sources for SSA Admissions 21 (1%)376 (18%)1,721 (81%)05001,0001,5002,000State CourtsProbation ViolationParole CommissionReferral SourceAdmissions
Admissions by Sentencing Grid
Of the offenders admitted to the Satellite Substance Abuse programs, 48% were misdemeanants. More than half (63%) of all misdemeanants were convicted of Class 1 crimes. Crimes in Class 1 included non-trafficking drug offenses, larceny, assault, other traffic violations and breaking and entering. The next largest misdemeanant crime class contributor to CJPP admissions was Class A1. The majority of offenders convicted of crimes in Class A1 were convicted of assault.
51
52
Table III.B.1: Misdemeanor Admissions to SSA Programs for the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year
Prior Record Level
Crime Class
I
II
III
Undefined or Non-Structured
Total (%)
A1
27
52
49
0
128
(13%)
1
149
278
218
3
648
(63%)
2
17
50
34
0
101
(10%)
3
20
21
8
1
50
(5%)
Other/Undefined
92
3
2
0
97
(9%)
Total
305
404
311
4
1,024
(%)
(30%)
(39%)
(30%)
(<1%)
The majority (52%) of all Satellite Substance Abuse admissions for FY 2010-2011 were felony offenders. Seventy-two percent of the felony offenders admitted were convicted for Class H or I offenses. The most frequent Class G, H, and I offenses were offenses for non-trafficking drug offenses, larceny, and breaking and entering. Class I offenses also included non-trafficking drug offenses and breaking and entering, and Class G offenses also included non-trafficking drug offenses and other public order crimes.
Table III.B.2: Felony Admissions to SSA Programs for the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year
Prior Record Level
Undefined or
Crime Class
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Non-Structured
Total (%)
E
23
16
3
1
0
0
0
43
(4%)
F
32
29
18
2
1
0
0
82
(7%)
G
37
41
19
11
0
0
0
108
(10%)
H
128
171
69
30
4
0
0
402
(37%)
I
110
167
75
27
5
4
0
388
(35%)
Other
36
12
10
8
1
1
3
71
(6%)
366
436
194
79
11
5
3
1,094
Total (%)
(33%)
(40%)
(18%)
(7%)
(1%)
(<1%)
(<1%)
SSA Program Utilization
There were 2,951 offenders that utilized SSA services during FY 2010-2011. This figure represents 104% of the yearly service goal. Table III.B.3 shows utilization figures and service goals for each SSA program. 53
Table III.B.3: SSA Program Utilization Data FY 2010-2011
Location
Population on July 1, 2010
Entries
Exits
Offender Utilization
Yearly Offender Service Goal
Percent of Offender Goal Utilized
Cost Per Day Per Offender
ALAMANCE
22
78
59
100
104
96%
$9.92
ALLEGHANY
17
11
14
28
25
112%
$7.71
ANSON
16
48
43
64
59
108%
$6.92
ASHE
26
22
34
48
48
100%
$10.17
AVERY
12
22
18
34
33
103%
$11.06
BEAUFORT
23
63
59
86
81
106%
$11.58
BRUNSWICK
39
53
69
92
109
84%
$7.08
CABARRUS
21
68
47
89
70
127%
$19.83
CALDWELL
15
61
54
76
107
71%
$17.43
CASWELL-PERSON
21
95
84
116
21
552%
$12.82
CATAWBA
38
94
89
132
116
114%
$9.42
COLUMBUS
12
38
35
50
61
82%
$18.97
CRAVEN
60
107
120
167
126
133%
$5.66
DAVIDSON
9
60
48
69
91
76%
$10.50
DUPLIN
23
48
46
71
66
108%
$18.46
EDGECOMBE
3
82
51
85
77
110%
$11.29
GREENE
13
36
39
49
69
71%
$6.52
HAYWOOD
18
31
41
49
27
181%
$15.07
JACKSON-SWAIN
17
62
48
79
67
118%
$43.63
JONES
2
15
9
17
15
113%
$12.83
MADISON
8
39
38
47
42
112%
$9.18
MARTIN
22
43
40
65
75
87%
$5.29
MITCHELL
17
37
41
54
50
108%
$9.51
NASH
20
61
60
81
95
85%
$15.95
PAMLICO
11
18
20
29
29
100%
$5.22
PENDER
34
67
50
101
92
110%
$7.98
PITT
52
83
83
135
173
78%
$21.25
POLK
6
12
11
18
24
75%
$10.04
RICHMOND
20
52
46
72
58
124%
$14.08
ROWAN
19
74
69
93
84
111%
$10.06
RUTHERFORD
23
67
71
90
110
82%
$3.78
SAMPSON
45
69
87
114
119
96%
$15.53
SCOTLAND-HOKE
32
79
74
111
108
103%
$16.74
STANLY
11
32
41
43
46
93%
$13.32
TRANSYLVANIA
13
29
34
42
50
84%
$12.84
TYRRELL
9
14
14
23
28
82%
$30.70
UNION
21
37
43
58
61
95%
$19.96
WASHINGTON
10
34
27
44
22
200%
$16.38
WATAUGA
15
27
23
42
40
105%
$13.51
WILSON
21
54
50
75
65
115%
$11.57
YADKIN
13
52
50
65
49
133%
$12.90
YANCEY
4
44
31
48
43
112%
$5.68
TOTAL
833
2,118
2,010
2,951
2835
104%
$10.79 Type of Exits
There were 2,010 exits from SSA programs during FY 2010-2011. There were 1,063 (53%) offenders exited by successful completion, and a large majority of those went on to either complete their period of supervision or are still being actively supervised. The second most frequent type of exit from SSA programs is a probation technical violation 576 (29%). This occurs when an offender commits a technical violation of a specific condition, such as failing a drug test. The “Other” category includes 199 (10%) offenders that transferred from the program, never reported to the program, were inappropriate for the program, or were released for medical reasons.
Figure III.B2: SSA Program Type of Exits 199 (10%)576 (29%)172 (8%)1,063 (53%)03006009001,200SuccessfulCompletionUnsuccessfulRemovalProb Tech ViolationsOtherExit TypesExits
Table III.B.4: Demographics of SSA Admissions July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011
Female
Male
Age Category
White
Black
Other
White
Black
Other
Total
13-18
9
1
0
41
38
4
93
(4%)
19-21
30
10
0
130
116
11
297
(14%)
22-25
57
26
2
165
156
12
418
(20%)
26-30
51
20
2
133
143
9
358
(17%)
31-35
52
14
2
123
101
4
296
(14%)
36-40
32
12
1
66
62
1
174
(8%)
41-45
33
15
1
80
64
1
194
(9%)
46-50
22
14
1
75
44
1
157
(7%)
51-55
7
8
0
28
40
0
83
(4%)
56-60
2
3
0
10
17
1
33
(2%)
61-65
0
1
0
3
9
0
13
(<1%)
66-70
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
(<1%)
TOTAL