North Carolina
Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission
Correctional Program Evaluation:
Offenders Placed on Probation or
Released from Prison in FY 2013
Project Conducted in Conjunction with the Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety
Submitted Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 164-47 (2015)
April 15, 2016
Prepared by:
Tamara Flinchum
Michelle Hall
Ginny Hevener
Jennifer Wesoloski Correctional Program Evaluation:
Offenders Placed on Probation or
Released from Prison in FY 2013
Project Conducted in Conjunction with
the Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice
of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety
North Carolina
Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission
P.O. Box 2448
Raleigh, NC 27602
(919) 890-1470
www.nccourts.org/courts/crs/councils/spac
The Honorable W. Erwin Spainhour
Chairman
Michelle Hall
Executive Director NC SENTENCING AND POLICY ADVISORY COMMISSION
MEMBERSHIP
Hon. W. Erwin Spainhour, Chairman
Superior Court Judge
Art Beeler
Lieutenant Governor’s Appointee
Hon. Charles E. Brown
NC District Court Judges’ Association
Paul G. Butler, Jr.
NC Post-Release Supervision & Parole Commission
Sheriff James E. Clemmons
NC Sheriffs’ Association
Lisa Costner
NC Bar Association
Chief Scott Cunningham
NC Association of Chiefs of Police
Hon. Warren Daniel
State Senator
Hon. N. Leo Daughtry
State Representative
Louise Davis
NC Community Sentencing Association
Judge Richard A. Elmore
NC Court of Appeals
Judge Robert C. Ervin
NC Conference of Superior Court Judges
Hon. John Faircloth
State Representative
Christopher Fialko
NC Advocates for Justice
David Guice
NC Department of Public Safety
Hon. Darren Jackson
State Representative
Hon. Maureen Krueger
NC Conference of District Attorneys
Ilona Kusa
NC Victim Assistance Network
Hon. Floyd McKissick
State Senator
Dr. Harvey Lee McMurray
Academic Member
Robert C. Montgomery
NC Attorney General’s Office
Luther Moore
NC Retail Merchants’ Association
Judge Fred G. Morrison, Jr.
Justice Fellowship
Hon. Shirley B. Randleman
State Senator
Hon. June Ray
NC Association of Clerks of Superior Court
Billy J. Sanders
Commission Chairman’s Appointee
Keith S. Shannon
Private Citizen, Governor’s Appointee
Hon. Thomas Thompson
NC Association of County Commissioners NC SENTENCING AND POLICY ADVISORY COMMISSION
STAFF
Michelle Hall
Executive Director
John Madler
Associate Director for Policy, Staff Attorney
Ginny Hevener
Associate Director for Research
Tamara Flinchum
Senior Research & Policy Associate
Sara Perdue
Senior Research & Policy Associate
Rebecca Murdock
Research & Policy Associate
Jennifer Wesoloski
Research & Policy Associate
Shelley Kirk
Administrative Secretary
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ i
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
Defining Recidivism ............................................................................................................................... 2
Structured Sentencing, Correctional Practices, and Recidivism in North Carolina ................................ 2
Comparison of Recidivism Rates for North Carolina Offenders ............................................................. 4
Research Design and Methodology ........................................................................................................ 6
Sample ................................................................................................................................................... 6
Follow-Up Period ................................................................................................................................... 6
Criminal Justice Outcome Measures ...................................................................................................... 6
Data Sources .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Report Outline ....................................................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER TWO: STATISTICAL PROFILE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE OUTCOMES OF THE FY 2013
SAMPLE ........................................................................................................................................... 8
FY 2013 Offender Profile ........................................................................................................................ 8
Offender Type ................................................................................................................................. 8
Personal Characteristics ................................................................................................................... 9
Criminal History ............................................................................................................................. 10
Most Serious Current Conviction ................................................................................................... 11
Criminal Justice Outcomes ................................................................................................................... 13
Criminal Justice Outcome Measures.............................................................................................. 13
Definition of the Follow-Up Period ......................................................................................... 13
Recidivist Arrests ..................................................................................................................... 13
Recidivist Convictions .............................................................................................................. 15
Recidivist Incarcerations .......................................................................................................... 16
Criminal Justice Outcome Measures by Groups ............................................................................ 16
Personal Characteristics .......................................................................................................... 16
Offense Class of the Conviction, Habitual Felons, and Registered Sex Offenders .................. 17
Summary.............................................................................................................................................. 19
CHAPTER THREE: PROBATION ENTRIES IN FY 2013 ............................................................................ 21
Statistical Profile of the FY 2013 Probation Entries .............................................................................. 21
Offender Risk and Need Assessments ........................................................................................... 24
Supervision in the Community ............................................................................................................. 26
Interim Outcome Measures ................................................................................................................. 27
Probation Violations ...................................................................................................................... 28
Responses to Violations of Probation ............................................................................................ 29
Quick Dip Confinement – QDC ................................................................................................ 29
Confinement in Response to Violation – CRV ......................................................................... 30
Revocation ............................................................................................................................... 31
Confinement in Response to Violation and Revocation .......................................................... 32
Criminal Justice Outcome Measures .................................................................................................... 33
Recidivist Arrest and Risk and Need Levels ................................................................................... 33
Recidivist Arrest and Supervision Level ......................................................................................... 34 Summary.............................................................................................................................................. 34
CHAPTER FOUR: PRISON RELEASES IN FY 2013 .................................................................................. 37
Defining Post-Release Supervision and Post-Release Supervision Status ............................................ 37
Statistical Profile of the FY 2013 Prison Releases ................................................................................. 38
Personal Characteristics ................................................................................................................. 38
Criminal History ............................................................................................................................. 39
Incarceration Profile ...................................................................................................................... 41
Criminal Justice Outcomes ................................................................................................................... 42
Recidivist Arrest, Conviction, and Incarceration ............................................................................ 42
Criminal Justice Outcomes by Most Serious Conviction ................................................................ 43
Summary.............................................................................................................................................. 44
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 46
Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 46
Early Observations of the Effect of the Justice Reinvestment Act on Recidivism ......................... 48
APPENDIX A: FINGERPRINTED ARRESTS BY FISCAL YEAR ................................................................... 51
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF MAJOR TERMS AND VARIABLES ............................................................ 53
APPENDIX C: SUMMARIZED FINDINGS FOR THE FY 2013 SAMPLE ..................................................... 63
APPENDIX D: ADDITIONAL TABLES FOR THE FY 2013 SAMPLE ........................................................... 74
APPENDIX E: ADDITIONAL TABLES FOR THE FY 2013 PROBATION ENTRIES ........................................ 78
TABLES
Table 1: Criminal Justice Outcomes for North Carolina Offenders: Two-Year Follow-Up .........................
i
Table 1.1: Recidivist Arrest Rates for North Carolina Offenders ...............................................................
5
Table 2.1: Personal Characteristics ............................................................................................................
9
Table 2.2: Prior Criminal Justice Contacts ..................................................................................................
10
Table 2.3: Most Serious Current Conviction ..............................................................................................
12
Table 2.4: Recidivist Arrest Rates...............................................................................................................
14
Table 2.5: Recidivist Arrests by Crime Type: Two-Year Follow-Up ............................................................
14
Table 2.6: Recidivist Conviction Rates .......................................................................................................
15
Table 2.7: Recidivist Convictions by Crime Type: Two-Year Follow-Up .....................................................
15
Table 2.8: Recidivist Incarceration Rates ...................................................................................................
16
Table 2.9: Criminal Justice Outcomes by Personal Characteristics............................................................
17
Table 2.10: Criminal Justice Outcomes by Most Serious Current Conviction ............................................
18
Table 3.1: Personal Characteristics ............................................................................................................
22
Table 3.2: Prior Criminal Justice Contacts ..................................................................................................
23
Table 3.3: Offender Risk and Need Levels .................................................................................................
25
Table 3.4: Areas of Need Identified ...........................................................................................................
25
Table 3.5: Offender Supervision Level .......................................................................................................
26 Table 3.6: Supervision Level Distribution Based on Risk and Need Levels for Probation Entries .............
27
Table 3.7: Violation Rates ..........................................................................................................................
28
Table 3.8: CRV Rates .................................................................................................................................
31
Table 3.9: Revocation Rates .......................................................................................................................
32
Table 3.10: CRV and Revocation Rates: Two-Year Follow-Up ...................................................................
32
Table 3.11: Recidivist Arrest Rates.............................................................................................................
33
Table 4.1: Personal Characteristics ............................................................................................................
38
Table 4.2: Prior Criminal Justice Contacts ..................................................................................................
39
Table 4.3: Incarceration Profile ..................................................................................................................
41
Table 4.4: Recidivist Arrest Rates...............................................................................................................
42
Table 4.5: Recidivist Conviction Rates .......................................................................................................
42
Table 4.6: Recidivist Incarceration Rates ...................................................................................................
43
Table 4.7: Criminal Justice Outcomes by Most Serious Current Conviction ..............................................
44
Table 5.1: Recidivist Arrest Rates for North Carolina Offenders ...............................................................
47
Table 5.2: Violation and Revocation Rates for North Carolina Probationers ............................................
49
Table 5.3: Recidivist Incarceration Rates for North Carolina Offenders ....................................................
49
Table A.1: Fingerprinted Arrests by Fiscal Year .........................................................................................
52
Table C.1: FY 2013 Sample .........................................................................................................................
64
Table C.2: Male Offenders .........................................................................................................................
66
Table C.3: Female Offenders ......................................................................................................................
68
Table C.4: Youthful Offenders ....................................................................................................................
70
Table C.5: Aging Offenders ........................................................................................................................
72
Table D.1: Recidivist Arrest Rates by Offense Class ...................................................................................
75
Table D.2: Recidivist Conviction Rates by Offense Class............................................................................
76
Table D.3: Recidivist Incarceration Rates by Offense Class .......................................................................
77
Table E.1: Probation Entries without a RNA Completed and Supervision Level Assigned ........................
79
Table E.2: Violation Rates by Supervision Level Distribution Based on Risk and Need Levels for Probation Entries: Two-Year Follow-Up ....................................................................................
80
Table E.3: Number of QDC by Supervision Level Distribution Based on Risk and Need Levels for Probation Entries: Two-Year Follow-Up ....................................................................................
80
Table E.4: Number of CRVs by Supervision Level Distribution Based on Risk and Need Levels for Probation Entries: Two-Year Follow-Up ....................................................................................
81
Table E.5: Revocation Rates by Supervision Level Distribution Based on Risk and Need Levels for Probation Entries: Two-Year Follow-Up ....................................................................................
81
Table E.6: Recidivist Arrest Rates by Supervision Level Distribution Based on Risk and Need Levels for Probation Entries: Two-Year Follow-Up ....................................................................................
82
Table E.7: Recidivist Arrest Rates ...............................................................................................................
83
FIGURES
Figure 1: Criminal Justice Outcomes by Supervision Level for Probation Entries: Two-Year Follow-Up ..
ii
Figure 2: Criminal Justice Outcomes by PRS Status for Prison Releases: Two-Year Follow-Up .................
iii
Figure 2.1: Number of Prior Arrests...........................................................................................................
11
Figure 2.2: Number of Recidivist Arrests for Offenders with Any Arrest: Two-Year Follow-Up ...............
14
Figure 2.3: Criminal Justice Outcomes: Two-Year Follow-Up ....................................................................
20
Figure 3.1: Offense Type of the Most Serious Current Conviction for Probation Entries .........................
24
Figure 3.2: Recidivist Arrest Rates by Risk and Need Levels for Probation Entries: Two-Year Follow-Up ................................................................................................................................
33
Figure 3.3: Recidivist Arrest Rates by Supervision Level for Probation Entries: Two-Year Follow-Up ......
34
Figure 3.4: Criminal Justice Outcomes by Supervision Level for Probation Entries: Two-Year
Follow-Up ................................................................................................................................
35
Figure 4.1: Offense Class of the Most Serious Current Conviction for Prison Releases ............................
40
Figure 4.2: Offense Type of the Most Serious Current Conviction for Prison Releases ............................
40
Figure 4.3: Criminal Justice Outcomes for Prison Releases: Two-Year Follow-Up ....................................
45
ACRONYMS
ASR
Advanced Supervised Release
CCH
Computerized Criminal History
CRV
Confinement in Response to Violation
DPS
Department of Public Safety
DWI
Driving While Impaired
FDBV
Felony Death by Vehicle
FY
Fiscal Year
G.S.
General Statute
JRA
Justice Reinvestment Act
OPUS
Offender Population Unified System
OTI
Offender Traits Inventory
OTI-R
Offender Traits Inventory-Revised
PRS
Post-Release Supervision
QDC
Quick Dip Confinement
RNA
Risk and Need Assessment
SBI
State Bureau of Investigation
SMCP
Statewide Misdemeanant Confinement Program
SSA
Structured Sentencing Act
TECS
Treatment for Effective Community Supervision i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Correctional Program Evaluation: Offenders Placed on Probation or Released from Prison in FY 2013
In 1998, the North Carolina General Assembly directed the Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission to prepare biennial reports evaluating the effectiveness of the State’s correctional programs (N.C.G.S. § 164-47). The issue of correctional resources and, specifically, their effectiveness in increasing public safety and deterring future crime have continued to be of interest to legislators and policy makers. It is the goal of most programs to sanction and control offenders, to offer them opportunities that will assist in altering negative behavioral patterns, and, consequently, to lower their risk of reoffending (i.e., their recidivism). This study examines recidivism for Structured Sentencing Act (SSA) offenders who were released from prison or placed on supervised probation in FY 2013. Recidivism was defined broadly as arrest, conviction, or incarceration during a fixed two-year follow-up period. The Executive Summary highlights the key findings and policy implications from the 2016 report.
The passage of the Justice Reinvestment Act (JRA) in 2011 resulted in substantial changes to sentencing practices and correctional policies within North Carolina’s criminal justice system. Outcomes reported for probationers in the FY 2013 sample offer a first look at the effects of the JRA during the early phase of implementation. It is too soon to examine the effect of the JRA on criminal justice outcomes for prisoners, because so few in the sample were subject to the changes under the law.
FY 2013 Sample Profile and Outcomes
 The sample of 48,976 offenders was comprised of 35,103 probation entries (72%) and 13,873 prison releases (28%).
 Overall, 78% were male and 50% were black. Prison releases were more likely than probation entries to be high school dropouts, to be unemployed, and to have a substance abuse need and/or history of drug addiction.
 By sample definition, all prisoners in the sample had a current conviction for a felony offense, while the majority of probationers had a conviction for a misdemeanor offense (62%).
 Offenders with a current conviction for a felony offense had higher recidivism rates for all three criminal justice outcome measures compared to those with a misdemeanor offense. Offenders with a Class F through Class I felony had higher recidivist arrest and conviction rates than the other offense class groups (Class B1 through Class E felons or Class A1 through Class 3 misdemeanants).
 Compared to probation entries, prison releases tended to have more extensive prior criminal histories and higher recidivism rates for all three criminal justice outcome (see Table 1).
Table 1
Criminal Justice Outcomes for North Carolina Offenders: Two-Year Follow-Up
Sample
Entry Type
N
% Recidivist
Arrest
% Recidivist
Conviction
% Recidivist
Incarceration
Probation Entries
35,103
38
19
14
Prison Releases
13,873
48
26
21
All Offenders
48,976
40
21
16
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation Data ii
Probation Entries
 All probationers in the FY 2013 probation entry sample were processed and supervised under the provisions and policies implemented under the JRA.
 A comparison of probationers by current conviction revealed that felons were assessed as higher risk than misdemeanants; however, felons and misdemeanants had similar need levels.
 Based on assessed risk and need, more felons were assigned to the most restrictive supervision levels (Levels 1 and 2), while more misdemeanants were assigned to the least restrictive supervision levels (Levels 4 and 5).
 Felons had more prior contacts with the criminal justice system compared to misdemeanants, and also had higher recidivist arrest rates.
 Recidivist arrest rates, as well as the rates for other criminal justice outcome measures, varied by supervision level, with probationers in Supervision Level 1 having the highest rates and those in Supervision Level 5 having the lowest rates (see Figure 1).
Figure 1
Criminal Justice Outcomes by Supervision Level for Probation Entries: Two-Year Follow-Up
Note: This analysis is based on the 31,832 probationers with a supervision level assigned.
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2012/13 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
Prison Releases
 With so few prisoners in the sample subject to the provisions of the JRA (11%), the FY 2013 prison release sample provides a baseline for comparison for future reports.
 The majority (69%) of the 13,873 prisoners in the sample were released without post-release supervision (PRS); 31% were released with PRS.
 Most prison releases with PRS had a current conviction for a Class B1 through Class E felony, while nearly all prison releases without PRS had a current conviction for a Class F through Class I felony.
 Prisoners released without PRS had more extensive prior criminal histories and were more likely to have a recidivist arrest or a recidivist conviction, while prisoners with PRS were more likely to have a recidivist incarceration (see Figure 2).
86%
79%
68%
56%
42%
60%
47%
35%
24%
13%
39%
27%
17%
8%
2%
19%
18%
14%
8%
4%
Level 1n=2,738Most Restrictive
Level 2n=8,260
Level 3n=11,497
Level 4n=8,155
Level 5n=1,182Least Restrictive
% Violation
% Recidivist Arrest
% Revocation
% Confinement in Response to Violationiii
Figure 2
Criminal Justice Outcomes by PRS Status for Prison Releases: Two-Year Follow-Up
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2012/13 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
Conclusions
 Statewide recidivism rates have generally been consistent over the past decade. Increases in the recidivism rates over the past few years primarily result from an increase in the fingerprinting of misdemeanor arrests.
 Consistent findings over time point to the relative success of probationers compared to prisoners; however, more complete information is needed to understand the magnitude of the effect of prisonization on offender behavior. As risk data become available for all prisoners, future research that examines these differences should allow for a greater understanding of offender profiles in the context of criminal justice outcomes.
 The JRA has contributed to a decline in the recidivist incarceration rate in North Carolina, primarily as a result of two changes mandated in the legislation: limiting revocations of probation for technical violations and shifting misdemeanants out of the state prison system. Similarly, revocation rates for probationers have decreased, also as a result of the limitations placed on revocations.
 Offender risk assessments are a valuable tool in predicting recidivism. Current findings indicate that the RNA, mandated by the JRA, and the resulting supervision levels accurately identify those more likely to reoffend and place them in the appropriate, more restrictive supervision levels.
 The expansion of PRS to all felons under the JRA will have increasing importance in the criminal justice system and in future studies of recidivism. Current findings point to differences by PRS status for criminal justice outcomes, possibly as a result of the offense class of the current conviction and/or supervision itself. As more prisoners exit onto PRS, its impact on offender behavior can be examined, with future studies assessing whether PRS affects recidivism rates differently for certain groups of offenders.
 The Sentencing Commission’s recidivism studies are limited by the lack of available statewide jail data, affecting both the recidivist incarceration measure and the population of offenders for whom recidivism can be examined. The development of a statewide automated jail database would allow for a more comprehensive study and understanding of offender behavior in North Carolina.
The Sentencing Commission looks forward to combining the lessons learned from previous studies of recidivism and from the first empirically measurable effects of the JRA in an effort to evaluate the promising new approach to offender supervision, treatment, and services.
46%
48%
48%
23%
27%
26%
28%
18%
21%
PRSn=4,307
No PRSn=9,566
TotalN=13,873
% Recidivist Arrest
% Recidivist Conviction
% Recidivist Incarceration1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
With the enactment of the Structured Sentencing Act (SSA) in 1994, North Carolina embarked on a new penal strategy. Since that time, Structured Sentencing has benefited the criminal justice system by increasing consistency, certainty and truth in the sentencing of offenders; setting priorities for the use of correctional resources; and balancing sentencing policies with correctional resources. The issue of correctional resources and, specifically, their effectiveness in increasing public safety and deterring future crime have continued to be of interest to legislators and policy makers. It is the goal of most programs to sanction and control offenders, to offer them opportunities that will assist in altering negative behavioral patterns, and, consequently, to lower the risk of reoffending.
Studies that measure recidivism are a nationally accepted way to assess the effectiveness of in-prison and community corrections programs in preventing future criminal behavior. The North Carolina General Assembly, aware of this trend, incorporated the study of recidivism into the Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission’s1 original mandate in 1990. During the 1998 Session, the General Assembly redrafted the Commission’s mandate to study recidivism and expanded its scope to include a more in-depth evaluation of correctional programs. The statute gives the following directive:
The Judicial Department, through the North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, and the Division of Adult Correction of the Department of Public Safety shall jointly conduct ongoing evaluations of community corrections programs and in-prison treatment programs and make a biennial report to the General Assembly. The report shall include composite measures of program effectiveness based on recidivism rates, other outcome measures, and costs of the programs. During the 1998-99 fiscal year, the Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission shall coordinate the collection of all data necessary to create an expanded database containing offender information on prior convictions, current conviction and sentence, program participation, and outcome measures. Each program to be evaluated shall assist the Commission in the development of systems and collection of data necessary to complete the evaluation process. The first evaluation report shall be presented to the Chairs of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees and the Chairs of the Senate and House Appropriations Subcommittees on Justice and Public Safety by April 15, 2000, and future reports shall be made by April 15 of each even-numbered year.2
The current study is the ninth biennial Correctional Program Evaluation Report and it contains information about offender characteristics, correctional programs and sanctions, outcome measures, and an expansive methodological approach to examine the relationship between offender risk factors, correctional programs, and recidivism rates.
1 Also referred to throughout the report as “Sentencing Commission” or “Commission.”
2 N.C. Gen. Stat. (hereinafter G.S.) § 164-47. 2
Defining Recidivism
The North Carolina General Assembly directed the Sentencing Commission to measure the rates of recidivism of criminal offenders involved in state-supported correctional programs. The legislation calling for these measurements made it clear that recidivism meant repeat criminal behavior, and implied that measuring recidivism was to be a way of evaluating correctional programs and sanctions.
Correctional programs do not affect crime directly; rather, they are designed to change offenders’ attitudes, skills, or thinking processes, in the hope that their social behavior will change as a result. The punitive aspect of criminal sanctions might also serve as an individual deterrent for convicted offenders. Policy makers such as legislators tend to be concerned with whether the programs ultimately reduce criminal behavior – a program may be successful in supervising, educating, training, or counseling offenders, but if it does not reduce their subsequent criminal behavior, they still pose a threat to public safety.
There is no single official definition of recidivism. Researchers have used a variety of definitions and measurements, including rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration, depending on their particular interests and the availability of data. Therefore, in comparing recidivism of various groups of offenders, readers are well advised to be sure that the same definitions and measurements are used for all groups. Official records from police, courts, and correctional agencies are the source of most research on adult recidivism. For offenders involved in a recidivism study, different types of records will indicate different rates of recidivism.
In its studies of recidivism, the Sentencing Commission uses arrests as the primary measure of recidivism, supplemented by information on convictions and incarcerations, to assess the extent of an offender’s repeat involvement in the criminal justice system. The advantages of arrest data, compared with other criminal justice system data, outweigh the disadvantages. Arrests, as used in this research, take into account not only the frequency of repeat offending but also its seriousness and the nature of the victimization (for example, crimes against the person, crimes involving theft or property damage, or crimes involving illegal drugs). The volume of repeat offending is handled by recording the number of arrests for crimes of various types.
Structured Sentencing, Correctional Practices, and Recidivism in North Carolina
North Carolina law prescribes the use of guidelines in sentencing its convicted felons and misdemeanants. In theory, Structured Sentencing may affect recidivism in a variety of ways. Its penalty framework may alter the deterrent effect of sentencing laws, with different punishments influencing an individual offender’s fear of the consequences of crime in different ways and thereby changing his or her likelihood of reoffending. Guidelines might also impact recidivism by altering the characteristics, or “mix,” of groups of offenders – for example, probationers or prisoners. Impacting the composition of groups of offenders has been, from the start, one of the changes contemplated by the guidelines sentencing movement, and this alteration may well affect group recidivism rates.
Sentencing guidelines have sought to make offenders convicted of violent crimes, as well as repeat offenders, more likely to receive active prison sentences and to serve longer prison terms. At the same time, guidelines were intended to make first-time offenders charged with nonviolent crimes less likely to be imprisoned, and to have them serve shorter terms if imprisoned. As a result, guidelines in North Carolina and elsewhere have tended to shift some offenders to probation who formerly would have 3
gone to prison, and others to prison who formerly might have received probation. This shift was expected to change recidivism rates by re-mixing not only the offense profile of various groups but, perhaps more importantly, the profile of their criminal histories.
North Carolina’s Structured Sentencing emphasized not only the diversion of some offenders from prison to probation, but also the creation of a middle option – the use of Intermediate punishments – for those diverted offenders. Intermediate punishments – i.e., enhancements to probation such as intensive supervision, special probation (split sentences), and day reporting centers – were meant to control the recidivism of offenders diverted from prison to probation. Intermediate probationers, supervised more closely than Community probationers but not exposed to the detrimental effects of prisonization, tended to have recidivism rates between the rates of the two other groups.
With the passage of the Justice Reinvestment Act (JRA) of 2011, North Carolina has again implemented substantial changes to the state’s sentencing practices and correctional policies.3 The primary changes to sentencing under the JRA included redefining Community and Intermediate punishments, modifications to the existing habitual felon status offense, the creation of a new status offense for habitual breaking and entering, and the establishment of Advanced Supervised Release (ASR). Under the JRA, the distinction between Community and Intermediate punishments was drastically diminished. An Intermediate punishment still requires supervised probation, but all other conditions are optional. Special probation (i.e., a split sentence) and drug treatment court are the only conditions that are limited to Intermediate punishments. The JRA created a habitual breaking and entering status offense; offenders who commit their second felony breaking and entering offense are sentenced in Class E. The existing habitual felon law was modified under the JRA; habitual felons are sentenced four classes higher than the class of the current offense, but no higher than Class C. ASR was created under the JRA for offenders receiving active sentences. ASR allows judges to decide at sentencing (without objection from the prosecutor) whether an eligible offender will be ordered to the program. ASR entitles an offender, upon successful completion of programming during incarceration, to be released from prison at a reduced minimum sentence.
In terms of correctional practices, the majority of the changes under the JRA affected how offenders are supervised in the community. The JRA codified the use of a validated risk and needs assessment (RNA) as a strategy in managing offenders and allocating resources in the community. Supervision and other resources are targeted based on offenders’ levels of risk and need. The JRA expanded the delegation of authority to probation officers, giving them authority to impose most of the current conditions of probation and the authority to respond to violations by placing probationers in jail for two- or three-day periods (quick dip confinements or QDCs) without a court hearing. Under the JRA, prison time imposed for technical violations of probation was limited. The penalty for a first or second technical violation of probation is a confinement in response to violation (CRV), set at 90 days imprisonment for a felon and up to 90 days for a misdemeanant.4 The court is allowed to revoke probation and activate the suspended sentence in response to a third technical violation (i.e., after an offender has served two prior CRVs). Otherwise, revocation is authorized only if the probationer commits a new crime or absconds. Offenders who have their probation revoked and serve their entire suspended sentence are placed on post-release supervision (PRS).
3 For more details on the Justice Reinvestment Act, see the Sentencing Commission’s reports titled Justice Reinvestment Act Implementation Evaluation Report at http://www.nccourts.org/Courts/CRS/Councils/spac/Publication/JRIReports.asp.
4 In 2015, the Legislature eliminated the CRV for Structured Sentencing misdemeanants, providing instead that the court may revoke probation for misdemeanants who have served two separate QDCs imposed by either the court or the probation officer. 4
PRS under the JRA is expanded to include all felons. Nine months of supervision is required for Class F through Class I felons. Twelve months of PRS is required for Class B1 through Class E felons released from prison. Similar to probation, prison time imposed for technical violations on PRS is limited. The penalty for a first, second, or third technical violation is set at three months of imprisonment. Upon the fourth technical violation, the Post-Release Supervision and Parole Commission may revoke PRS and impose the rest of the prison sentence. PRS can also be revoked if the supervisee commits a new crime or absconds, or if the supervisee was originally convicted of a sex offense and subsequently violates a condition of supervision.
The JRA created the Treatment for Effective Community Supervision (TECS) Program, which focuses on providing services and treatment for certain high risk offenders supervised in the community. Programs eligible for TECS funding include substance abuse treatment programs and cognitive-behavioral programming and other evidence-based programming.
Lastly, the JRA shifted misdemeanants out of the state prison system by creating the Statewide Misdemeanant Confinement Program (SMCP). The SMCP finds space to house eligible misdemeanants in local jails participating in the program. Originally under the JRA, misdemeanants with sentences between 91 and 180 days, excluding sentences for impaired driving offenses, were sentenced to the SMCP. The Legislature subsequently amended the statutes to provide that all misdemeanants with sentences greater than 90 days, and all offenders convicted of impaired driving offenses regardless of sentence length, will serve their active sentences in local jails through the SMCP.
By design, the JRA is expected to have the greatest impact on the community corrections population. The JRA intends to improve offender behavior through supervision strategies based on a validated RNA, new sanctions to respond to noncompliance on probation, supervision of all felons upon release from prison, and evidence-based practices and programming in the community. The current study provides an examination of criminal justice outcomes for the first sample of probationers sentenced under and subject to the changes under the JRA.5 It is too soon to examine the effect of the JRA (i.e., the expansion of PRS) on criminal justice outcomes for prisoners because so few were subject to the changes under the law.6 Future samples will include more prisoners sentenced under the JRA, offering insight into the effect of PRS on criminal justice outcomes. The recidivism of offenders will serve as one measure of the success of JRA policies in reducing repeat criminality and enhancing public safety, while managing correctional resources in a more cost-effective way.7
Comparison of Recidivism Rates for North Carolina Offenders
The Sentencing Commission’s previous recidivism reports provide a framework to examine trends in recidivism rates for North Carolina offenders. Table 1.1 presents overall recidivism rates (measured as recidivist arrests) for SSA offenders for the Commission’s past five studies. For this comparison, the prison sample for each of these studies was limited to prison releases with a felony conviction. Recidivist arrests for each sample included all fingerprinted arrests during a two-year follow-up period.8
5 The JRA provisions relating to probation supervision apply to probation violations occurring on or after December 1, 2011.
6 The JRA provisions relating to the prison release sample apply to offenses committed on or after December 1, 2011.
7 The Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission and the Department of Public Safety are directed to jointly conduct ongoing evaluations regarding the implementation of the Justice Reinvestment Act of 2011. The fifth annual report to the General Assembly is due on April 15, 2016.
8 Arrests for impaired driving or other traffic offenses were excluded, as were arrests that were not for crimes, such as arrest for technical violations of probation. 5
The recidivism rates for the FY 2002 sample through the FY 2006 sample were nearly identical (within one percentage point) across samples. Recidivist arrest rates ranged from 31% to 32% for all offenders, from 27% to 28% for probationers, and from 42% to 43% for prisoners. However, notable increases in the recidivism rates were found for the FY 2009 sample – increasing to a recidivist arrest rate of 38% for all offenders, 35% for probationers, and 47% for prisoners. Smaller increases in recidivism rates were found for the FY 2011 sample.
Table 1.1
Recidivist Arrest Rates for North Carolina Offenders
Sample Year
Sample Size
Recidivist Arrest Rates: Two-Year Follow-Up
Probationers
Prisoners
All Offenders
FY 2002
54,263
27
42
31
FY 2004
52,926
28
43
31
FY 2006
55,780
28
42
32
FY 2009
56,574
35
47
38
FY 2011
52,823
37
49
40
Note: The prison sample for each of these studies was limited to prisoners with a felony conviction.
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission
The increases in recidivism rates for the FY 2009 and FY 2011 samples prompted further investigation into possible reasons for the change, focusing on whether the increases capture an actual upswing in criminal behavior or reflect a change in the methodology of measuring that behavior, or both.9,10 The primary explanation for the increase in recidivism rates points to a change in field technology. In North Carolina, law enforcement agencies are only required by statute (G.S. 15A-502) to fingerprint felony arrests. While historically most of these agencies have also fingerprinted the more serious misdemeanor arrests, improved fingerprinting technology in sheriffs’ offices and police departments has led in recent years to a greater number of fingerprinted misdemeanor arrests. Some agencies, mainly located in urban areas, have begun fingerprinting all misdemeanor arrests. As a result, a more accurate – and higher – rate of misdemeanor arrests is now captured in North Carolina’s arrest data, significantly increasing the number and proportion of offenders who are consequently categorized as “recidivists” based on these arrests.11
9 See the Sentencing Commission’s June 2014 technical brief Increase in Misdemeanor Fingerprinted Arrests for further details (http://www.nccourts.org/Courts/CRS/Councils/spac/Documents/Recid_0809n.pdf).
10 For a discussion of the impact of technology changes on the recidivism of released prisoners, see Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010 at http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4986.
11 As shown in Appendix A, the volume of misdemeanor-only fingerprinted arrests increased substantially from FY 2007 through FY 2010. In FY 2006, misdemeanor-only arrests represented 34% of all fingerprinted arrests; they represented 51% of all fingerprinted arrests by FY 2009 and 56% by FY 2010. 6
Research Design and Methodology
The Sentencing Commission’s mandate, revised and expanded in 1998, directed the Sentencing Commission to conduct a study with a comprehensive approach in capturing relevant empirical information. The theoretical model adopted to study recidivism pointed to data collection in three time frames for each offender: preexisting factors such as demographic characteristics and criminal history; current criminal justice involvement including current conviction, sentence, correctional sanctions, and correctional program participation; and future measures of social reintegration such as arrests, convictions, and incarcerations during follow-up.12
Sample
The sample selected for the current study included all offenders released from state prison or placed on supervised probation during FY 2013, with some exceptions; offenders with a most serious conviction for Driving While Impaired (DWI), offenders with a most serious conviction for a misdemeanor traffic offense, and offenders released from prison with a misdemeanor conviction were excluded from the study.13 The final study sample includes 48,976 offenders sentenced under Structured Sentencing, affording a comprehensive look at the recidivism of offenders in North Carolina.
Follow-Up Period
Recidivism studies utilize varying lengths of time as their follow-up period, depending on the availability of data and other resources. This report provides information on the recidivism of the FY 2013 sample of offenders using a fixed two-year follow-up period.
Criminal Justice Outcome Measures
Recidivism was defined broadly to cover the offender’s possible span of reinvolvement in the North Carolina criminal justice system, to include arrests, convictions, and incarcerations in the state prison system during the follow-up period. For offenders on probation, additional interim outcome measures were examined as an indicator of misconduct while under supervision in the community during the two-year follow-up. These interim outcome measures included violations of probation and certain responses to violations of probation (QDC, CRV, and revocations).
Data Sources
Two automated data sources were used to provide comprehensive data on the sample of offenders:
 The North Carolina Department of Public Safety’s (DPS) Offender Population Unified System (OPUS) was used to identify offenders in the FY 2013 sample and to obtain information on demographic
12 Preexisting factors and current criminal justice involvement are also components for assessing risk levels for offenders and in targeting offenders for different correctional sanctions and treatment programs.
13 As of January 1, 2015, all misdemeanants serving active sentences will be housed in local jails, many through the SMCP. Prior to changes under the JRA in 2011 and in subsequent legislation in 2014, a large number of misdemeanants served their active sentences in state prisons. Previous recidivism samples included those misdemeanants released from prison; however, they were not included in the current sample due to small numbers and because they are no longer representative of misdemeanants serving sentences in prison. 7
characteristics, offender risk and need assessments, current convicted offense and sentence,14 correctional sanction and treatment programs, and prior and recidivist probation and incarceration measures.
 The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation’s (SBI) Computerized Criminal History (CCH) system was used to provide fingerprinted arrest records for prior and recidivist arrests, as well as recidivist convictions. As discussed previously, all felony arrests in North Carolina are fingerprinted (G.S. 15A-502). While historically only the most serious misdemeanor arrests have been fingerprinted, enhancements in law enforcement technology have led to the fingerprinting of more misdemeanors. The study excludes arrests for impaired driving or other traffic offenses, as well as arrests that were not for crimes (e.g., arrests for technical violations of probation).
A case profile was constructed for each sample offender based on the data obtained from OPUS and the CCH. The final data set for this study consists of over 300 items of information (or variables) for the sample of 48,976 offenders placed on probation or released from prison between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013 and followed for two years.15
Report Outline
As mentioned previously, this report offers a first look at the recidivism of probationers since the provisions of the JRA went into effect, with all probationers in the sample subject to the provisions of the JRA. However, with so few prisoners in the sample subject to the provisions of the JRA (only 11%), it is too soon to examine the effect of the JRA on criminal justice outcomes for prisoners.
Chapter Two presents a descriptive profile of the FY 2013 sample (including demographic, criminal history, and current offense information) and a summary of their subsequent (i.e., recidivist) criminal involvement. The analyses in this chapter provide information on the sample as a whole and also offer a comparative look at the characteristics and recidivism of offenders released from prison and those placed on supervised probation.
Chapter Three provides a more detailed examination of FY 2013 probation entries, with a comparison of misdemeanor and felony probationers. The chapter includes information on risk, need, and supervision levels; a focus on probation violations and specific responses to those violations (including QDC, CRV, and revocation) as interim outcome measures; and a summary of recidivist activity during the two-year follow-up.
Chapter Four provides a further examination of FY 2013 prison releases, with a comparison of offenders released from prison with and without PRS. The chapter offers a descriptive comparison of the two groups of prisoners in terms of their personal characteristics and prior criminal history, as well as their recidivism during follow-up.
Chapter Five concludes with a discussion of consistent findings across the Sentencing Commission’s recidivism reports, as well as early observations on recidivism in North Carolina following the enactment of the JRA.
14 In the context of this study, “current” refers to the most serious conviction and sentence for which the offender was placed on probation or released from prison within the sample time frame.
15 Definitions for primary analysis variables and key terms are provided in Appendix B. 8
CHAPTER TWO
STATISTICAL PROFILE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE OUTCOMES OF THE FY 2013 SAMPLE
Chapter One defines the study sample as SSA offenders who were either placed on supervised probation or were released from prison during FY 2013. Chapter Two examines the FY 2013 sample by offender type (i.e., probation entries and prison releases) and the sample as a whole.16 A statistical profile of the sample is provided that includes personal characteristics, prior criminal history, and most serious current conviction by offense class and offense type. Criminal justice outcomes for the sample are also examined, with a focus on recidivist arrests, convictions, and incarcerations by offender type, personal characteristics, and most serious current conviction.17,18
Chapter One outlines the changes to sentencing and corrections due to the enactment of the JRA in 2011.19 The effective dates of the JRA and their application have implications related to the internal composition of FY 2013 sample. JRA provisions affecting probationers are applicable based on the date of violations of probation (probation violations occurring on or after December 1, 2011). All probationers in the FY 2013 sample were subject to provisions of the JRA related to community supervision (e.g., limits to revocations of probation for technical violations, new sanctions available for probation officers to respond to violations of probation, supervision practices based on a validated RNA). JRA provisions affecting prisoners are applicable based on the date of offense (offenses committed on or after December 1, 2011). Only a small portion of the prison releases in the FY 2013 sample were sentenced on or after December 1, 2011 and therefore subject to the provisions of the JRA related to prisons (e.g., the expansion of PRS to include all felons). While outcomes reported for probationers in the FY 2013 sample offer a first look at the effects of the JRA during the early phase of implementation, outcomes for prisoners examined in this report cannot be linked to changes under the JRA.
FY 2013 Offender Profile
Offender Type
There were 48,976 SSA offenders who were placed on supervised probation or released from prison during FY 2013. Offenders with a most serious current conviction for driving while impaired (DWI), offenders with a most serious current conviction for a misdemeanor traffic offense, and offenders released from prison with a misdemeanor conviction were excluded from the sample.20 The majority of offenders entered the sample as a supervised probation entry (72%); the remaining 28% entered the sample as a prison release.
16 Throughout the report, the term “prisoners” is used interchangeably with “prison releases” and the term “probationers” is used interchangeably with “probation entries.”
17 A glossary of primary analysis variables and key terms is provided in Appendix B.
18 See Appendix C for summarized descriptions of the sample.
19 The implementation of the JRA is summarized in the Sentencing Commission’s reports titled Justice Reinvestment Act Implementation Evaluation Report at http://www.nccourts.org/Courts/CRS/Councils/spac/Publication/JRIReports.asp.
20 As of January 1, 2015, all misdemeanants serving active sentences will be housed in local confinement facilities, many through the SMCP (misdemeanants with sentences greater than 90 days or with convictions for impaired driving offenses serve their sentence through the SMCP). Prior to changes under the JRA in 2011 and subsequent legislation in 2014, a large number of misdemeanants served their active sentences in state prisons. Previous recidivism samples included those misdemeanants released from prison; however they were not included in the current sample due to small numbers and because they are no longer representative of misdemeanants serving sentences in prison. 9
Personal Characteristics
Table 2.1 contains information describing the personal characteristics of the FY 2013 sample. Of the 48,976 offenders, 78% were male, 50% were black, 68% were single, 61% dropped out of high school, 43% were employed, and 48% were identified as having a substance abuse need and/or a history of drug addiction. Probationers had a lower percentage of males than prisoners and, on average, were slightly
Table 2.1
Personal Characteristics
Personal Characteristics
Probation Entries
n=35,103
%
Prison Releases
n=13,873
%
Total
N=48,976
%
Gender
Female
26
10
22
Male
74
90
78
Race
Black
47
57
50
White
48
37
45
Other/Unknown
5
6
5
Age at Sample Entry
Under 21 Years
17
7
14
21-29 Years
36
36
35
30-39 Years
23
28
25
40-49 Years
15
19
16
50 Years and Older
9
10
10
Marital Status
Single
68
68
68
Divorced/Separated
18
19
18
Married/Widowed
14
13
14
Other/Unknown
0
0
0
Education
High School Graduate
45
26
39
High School Dropout
55
74
61
Employment
Employed
45
38
43
Unemployed
55
62
57
Substance Abuse
None Indicated
63
29
52
Substance Abuse or Need
37
71
48
Note: Eighty-five offenders were missing education, 295 were missing employment, and 3,233 were missing substance abuse information. Of the 48,976 offenders with ethnicity available, 3% were Hispanic.
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation Data 10
younger (32 years compared to 34 years respectively). Compared to probationers, prisoners were more likely to have dropped out of high school and less likely to be employed. A higher percentage of prisoners were identified as having a substance abuse need and/or a history of drug addiction.
Criminal History
Prior criminal justice contacts, including prior arrests, probation admissions, probation revocations, and incarcerations are examined in Table 2.2. Regardless of the measure used to track prior criminal history, prisoners tended to have a more extensive prior criminal history than probationers.
Table 2.2
Prior Criminal Justice Contacts
Prior Criminal Justice Contacts
Probation Entries
n=35,103
Prison Releases
n=13,873
Total
N=48,976
Prior Arrests
% with Any Arrest
77
94
82
Total # of Arrests
109,560
86,666
196,226
Average # of Arrests
4
7
5
Prior Probation Admissions
% with Any Probation Admission
53
87
63
Total # of Probation Admissions
40,366
33,484
73,850
Average # of Probation Admissions
2
3
2
Prior Probation Revocations
% with Any Probation Revocation
33
58
40
Total # of Probation Revocations
20,902
17,412
38,314
Average # of Probation Revocations
2
2
2
Prior Incarcerations
% with Any Incarceration
27
57
35
Total # of Incarcerations
20,765
23,126
43,891
Average # of Incarcerations
2
3
3
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
Prior arrests have consistently been found to be a strong predictor of recidivism.21 As a whole, 82% of the FY 2013 sample had at least one prior fingerprinted arrest. Compared to probationers, prisoners were more likely to have a prior fingerprinted arrest (77% and 94% respectively) and to have a higher average number of prior arrests (see also Figure 2.1).
21 See the Sentencing Commission’s prior recidivism reports at http://www.nccourts.org/Courts/CRS/Councils/spac/Publication/Recidivism/AdultRec.asp. 11
Overall, 63% of the sample had at least one prior probation admission and averaged 2 prior probation admissions. Compared to probationers, prisoners were more likely to have a prior probation admission (53% and 87% respectively) and to have a slightly higher average number of prior probation admissions.
Forty percent of the sample had a prior probation revocation and averaged 2 prior probation revocations. Compared to probationers, prisoners were more likely to have at least one prior probation revocation, although both groups had a similar average number of prior probation revocations.
Overall, 35% of the sample had at least one prior incarceration with an average of 3 prior incarcerations. Prior incarcerations may have occurred as a result of the sentence imposed for a new crime committed or due to a probation or PRS revocation. Prisoners were more likely to have a prior incarceration than probationers (57% and 27% respectively) and had a slightly higher average number of prior incarcerations.
Figure 2.1
Number of Prior Arrests
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
Most Serious Current Conviction22
Table 2.3 presents information on the offense class of the conviction for the FY 2013 sample by offender type. Under Structured Sentencing, offenses are classified based on offense seriousness. The type of sentence imposed and the sentence length are based on the offense class for the most serious conviction and on the offender’s prior criminal history.23 Offenders convicted of Class B1 through Class D felonies are required to receive an active sentence and offenders convicted of Class E through Class I felonies may receive either an active sentence or Community/Intermediate punishment (i.e., probation)
22 For the sake of brevity, the term “most serious current conviction” is often referred to as “conviction.”
23 For further information about Structured Sentencing, see http://www.nccourts.org/Courts/CRS/Councils/spac/Sentencing/Training/Manuals.asp and http://www.nccourts.org/Courts/CRS/Councils/spac/Sentencing/Punishment.asp.
22%
11%
28%
17%
12%
20%
23%
21%
23%
25%
33%
21%
13%
23%
8%
TotalN=39,916
Prison Releasesn=12,971
Probation Entriesn=26,945
1 Arrest
2 Arrests
3-4 Arrests
5-9 Arrests
10+ Arrests12
depending on their prior criminal history.24,25 Offenders convicted of Class A1 through Class 3 misdemeanors may receive either an active sentence or Community/Intermediate punishment (i.e., probation).26 Offenders convicted of a felony offense serve their active sentences in prison, while offenders convicted of a misdemeanor offense serve their active sentences in jail or through the SMCP depending on their offense date, sentence length, or conviction type.27
Table 2.3
Most Serious Current Conviction
Most Serious
Current Conviction
Probation Entries
n=35,103
%
Prison Releases
n=13,873
%
Total
N=48,976
%
Offense Class
Class B1 – E Felony
2
23
8
Class F – I Felony
36
77
47
Felony Subtotal
38
100
55
Class A1 – 3 Misdemeanor
62
0
45
Offense Type
Person
21
26
23
Property
45
35
42
Drug
26
24
25
Other
8
15
10
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
Overall, 55% of the sample had a conviction for a felony offense and 45% had a conviction for a misdemeanor offense. By sample definition, in FY 2013, all prisoners had a conviction for a felony offense, while the majority of probationers had a conviction for a misdemeanor offense (62%). Thirty-eight percent of probationers had a felony conviction; 2% were sentenced in Class E and the remaining 36% were sentenced in Class F through Class I.
Table 2.3 also presents information on the conviction by offense type (i.e., person, property, drug, other). Overall, 42% of the sample had a conviction for a property offense, followed by 25% for drug offenses, 23% for person offenses, and 10% for other offenses.28 The majority of prisoners had a
24 Offenders convicted of first degree murder (Class A) may receive either a death sentence or life without parole under Structured Sentencing, with the exception of offenders under age 18 at the time of offense who may receive a sentence of life with parole.
25 If extraordinary mitigation is found, the court may impose an Intermediate punishment when only an active punishment is authorized for offenders sentenced for a Class B2 through Class D felony with one to four prior record points. G.S. 15A-1340.13(g) and (h). Class D has an additional exception to the felony punishment chart – an Intermediate punishment can be imposed for felony death by vehicle (FDBV) if the conviction falls within Prior Record Level I through Prior Record Level III.
26 Effective December 1, 2013, the judgment for an offender convicted of a Class 3 misdemeanor who has no more than 3 prior convictions shall consist only of a fine.
27 See id. at line 18.
28 Of the 11,026 offenders with a conviction for a person offense, 9% (n=988) had a conviction for an offense which requires registration as a sex offender under Article 27A of Chapter 14 of the NC General Statutes. 13
conviction for property and person offenses (35% and 26% respectively), while the majority of probationers had a conviction for property and drug offenses (45% and 26% respectively).
Criminal Justice Outcomes
As noted above, all probationers in the FY 2013 sample were subject to changes to criminal justice laws and practices enacted by the JRA. The results for probationers reported in this section reflect the early phase of implementation of the JRA. In contrast, the results for prisoners reported in this section are not reflective of the JRA because so few were subject to the changes under the legislation.
Criminal Justice Outcome Measures
The Sentencing Commission uses recidivist arrests as its primary measure of recidivism, supplemented by information on recidivist convictions and recidivist incarcerations, to assess the extent of an offender’s repeat involvement in the criminal justice system. The following sections examine these criminal justice outcome measures by offender type and for the sample as a whole. Regardless of the measure used to capture repeat involvement in the criminal justice system, prisoners had a greater likelihood of having a recidivist event than probationers.
Definition of the Follow-Up Period
Each offender in the FY 2013 sample was followed for a period of two years to determine whether repeat criminal behavior occurred, with one-year and two-year recidivism rates reported.29 The two-year follow-up period was calculated on an individual basis using the prison release date plus two years for prison releases and using the probation entry date plus two years for probation entries. A fixed follow-up period was used in an attempt to obtain the same “window of opportunity” for each offender to recidivate. In actuality, the same window of opportunity was not necessarily available due to periods of prison or jail confinements imposed for a variety of reasons. As a result, offenders without a recidivist arrest in the follow-up may appear to be a success but may have actually experienced another type of criminal justice failure during that period (e.g., absconding, revocations of probation or PRS, technical violations of probation resulting in a CRV, technical violations of PRS resulting in a three-month revocation).
Recidivist Arrests
Recidivist arrest rates for the one-year and two-year follow-up are shown in Table 2.4. Overall, 40% of the FY 2013 sample had a recidivist arrest during the follow-up, with the first recidivist arrest occurring, on average, 9 months after entry to probation or release from prison. Compared to probationers, prisoners had a higher rate of recidivist arrest during the follow-up (38% and 48% respectively). However, the number of months to the first recidivist arrest was similar for probationers and prisoners (8 and 9 respectively), as was the number of recidivist arrests during the two-year follow-up (see Figure 2.2).
29 Statistics reported for the two-year follow-up period include information on events that occurred during the first year of follow-up. As a result, the recidivism rates reported for each follow-up period cannot be added together across follow-up periods. 14
Table 2.4
Recidivist Arrest Rates
Sample
Entry Type
N
# with Any
% Recidivist Arrest
One-Year
Follow-Up
Two-Year
Follow-Up
Probation Entries
35,103
13,219
26
38
Prison Releases
13,873
6,599
31
48
Total
48,976
19,818
28
40
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation
Figure 2.2
Number of Recidivist Arrests for Offenders with Any Arrest: Two-Year Follow-Up
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
Table 2.5 provides information on the number of arrests for offenders who had a recidivist arrest during the follow-up period, as well as the types of crimes for which they had a recidivist arrest. The 19,818
Table 2.5
Recidivist Arrests by Crime Type: Two-Year Follow-Up
Sample
Entry Type
N
# with Any
Total Arrests
# of Arrests by Crime Type
#
Avg.
Person
Property
Drug
Other
Probation Entries
35,103
13,219
25,136
2
5,243
10,805
5,948
9,357
Prison Releases
13,873
6,599
13,945
2
3,306
6,062
3,417
5,265
Total
48,976
19,818
39,081
2
8,549
16,867
9,365
14,622
Note: Multiple crime types may be linked to an arrest record. As a result, the number of recidivist arrests by crime type cannot be added together to equal the total number of arrests.
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
51%
47%
54%
25%
26%
25%
18%
20%
16%
6%
7%
5%
TotalN=19,818
Prison Releasesn=6,599
Probation Entriesn=13,219
1 Recidivist Arrest
2 Recidivist Arrests
3-4 Recidivist Arrests
5+ Recidivist Arrests15
offenders who had a recidivist arrest during the follow-up accounted for a total of 39,081 arrests. Prisoners and probationers were most likely to have a recidivist arrest for property and “other” crime types and averaged 2 recidivist arrests during the follow-up. Although probationers were less likely to have a recidivist arrest than prisoners, they accounted for a higher volume of arrests due to the larger number of probation entries in the FY 2013 sample.
Recidivist Convictions
Table 2.6 presents information on recidivist conviction rates during the one-year and two-year follow-up. Overall, 21% of the FY 2013 sample had a recidivist conviction during the follow-up with the first recidivist conviction occurring, on average, 12 months after entry to probation or release from prison. Although recidivist conviction rates were similar for probationers and prisoners during the one-year follow-up (9% and 11% respectively), prisoners were more likely to have a recidivist conviction than probationers during the two-year follow-up (26% and 19% respectively).
Table 2.6
Recidivist Conviction Rates
Sample
Entry Type
N
# with Any
% Recidivist Conviction
One-Year
Follow-Up
Two-Year
Follow-Up
Probation Entries
35,103
6,627
9
19
Prison Releases
13,873
3,543
11
26
Total
48,976
10,170
10
21
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation
Table 2.7 provides information on the number of convictions for offenders who had a recidivist conviction during the follow-up period, as well as the types of crimes for which they had a recidivist conviction. Both prisoners and probationers were most likely to have a recidivist conviction for a property offense and averaged 1 recidivist conviction during the follow-up. While a lower percentage of probationers than prisoners had a recidivist conviction, probationers accounted for a higher number of convictions than prisoners due to the larger number of probation entries in the FY 2013 sample.
Table 2.7
Recidivist Convictions by Crime Type: Two-Year Follow-Up
Sample
Entry Type
N
# with Any
Total Convictions
# of Convictions by Crime Type
#
Avg.
Person
Property
Drug
Other
Probation Entries
35,103
6,627
8,578
1
1,312
4,157
2,233
2,089
Prison Releases
13,873
3,543
4,692
1
845
2,215
1,167
1,280
Total
48,976
10,170
13,270
1
2,157
6,372
3,400
3,369
Note: Multiple crime types may be linked to a conviction. As a result, the number of recidivist convictions by crime type cannot be added together to equal the total number of convictions.
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation Data 16
Recidivist Incarcerations
Recidivist incarceration rates for the one-year and two-year follow-up are shown in Table 2.8. Recidivist incarcerations may have occurred as a result of the sentence imposed for a new crime committed or due to a probation or PRS revocation during the follow-up period.
Overall, 16% of the FY 2013 sample had a recidivist incarceration during the follow-up, with the first recidivist incarceration occurring an average of 11 months after entry to probation or release from prison. Of those with a recidivist incarceration, the majority of offenders had 1 recidivist incarceration during follow-up (87%). Prisoners were more likely to have a recidivist incarceration than probationers (21% and 14% respectively).
Table 2.8
Recidivist Incarceration Rates
Sample
Entry Type
N
# with Any
% Recidivist Incarceration
One-Year
Follow-Up
Two-Year
Follow-Up
Probation Entries
35,103
4,810
7
14
Prison Releases
13,873
2,970
12
21
Total
48,976
7,780
9
16
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation
Criminal Justice Outcome Measures by Groups
The next section examines the criminal justice outcome measures by personal characteristics, type of conviction and offense class, and for specific groups of offenders (i.e., habitual felons, sex offenders required to register with the sex offender registry).
Personal Characteristics
Table 2.9 provides recidivism rates by the offender’s personal characteristics: gender, race, age at probation entry or prison release, marital status, education, employment, and substance abuse need and/or a history of drug addiction.30 Overall, males, black offenders, single offenders, high school dropouts, unemployed offenders, and offenders with a substance abuse need and/or a history of drug addiction had higher recidivism rates for all three criminal justice outcome measures when compared to their counterparts. Recidivism rates were highest for the youngest offenders across all three measures of recidivism but declined as an offender’s age at sample entry increased.
30 Descriptive statistics for the sample are shown in Table 2.1. 17
Table 2.9
Criminal Justice Outcomes by Personal Characteristics
Personal Characteristics
N
Criminal Justice Outcomes: Two-Year Follow-Up
% Recidivist Arrest
% Recidivist
Conviction
% Recidivist
Incarceration
Gender
Female
10,648
30
14
8
Male
38,328
43
23
18
Race
Black
24,403
45
23
16
White
22,122
36
19
16
Other/Unknown
2,451
31
13
13
Age at Sample Entry
Under 21 Years
6,889
52
29
18
21-29 Years
17,424
46
24
18
30-39 Years
12,073
38
18
16
40-49 Years
7,886
34
17
14
50 Years and Older
4,704
23
12
9
Marital Status
Single
33,388
44
23
17
Divorced/Separated
8,896
34
17
16
Married/Widowed
6,536
30
15
12
Other/Unknown
156
33
14
10
Education
High School Graduate
19,280
33
16
10
High School Dropout
29,611
46
24
20
Employment
Employed
24,678
37
18
15
Unemployed
23,350
43
23
16
Substance Abuse
None Indicated
24,000
36
17
12
Substance Abuse or Need
21,743
45
24
19
Total
48,976
40
21
16
Note: Eighty-five offenders were missing education, 295 were missing employment, and 3,233 were missing substance abuse information.
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
Offense Class of the Conviction, Habitual Felons, and Registered Sex Offenders
In Table 2.10, recidivism rates were examined by offense class and offender type. As mentioned in the previous section, prisoners in the sample had higher recidivism rates than probationers across all three 18
criminal justice outcome measures. Generally, this pattern is repeated when comparing recidivism rates for prisoners and probationers across offense class groupings.31
Table 2.10
Criminal Justice Outcomes by Most Serious Current Conviction
Most Serious
Current Conviction
N
Criminal Justice Outcomes: Two-Year Follow-Up
% Recidivist Arrest
% Recidivist Conviction
% Recidivist Incarceration
Offense Class
Probation Entries
Class B1 – E Felony
626
28
12
18
Class F – I Felony
12,575
40
20
25
Felony Subtotal
13,201
39
19
25
Class A1 – 3 Misdemeanor
21,902
37
19
7
Total
35,103
38
19
14
Prison Releases
Class B1 – E Felony
3,189
43
19
24
Class F – I Felony
10,684
49
27
21
Total
13,873
48
26
21
All Offenders
Class B1 – E Felony
3,815
40
18
23
Class F – I Felony
23,259
44
23
23
Felony Subtotal
27,074
43
23
23
Class A1 – 3 Misdemeanor
21,902
37
19
7
Total
48,976
40
21
16
Specific Groups of Interest
Habitual Felons
659
48
22
27
Sex Offenders
988
26
14
21
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
Focusing on the sample as a whole, offenders with a current conviction for a felony offense had higher recidivism rates for all three criminal justice outcomes compared to those with a misdemeanor offense. However, it must be noted that the Class A1 through Class 3 misdemeanor group is comprised only of probation entries. As noted previously, no misdemeanor prison releases were included in the sample. When comparing offenders with a felony, those with a Class F through Class I conviction had higher recidivist arrest and conviction rates (44% and 23% respectively) than those with a Class B1 through Class E conviction (40% and 18% respectively). There were no differences between the two groups for recidivist incarceration rates.
Recidivism rate comparisons can also be made between probationers and prisoners within the same offense class groupings. Prisoners with a Class B1 through Class E felony had higher recidivism rates than
31 See Appendix D for recidivism rates for offenders in each offense class. 19
their probation counterparts for all three measures.32 Prisoners with a Class F through Class I felony conviction had higher recidivist arrest and conviction rates (49% and 27% respectively) than probationers in the same class group (40% and 20% respectively). However, probationers with a Class F through Class I felony conviction had higher incarceration rates than their prison counterparts (25% compared to 21% respectively). This finding is likely linked to supervision during follow-up for Class F through Class I probationers and the possibility of being incarcerated for revocations of probation. In contrast, the majority of Class F through Class I felony prisoners in the FY 2013 sample do not have PRS following their release from prison.
Represented within Class B1 through Class E convictions is a specific group of offenders – habitual felons. An habitual felon is an offender with at least three prior felony convictions (each conviction having occurred before he or she committed the next offense) who has currently been convicted of a felony offense and who has been found by a jury to be an habitual felon (G.S. 14-7.1 to -7.6). An habitual felon is sentenced as a Class C felon if the substantive felony offense was committed prior to December 1, 2011. For substantive felony offenses committed on or after December 1, 2011, an habitual felon is sentenced at a felony class that is four classes higher than the substantive felony for which the person was convicted, but under no circumstances higher than Class C.
In FY 2013 there were 659 habitual felons released from prison with a habitual felon conviction. Recidivism rates for habitual felons were compared to recidivism rates for prison releases with habitual felons excluded in order to assess whether habitual felons were more similar to offenders with a conviction for a Class B1 through Class E felony or to offenders with a conviction for a Class F through Class I felony. Recidivist arrest rates for habitual felons were similar to recidivist arrest rates for prisoners convicted of a Class F through Class I felony (48% and 49% respectively). However, the recidivist conviction and recidivist incarceration rates of habitual felons (22% and 27% respectively) more closely resembled prisoners with a Class B1 through Class E felony (19% and 24% respectively).
Offenders who are required to register as sex offenders under Article 27A of Chapter 14 of the NC General Statutes are also a group of special interest. Those convicted of a reportable offense are required to register as sex offenders. A reportable offense is defined as “an offense against a minor, a sexually violent offense, or an attempt to commit” such offenses. Of the 988 offenders in the sample convicted of an offense for which registration as a sex offender is required, 58% were prisoners and 42% were probationers; 33% were convicted of a Class B1 through Class E felony, 59% were convicted of a Class F through Class I felony, and 8% were convicted of a Class A1 through Class 3 misdemeanor.33 Overall, 26% of the offenders required to register as a sex offender had a recidivist arrest, 14% had a recidivist conviction, and 21% had a recidivist incarceration. Sex offenders generally had lower recidivism rates than most groups.
Summary
Chapter Two examined the FY 2013 sample by offender type (i.e., probation entries and prison releases) and as a whole. A statistical profile of offenders in North Carolina was provided and included the characteristics of the sample and their prior, current, and recidivist criminal justice contacts.
32 Nearly all probation entries in Class B1 through Class E have a Class E conviction.
33 The Class A1 through Class 3 misdemeanor group is comprised only of probation entries. As described previously, no misdemeanor prison releases were included in the sample. 20
Compared to probationers, prisoners were more likely to have dropped out of high school and less likely to be employed. A higher percentage of prisoners were identified as having a substance abuse need and/or a history of drug addiction. These personal characteristics were also linked to higher recidivism rates for all three measures – recidivist arrest, recidivist conviction, and recidivist incarceration.
Four measures were used to examine prior criminal justice contacts – prior arrests, prior probation admissions, prior probation revocations, and prior incarcerations. Compared to probationers, prisoners had more extensive prior criminal history for all four measures. Prisoners were much more likely to have a prior arrest than probationers (94% and 77% respectively) and had more arrests on average (7 and 4 respectively). Although prisoners were also more likely to have a prior probation admission, a prior probation revocation, or a prior incarceration, the average number of prior criminal justice contacts for each of those measures was similar for both groups.
Three measures of recidivism – recidivist arrest, conviction, and incarceration – were used to assess repeat involvement with the criminal justice system. Compared to probationers, prisoners had higher recidivism rates for all three measures (see Figure 2.3). Although prisoners had higher rates of recidivism, probationers and prisoners had the same average number of recidivist arrests and recidivist convictions.
Figure 2.3
Criminal Justice Outcomes: Two-Year Follow-Up
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
A major limitation in the examination of both prior and recidivist incarcerations is the lack of available jail data. Incarceration in county jails, either as a result of new sentences or revocations, is not included as part of the prior or recidivist incarceration measures because there are no statewide automated jail data in North Carolina. Statewide automated jail data would allow for a more complete examination of offender behavior in North Carolina.
As described in this chapter, the JRA affected all probationers and a portion of prison releases in the FY 2013 sample. Outcomes reported in this chapter for probationers offer a first look at the effect of the JRA during the early phase of implementation. More detail related to the effects of the JRA on interim and criminal justice outcome measures for probationers is provided in Chapter Three.
38%
48%
40%
19%
26%
21%
14%
21%
16%
Probation Entriesn=35,103
Prison Releasesn=13,873
TotalN=48,976
Recidivist Arrest
Recidivist Conviction
Recidivist Incarceration21
CHAPTER THREE
PROBATION ENTRIES IN FY 2013
Chapter Two provides a sample-wide profile of North Carolina offenders and their recidivism. This chapter turns to a further examination of the probationers in the sample. As discussed in Chapter One, the impact of the JRA is expected to be greatest on the state’s community corrections population, and the FY 2013 probation entries are the first recidivism sample to be processed and supervised under the provisions and policies implemented under the JRA. With this special focus, Chapter Three examines the risk and need assessments (RNA) and the determination of supervision level; probation violations and specific responses to those violations (e.g., interim outcomes); and the recidivist behavior of the probationers (e.g., criminal justice outcomes).34
Statistical Profile of the FY 2013 Probation Entries
The DPS provides supervision and services to all offenders in the community based on their risk, need, and supervision level. In FY 2013, there were 35,103 probation entries in the sample. In order to examine the changes implemented under the JRA (e.g., the interim outcomes), Chapter Three focuses on the 31,832 probationers who had a RNA completed and a supervision level assigned based on that RNA.35 The Sentencing Commission’s prior recidivism studies focused on the type of punishment for probationers (e.g., Community or Intermediate punishment). With Community and Intermediate punishments redefined under the JRA, this chapter instead compares probationers as felons or misdemeanants based on their current conviction. The majority (62%) had a misdemeanor as their most serious current conviction; the remaining probationers (38%) had a felony as their most serious current conviction. While the type of conviction is not necessarily relevant to the DPS with regards to how the offender is supervised in the community, it does guide the length of probation supervision which may be relevant to how violations of probation are handled either by the court or through the use of the DPS’s delegated authority and is explained in more detail later in the chapter.36 The supervision period for probationers with a current misdemeanor conviction was shorter (an average of 16 months) compared to probationers with a current felony conviction (an average of 28 months).37
Table 3.1 contains information describing the personal characteristics of the probationers. Of the 31,832 probationers, 73% were male, 47% were black, 35% were aged 21-29 years, 68% were single, 55% had dropped out of high school, 45% were employed, and 37% were identified as having a substance abuse need and/or a history of drug addiction. Felons were more likely to be male compared to misdemeanants (80% and 69% respectively). Felons also were more likely to be a high school dropout and have a greater proportion identified with substance abuse education or treatment needed and/or a self-reported history of drug addiction. The average age at probation admission was 32 with no differences in age for felons and misdemeanants.
34 A glossary of primary analysis variables and key terms is provided in Appendix B.
35 Of the 9% of the probationers missing a completed RNA, most (6%) had a misdemeanor as the most serious conviction while the remainder had a felony conviction (3%). See Table E.1 in Appendix E for interim and criminal justice outcomes for those offenders.
36 In addition, felons serve longer active sentences than misdemeanants if probation is revoked; felons serve their sentences in the state prison system while misdemeanants serve their sentences in local jails.
37 Although there are some exceptions, under current law misdemeanor probationers receive a probation sentence of not less than 6 months and not more than 24 months, depending upon whether they receive a Community or Intermediate punishment, while felony probationers receive a probation sentence of not less than 12 months and not more than 36 months, depending upon whether they receive a Community or Intermediate punishment. 22
Table 3.1
Personal Characteristics
Personal Characteristics
Probation Entries
Misdemeanants
n=19,711
%
Felons
n=12,121
%
Total
N=31,832
%
Gender
Female
31
20
27
Male
69
80
73
Race
Black
46
48
47
White
49
48
48
Other/Unknown
5
4
5
Age at Sample Entry
Under 21 Years
18
16
17
21-29 Years
35
36
35
30-39 Years
22
25
23
40-49 Years
15
14
15
50 Years and Older
10
9
10
Marital Status
Single
68
68
68
Divorced/Separated
14
15
14
Married/Widowed
18
17
18
Other/Unknown
0
0
0
Education
High School Graduate
47
43
45
High School Dropout
53
57
55
Employment
Employed
45
46
45
Unemployed
55
54
55
Substance Abuse
None Indicated
65
60
63
Substance Abuse or Need
35
40
37
Note: Forty-four offenders were missing education information with 13 missing employment information. Of the 31,832 probationers with ethnicity available, 2% were Hispanic.
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
23
The criminal history of probationers is examined in Table 3.2. Overall, 77% of the probationers had a prior arrest, 53% had a prior probation admission, 32% had a prior probation revocation, and 26% had a prior incarceration. Felons had more prior criminal justice contacts than misdemeanants for all four measures examined.
Table 3.2
Prior Criminal Justice Contacts
Prior Criminal Justice Contacts
Probation Entries
Misdemeanants
n=19,711
Felons
n=12,121
Total
N=31,832
Prior Arrests
% with Any Arrest
70
86
77
Total # of Arrests
52,735
42,699
95,434
Average # of Arrests
4
4
4
Prior Probation Admissions
% with Any Probation Admission
50
59
53
Total # of Probation Admissions
21,446
14,317
35,763
Average # of Probation Admissions
2
2
2
Prior Probation Revocations
% with Any Probation Revocation
29
36
32
Total # of Probation Revocations
10,550
7,328
17,878
Average # of Probation Revocations
2
2
2
Prior Incarcerations
% with Any Incarceration
23
31
26
Total # of Incarcerations
10,581
7,020
17,601
Average # of Incarcerations
2
2
2
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
The majority of felons had a conviction for a Class H or Class I offense (46% and 26% respectively), while the majority of misdemeanants had a conviction for a Class 1 or Class A1 offense (62% and 18% respectively).38 The majority of probationers committed a property offense (44%) as their current conviction with both felons and misdemeanants committing property offenses most frequently (41% and 46% respectively). (See Figure 3.1.) Felons had fewer person offenses and more drug offenses (13% and 37% respectively) compared to misdemeanants (26% and 20% respectively).39
38 See Chapter Two for more details regarding the offense class and type of the conviction for probation releases.
39 Felons who commit person offenses tend to receive an active punishment (i.e., prison) by the court and are not sentenced to probation supervision. 24
Figure 3.1
Offense Type of the Most Serious Current Conviction for Probation Entries
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
Offender Risk and Need Assessments
With the passage of the JRA, North Carolina joined a growing number of states that utilize some measure of risk and need to assess offenders, determine supervision type and level, and provide rehabilitative and other services. The legislation requires the DPS to use a validated instrument to assess each probationer’s risk of reoffending and criminogenic needs and to place the probationer in the appropriate supervision level. The DPS currently uses the Offender Traits Inventory-Revised (OTI-R) to assess offender risk and the Offender Self-Report instrument and the Officer Interview and Impressions instrument to assess offender need in order to determine supervision level, program placement, and other interventions for probationers.40
The OTI-R was fully implemented by the spring of 2012 and is administered within the first 60 days of probation supervision.41 Each offender is assigned to one of five risk levels based on their score: extreme, high, moderate, low, and minimal. Table 3.3 provides the risk level distribution for probationers. Overall, 7% were assessed as extreme risk, 15% were assessed as high risk, 42% as moderate risk, 30% as low risk, and 6% as minimal risk. More felons were assessed as extreme or high risk compared to misdemeanants, while more misdemeanants were assessed as low and minimal risk compared to felons.
The need portion of the assessment addresses six criminogenic factors including dysfunctional family, criminal peers, anti-social personality, anti-social values, substance abuse, and self-control. Similar to risk, the need assessment divides the probationers into five need levels: extreme, high, moderate, low, and minimal.42 Overall, 26% were assessed as extreme need, 18% as high need, 36% as moderate need, 16% as low need, and 4% as minimal need (see Table 3.3). Examination of need level shows little difference between felons and misdemeanants – 24% of misdemeanants and 28% of felons were
40 See Cuddeback, Gary S. and Lambert, Michael C. Factor Structure, Reliability, and Validity of the Revised Offender Traits Inventory and Selected Needs Measures on the Risk and Needs Assessment. UNC School of Social Work. July 1, 2012.
41 For this report, RNA data were based on assessments completed on or after the probation entry that placed the offender in the sample, and could have occurred at any point during the two-year follow-up period.
42 See the DPS’s DCC Needs Assessment: Construction, Validation, and Initial Needs Levels for a description of how the needs assessment was created and the linkages between the offender’s responses and the areas of need. March, 2010.
21%
13%
26%
44%
41%
46%
26%
37%
20%
9%
9%
8%
TotalN=31,832
Felonsn=12,121
Misdemeanantsn=19,711
Person
Property
Drug
Other25
assessed as extreme need, while 4% of misdemeanants and 3% of felons were assessed as minimal need.
Table 3.3
Offender Risk and Need Levels
Probation Entries
N
% Offender Risk Level
Extreme
High
Moderate
Low
Minimal
Misdemeanants
19,711
5
13
42
33
7
Felons
12,121
9
19
43
25
4
Total
31,832
7
15
42
30
6
Probation Entries
N
% Offender Need Level
Extreme
High
Moderate
Low
Minimal
Misdemeanants
19,711
24
18
37
17
4
Felons
12,121
28
18
35
16
3
Total
31,832
26
18
36
16
4
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
Table 3.4 provides information on the areas of need that were flagged from the need portion of the RNA. The areas identified assist the probation officer in potential referrals or services that the offender
Table 3.4
Areas of Need Identified
Areas of Need
Probation Entries
Misdemeanants
n=19,711
%
Felons
n=12,121
%
Total
N=31,832
%
Academic/Vocational
25
27
26
Anti-social Personality
8
11
9
Anti-social Values
11
12
11
Criminal Peers
23
28
25
Dysfunctional Family
28
27
28
Employment
29
33
30
Financial
13
12
12
Housing
14
14
14
Legal
28
26
28
Physical
18
17
18
Substance Abuse
35
39
36
Self-Control
15
14
15
Transportation
32
35
33
Mental Health
29
29
29
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation Data 26
may need. Substance abuse (36%), transportation (33%), and employment (30%) were identified as the top areas of need. Felons and misdemeanants were very similar in the areas of need identified.
Supervision in the Community
The DPS determines a probationer’s supervision level based on the intersection of the offender’s risk level and need level. The supervision levels range from 1 to 5 with Level 1 being the highest. Once supervision level is determined, the minimum contact requirements for probation officers are set. Level 1 (the most restrictive) requires one home contact and one offender management contact per month, while Level 5 (the least restrictive) requires remote reporting monthly.43
Table 3.5 provides a description of supervision levels for misdemeanants and felons. Overall, 8% of probationers were assessed in Supervision Level 1, 26% in Level 2, 36% in Level 3, 26% in Level 4, and 4% in Level 5. More felons were placed in the most restrictive supervision levels, Levels 1 and 2 (12% and 30% respectively), than misdemeanants (7% and 23% respectively). More misdemeanants were placed in the least restrictive supervision levels, Levels 4 and 5 (28% and 4% respectively), than felons (22% and 3% respectively).
Table 3.5
Offender Supervision Level
Probation Entries
N
% Offender Supervision Level
Most Restrictive (Level 1) to Least Restrictive (Level 5)
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Misdemeanants
19,711
7
23
38
28
4
Felons
12,121
12
30
33
22
3
Total
31,832
8
26
36
26
4
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
Table 3.6 shows the distribution of probationers by risk, need, and supervision levels. As categorized according to the DPS’s risk instrument, the majority of probationers were moderate and low risk (42% and 30% respectively). For need level, the majority of probationers were moderate and extreme need (36% and 26% respectively). In addition to providing the distribution by risk level and by need level, the table also provides the distribution for each combination of risk level and need level.
43 See the Sentencing Commission’s reports titled Justice Reinvestment Act Implementation Evaluation Report at http://www.nccourts.org/Courts/CRS/Councils/spac/Publication/JRIReports.asp. 27
Table 3.6
Supervision Level Distribution Based on Risk and Need Levels for Probation Entries
Need Level
Risk Level
#/% by Need Level
Extreme
High
Moderate
Low
Minimal
Extreme 693 2% 1,533 5%
3,990
13% 1,815 6% 219 1%
8,250
26%
High 512 2%
1,052
3% 2,504 8% 1,409 4% 222 1%
5,699
18%
Moderate
662
2%
1,583
5% 4,844 15% 3,723 12% 742 2%
11,554
36%
Low
218
1%
643
2% 1,941 6% 1,938 6% 441 1%
5,181
16%
Minimal
27
0%
85
0% 282 1% 567 2% 187 1%
1,148
4%
#/% by
Risk Level
2,112
7%
4,896
15%
13,561
42%
9,452
30%
1,811
6%
31,832
100%
Note: Percentages may not round to 100%.
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
Interim Outcome Measures
The JRA changed how probation officers supervise offenders and their possible responses to violations of probation by expanding their delegated authority, limiting revocations of probation, and establishing CRVs. The JRA expanded delegated authority in two ways – by adding to the list of conditions a probation officer may impose on a probationer (e.g., QDC, house arrest with electronic monitoring) and by broadening the circumstances in which the officer may impose them. While the RNA guides the level at which offenders will be supervised and helps probation officers to select programs and services aimed at changing criminogenic needs, delegated authority enables probation officers to graduate sanctions in response to non-compliance by offenders. For this analysis, only three sanctions for violations of probation were examined – QDC, CRV, and revocations – those created by or most directly impacted by the JRA.
Of the probation entries in the FY 2013 sample, misdemeanants were sentenced to an average of 16 months of supervised probation, while felons were sentenced to an average of 28 months. As a result, some misdemeanants were not on probation supervision for the entire two-year follow-up period, while the majority of felons were on supervision for the entire follow-up. The probation violation and type of responses to the violations (i.e., QDC, CRV, revocation) capture any violations or responses that occurred while on probation supervision during the two-year follow-up period. In addition, these violations or responses may have occurred in relation to the offense for which the offender was selected for the study sample or for a new probation sentence that was imposed during follow-up.
L1
L3
L4
L5
L2 28
Probation Violations
For the 31,832 probationers, violations of probation were used as an indicator of misconduct while under supervision in the community during the two-year follow-up. Data on probation violations were analyzed based on “completed” violations. Completed violations either have been disposed of by the court at a violation hearing or handled by the DPS through the use of delegated authority. In addition, the type of violation was examined using the following categories in order of most serious to least serious: criminal (pending criminal charge(s) or a new conviction), absconding (excludes criminal or other technical violations), or technical (excludes criminal or absconding violations).44 Probationers may have more than one type of violation on the same day (e.g., a technical violation for having a positive drug test and a criminal violation for a new conviction) and may have multiple violations during the follow-up period. For analysis, examination of type of violation was based on the most serious violation that occurred during follow-up (hereinafter referred to as most serious violation).
Overall, 52% of the probationers had at least one violation during the one-year follow-up period and 68% had at least one violation during the two-year follow-up (see Table 3.7). More misdemeanants than felons had a violation during the two-year follow-up. Based on the most serious violation for probationers with at least one violation, 30% had a criminal violation, 18% had an absconding violation, and 52% had a technical violation. Both felons and misdemeanants had more technical violations as their most serious type of violation. Felons had more criminal violations (34%) and fewer technical violations (46%) as their most serious violation compared to 27% of the misdemeanants with a criminal violation and 56% with a technical violation as their most serious violation.
Table 3.7
Violation Rates
Probation Entries
N
% with Any Violation
% Most Serious Violation (n=21,770):
Two-Year Follow-Up
One-Year Follow-Up
Two-Year Follow-Up
Criminal
Absconding
Technical
Misdemeanants
19,711
57
70
27
17
56
Felons
12,121
44
66
34
20
46
Total
31,832
52
68
30
18
52
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
For analysis purposes, only one violation per violation hearing date (or date the violation was handled by the DPS) was counted. The 21,770 probationers with at least one violation accounted for a total of 35,385 violations during follow-up, with an average of 2 probation violations. For probationers with at least one violation, a higher percentage of misdemeanants had only one violation (62%) and fewer had three or more violations (12%) compared to felons (54% and 18% respectively). Among probationers who had a violation, the first violation tended to occur early in the supervision period, generally by the
44 Refer to the DPS’s DCC Exits FY 2008-2009 Update of Probation Revocation to Prison Report, February 10, 2010, for categorization and definitions of probation violations and revocations. While by definition a “criminal” violation may result from pending charges, it is generally the policy of the DPS to only consider criminal charges that result in conviction as a “criminal” violation. In the case of pending charges, probation officers may use elements of the pending charges to support a technical violation of probation (e.g., a charge for public intoxication could be used to support a technical violation of the probation condition of not using or possessing alcohol). 29
eighth month. Misdemeanants had their first violation on average at 8 months, while felons had their first violation on average at 9 months. When violation rates were examined by supervision level, the more restrictive the supervision level (e.g., Level 1) the higher the violation rate compared to the least restrictive supervision level (e.g., Level 5) – a stair-step progression with Level 1 at 86%, Level 2 at 79%, Level 3 at 68%, Level 4 at 56%, and Level 5 at 42%.45
Responses to Violations of Probation46
Information is provided on three responses to probation violations – 1) QDC in local jail facilities (i.e., two- or three-day periods of confinement), 2) CRV in prisons for felons (i.e., 90 days) or typically in local jail facilities for misdemeanants (i.e., up to 90 days), and 3) revocations of probation.47
Quick Dip Confinement — QDC
QDC was added as a tool to be used in response to probation violations. It was designed to be an immediate response to offender non-compliance. Offenders could be confined in local jails for either two- or three-day periods. By DPS policy, eligible offenders for QDC are those supervised in Levels 1, 2, and 3 – offenders with the highest levels of supervision.48 While the QDC went into effect for persons placed on probation on or after December 1, 2011, the implementation of the sanction was delayed until July 1, 2012 while the DPS developed policies and procedures regarding its use. This delay may have impacted the initial use of the QDC sanction.49 During the two-year follow-up, 745 of the 21,770 probationers with a violation had either a two- or three-day QDC imposed. More probationers were confined for a three-day QDC (n=429) compared to a two-day QDC (n=296) while 20 offenders had both. Hereinafter, two- and three-day QDCs are combined for analysis.
Overall, 1% of the probationers had at least one QDC during the one-year follow-up period and 2% had at least one QDC during the two-year follow-up. Misdemeanants and felons had similar rates of QDC during the one-year follow-up (1% and 2% respectively) and during the two-year follow-up (2% and 3% respectively). For probationers with a QDC during the two-year follow-up period, the first QDC occurred on average 11 months after admission to probation; misdemeanants had a shorter time to their first QDC at 9 months than felons at 12 months. Although the utilization of QDC as a sanction for probationers was low, a stair-step progression was found in the QDC rates when examined by supervision level. Probationers in the more restrictive supervision levels had higher QDC rates: Level 1 at 5%, Level 2 at 3%, Level 3 at 3%, and Level 4 at less than 1%. No probationers had a QDC at Level 5.50
45 See Appendix E for violations rates by the distribution of the risk and need levels during the two-year follow-up.
46 As previously mentioned, responses to violations of probation are not directly linked to a specific violation committed by the probationer.
47 There were other sanctions available in response to violations of probation (e.g., curfew, house arrest with electronic monitoring) that were not examined.
48 Effective December 1, 2015, the DPS changed its policy to allow probation officers to utilize QDC for all levels of offenders; however, it is not the first response to non-compliance and cannot be the response for non-willful violations (e.g., non-payment of fines).
49 See id. at line 42.
50 See Appendix E for the number of QDCs by the distribution of the risk and need levels during the two-year follow-up. 30
It is difficult to draw any conclusions because of the small number of probationers who had a QDC during the two-year follow-up; however, future recidivism studies should provide more insight to this sanction and its outcomes.51
Confinement in Response to Violation — CRV
The JRA made substantial changes to the responses to probation violations in terms of confinement. With the JRA, revocation and activation of the suspended sentence may only occur for those who abscond supervision or commit a new crime. A CRV may be imposed for technical violations of probation, with revocation possible only after the imposition of two prior CRVs. Felons who received a CRV are housed in the state prison system, while misdemeanants who received a CRV prior to December 2015, were housed primarily in local jail facilities.52 However, because there is no statewide automated jail data system, information on the impact of CRVs on local jail populations is unknown.53
In 2014, the DPS announced its pilot program for a designated CRV center that would offer an approach tailored for felony CRV offenders.54 The CRV Centers began receiving felons in December of 2014. Effective January 1, 2016, the DPS made into policy that CRV centers are to be classified as treatment beds (i.e., not prison beds); however, probationers who received a CRV disposition for violations of probation and are not eligible (e.g., medical or mental health reasons) will serve their CRV in a prison facility. Although a small portion of the FY 2013 probation entries may have spent their CRV in a CRV center during the follow-up period due to technical violations of probation, those probationers were not identified in this study since the CRV center’s implementation occurred near the end of the follow-up period.
In 2015, the Legislature again made changes to the application of CRVs by eliminating the period of CRV for misdemeanants sentenced to probation under Structured Sentencing.55 The amendment also provides that the court may revoke probation for the misdemeanant after he has received two separate periods of short-term confinement (i.e., QDC), which may be imposed either by the court or by the probation officer through delegated authority. This change applies to persons placed on probation on or after December 1, 2015 and will impact the Sentencing Commission’s future recidivism studies in that only felons will be eligible for CRVs.
Overall, 8% of probationers had at least one CRV during the one-year follow-up period and 14% had at least one CRV during the two-year follow-up (see Table 3.8).56 Misdemeanants had a higher percentage
51 In 2015, the Legislature eliminated the period of CRV for misdemeanants and provided that the court may revoke probation for the misdemeanant after he received two separate periods of short-term confinement (i.e., QDC), which may be imposed either by the court or by the probation officer through delegated authority.
52 Misdemeanants serve CRVs where they would have served their active sentence. The JRA required misdemeanants with a sentence imposed of more than 90 days and up to 180 days to be housed in county jails through the SMCP. During the 2014 Session, the SMCP was expanded to include misdemeanants with sentences greater than 180 days, as well as those sentenced for impaired driving.
53 Data are available from the NC Sheriffs’ Association for the SMCP; however, these data represent only a small portion of the state’s jail population.
54 Further information about CRV Centers can be found at https://www.ncdps.gov/Adult-Corrections/Community-Corrections/Confinement-in-Response-to-Violation-CRV.
55 The CRV remains as a sanction for offenders sentenced to probation for impaired driving offenses.
56 The implementation of CRVs occurred during the follow-up period of this report and some slippage happened in the tracking of CRVs and its evolution as an available sanction by probation officers and court officials. The number of CRVs for each probationer was not reported since the tracking of CRVs in OPUS was in its implementation phase and multiple sources in OPUS were used to identify CRV status. Future reports should have better reporting for CRVs. 31
who received a CRV compared to felons during the one-year follow-up (11% and 5% respectively) and for the two-year follow-up (16% and 10% respectively). This may be attributed to the shorter supervision length of misdemeanants compared to felons and the use of terminal CRVs57 for misdemeanants.58
Table 3.8
CRV Rates
Probation Entries
N
# with
at Least
One CRV
% CRV
One-Year
Follow-Up
Two-Year
Follow-Up
Misdemeanants
19,711
3,164
11
16
Felons
12,121
1,184
5
10
Total
31,832
4,348
8
14
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
For probationers with a CRV during the two-year follow-up, their first CRV occurred on average 11 months after admission to probation; misdemeanants had a shorter time to their first CRV at 10 months than felons at 12 months. Overall, probationers in the more restrictive supervision levels had more CRVs imposed compared to those in the less restrictive supervision levels (i.e., a stair-step progression): Level 1 at 19%, Level 2 at 18%, Level 3 at 14%, Level 4 at 8%, and Level 5 at 4%.59
Revocation
For probationers, revocations of probation were also examined as an indicator of misconduct during the two-year follow-up. As mentioned above, revocation and activation of the suspended sentence may only occur for those who abscond supervision or commit a new crime or after the imposition of two CRVs for technical violations following the JRA implementation. Similar to violations of probation, revocations were categorized in order of most serious to least serious as follows: criminal, absconding, or technical. Unlike probation violations where multiple violations can occur on the same date, the probationer can have only one revocation per date. A probationer may have multiple revocations during the follow-up period only if he or she has more than one probation sentence. For analysis, examination of type of revocation was based on the most serious revocation that occurred during follow-up (hereinafter referred to as “most serious revocation”).
Overall, 10% of probationers had a revocation of probation during the one-year follow-up period and 19% had a revocation during the two-year follow-up (see Table 3.9). Misdemeanants were more likely to have their probation revoked during the one-year follow-up than felons with felons “catching up” to misdemeanants by the two-year follow-up.
57 A terminal CRV occurs when the probation period is terminated following the period of confinement, either because the period of confinement “used up” the remainder of the offender’s sentence or the court modified the sentence and ordered probation to terminate after the completion of the period of confinement.
58 See id. at line 42.
59 See Appendix E for the number of CRVs by the distribution of the risk and need levels during the two-year follow-up. 32
Table 3.9
Revocation Rates
Probation Entries
N
% with Any Revocation
% Most Serious Revocation (n=5,959):
Two-Year Follow-Up
One-Year Follow-Up
Two-Year Follow-Up
Criminal
Absconding
Technical
Misdemeanants
19,711
11
18
26
55
19
Felons
12,121
9
19
33
53
14
Total
31,832
10
19
29
54
17
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
Based on the most serious revocation, 54% had an absconding revocation, 29% had a criminal revocation, and 17% had a technical revocation. For both felons and misdemeanants, the majority had an absconding revocation as the most serious type of revocation. Felons tended to have more criminal revocations and fewer technical revocations than misdemeanants. For probationers with a revocation of probation during the two-year follow-up period, their first revocation occurred an average of 12 months after probation entry; misdemeanants had a shorter time to revocation at 11 months than felons at 13 months. Probationers supervised in the more restrictive supervision levels had higher revocation rates compared to those in the least restrictive supervision levels (i.e., a stair-step progression): Level 1 at 39%, Level 2 at 27%, Level 3 at 17%, Level 4 at 8%, and Level 5 at 2%.60
Confinement in Response to Violation and Revocation
Prior to the JRA, revocations of probation were the result of criminal, absconding, or technical violations. After the JRA, revocations of probation were the result of criminal or absconding violations or after the imposition of two CRVs for technical violations. To address whether the process of violating probationers changed – not the specific sanction available to them (i.e., CRV, revocation) – Table 3.10 examines the combination of having a CRV or a revocation during the two-year follow-up for the FY 2013 probation entries. Overall, 31% of probationers had a CRV or a revocation during the two-year follow-up, while felons had 27% with at least one CRV or revocation and misdemeanants had 33%.61
Table 3.10
CRV and Revocation Rates: Two-Year Follow-Up
Probation Entries
N
% CRV
% Revocation
% CRV or Revocation
Misdemeanants
19,711
16
18
33
Felons
12,121
10
19
27
Total
31,832
14
19
31
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
60 See Appendix E for the revocation rates by the distribution of the risk and need levels during the two-year follow-up.
61 Combining CRV and revocation rates permit comparisons to revocation rates from prior recidivism studies by the Sentencing Commission. 33
Criminal Justice Outcome Measures
As described in Chapter Two, the Sentencing Commission’s main measure of recidivism is fingerprinted arrests. For all probation entries in the sample (n=35,103), the recidivist arrest rate was 26% during the one-year follow-up and 38% during the two-year follow-up (see Chapter Two). For the 31,832 probationers examined in this chapter, the overall recidivist arrest rate was 25% for the one-year follow-up and 37% for the two-year follow-up (see Table 3.11). Misdemeanants had lower recidivist arrest rates than felons. The average time to the first recidivist arrest was 9 months for misdemeanants and 8 months for felons.
Table 3.11
Recidivist Arrest Rates
Probation Entries
N
% Recidivist Arrest
One-Year
Follow-Up
Two-Year
Follow-Up
Misdemeanants
19,711
24
35
Felons
12,121
27
39
Total
31,832
25
37
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
Recidivist Arrest and Risk and Need Levels
Figure 3.2 shows the rearrest rates during the two-year follow-up by risk and need level. Probationers assessed as extreme risk had the highest rearrest rates at 60% followed by high risk at 50%, moderate risk at 40%, low risk at 24%, and minimal risk at 12%. Examining recidivist arrests and need level show the same stair-step pattern seen with risk level. There were few differences between misdemeanants and felons examining recidivist arrest by risk and need levels.62
Figure 3.2
Recidivist Arrest Rates by Risk and Need Levels for Probation Entries: Two-Year Follow-Up
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
62 See Appendix E for recidivist arrest rates by the distribution of the risk and need levels and by risk, need, and supervision levels for misdemeanants and felons during the two-year follow-up.
60%
50%
40%
24%
12%
45%
42%
33%
28%
19%
Extreme
High
Moderate
Low
Minimal
Risk Level
Need Level34
The 11,667 probationers with at least one recidivist arrest accounted for 21,605 recidivist arrests with an average of 2 arrests per offender regardless of risk level. A similar pattern was found based on need level for probationers. The average time to the first recidivist arrest was 9 months for probationers. Extreme and high risk probationers had their first recidivist arrest on average at 8 months compared to the remaining three risk level groups that had their first recidivist arrest around 9 months. For need level, no distinctive pattern for the time to the first rearrest between the five groups emerged.
Recidivist Arrest and Supervision Level
Similar to the pattern in rearrest rates by risk level and by need level, Figure 3.3 shows the same stair-step pattern in rearrest rates by supervision level – overall, the higher the supervision level the higher the rearrest rates. Sixty percent of Level 1 probationers had a recidivist arrest; 47% of Level 2, 35% of Level 3, 24% of Level 4, and 13% of Level 5. In general, probationers averaged 2 arrests per offender regardless of supervision level. Looking at the time to first recidivist arrest, Level 1 (the most restrictive) had the shortest amount of time to rearrest compared to probationers supervised in Level 5 (the least restrictive) – the time ranged from an average of 8 months to 10 months.
Figure 3.3
Recidivist Arrest Rates by Supervision Level for Probation Entries: Two-Year Follow-Up
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
Summary
Chapter Three provides a closer examination of the FY 2013 sample’s probationers in terms of risk, need, and supervision levels. Under the new legal provisions and policies of the JRA, more emphasis is given to risk, need, and supervision levels; probation violations and responses to those violations; and recidivism.
Ninety-one percent of the probationers (n=31,832) had a supervision level assigned based on the RNA. (See Figure 3.4.) The majority were misdemeanants (62%) based on their current conviction. Felons were more likely to be male, be a high school dropout, and have a greater proportion with substance abuse and/or need than misdemeanants. Felons had more prior contacts (i.e., fingerprinted arrests, probation admissions, probation revocations, incarcerations) with the criminal justice system than
60%
47%
35%
24%
13%
Level 1n=2,738Most Restrictive
Level 2n=8,260
Level 3n=11,497
Level 4n=8,155
Level 5n=1,182Least Restrictive35
misdemeanants. More felons than misdemeanants had higher risk and need levels. Eight percent of probationers were assigned to Supervision Level 1 (the most restrictive based on contacts with the probation officer), 26% to Level 2, 36% to Level 3, 26% to Level 4, and 4% to Level 5 (the least restrictive).
Figure 3.4
Criminal Justice Outcomes by Supervision Level for Probation Entries: Two-Year Follow-Up
Note: The QDC rates by supervision level were 5% for Level 1, 3% for Level 2 and 3%, and less than a percentage point for Level 4 with no QDCs in Level 5.
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2013 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
Probation violations and responses to violations were analyzed as interim outcome measures for probationers by conviction. Sixty-eight percent of probationers had at least one violation during the two-year follow-up. Misdemeanants had higher violation rates than felons. For felons and misdemeanants with at least one violation, most had a technical violation as their most serious violation. Three responses to violations were examined – QDCs, CRVs, and revocations. Over 700 probationers had a two- or three- day QDC – a graduated sanction that can be used through the use of
4%
8%
14%
18%
19%
2%
8%
17%
27%
39%
13%
24%
35%
47%
60%
42%
56%
68%
79%
86%
Level 5n=1,182Least Restrictive
Level 4n=8,155
Level 3n=11,497
Level 2n=8,260
Level 1n=2,738Most Restrictive
% Violation
% Recidivist Arrest
% Revocation
% CRV36
the DPS’s delegated authority or as ordered by the court. Since QDCs implemented later during the follow-up period, no meaningful conclusions were presented. With its more immediate implementation following the enactment of the JRA, 14% of probationers had at least one CRV with misdemeanants having more CRVs (16%) than felons (10%). Revocations of probation may only occur due to criminal or absconding violations or after two CRVs for technical violations due to the JRA. Nineteen percent of probationers had a revocation during the two-year follow-up with no differences between misdemeanants and felons. Looking at violations and responses to violations by supervision level, a stair-step pattern emerged – probationers with the highest risk of reoffending in Supervision Level 1 had more violations (86%), QDCs (5%), CRVs (19%), and revocations (39%) during the two-year follow-up compared to the remaining four groups (see Figure 3.4). Level 5 probationers had the least proportion of offenders with violations, QDCs, CRVs, and revocations compared to the other supervision levels.
Finally, recidivist arrests were examined based on risk, need, and supervision levels for probationers. Figure 3.4 shows the same stair-step pattern in recidivist arrest rates by supervision level – the higher the supervision level the higher the rearrest rates. Sixty percent of Level 1 probationers had a recidivist arrest; 47% of Level 2, 35% of Level 3, 24% of Level 4, and 13% of Level 5.
Chapter Four examines the profile and outcomes for the FY 2013 prison releases.
37
CHAPTER FOUR
PRISON RELEASES IN FY 2013
Chapter Three examines probationers in the sample, with the goal of determining the effects of the JRA on the state’s community corrections population during early implementation. Chapter Four turns to a further examination of the prisoners in the FY 2013 sample. This chapter examines the felony prison releases by post-release supervision (PRS) status (i.e., PRS, no PRS), provides a description of these