Correctional program evaluation : offenders placed on probation or released from prison in fiscal year ...

              North Carolina
Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission
Correctional Program Evaluation: Offenders Placed on Probation or
Released from Prison in
Fiscal Year 2010/11
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 (2011)
April 15, 2014
Prepared by:
Tamara Flinchum Ginny Hevener
Susan Katzenelson Jennifer Wesoloski Correctional Program Evaluation: Offenders Placed on Probation or
Released from Prison in
Fiscal Year 2010/11
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
Susan Katzenelson
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
Hon. Harry Brown
State Senator
Paul G. Butler, Jr.
NC Post-Release Supervision & Parole Commission
Robert Campbell
NC Bar Association
Sheriff James E. Clemmons
NC Sheriffs’ 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
Luther Moore
NC Retail Merchants’ Association
Judge Fred G. Morrison, Jr.
Justice Fellowship
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
Vacant
NC Attorney General’s OfficeNC SENTENCING AND POLICY ADVISORY COMMISSION
STAFF
Susan Katzenelson
Executive Director
John Madler
Associate Director for Policy, Staff Attorney
Ginny Hevener
Associate Director for Research
Tamara Flinchum
Senior Research & Policy Associate
Michelle Hall
Senior Research & Policy Associate
Sara Perdue
Senior Research & Policy Associate
Jennifer Wesoloski
Research & Policy Associate
Rebecca Wood
Research & Policy Associate
Jenayalynn Riojas
Administrative Secretary
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. i
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
Defining Recidivism .......................................................................................................................... 2
Structured Sentencing and Recidivism ............................................................................................ 2
Comparison of Recidivism Rates for Previous Recidivism Studies .................................................. 4
Research Design and Methodology ................................................................................................. 4
Sample ............................................................................................................................................ 6
Follow-up Period ............................................................................................................................. 6
Time at Risk ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Outcome and Process Measures ..................................................................................................... 6
Data Sources and Enhancements .................................................................................................... 6
Report Outline ................................................................................................................................ 7
STATISTICAL PROFILE OF THE FY 2010/11 SAMPLE ..................................................................................... 8
Type of Punishment ......................................................................................................................... 8
Personal Characteristics ................................................................................................................. 10
Criminal History ............................................................................................................................. 10
Most Serious Current Conviction ................................................................................................... 15
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 19
CRIMINAL JUSTICE OUTCOME MEASURES FOR THE FY 2010/11 SAMPLE ................................................. 20
Definition of the Follow-Up Period and Time at Risk .................................................................... 20
Criminal Justice Outcome Measures.............................................................................................. 21
Recidivist Arrests ............................................................................................................... 22
Recidivist Convictions ....................................................................................................... 23
Recidivist Incarcerations ................................................................................................... 27
Criminal Justice Outcome Measures by Groups ............................................................................ 28
Personal Characteristics .................................................................................................... 28
Offense Class of the Current Conviction, Habitual Felons, and Registered Sex
Offenders ............................................................................................................. 28
Interim Outcome Measures – Prison Releases .............................................................................. 31
Infractions ......................................................................................................................... 31
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 32
PROBATION ENTRIES IN FY 2010/11 ........................................................................................................... 34
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 34
Statistical Profile of the FY 2010/11 Probation Entries ................................................................. 34
Offender Risk and Need Assessments .............................................................................. 34
Supervision in the Community ....................................................................................................... 36
Interim Outcome Measures ........................................................................................................... 37
Probation Violations ......................................................................................................... 37
Revocations ....................................................................................................................... 39
Violations and Revocations ............................................................................................... 42 Criminal Justice Outcome Measures.............................................................................................. 43
Recidivist Arrests and Risk and Need Levels ..................................................................... 44
Recidivist Arrests and Supervision Level ........................................................................... 45
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 45
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 47
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 47
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 48
The Justice Reinvestment Act and Its Potential Impact on Recidivism ......................................... 50
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 53
APPENDIX A: ADDITIONAL TABLES ON FINGERPRINTED ARRESTS ............................................................ 55
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF MAJOR TERMS AND VARIABLES .................................................................... 58
APPENDIX C: PUNISHMENT CHARTS .......................................................................................................... 67
APPENDIX D: SUMMARIZED FINDINGS FOR THE FY 2010/11 SAMPLE ...................................................... 71
APPENDIX E: SUPERVISION LEVEL MATRIX ................................................................................................ 82
APPENDIX F: VIOLATION AND REVOCATION RATES BY TYPE OF PUNISHMENT ........................................ 84
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Rearrest Rates for North Carolina Offenders: Two-Year Follow-Up .........................................
5
Table 2.1: Personal Characteristics by Type of Punishment ......................................................................
11
Table 2.2: Prior Arrests by Type of Punishment ........................................................................................
12
Table 2.3: Prior Criminal Justice System Contacts by the Type of Punishment .........................................
14
Table 2.4: Most Serious Current Conviction by Type of Punishment ........................................................
17
Table 2.5: Offense Class for Most Serious Current Conviction by Type of Punishment ............................
18
Table 3.1: Percent at Risk and Average Time at Risk by Type of Punishment ...........................................
21
Table 3.2: Recidivist Arrest Rates by Type of Punishment ........................................................................
22
Table 3.3: Recidivist Arrests by Type of Punishment and Crime Type.......................................................
24
Table 3.4: Recidivist Conviction Rates by Type of Punishment .................................................................
25
Table 3.5: Recidivist Conviction by Type of Punishment and Crime Type .................................................
26
Table 3.6: Recidivist Incarceration Rates by Type of Punishment .............................................................
27
Table 3.7: Criminal Justice Outcomes by Personal Characteristics............................................................
29
Table 3.8: Criminal Justice Outcomes by Current Conviction ....................................................................
30
Table 3.9: Average Number of Infractions for Prison Releases during Incarceration ...............................
32
Table 3.10: Criminal Justice Outcomes by Type of Punishment ................................................................
33
Table 4.1: Offender Risk and Need Levels for Probation Entries ...............................................................
35
Table 4.2: Offender Supervision Level for Probation Entries ....................................................................
36
Table 4.3: Supervision Level Distribution Based on Risk Level and Need Level for Probation Entries ......
38
Table 4.4: Violations and Revocations by Current Conviction for Probation Entries ................................
40
Table 4.5: Violation Rates by Supervision Level Distribution Based on Risk Level and Need Level for Probation Entries during the Two-Year Follow-Up ....................................................................
41 Table 4.6: Revocation Rates by Supervision Level Distribution Based on Risk Level and Need Level for
Probation Entries during the Two-Year Follow-Up ...................................................................
42
Table 4.7: Recidivist Arrest Rates by Supervision Level Distribution Based on Risk Level and Need
Level for Probation Entries during the Two-year Follow-Up ....................................................
44
Table 5.1 Outcome Measures for North Carolina Offenders: Two-Year Follow-Up ..................................
48
Table 5.2 Recidivist Arrest Rates for North Carolina Offenders ................................................................
49
Table A.1: Fingerprinted Arrests by Fiscal Year State Bureau of Investigation’s Computerized Criminal
History Data ..............................................................................................................................
56
Table A.2: Recidivist Arrest Rates by Most Serious Offense Type .............................................................
57
Table F.1: Violations and Revocations by Type of Punishment for Probation Entries ..............................
85
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Type of Punishment .................................................................................................................
9
Figure 2.2: Type of Most Serious Current Felony Conviction ....................................................................
15
Figure 2.3: Type of Most Serious Current Misdemeanor Conviction ........................................................
16
Figure 3.1: Number of Recidivist Arrests for offenders with Any Rearrest: Two-Year Follow-Up ............
23
Figure 3.2: Number of Infractions for Prison Releases during Incarceration ............................................
31
Figure 4.1: Violation and Revocation Rates by Supervision Level for Probation Entries: Two-Year
Follow-Up ................................................................................................................................
43
Figure 4.2: Recidivist Arrest Rates by Supervision Level for Probation Entries: Two-Year Follow-Up ......
45
Figure 4.3: Violation, Revocation, and Rearrest Rates by Supervision Level for Probation Entries:
Two-Year Follow-Up ................................................................................................................
46
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ASR
Advanced Supervised Release
CCH
Computerized Criminal History data
CJPP
Criminal Justice Partnership Program
CRV
Confinement in Response to Violation
CY
Calendar Year
DACJJ
Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice
DJJDP
Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
DPS
Department of Public Safety
DOC
Department of Correction
DOJ
Department of Justice
FSA
Fair Sentencing Act
FY
Fiscal Year
JRA
Justice Reinvestment Act
OPUS
Offender Population Unified System
OTI
Offender Traits Inventory
OTI-R
Offender Traits Inventory-Revised
PRS
Post-Release Supervision
SMCP
Statewide Misdemeanant Confinement Program
SSA
Structured Sentencing Act
TECS
Treatment for Effective Community Supervision i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
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 (Session Law 1998-212, Section 16.18). This study constitutes the eighth report in compliance with the directive and only includes offenders sentenced under the Structured Sentencing Act (SSA). The focus of this study is to examine recidivism using a sample of 57,535 offenders released from prison or placed on probation in FY 2010/11, with recidivism defined as arrest, conviction, and incarceration during a two-year follow-up period. A more detailed examination of probationers includes their statistical profiles; offender risk and need assessments; supervision levels; interim outcome measures such as violations and revocations; and recidivist arrests.
With the passage of the Justice Reinvestment Act (JRA) of 2011, North Carolina has implemented substantial changes to the state’s sentencing practices and correctional policies. Although the implementation of the JRA does not impact the FY 2010/11 study sample with regard to sample selection, type of punishment, prior criminal history, or most serious current conviction, portions of the sample’s two-year follow-up period were under the criminal justice laws enacted and practices changed by JRA — especially for supervised probation entries. Future recidivism studies will allow for examination of recidivism under the new JRA policies.
Data Sources
Data for offenders in the sample were provided by the Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice (DACJJ) of the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and by the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Statistical Profile of the FY 2010/11 Sample
The sample of 57,535 offenders included 45.0% community probationers, 21.3% intermediate probationers, 29.5% prisoners with no post-release supervision (no PRS), and 4.2% prisoners with post-release supervision (PRS), all placed on probation or released from prison during FY 2010/11. Overall, there were 38,165 probation entries and 19,370 prison releases in the FY 2010/11 sample. Seventy-eight percent of the sample were male, 56.4% were nonwhite, 12.3% were married, 47.3% had dropped out of high school, 44.0% were employed, and 51.2% were identified as having a drug addiction problem. Their average age was 32.
Prior (adult) criminal justice system contacts indicated that 78.7% of the sample had at least one prior fingerprinted arrest, accounting for a total of 211,738 prior arrests. Further, 63.9% of all offenders had at least one prior probation admission, 39.8% had at least one prior probation revocation, and 34.9% had at least one prior incarceration. For all measures of criminal history, prisoners were more likely than probationers to have prior criminal justice contacts. Prisoners released without PRS were generally more likely to have prior criminal justice contacts than those released with PRS. Probationers with intermediate punishments were more likely to have prior criminal justice system contacts than those with community punishments.
ii
As shown in Figure 1, 5% of the sample had a most serious current conviction for a Class B1 through Class E felony, 44% had a most serious conviction for a Class F through Class I felony, and 51% had a most serious conviction for a misdemeanor offense. The majority of probationers (64%) had a most serious conviction for a misdemeanor offense, while the majority of prisoners (63%) had a most serious conviction for a Class F through Class I felony. Differences found in the offense class composition of the sample groups are consistent with Structured Sentencing, which links offense severity with type of punishment. Of the offenders with a current felony conviction (49.1% of the sample), the majority of probationers had convictions for drug offenses (40%), while the majority of prisoners had convictions for property offenses (36%). Prisoners, with a felony conviction, were more likely to have a current conviction for violent offenses (22%) than probationers (12%). Of the offenders with a current misdemeanor offense (50.9% of the sample), the majority of probationers and prisoners were convicted of property offenses (43% and 41% respectively).
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
Time at Risk
While each offender was followed for a fixed two-year period to determine whether recidivism occurred, the same “window of opportunity” to reoffend was not necessarily available for each offender due to periods of incarceration during follow-up. The study reports each offender’s actual time at risk (i.e., their actual window of opportunity to recidivate) by identifying their periods of incarceration in North Carolina’s prison system and subtracting the time incarcerated from the follow-up period. The percentage of the sample at risk for the entire follow-up period decreased from 86% in the first year to 78% in the second year.
Criminal Justice Outcome Measures
The Sentencing Commission uses rearrests as its primary measure of recidivism, supplemented by information on reconvictions and reincarcerations, to assess the extent of an offender’s repeat
64%
24%
51%
34%
63%
44%
2%
13%
5%
Probation Entries
Prison Releases
Total
Figure 1
Offense Class for Most Serious Current Conviction
Class A1-3 Misdemeanors
Class F-I Felonies
Class B1-E Feloniesiii
involvement in the criminal justice system. A summary of these three measures of recidivism for the FY
2010/11 sample is provided in Figure 2.
All Probation Entries and Prison Releases
N=57,535
Arrest: 40.7%
Conviction 21.3%
Incarceration: 21.9%
Probation Entries
n=38,165
Arrest: 36.8%
Conviction: 18.6%
Incarceration: 22.2%
Post-Release Supervision
n=2,412
Arrest: 43.2%
Conviction: 19.9%
Incarceration: 24.1%
No Post-Release Supervision
n=16,958
Arrest: 49.4%
Conviction: 27.6%
Incarceration: 20.8%
Community Punishment
n=25,897
Arrest: 34.6%
Conviction: 17.4%
Incarceration: 15.3%
Intermediate Punishment
n=12,268
Arrest: 41.3%
Conviction: 21.2%
Incarceration: 36.8%
Prison Releases
n=19,370
Arrest: 48.6%
Conviction: 26.6%
Incarceration: 21.2%
Figure 2
Two-Year Recidivism Rates for the FY 2010/11 Sample
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
Of the FY 2010/11 sample, 28.1% were rearrested during the one-year follow-up and 40.7% were
rearrested during the two-year follow-up. It should be noted, however, that these recidivism rates do
not take into account the fact that some offenders were not at risk for the entire follow-up period as a
result of incarceration.
For those probationers and prisoners rearrested during the two years, the average time to rearrest was
8.4 months after entry to probation or release from prison. By the end of the two-year follow-up, the FY
2010/11 sample accounted for 47,612 recidivist arrests, including 9,982 arrests for violent offenses.
Overall, 10.2% of the sample had a reconviction in the first year and 21.3% had a reconviction in the
second year of follow-up. For those with a reconviction during the two-year follow-up, the average time
to reconviction was 12.0 months. The sample accrued 16,725 recidivist convictions, of which 2,600
reconvictions were for a violent offense.
iv
Nearly fourteen percent (13.5%) of the sample had a recidivist incarceration during the one-year follow-up and 21.9% during the two-year follow-up. Recidivist incarcerations may have resulted from the sentence imposed for a new crime committed or due to revocation of probation or PRS. The average time to incarceration for offenders with a recidivist incarceration was 10.0 months.
Independent of the measure used, recidivism rates were in direct correlation with the type of punishment (see Figure 2). The lowest rearrest and reconviction rates were for community probationers, with the highest rearrest and reconviction rates for prison releases with no PRS. Compared to the other types of punishment, probationers with an intermediate punishment had the highest rate of reincarceration, 36.8% during the two-year follow-up period, due in large part to their higher revocation rates.
The relationship found between personal characteristics and recidivism rates was consistent with current research — offenders who were male, black, youthful, single, uneducated, unemployed, and/or had a drug addiction problem had higher recidivism rates compared to their counterparts for all three criminal justice outcome measures. Class F through Class I felons had higher rearrest, reincarceration, and reconviction rates than did violent felons (Class B1 through Class E) and misdemeanants. Habitual felons more closely resembled Class F through Class I felons than Class B1 through Class E felons with respect to their recidivism rates, while sex offenders more closely resembled misdemeanants in terms of recidivism rates. Forty-eight percent of the FY 2010/11 prison releases had an infraction while in prison. A higher percentage of prisoners with PRS had infractions while incarcerated compared to prisoners with no PRS (84% and 43% respectively), which is consistent with the more serious offenses and the resulting longer time served for prisoners with PRS.
Probation Entries
An emphasis on probationers in the FY 2010/11 sample provides a comparative framework for future analyses of probationers supervised under the provisions of the JRA. Probationers in the sample with completed risk and need assessments (i.e., Offender Traits Inventory (OTI), Offender Self-Report, and the Officer’s Interview/Impressions Worksheet) were examined in-depth to determine the relationship between these components and recidivism. These assessments are used to determine the supervision level, program placement, and other interventions for probationers.
Eighty-nine percent of the probationers (n=33,900) had a supervision level based on completed risk and need assessments. A probationer’s supervision level is based on the intersection of the offender’s risk level (minimal to high) and need level (minimal to extreme). Overall, 24.7% were assessed as high risk, 34.3% as moderate risk, 29.0% as low risk, and 12.0% as minimal risk; 24.9% were assessed as extreme need, 19.1% as high need, 35.0% as moderate need, 17.6% as low need, and 3.4% as minimal need. A larger percent of felons were assessed as high risk compared to misdemeanants, while little difference existed between the offender need level percentages for felons and misdemeanants.
The supervision levels range from 1 to 5, with Level 1 being the highest. Once supervision level is determined, 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. Overall, 9.3% of probationers were assessed in Supervision Level 1, 30.9% in Level 2, 31.0% in Level 3, 23.1% in Level 4, and 5.7% in Level 5. A larger percent of felons than misdemeanants were placed in the most restrictive supervision level (Level 1), v
while a larger percent of misdemeanants than felons were placed in the least restrictive supervision level (Level 5).
Violations of probation, revocation of probation, and recidivist arrests were also examined for probationers with completed risk and need assessments. Of the 33,900 probationers with a supervision level assigned, 66.4% had at least one violation, 31.0% were revoked, and 35.6% had a recidivist arrest during the two-year follow-up. Being high risk and/or high need increased the probability of violations – more high risk probationers had at least one violation during follow-up (82.6%), as did extreme need probationers (75.9%). Nearly 52% of high risk probationers had a revocation during the two-year follow-up and 43% of extreme need probationers had a revocation. Probationers assessed as high risk had the highest rearrest rates at 53.5%; correspondingly, those assessed as extreme need had the highest rearrest rates at 43.3%.
Violation rates, revocation rates, and rearrest rates were also examined by supervision level (see Figure 3). Sixty-six percent of probationers had at least one violation during the two-year follow-up period; 86% of Supervision Level 1, 77% of Level 2, 64% of Level 3, 53% of Level 4, and 43% of Level 5 had a violation during the two-year follow-up. Similar findings were found for probation revocations with an overall revocation rate of 31.0%; Supervision Level 1 probationers had higher revocation rates than Level 5 probationers (59% and 7% respectively). Overall, 36% of the 33,900 probationers had a recidivist arrest during the two-year follow-up. Fifty-six percent of probationers supervised at Level 1 had a recidivist arrest, while 46% of Level 2, 32% of Level 3, 23% of Level 4, and 14% of Level 5 probationers had recidivist arrests. As expected, a stair-step pattern was found when comparing violation rates, revocation rates, and arrest rates by supervision level; those supervised at more restrictive levels had higher violation, revocation, and rearrest rates.
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
86%
77%
64%
53%
43%
59%
43%
27%
15%
7%
56%
46%
32%
23%
14%
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Figure 3
Violation, Revocation, and Rearrest Rates by Supervision Level for Probation Entries: Two-Year Follow-Up
Violation Rates
Revocation Rates
Rearrest Ratesvi
Conclusions
A review of the Sentencing Commission’s current and previous recidivism studies provides the empirical context for a wider array of findings and tentative conclusions.1 These reports, covering large samples of offenders released in North Carolina between CY 1989 and FY 2010/11, provide a framework to look at trends in the state’s recidivism rates and related factors. Overall, many of the findings – with one notable exception – have remained constant over the course of the recidivism studies and lead to the same general conclusions.
Rearrest Rates for North Carolina Offenders
Two-Year Follow-Up
Sample Year
Rearrest Rate
CY 1989
31.2%
FY 1996/97
32.6%
FY 1998/99
31.2%
FY 2001/02
31.5%
FY 2003/04
32.0%
FY 2005/06
32.5%
FY 2008/09
38.9%
FY 2010/11
40.7%
The first six samples studied had rearrest rates ranging between 31% and 33%, with the two latest samples’ rearrest rates climbing to 39% and 41%. The primary explanation points to a change in field technology to capture additional fingerprinted arrests as reported by DOJ staff. Improved fingerprinting technology in sheriffs’ offices and police departments in recent years have led to a greater number of fingerprinted misdemeanor arrests. While the recidivism rates for the two most recent samples (and particularly the FY 2008/09 sample) have risen considerably, a large portion of this increase is accounted for by more accurate and reliable recording of misdemeanor arrests rather than by an increase in the actual number of arrests.
Some additional findings are worth mentioning in view of the newly implemented JRA and its anticipated impact on recidivism:
 The Sentencing Commission’s series of reports have consistently confirmed the value of offender risk assessments as a predictive tool for recidivism, and noted its potential use at various points in the criminal justice decision making process. The current study, based on risk and need assessments used prospectively by the DACJJ to determine supervision levels, has again proven this tool to be a predictor of repeat offending behavior. Recognizing their value, the JRA has made risk and need assessments a priority in its revised scheme to supervise offenders. As mandated by the new law, offenders are to be assessed by a validated instrument as to their criminogenic needs and risk of reoffending. The intersection of their risk and need levels determine the type of controlling sanctions and rehabilitative services for each offender while under supervision.
1 The Sentencing Commission’s Correctional Program Evaluation Reports can be found at: http://www.nccourts.org/Courts/CRS/Councils/spac/Publication/Recidivism/Default.asp vii
 Intermediate punishment, introduced by Structured Sentencing as a form of probation with higher levels of controls and programming for more serious offenders, has been found over time through these studies to provide an effective alternative in the range of graduated sanctions between community punishment and incarceration. While giving full consideration to matching offenders with available resources, the JRA provisions move much of the timing of this targeting from the courts to corrections, following the offender’s assessment. With the redefinition and blurring of community and intermediate punishments, judges may now impose sanctions from a wider range of options and also delegate to probation officers the exercise of that broad authority following the offender’s assessment.
 A recurring theme in the recidivism studies points to the fact that offenders who fail to comply with conditions or commit new crimes are likely to do so relatively early in the follow-up period. This finding highlights the importance of timing and targeting of correctional resources in order to reduce recidivism. Additional components of the JRA (such as quick dips, confinement in response to violation, post-release supervision for all felons) address the timing and graduated severity of responses to violations, in order to stop or delay certain behaviors before they lead to revocations or new arrests.
The Justice Reinvestment Act and Its Potential Impact on Recidivism
The FY 2010/11 sample examined in this report represents the last sample to be based entirely on SSA offenders sentenced prior to the passage of the JRA. The current sample may serve as a baseline of comparison in future reports which will help assess the impact of the JRA, most specifically on the rearrest, reincarceration, and revocation rates for probationers and prisoners.
In order to gain some further insight into the emerging policies and practices as the field implements the new law, Sentencing Commission staff visited six Judicial Districts statewide and conducted interviews with superior and district court judges, district attorneys, public defenders, chief probation and parole officers, and probation and parole officers. The interviews, conducted in the fall of 2013, focused on the processing of cases placed on probation during FY 2012/13 that will be a part of the next cohort of offenders for the 2016 report.
Some of the JRA components likely to impact outcome measures include changes in supervision and services based on offender risk and needs; changes to community supervision (e.g., delegated authority, redefinition of community and intermediate punishments, legal limits placed on revocations, utilization of confinement in response to violation periods for violations, expansion of post-release supervision to all felons, establishment of Treatment for Effective Community Supervision); and changes to incarceration (e.g., establishment of advanced supervised release, requirement that most misdemeanants serve their time in local jails rather than in state prisons).
The Sentencing Commission’s 2016 report will provide an assessment of the early success of the JRA in fulfilling some of its promises regarding revocation and recidivism rates. Due to the more immediate impact of the JRA on community corrections, the next study will focus primarily on probationers, with additional analyses of the impact of provisions aimed at prisoners.
As with any large-scale change to correctional policy, expectations for success in preventing future criminality should be viewed realistically. Components of an offender’s criminal history, current offense, and experiences with the correctional system are all elements strongly correlated with continued viii
criminal behavior. The probability of rehabilitative success and recidivism reduction should be articulated in this context, and be realistic in weighing criminogenic factors brought with an offender into the system compared to the short time and limited resources at the DACJJ’s disposal to reverse their impact. With this caveat notwithstanding, the Sentencing Commission looks forward to continuing its work with the DACJJ to combine 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 placement, supervision, treatment, and services.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
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 issues 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’s (hereafter referred to as the “Sentencing Commission”) mandate from the start. The first recidivism study that was prepared for the Sentencing Commission was completed in 1992 by Stevens Clarke and Anita Harrison of the Institute of Government at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill (now named the School of Government). This recidivism study was followed by one that was conducted in 1996 by Mark Jones and Darrell Ross of the School of Social Work at East Carolina University. In 1997 and 1998, the Sentencing Commission produced the third and fourth recidivism reports in conjunction with the Department of Correction’s Office of Research and Planning.2
During the 1998 Session, the General Assembly redrafted the Sentencing Commission’s original mandate to study recidivism and expanded its scope to include a more in-depth evaluation of correctional programs. This statute (N.C.G.S. § 164-47) 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
2 Effective January 1, 2012, Session Law 2011-145, Part XIX, consolidated the North Carolina Departments of Correction (DOC), Crime Control and Public Safety, and Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DJJDP) into a single Department of Public Safety (DPS). The responsibilities of the former DOC and DJJDP have been assumed by DPS’s Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice (DACJJ). The report refers to the departmental structure that became effective September 10, 2013. 2
Subcommittees on Justice and Public Safety by April 15, 2000, and future reports shall be made by April 15 of each even-numbered year.
The first evaluation report, as required by law, was delivered to the General Assembly on April 15, 2000. The current study is the eighth biennial Correctional Program Evaluation Report and it contains information about offender characteristics, specific correctional programs, outcome measures, and an expansive methodological approach to examine the relationship between offender risk factors, correctional programs, and recidivism rates.
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 repeated criminal behavior, and implied that measuring recidivism was to be a way of evaluating correctional programs – that is, programs designed or used for sanctioning and, if possible, rehabilitating or deterring convicted criminal offenders.
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 with 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 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, or 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 rearrests as the primary measure of recidivism, supplemented by information on reconvictions and reincarcerations, 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. Rearrests, 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 and Recidivism
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 differently an individual offender’s fear of the consequences of crime and thereby changing his or her 3
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 gone to prison, and others to prison who formerly might have received probation. This shift was expected to change recidivism rates by type of punishment, 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, tend 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. The recidivism of future offender samples will serve as one outcome measure of the success of these policies in reducing repeat criminality and enhancing public safety, while managing correctional resources in a more cost-effective way.3
The JRA, implemented beginning December 1, 2011, redefines community and intermediate punishments; expands the delegation of authority to probation officers; and limits the time an offender may serve for violations of probation. It creates a new status offense of habitual breaking and entering; changes habitual felon punishments; and shifts the majority of misdemeanants with an active sentence from state prisons to county jails. The new law also authorizes early release from prison under certain conditions, and expands post-release supervision (PRS) to all incarcerated felons. To keep offenders in the community, the new law refocuses the Criminal Justice Partnership Program through the creation of the Treatment for Effective Community Supervision (TECS) program. Finally, the JRA requires the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to use a validated instrument to assess each probationer for risk of reoffending and criminogenic needs and to place the probationer in the appropriate supervision level.
The overall conclusion so far points to guidelines increasing the within-group predictability of recidivism by changing the internal group profiles, but having little to no effect on overall cohort recidivism rates. Subsequent studies will examine the future consistency of these findings, with the JRA introducing further changes in the internal composition of probation and prison groups.
3 The Sentencing Commission and the DPS are directed to jointly conduct ongoing evaluations regarding the implementation of the JRA of 2011. The third annual report to the General Assembly is due on April 15, 2014. 4
Comparison of Recidivism Rates for Previous Recidivism Studies
The Sentencing Commission’s previous recidivism reports provide a framework to look at trends in the state’s recidivism rates. However, it should be noted that there are differences in the recidivism studies that make comparisons difficult. For example, the sample from 1989 is based only on offenders convicted and sentenced under or prior to the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), the samples for FY 1996/97 through FY 2001/02 include a mixture of offenders sentenced under the FSA and the SSA, and the samples for FY 2003/04 through FY 2008/09 only include offenders sentenced under the SSA. Nonetheless, some overall comparisons can be made as long as these factors are taken into consideration, including differences between probationers and prisoners in the characteristics of these groups relative to sentencing options, offense seriousness, and time served.
Table 1.1 presents overall recidivism rates (measured as rearrest) for the Commission’s recidivism studies with a two-year follow-up period. The table indicates that recidivism rates, regardless of the differences in sample composition, have been fairly similar over the first six sample years (CY 1989 to FY 2005/06), ranging between 31% and 33%. In the most recent sample year (FY 2008/09) the recidivism rate increased to 39%. Table 1.1 also provides a comparison of recidivism rates for probationers and prisoners. In the first six samples, rearrest rates ranged from 26% to 28% for probationers and from 41% to 43% for prisoners. These rates have also increased considerably for the FY 2008/09 sample groups – 35% for probationers and 46% for prisoners.
Some further research into the primary measure of recidivism – fingerprinted arrests – revealed a possible explanation for the steep increase in recidivism rates. In the past several years, sheriffs’ offices and police departments statewide have benefited from improvements in technology which have led to a greater number of fingerprinted misdemeanor arrests. As a result, a more accurate – and higher – rate of misdemeanor arrests was reported by the Department of Justice (DOJ), especially Class 2 and Class 3 misdemeanors. While Table 1.1 includes all fingerprinted arrests in arriving at the recidivism rates for the seven study samples, the law enforcement effort to fingerprint all misdemeanors (and thereby expanding the pool of recorded rearrests) corresponds with the study’s FY 2008/09 sample. These misdemeanors, previously not fingerprinted – and thereby not included in the DOJ’s Computerized Criminal History (CCH) records – have now become part of the reported arrests comprising (and potentially increasing) the prior criminal involvement and future recidivism of sample offenders, and will be discussed when relevant throughout the current report.4
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, and correctional program participation; and future measures of social reintegration such as rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration.5
4 See Appendix A for DOJ’s documentation of this increase.
5 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. 5
Table 1.1
Rearrest Rates for North Carolina Offenders
Two-Year Follow-Up
Sample Year
Sample Composition
Sample Size
Rearrest Rates
Probationersb
Prisonersc
All Offenders
1989a
Offenders sentenced prior to or under FSA
37,933
26.5
41.3
31.2
1996/97
Offenders sentenced under FSA and SSA
51,588
28.1
42.6
32.6
1998/99
Offenders sentenced under FSA and SSA
58,238
26.3
41.6
31.2
2001/02
Offenders sentenced under FSA and SSA
57,973
27.3
41.6
31.5
2003/04
Offenders sentenced under SSA
56,983
27.6
42.3
32.0
2005/06
Offenders sentenced under SSA
60,824
28.2
41.3
32.5
2008/09d
Offenders sentenced under SSA
61,646
35.4
46.2
38.9
a The average follow-up period for sample year 1989 was 26.7 months.
b This category includes FSA offenders on regular probation for sample year 1989 and SSA offenders on community punishment probation for sample years 1996/97 through 2008/09.
c This category includes FSA prisoners released on regular parole in 1989, FSA and SSA prisoners from 1996/97 through 2001/02, and SSA prisoners for 2003/04 through 2008/09.
d The recidivist arrest data reported for FY 2008/09 sample include Class 2 and Class 3 misdemeanors.
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission 6
Sample
The sample selected for the current study included all offenders released from state prison or placed on supervised probation during Fiscal Year 2010/11. The final study sample includes 57,535 offenders sentenced under Structured Sentencing, affording a comprehensive look at the recidivism of Structured Sentencing offenders.6 All the sample offenders had been convicted and sentenced prior to the implementation of the JRA, although some of the probation sample were subject to the JRA provisions for a portion of their follow-up period while on community supervision.
Follow-up Period
Recidivism studies utilize varying lengths of time as their follow-up period, depending on the availability of data and other resources. With both short term and long term recidivism being of great interest to policy makers, this report provides information on the recidivism of the FY 2010/11 sample of offenders with a fixed two-year follow-up period.
Time at Risk
While each offender in the study sample had an equal two-year follow-up period, not all offenders were on the street and “at risk” of recidivism for the entire two years. The report provides information on each offender’s actual time at risk, by identifying their periods of incarceration in North Carolina’s prison system within the follow-up time frame and subtracting the length of time incarcerated from the follow-up period.7
Outcome and Process Measures
The outcome and process measures examined for this study include:
 Recidivism, defined broadly to cover the offender’s possible span of reinvolvement in the North Carolina criminal justice system, to include rearrests, reconvictions, and reincarcerations.
 For probationers, violations and revocation of probation.
 For prisoners, prison infractions during incarceration.
Data Sources and Enhancements
Two automated data sources were utilized to collect aggregate data on the sample of offenders:
 The North Carolina Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice’s (DACJJ) Offender Population Unified System (OPUS) provided demographic and prior record information, current convicted offense and sentence,8 offender risk and need assessments, type of punishment, probation supervision level, probation violations and revocations, and prison incarcerations.
6 Offenders with a most serious conviction for Driving While Impaired (DWI) or for a misdemeanor traffic offense were excluded from the sample.
7 Time served in North Carolina’s county jails and incarcerated in other states was not accounted for in the calculation of time at risk during the follow-up period.
8 “Current” in the context of this study 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. 7
 The North Carolina Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Computerized Criminal History (CCH) system was used to provide fingerprinted arrest records for prior and recidivist arrests, as well as recidivist convictions. These records, based on enhancements in law enforcement technology to fingerprint all misdemeanants, have also become more representative of the actual volume of Class 2 and Class 3 misdemeanor arrests.
The final data set for this study consists of over 300 items of information (or variables) for the sample of 57,535 offenders placed on probation or released from prison between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2011, and followed for two years.9 A case profile was constructed for each sample offender, comprised of personal and criminal history characteristics, the most serious current offense of conviction, type of punishment imposed, correctional program assignments, and reinvolvement with the criminal justice system (i.e., rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration).
A couple of enhancements were made to the data provided in this report:
 For probationers, data were expanded to include information on offender need level. Criminogenic needs are assessed by DPS using the Offender Self-Report instrument and the Officer Interview and Impressions instrument. Information on criminogenic needs are a factor in determining offender supervision level, program placement, and other interventions.
 For probationers, data were also expanded to include information on offender supervision level. An offender’s supervision level is determined based on the intersection of the offender’s level of risk and level of need. DPS uses the Offender Traits Inventory (OTI) to assess offender risk and the Offender Self-Report instrument and the Officer Interview and Impressions instrument to assess offender need.
Report Outline
Chapter Two presents a descriptive statistical profile of the sample and aggregate figures on the incidence and type of prior criminal behavior. It also provides information on the current conviction that places the offender in the sample.
Chapter Three includes a descriptive analysis of the sample’s subsequent (i.e., recidivist) criminal involvement, with special focus on the one- and two-year follow-up. This analysis also allows for comparisons between the recidivism of offenders released from prison and those placed on some form of supervised probation.
Chapter Four provides a more detailed examination of probation entries – descriptive profile by current conviction, information on risk and need assessments to determine supervision level, violations and revocations after probation admission, and recidivist activity such as arrest, conviction, or incarceration during the two-year follow-up.
Chapter Five offers a summary of the study’s main findings and closes with some observations on recidivism in North Carolina following the enactment of Structured Sentencing, and some anticipated changes in the next study (with a FY 2012/13 sample) due to a fully implemented JRA.
9 A glossary of relevant variables is included in Appendix B. 8
CHAPTER TWO
STATISTICAL PROFILE OF THE FY 2010/11 SAMPLE
As described in Chapter One, the study sample comprises SSA offenders who either were placed on probation or were released from prison during FY 2010/11.10,11 The implementation of the JRA in 2011 does not impact the FY 2010/11 study sample with regard to sample selection, type of punishment, prior criminal history, or most serious current conviction.12
Type of Punishment
As shown in Figure 2.1, there were 57,535 offenders in the FY 2010/11 sample. There were 38,165 (66%) probationers and 19,370 (34%) prisoners. These can be further subdivided into the following four categories based on type of punishment:
Probation Entries
 probationers who received a community punishment;
 probationers who received an intermediate punishment;
Prison Releases
 prison releases with no post-release supervision (no PRS); and
 prison releases with post-release supervision (PRS).
Many of the tables in this chapter present information by probation or prison status for the individual categories of probationers and prisoners (also referred to as type of punishment) and for the sample as a whole.
10 Offenders whose offenses were committed on or after October 1, 1994, were sentenced under the SSA.
11 If an offender in the sample was both released from prison and placed on probation during FY 2010/11, the first event that occurred during that fiscal year determined the offender’s identification as a prison release or a probation entry.
12 See Chapter One for a brief discussion of the changes to sentencing and corrections due to the implementation of the JRA in 2011. While the FY 2010/11 sample selection occurred prior to the implementation of the JRA, portions of the sample’s two-year follow-up period were under the criminal justice laws enacted and practices changed by the JRA – especially for probation entries who were on supervised probation.
FY 2010/11 Sample
The sample comprises all SSA offenders who were placed on supervised probation or were released from prison during FY 2010/11, with the following exclusions:
 offenders with a most serious current conviction for driving while impaired (DWI); and
 offenders with a most serious current conviction for a misdemeanor traffic offense. 9
Figure 2.1
Type of Punishment
All Probation Entries and Prison Releases
N=57,535
Probation Entries
66.3% (n=38,165)
Post-Release Supervision
4.2% (n=2,412)
No Post-Release Supervision
29.5% (n=16,958)
Community Punishment
45.0% (n=25,897)
Intermediate Punishment
21.3% (n=12,268)
Prison Releases
33.7% (n=19,370)
Definitions for the Types of Punishmenta
Probation Entries: Offenders who were sentenced under the Structured Sentencing Act and received a probation
sentence (i.e., the active sentence was suspended).
Probation Entries with a Community Punishment: An offender who received a community punishment.
Community punishments may consist of a fine, unsupervised probation (although unsupervised
probationers were excluded from the sample), or supervised probation, alone or with one or more of the
following conditions: outpatient drug/alcohol treatment, community service, assignment to TASC,
payment of restitution, or any other conditions of probation that are not considered an intermediate
punishment. Offenders with little or no prior criminal history who commit the lowest class felonies (Class
H or I) and all misdemeanants may receive a community punishment.
Probation Entries with an Intermediate Punishment: An offender who received an intermediate
punishment. An intermediate punishment requires a period of supervised probation with at least one of
the following conditions: special probation, assignment to a residential treatment program, house arrest
with electronic monitoring, intensive probation, assignment to a day reporting center, and assignment to
a drug treatment court program. Generally, offenders who have a significant prior record and commit
Class H or I felonies and offenders who have little or no prior record and commit more serious non-violent
felonies may receive an intermediate punishment.
Prison Releases: An offender who was sentenced under the SSA, served his/her maximum sentence minus earned
time and time for pre-conviction confinement, and was released back into the community, usually without any
supervision. This group included offenders who were sentenced to prison for a new crime, who were revoked to
prison for a technical violation of their probation, or both. A small number (n=2,412 or 12%) of the prison releases
received post-release supervision.
Prison Releases with No Post-Release Supervision (no PRS): Under Structured Sentencing, prisoners
released with a most serious offense for Class F through Class I felonies and Class A1 through Class 3
misdemeanors are released from prison without any supervision.
Prison Releases with Post-Release Supervision (PRS): Under Structured Sentencing, prisoners released
with a most serious offense for Class B1 through Class E felonies are released on PRS for a period of nine
months, with the exception of sex offenders who are supervised for five years.
a The FY 2010/11 sample was convicted and sentenced prior to the implementation of the JRA; therefore, the definitions in this
figure are based upon Structured Sentencing as it existed at that time.
10
Personal Characteristics
Table 2.1 contains information describing the personal characteristics of the FY 2010/11 sample.13,14 Of the 57,535 offenders, 78.2% were male, 56.4% were nonwhite, 12.3% were married, 47.3% had dropped out of high school, 44.0% were employed, 51.2% were identified as having a history of drug addiction, and their average age (at release from prison or placement on probation) was 31.7. Probationers (and, in particular, probationers with community punishments) had a lower percentage of males than did prisoners. On average, offenders who were placed on probation were slightly younger than offenders who were released from prison.
Criminal History15
It is important to look at the number of prior arrests for the offenders in the sample since research indicates that prior arrests are a strong predictor of recidivism (Clarke and Harrison, 1992; Jones and Ross, 1996; NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, 1997; 1998; 2000; 2002; 2004; 2006; 2008; 2010, 2012). Information on prior fingerprinted arrests for the FY 2010/11 sample is provided in Table 2.2. Prior arrests were defined as fingerprinted arrests that occurred before the conviction that placed the offender in the sample.16 This measure excludes the arrest event for the conviction that placed the offender in the sample.
Overall, 66.4% of community punishment probationers, 84.6% of intermediate punishment probationers, 91.6% of prison releases with no PRS, and 89.6% of prison releases with PRS had one or more prior arrests. As a whole, 78.7% of the FY 2010/11 sample had at least one prior arrest accounting for a total of 211,738 prior arrests. For offenders with prior arrests, the number of prior arrests generally increased by type of punishment from community punishment to intermediate punishment to prison. For example, 38.1% of community punishment probationers had only one prior arrest compared to 12.7% of prison releases with no PRS. A similar pattern was found when comparing the average number of arrests for the subgroups, with probationers having an average of 3.8 prior arrests and prisoners having an average of 6.1 prior arrests.
With regard to arrest history, intermediate punishment probationers placed between prisoners and community punishment probationers, confirming the philosophy of Structured Sentencing that probationers who receive intermediate punishments are more serious offenders than those who receive community punishments, but less serious than those who receive prison sentences.
13 See Appendix B for a description of major variables of interest.
14 Available mental health data for prisoners in DACJJ’s OPUS indicated that 27.7% of prisoners had some type of mental health issue. Comparable mental health data were not available for probationers.
15 Criminal history measures are defined by prior contacts with the adult criminal justice system and do not include any contact the offender may have had with the juvenile justice system.
16 In 2012, the Sentencing Commission reported that 72.7% of offenders had at least one prior arrest. This rate excluded Class 2 and Class 3 misdemeanors. See Chapter One for a discussion on the increase in fingerprinted arrests due to the increase in the documenting of fingerprinted misdemeanor arrests and, also, Appendix A for DOJ’s documentation of this increase. 11
Table 2.1
Personal Characteristics by Type of Punishment
Type of Punishment
N
%
Male
% Nonwhite
Average Age at Sample Entry
%
Married
% High School Dropout
%
Employed
% With Drug Addiction
Probation Entries
Community Punishment
25,897
69.4
52.5
30.5
13.0
35.9
50.2
38.4
Intermediate Punishment
12,268
81.8
56.1
31.9
13.4
42.7
42.2
49.5
Subtotal
38,165
73.4
53.7
31.0
13.1
38.1
47.7
41.9
Prison Releases
No Post-Release Supervision
16,958
86.8
60.0
33.0
10.9
64.0
36.8
68.5
Post-Release Supervision
2,412
93.1
73.9
34.7
10.1
65.1
42.0
65.7
Subtotal
19,370
87.6
61.7
33.2
10.8
64.1
37.4
68.2
Total
57,535
78.2
56.4
31.7
12.3
47.3
44.0
51.2
Note: There are missing values for the following self-reported characteristics: marital status, education, employment, and drug addiction. Of the 55,704 offenders with ethnicity available, 2.7% were Hispanic.
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Correctional Program Evaluation Data 12
Table 2.2
Prior Arrests by Type of Punishment
Type of Punishment
N
% Any
Prior
Arrest
Prior Arrests for Offenders with Any Prior Arrest (n=45,260)
Total #
of Prior Arrests
Average # of Prior Arrests
# of Prior Arrests (%)
1
2
3-4
5-9
10+
Probation Entries
Community Punishment
25,897
66.4
57,438
3.3
38.1
20.5
20.6
14.8
6.0
Intermediate Punishment
12,268
84.6
46,354
4.5
22.5
17.5
24.4
25.5
10.1
Subtotal
38,165
72.2
103,792
3.8
32.2
19.4
22.0
18.8
7.6
Prison Releases
No Post-Release Supervision
16,958
91.6
94,861
6.1
12.7
13.1
22.6
32.6
19.0
Post-Release Supervision
2,412
89.6
13,085
6.1
17.0
14.4
19.3
29.4
19.9
Subtotal
19,370
91.3
107,946
6.1
13.2
13.3
22.2
32.2
19.1
Total
57,535
78.7
211,738
4.7
24.8
17.0
22.1
24.0
12.1
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
13
Further information on additional measures of prior criminal justice system contacts is provided in Table 2.3, including information on prior probation admissions, prior probation revocations, and prior incarcerations.17 Prior probation admissions were defined as occurring prior to the current probation admission date for probationers and as occurring prior to the prison admission date for prisoners. Overall, 63.9% of the sample had at least one prior probation admission. Prisoners were more likely to have a prior probation admission than probationers (91.1% compared to 50.1%, respectively). Sixty-four percent of intermediate punishment probationers had a prior probation admission compared to 43.6% of community punishment probationers. Similar to the arrest history, intermediate punishment probationers placed between prisoners and community punishment probationers. Prison releases had a slightly higher average number of prior probation admissions at 2.9, while probation entries averaged 2.2 prior probation admissions.
Prior probation revocations occurred prior to the current probation sentence for probationers and prior to the prison admission date for prison releases. These prior probation revocations could be for either technical or non-technical reasons. Forty percent of the sample had at least one prior probation revocation; 58.2% of prisoners had at least one prior probation revocation, while 30.5% of probationers had at least one prior probation revocation. For intermediate punishment probationers, the percentage with at least one probation revocation (43.5%) was more similar to prisoners with PRS (49.8%) than to community punishment probationers (24.3%). The average number of probation revocations for the sample was 2.0 with prison releases having a slightly higher average number of prior probation revocations (2.2) than probation entries at 1.8.
Finally, incarcerations prior to sample entry were examined. Prior incarcerations were defined as confinement in a DACJJ facility prior to sample entry. For prison releases, the prior incarceration excluded the current incarceration for which they were placed in the sample. Overall, 34.9% of the sample had a prior incarceration; prisoners (55.2%) were more likely than probationers (24.7%) to have at least one prior incarceration. Prison releases with no PRS (56.0%) were more likely than prison releases with PRS (50.0%) to have a prior incarceration. Intermediate punishment probationers had a higher rate of prior incarcerations at 37.6% than community punishment probationers at 18.5%. On average, prisoners had 3.0 prior incarcerations, while probationers had 2.2 prior incarcerations. Community punishment probationers had a slightly higher average number of prior incarcerations at 2.3 when compared to intermediate punishment probationers (2.1).
Regardless of the measure used to track prior criminal history (i.e., arrest, probation admissions, probation revocation, or incarceration), prisoners tended to have higher percentages of prior criminal history than probationers. Intermediate punishment probationers had lower percentages of prior criminal history than prisoners, but higher percentages of prior criminal history than community punishment probationers.
17 DACJJ’s OPUS data were used to determine prior probation admissions, prior probation revocations, and prior incarcerations. For the offenders placed on supervised probation in the community, prior probation admissions and prior probation revocations are reported for those events that are processed in the North Carolina criminal justice system. It must be noted that the data presented on prior incarcerations only include incarceration in North Carolina’s state prison system. The data do not include periods of incarceration in county jails or incarceration in other states. Incarcerations may have occurred as a result of the sentence imposed for a new crime committed or due to a technical revocation. 14
Table 2.3
Prior Criminal Justice System Contacts by Type of Punishment
Type of Punishment
N
Age at 1st CJS Contact
Prior Criminal Justice Contacts
Arrests
Probation Admissions
Probation Revocations
Incarcerations
%
Avg.
%
Avg.
%
Avg.
%
Avg.
Probation Entries
Community Punishment
25,897
25.0
66.4
3.3
43.6
2.2
24.3
1.8
18.5
2.3
Intermediate Punishment
12,268
23.8
84.6
4.5
63.9
2.3
43.5
1.8
37.6
2.1
Subtotal
38,165
24.6
72.2
3.8
50.1
2.2
30.5
1.8
24.7
2.2
Prison Releases
No Post-Release Supervision
16,958
21.9
91.6
6.1
93.7
2.9
59.4
2.2
56.0
2.9
Post-Release Supervision
2,412
20.9
89.6
6.1
72.3
2.7
49.8
2.2
50.0
3.3
Subtotal
19,370
21.8
91.3
6.1
91.1
2.9
58.2
2.2
55.2
3.0
Total
57,535
23.7
78.7
4.7
63.9
2.5
39.8
2.0
34.9
2.6
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
15
Table 2.3 also examines the age at first criminal justice system contact.18 If the offender had no prior criminal history as defined by the above measures, the age at first criminal justice contact would be the offender’s age at the most serious current conviction that placed him/her in the sample. The average age at first criminal justice contact was 23.7 years. On average, prisoners were younger (21.8 years) than probationers (24.6 years) – primarily due to their extended length of criminal history. Community punishment probationers were the oldest at 25.0 years when their first criminal justice contact occurred.
Most Serious Current Conviction
Overall, 49.1% (n=28,234) of the FY 2010/11 sample had a felony offense as the most serious current conviction and 50.9% (n=29,301) had a misdemeanor offense as the most serious current conviction.19 Figures 2.2 and 2.3 present the category of conviction (violent, property, drug, or other) for probation entries and prison releases by felony/misdemeanor status.
As shown in Figure 2.2, the majority of probationers with a current felony conviction had convictions for drug offenses (40%), followed by property offenses (39%). For prisoners with a current felony conviction, the majority had convictions for property offenses (36%), followed by convictions for drug offenses (29%). As anticipated, prisoners were more likely to have current convictions for violent offenses (22%) than probationers (12%).
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
18 Age at first criminal justice system contact is defined by contact with the adult system and does not include any contact the offender may have had with the juvenile justice system.
19 Each offender’s conviction(s) that placed him/her in the sample as a prison release or probation entry during FY 2010/11 were ranked in terms of seriousness and only the most serious conviction was used for analysis. For the sake of brevity, the term “most serious current conviction” is often referred to as “current conviction.” See Appendix B for information on the categorization of offenses as person, property, drug, and other.
22%
12%
36%
39%
29%
40%
13%
9%
Prison Releases(n=14,658)
Probation Entries(n=13,576)
Figure 2.2
Type of Most Serious Current Felony Conviction (n=28,234)
Violent
Property
Drug
Other16
The majority of prisoners and probationers with current misdemeanor convictions were convicted of property offenses (41% and 43% respectively) and violent offenses (37% and 25% respectively), as shown in Figure 2.3. As expected, prisoners had a higher percentage of violent convictions compared to probationers. Probationers had a higher percentage of drug convictions (22%) compared to prisoners (17%).
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
The most serious current conviction by type of punishment is presented in Table 2.4. Overall, 40.1% of the sample had a most serious current conviction for a property offense, followed by 27.9% for drug offenses, 22.0% for violent offenses, and 10.1% for other offenses.20 Community punishment probationers were more likely to have a most serious current conviction for a misdemeanor offense (83.7%) and the current conviction was most likely to be for a misdemeanor property offense (36.7%). Seventy-six percent of intermediate punishment probationers had a most serious current conviction for a felony offense and the current conviction was most likely to be for a felony property offense (28.9%) or for a felony drug offense (27.1%). Seventy-two percent of prisoners with no PRS had a most serious current conviction for a felony offense. Prisoners with no PRS were most likely to have a most serious conviction for a property offense (30.4%), followed by a drug offense (24.9%). Consistent with current law, 100.0% of prison releases with PRS had a most serious current conviction for a felony offense. Prisoners with PRS were most likely to have a most serious conviction for a violent offense (66.9%) or for an offense in the “other” category (24.3%) which includes offenders who have been convicted as habitual felons (Class C).
20 Of the 12,666 offenders with a most serious current conviction for a violent offense, 7.6% (n=962) had a conviction for an offense which requires registration as a sex offender under Article 27A of Chapter 14 of the NC General Statutes.
37%
25%
41%
43%
17%
22%
5%
10%
Prison Releases(n=4,712)
Probation Entries(n=24,589)
Figure 2.3
Type of Most Serious Current Misdemeanor Conviction (n=29,301)
Violent
Property
Drug
Other17
Table 2.4
Most Serious Current Conviction by Type of Punishment
Type of Punishment
N
Type of Conviction by Felony or Misdemeanor
% Violent
% Property
% Drug
% Other
% Total
Fel.
Misd.
Fel.
Misd.
Fel.
Misd.
Fel.
Misd.
Fel.
Misd.
Probation Entries
Community Punishment
25,897
0.5
19.5
6.9
36.7
8.3
19.0
0.6
8.5
16.3
83.7
Intermediate Punishment
12,268
11.8
9.2
28.9
8.4
27.1
4.4
8.5
1.7
76.3
23.7
Subtotal
38,165
4.1
16.2
13.9
27.6
14.4
14.3
3.2
6.3
35.6
64.4
Prison Releases
No Post-Release Supervision
16,958
9.0
10.4
30.4
11.3
24.9
4.7
7.9
1.4
72.2
27.8
Post-Release Supervision
2,412
66.9
N/A
5.9
N/A
2.9
N/A
24.3
N/A
100.0
0.0
Subtotal
19,370
16.3
9.1
27.3
9.9
22.2
4.1
9.9
1.2
75.7
24.3
Total
57,535
8.2
13.8
18.4
21.6
17.0
10.9
5.5
4.6
49.1
50.9
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
18
Table 2.5 presents information on the offense class of the most serious current conviction for the FY 2010/11 sample by type of punishment.21 Under Structured Sentencing, offenses are classified based on offense seriousness, with Class A through Class E felonies considered the violent felonies. The type of sentence imposed (community punishment, intermediate punishment, or active sentence) and the sentence length are based on the offense class for the most serious offense and on the offender’s prior criminal history (see Appendix C for the felony and misdemeanor punishment charts).22 Offenders convicted of Class B1 through Class D felonies are required to receive an active sentence.23 Depending on their prior criminal history, offenders convicted of Class E through G felonies may receive either an intermediate punishment or an active sentence, while offenders convicted of Class H through Class I felonies or of misdemeanor offenses may receive a community punishment, an intermediate punishment, or an active sentence. Under Structured Sentencing, prisoners with a most serious offense for Class B1 through Class E felonies are released on PRS for a period of nine months, with the exception of sex offenders who are supervised for five years. Prisoners with a most serious offense for Class F through Class I felonies and Class A1 through Class 3 misdemeanors are released from prison without any supervision.
Table 2.5
Offense Class for Most Serious Current Conviction by Type of Punishment
Type of Punishment
N
Offense Class for Current Conviction
% B1-E
Felony
% F-I
Felony
% A1-3 Misdemeanor
Probation Entries
Community Punishment
25,897
0.0
16.3
83.7
Intermediate Punishment
12,268
4.9
71.4
23.7
Subtotal
38,165
1.6
34.0
64.4
Prison Releases
No Post-Release Supervision
16,958
0.0
72.2
27.8
Post-Release Supervision
2,412
100.0
0.0
0.0
Subtotal
19,370
12.5
63.2
24.3
Total
57,535
5.3
43.8
50.9
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
21 As a reminder, the FY 2010/11 sample was convicted and sentenced prior to the implementation of the JRA; therefore, the description in this paragraph is based upon Structured Sentencing as it existed at that time.
22 For further information about Structured Sentencing, see the Sentencing Commission’s Structured Sentencing Training and Reference Manual.
23 Offenders convicted of first degree murder (Class A) may receive either a death sentence or life without parole under Structured Sentencing. 19
For the FY 2010/11 sample, 5.3% had a most serious conviction for a Class B1 through Class E felony, 43.8% had a most serious conviction for a Class F through Class I felony, and 50.9% had a most serious conviction for a misdemeanor offense. Differences found in the offense class composition of the sample subgroups are consistent with Structured Sentencing, which links offense severity with type of punishment. The majority of community punishment probationers had a most serious conviction for a misdemeanor offense (83.7%), while the majority of intermediate punishment probationers and prisoners with no PRS had a most serious conviction for a Class F through Class I felony (71.4% and 72.2%, respectively). Nearly 13% of prisoners had a conviction for a Class B1 through Class E felony.
Summary24
Chapter Two provided a description of the FY 2010/11 sample’s demographic characteristics, prior criminal history, and current conviction. Of the 57,535 offenders placed on probation or released from prison in FY 2010/11, 78% were male and 56% were nonwhite. Of the 38,165 probationers in the sample, 68% received a community punishment and 32% received an intermediate punishment. Of the 19,370 prison releases in the sample, 88% were released without PRS (Class F through Class I felonies or Class A1 through Class 3 misdemeanors), and 12% were released with PRS (Class B1 through Class E felonies).
Prior criminal history information indicates that 79% of the sample had at least one prior fingerprinted arrest. As expected, fewer probationers had at least one prior arrest (72%) than did prison releases (91%). Further, 64% of all offenders had at least one prior probation admission, 40% had at least one prior probation revocation, and 35% had at least one prior incarceration. For all measures of prior criminal history, prisoners were more likely than probationers to have prior criminal justice system contacts. Prisoners released without PRS generally were more likely to have prior criminal justice system contacts than those released with PRS. Probationers with intermediate punishments were more likely to have prior contact with the criminal justice system than those with community punishments.
Overall, 49% had a most serious current conviction for a felony offense – about 5% had a conviction for a Class B1 through Class E felony, 44% had a conviction for a Class F through Class I felony, and 51% had a conviction for a Class A1 through Class 3 misdemeanor. The majority of probationers had a most serious conviction for a misdemeanor offense (64%), while the majority of prisoners had a most serious conviction for a Class F through Class I felony offense (63%).
Chapter Three examines the sample’s subsequent criminal involvement, as measured by rearrests, reconvictions, and reincarcerations.
24 See Appendix D for summarized descriptions of the sample. 20
CHAPTER THREE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE OUTCOME MEASURES FOR THE FY 2010/11 SAMPLE
Chapter Three examines the criminal justice outcome measures for the FY 2010/11 sample. Many of the tables in this chapter present information by probation or prison status for individual categories of probationers and prisoners (also referred to as type of punishment) and for the sample as a whole.25 While the FY 2010/11 sample selection occurred prior to the implementation of the JRA, portions of the sample’s two-year follow-up period were under the criminal justice laws enacted and practices changed by the JRA – especially for probation entries who were on supervised probation.26 Since the JRA implementation was staggered over a period of time during the follow-up, the results provided in this chapter cannot be directly correlated to any of the changes due to the new law and practices.
Definition of the Follow-up Period and Time at Risk
Each offender in the FY 2010/11 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.27 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 who were not rearrested in the follow-up may appear to be a success but may have actually experienced another type of criminal justice failure (e.g., technical revocation and incarceration) during that period.
In order to take into account each offender’s window of opportunity to recidivate during the follow-up period, each offender’s actual time at risk was calculated by identifying their periods of incarceration in North Carolina’s prison system and subtracting the length of time incarcerated from the follow-up period. It is important to note that time spent in county jails is not included in the calculation of time at risk. In North Carolina, misdemeanants who are sentenced to active terms of 90 days or less are incarcerated in county jails; under the JRA (effective January 1, 2012), the relevant sentence length has been raised to 180 days or less.28 Lack of jail data affects the information presented in this chapter in two ways: 1) time incarcerated in county jails is not subtracted from actual time at risk during the follow-up period and 2) incarceration in county jails, either as a result of new sentences or revocations, is not included as part of the recidivist incarceration measure.
Table 3.1 provides information on time at risk for offenders in the FY 2010/11 sample. As expected, the percentage of the sample at risk for the entire follow-up period declined across the follow-up period. Overall, 86% of the FY 2010/11 sample were at risk for the entire one-year follow-up period and 78%
25 Refer to Chapter Two, Figure 2.1 for a detailed explanation of the subgroups of probationers and prisoners.
26 See Chapter One for a brief discussion of the changes in sentencing practices and correctional polices due to the implementation of the JRA in 2011. Also, see the Sentencing Commission’s reports titled Justice Reinvestment Act Implementation Evaluation Report (2012, 2013, 2014) that summarize the implementation of the JRA.
27 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.
28 See the Sentencing Commission’s reports titled Justice Reinvestment Act Implementation Evaluation Report (2012, 2013, 2014) for more information on the Statewide Misdemeanant Confinement Program (SMCP). 21
were at risk for the entire two-year follow-up period. Probationers and prisoners were very similar with regards to the average time at risk during the one- and two-year follow-up periods. Of the four types of punishment, probationers with an intermediate punishment had the lowest percentage of offenders (62%) who were at risk for the entire follow-up period (i.e., had the entire window of opportunity to reoffend) and, correspondingly, were at risk fewer days during follow-up (647 days compared to 708 days for community punishment probationers, 685 days for prisoners with no PRS, and 673 days for prisoners with PRS).
Table 3.1
Percent at Risk and Average Time at Risk by Type of Punishment
Type of Punishment
N
% at Risk and Average Time at Risk
One-Year Follow-Up
365 Days
Two-Year Follow-Up
730 Days
Probation Entries
Community Punishment
25,897
90%
356 days
85%
708 days
Intermediate Punishment
12,268
74%
330 days
62%
647 days
Subtotal
38,165
85%
347 days
77%
688 days
Prison Releases
No Post-Release Supervision
16,958
90%
353 days
79%
685 days
Post-Release Supervision
2,412
83%
337 days
76%
673 days
Subtotal
19,370
89%
351 days
79%
683 days
Total
57,535
86%
348 days
78%
687 days
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
Criminal Justice Outcome Measures
The Sentencing Commission uses rearrests as its primary measure of recidivism, supplemented by information on reconvictions and reincarcerations, to assess the extent of an offender’s repeat involvement in the criminal justice system. In the following sections, criminal justice outcome measures are presented for the entire sample.
22
Recidivist Arrests
Overall, 28.1% of the FY 2010/11 sample were rearrested during the one-year follow-up and 40.7% were rearrested during the two-year follow-up (see Table 3.2).29,30 Prisoners were more likely to be rearrested
Table 3.2
Recidivist Arrest Rates by Type of Punishment
Type of Punishment
N
% Recidivist Arrest
One-Year
Follow-Up
Two-Year
Follow-Up
Probation Entries
Community Punishment
25,897
24.0
34.6
Intermediate Punishment
12,268
29.3
41.3
Subtotal
38,165
25.7
36.8
Prison Releases
No Post-Release Supervision
16,958
33.5
49.4
Post-Release Supervision
2,412
27.1
43.2
Subtotal
19,370
32.7
48.6
Total
57,535
28.1
40.7
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
than probationers, with a 48.6% rearrest rate for the two-year follow-up period. Of the four types of punishment, probationers with a community punishment were the least likely to be rearrested (34.6%) while prisoners with no PRS were the most likely to be rearrested (49.4%).
Of the 23,441 offenders rearrested during the two-year follow-up, 51% had only one rearrest. Prisoners who were rearrested during follow-up had a higher number of rearrests than probationers who were rearrested (see Figure 3.1). For example, 46% of prisoners compared to 54% of probationers had only one rearrest, while 8% of prisoners compared to 6% of probationers had five or more rearrests. For those who were rearrested during the two-year follow-up period, their first rearrest occurred an average of 8.4 months after entry to probation or release from prison. There were slight variations in the time to first rearrest among the four groups. The average number of months to rearrest was 8.2 for community punishment probationers, 8.0 for intermediate punishment probationers, 8.7 for prisoners with no PRS, and 9.7 for prisoners with PRS.
29 It must be noted that the rearrest rates reported in this section do not take into account the fact that some offenders were not at risk for the entire follow-up period as a result of incarceration. It is possible to calculate adjusted recidivism rates that estimate the rate of rearrest that would have occurred if every offender were at risk for the entire follow-up period. For a comparison of rearrest rates with adjusted rearrest rates (i.e., rearrest rates that are adjusted for time at risk), refer to the Sentencing Commission’s 2004 recidivism report.
30 See Chapter One for a discussion on the increase in fingerprinted arrests due to the increase in the documenting of fingerprinted misdemeanor arrests and, also, Appendix A for DOJ’s documentation of this increase. 23
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
Table 3.3 provides information on the actual number of arrests for those who were rearrested during the follow-up period, as well as the types of crimes for which they were rearrested. The 23,441 offenders who were rearrested during the two-year follow-up accounted for a total of 47,612 arrests, with 9,982 arrests for violent offenses, 20,219 arrests for property offenses, 10,658 arrests for drug offenses, and 18,393 arrests for other offenses.31 While probationers were less likely to be rearrested than prisoners, they accounted for a higher volume of arrests due to the larger number of probation entries in the FY 2010/11 sample. Table 3.3 also includes information on the average number of rearrests by offense type for each group. The average number of arrests for those who were rearrested was 2.0 for the two-year follow-up, with prisoners having a slightly higher average number of rearrests (2.2) than probationers (1.9).
Recidivist Convictions32
Overall, 10.2% of the FY 2010/11 sample had a reconviction during the one-year follow-up period and 21.3% had a reconviction during the two-year follow-up period (see Table 3.4). Prisoners had a higher percentage of recidivist convictions than probationers during the follow-up periods. Nearly 27% of prisoners had a recidivist conviction during the two-year follow-up compared to 18.6% of probationers. Intermediate punishment probationers had a higher percentage of recidivist convictions during the two-year follow-up than community punishment probationers with 21.2% compared to 17.4% respectively. Prisoners with no PRS had a higher percentage of recidivist convictions during the two-year follow-up than prison releases with PRS, with 27.6% compared to 19.9% respectively.
31 See Appendix B for information on the offense categorization of person, property, drug, and other.
32 DOJ’s CCH data were used to determine recidivist arrests and convictions in North Carolina. Recidivist convictions were defined as convictions for arrests that occurred after an offender was released from prison or placed on probation for the conviction that placed him/her in the sample.
51%
46%
54%
24%
26%
24%
18%
20%
16%
7%
8%
6%
Total(N=23,441)
Prison Releases(n=9,417)
Probation Entries(n=14,024)
Figure 3.1
Number of Recidivist Arrests for Offenders with Any Rearrest:
Two-Year Follow-Up
1 Rearrest
2 Rearrests
3-4 Rearrests
5+ Rearrests24
Table 3.3
Recidivist Arrests by Type of Punishment and Crime Type
Type of Punishment
# with Any Rearrest
Total Number and Average Number of Recidivist Arrests: Two-Year Follow-Up
Violent
Property
Drug
Other
Total
#
Avg.
#
Avg.
#
Avg.
#
Avg.
#
Avg.
Probation Entries
Community Punishment
8,957
3,584
0.4
7,381
0.8
3,662
0.4
6,671
0.7
17,404
1.9
Intermediate Punishment
5,067
1,967
0.4
4,004
0.8
2,249
0.4
3,527
0.7
9,499
1.9
Subtotal
14,024
5,551
0.4
11,385
0.8
5,911
0.4
10,198
0.7
26,903
1.9
Prison Releases
No Post-Release Supervision
8,375
3,841
0.5
8,168
1.0
4,268
0.5
7,353
0.9
18,729
2.2
Post-Release Supervision
1,042
590
0.6
666
0.6
479
0.5
842
0.8
1,980
1.9
Subtotal
9,417
4,431
0.5
8,834
0.9
4,747
0.5
8,195
0.9
20,709
2.2
Total
23,441
9,982
0.4
20,219
0.9
10,658
0.5
18,393
0.8
47,612
2.0
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
25
Table 3.4
Recidivist Conviction Rates by Type of Punishment
Type of Punishment
N
% Recidivist Conviction
One-Year
Follow-Up
Two-Year
Follow-Up
Probation Entries
Community Punishment
25,897
8.7
17.4
Intermediate Punishment
12,268
10.6
21.2
Subtotal
38,165
9.3
18.6
Prison Releases
No Post-Release Supervision
16,958
12.6
27.6
Post-Release Supervision
2,412
7.6
19.9
Subtotal
19,370
12.0
26.6
Total
57,535
10.2
21.3
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
Table 3.5 provides information on the volume and types of recidivist convictions. The 12,267 offenders who had a recidivist conviction by the end of the two-year follow-up accounted for 16,725 convictions during this period, with 2,600 convictions for violent offenses, 7,877 convictions for property offenses, 4,130 convictions for drug offenses, and 4,543 convictions for other offenses. 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 2010/11 sample.
Table 3.5 also includes the average number of recidivist convictions for each group. The average number of overall convictions for those with a recidivist conviction was 1.4 for the two-year follow-up. Prisoners who were rearrested had a slightly higher average number of recidivist convictions (1.4) than probationers (1.3). Overall, the average number of property convictions was 0.6 and 0.2 for violent convictions for those with a recidivist conviction during the two-year follow-up.
For offenders who had a recidivist conviction during the two-year follow-up period, their first recidivist conviction occurred an average of 12.0 months after entry to probation or release from prison. Among the four groups, prison releases with PRS had a slightly longer time to reconviction (13.6 months) compared to community punishment probationers at 11.7 months, intermediate punishment probationers at 11.8 months, and prison releases with no PRS at 12.3 months.
26
Table 3.5
Recidivist Conviction by Type of Punishment and Crime Type
Type of Punishment
# with Any Conv.
Total Number and Average Number of Recidivist Convictions: Two-Year Follow-Up
Violent
Property
Drug
Other
Total
#
Avg.
#
Avg.
#
Avg.
#
Avg.
#
Avg.
Probation Entries
Community Punishment
4,511
883
0.2
2,887
0.6
1,481
0.3
1,599
0.4
6,086
1.3
Intermediate Punishment
2,598
479
0.2
1,558
0.6
865
0.3
859
0.3
3,300
1.3
Subtotal
7,109
1,362
0.2
4,445
0.6
2,346
0.3
2,458
0.3
9,386
1.3
Prison Releases
No Post-Release Supervision
4,678
1,096
0.2
3,228
0.7
1,625
0.3
1,894
0.4
6,749
1.4
Post-Release Supervision
480
142
0.3
204
0.4
159
0.3
191
0.4
590
1.2
Subtotal
5,158
1,238
0.2
3,432
0.7
1,784
0.3
2,085
0.4
7,339
1.4
Total
12,267
2,600
0.2
7,877
0.6
4,130
0.3
4,543
0.4
16,725
1.4
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Correctional Program Evaluation Data 27
Recidivist Incarcerations33
Of the FY 2010/11 sample, 13.5% had a recidivist incarceration during the one-year follow-up period and 21.9% had a recidivist incarceration during the two-year follow-up period (as shown in Table 3.6). Recidivist incarcerations may have occurred as a result of the sentence imposed for a new crime committed or due to a probation revocation during the follow-up period.
Overall, probationers were slightly more likely to have a recidivist incarceration than prisoners, with a 22.2% incarceration rate at the end of the two-year follow-up for probationers compared to 21.2% of prisoners. Of the four groups, probationers with community punishments had the lowest incarceration rate during the follow-up period (15.3%) and probationers with intermediate punishments had the highest incarceration rate during the follow-up period (36.8%). The high reincarceration rate for this group is most likely linked to their high revocation rate. Of those offenders with an incarceration during the two-year follow-up period, 91.8% had one incarceration, 7.7% had two incarcerations, and 0.5% had three or more incarcerations.
Table 3.6
Recidivist Incarceration Rates by Type of Punishment
Type of Punishment
N
% Recidivist Incarceration
One-Year
Follow-Up
Two-Year
Follow-Up
Probation Entries
Community Punishment
25,897
10.0
15.3
Intermediate Punishment
12,268
24.5
36.8
Subtotal
38,165
14.7
22.2
Prison Releases
No Post-Release Supervision
16,958
10.2
20.8
Post-Release Supervision
2,412
17.4
24.1
Subtotal
19,370
11.1
21.2
Total
57,535
13.5
21.9
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
33 DACJJ’s OPUS data were used to determine recidivist incarcerations (i.e., incarcerations that occurred during the follow-up period). It must be noted that the data presented on recidivist incarcerations only include incarceration in North Carolina’s state prison system. These data do not include periods of incarceration in county jails or incarceration in other states. Incarcerations may have occurred as a result of the sentence imposed for a new crime committed during the follow-up period or due to a revocation during the follow-up period. Throughout the report, the term “reincarceration” is used interchangeably with “recidivist incarcerations.” These terms refer to incarcerations during the two-year follow-up for offenders who have no prior incarcerations, as well as for those who have prior incarcerations. 28
For offenders who had an incarceration during the two-year follow-up period, their first incarceration occurred an average of 10.0 months after entry to probation or release from prison. The average number of months to incarceration was 9.5 for community punishment probationers, 9.1 for intermediate punishment probationers, 11.9 for prison releases with no PRS, and 8.7 for prison releases with PRS.
Criminal Justice Outcome Measures by Groups
The next section examines the criminal justice outcome measures by personal characteristics, current conviction, and for specific groups of offenders (i.e., habitual felons, sex offenders required to register with the sex offender registry).
Personal Characteristics
Table 3.7 provides recidivism rates during the two-year follow-up by the offender’s personal characteristics: gender, race, age at probation entry or prison release, marital status, education, employment, and drug addiction.34 Overall, males had higher recidivism rates for all three measures than females. Black offenders had the highest recidivism rates for all three measures compared to the other race categories. Offenders under 21 years of age had the highest recidivism rates for all three measures compared to the other age groups. Offenders who are single had the highest recidivism rates for all three measures compared to the other categories. High school dropouts had higher recidivism rates compared to offenders who were not high school dropouts. Unemployed offenders and offenders with a drug addiction problem had higher recidivism rates for all three measures when compared to their counterparts.
Offense Class of the Current Conviction, Habitual Felons, and Registered Sex Offenders
In Table 3.8, recidivism rates were examined by offense class for the current conviction. Overall, 40.7% of offenders with a current conviction for a Class B1 through Class E felony (which are defined as violent offenses under Structured Sentencing), 44.5% of offenders with a conviction for a Class F through Class I felony, and 37.5% of offenders with a conviction for a Class A1 through Class 3 misdemeanor were rearrested during the two-year follow-up period. Offenders with a Class F through Class I felony also had higher recidivist conviction and incarceration rates compared to the violent felons and the misdemeanants. It is not surprising that offenders with Class F through Class I felony convictions had higher reincarceration rates than those with Class B1 through Class E convictions. While offenders with Class B1 through Class E felony convictions are more likely to be in the FY 2010/11 sample as a prison release, offenders with Class F through I felony convictions are more likely to be in the sample as a result of a probation sentence. Correspondingly, their higher reincarceration rates may be a function of both revocations and recidivist arrests that result in incarceration.
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. (N.C.G.S. §§ 14-7.1 to -7.6)
34 See Table 2.1 in Chapter Two for details of the sample’s personal characteristics. 29
Table 3.7
Criminal Justice Outcomes by Personal Characteristics
Personal Characteristics
N
Criminal Justice Outcomes: Two-Year Follow-Up
% Recidivist Arrest
% Recidivist
Conviction
% Recidivist
Incarceration
Gender
Female
12,566
29.1
13.3
12.5
Male
44,969
44.0
23.6
24.5
Race
Black
29,640
45.7
24.4
23.3
White
25,095
35.9
18.6
20.8
Other/Unknown
2,800
31.5
13.2
16.6
Age at Sample Entry
Under 21 Years
9,622
50.2
29.1
25.1
21-29 Years
19,592
44.9
23.1
23.7
30-39 Years
13,877
38.3
18.9
21.0
40-49 Years
9,573
34.7
18.1
20.4
50 Years and Older
4,871
24.2
12.1
13.8
Marital Status
Single
39,123
44.3
23.6
23.1
Divorced/Separated
10,508
35.5
18.3
22.0
Married/Widowed
7,706
30.3
14.2
16.2
Other/Unknown
198
26.8
12.6
7.1
Education
Not a High School Dropout
28,349
35.2
17.5
16.5
High School Dropout
25,408
46.5
24.9
25.5
Employment
Employed
23,671
33.9
16.2
15.0
Unemployed
30,086
45.8
24.7
25.2
Drug Addiction
No Drug Addiction
26,229
34.3
16.5
15.6
Drug Addiction
27,528
46.5
25.2
25.6
Total
57,535
40.7
21.3
21.9
Note: For education, employment, and drug addiction, 3,778 offenders had missing information.
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
30
While habitual felons are sentenced as Class C felons, the overwhelming majority of habitual felons have a Class F through Class I felony as their most serious substantive conviction.35
Table 3.8
Criminal Justice Outcomes by Current Conviction
Current Conviction
N
Criminal Justice Outcomes: Two-Year Follow-Up
% Recidivist Arrest
% Recidivist Conviction
% Recidivist Incarceration
Offense Class
Class B1 – E Felony
3,017
40.7
18.5
25.2
Class F – I Felony
25,217
44.5
23.8
28.8
Felony Subtotal
28,234
44.1
23.2
28.4
Class A1 – 3 Misdemeanor
29,301
37.5
19.5
15.6
Specific Groups of Interest
Habitual Felons
584
48.1
21.9
26.0
Sex Offenders
962
27.0
13.9
26.3
Total
57,535
40.7
21.3
21.9
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
Recidivism rates were examined 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. The recidivism rates for Class B1 through Class E convictions with habitual felons excluded are as follows: 48.1% of habitual felons were rearrested, 21.9% were reconvicted, and 26.0% were incarcerated. Based on these statistics, habitual felons more closely resembled offenders with Class F through Class I felony convictions than Class B1 through Class E felony convictions with respect to their distribution by recidivism rates, although their overall rearrest rate was higher (48.1% versus 44.5%).
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.36 Of the 962 offenders in the sample convicted of an offense for which registration as a sex offender is required, 23.5% (n=226) were convicted of a Class B1 through Class E felony, 64.7% (n=622) were convicted of a Class F through Class I felony, and the remainder were convicted primarily of a Class A1 misdemeanor. Overall, 27.0% of the
35 The JRA of 2011 included changes to the habitual felon status laws; however, the FY 2010/11 sample was sentenced prior to the implementation of the JRA. According to the Sentencing Commission’s annual statistical report, there were 750 habitual felon convictions in FY 2010/11 (NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, 2012). Overall, almost 89% (n=664) had a conviction for a Class F through Class I felony as their most serious underlying conviction, with Class F accounting for 8.4%, Class G for 22.8%, Class H for 41.5%, and Class I for 15.9%.
36 Offenses against a minor and sexually violent offenses are defined in N.C.G.S. § 14-208.6. 31
offenders required to register as a sex offender had a recidivist arrest during the two-year follow-up period. Fourteen percent of the offenders required to register as a sex offender had a recidivist conviction and 26.3% had a recidivist incarceration. When compared to each offense class grouping, offenders required to register as sex offenders were more similar to misdemeanants than to felons although the rates varied.
Interim Outcome Measures – Prison Releases
In addition to the recidivism rates provided in this chapter, infractions while incarcerated were examined as an interim outcome measure for prison releases. Infractions are a measure of inmate misconduct while incarcerated.
Infractions
For the FY 2010/11 prison releases (n=19,370), prison infractions while incarcerated for their current conviction (i.e., the conviction that resulted in the offender being selected for the FY 2010/11 sample) were used as an indicator of prisoner misconduct. Overall, 52% of the FY 2010/11 prison releases had no infractions while in prison. Sixteen percent had one infraction, 19% had two to four infractions, and 13% had five or more infractions – for a total of 48% with at least one infraction while in prison. Figure 3.2 shows the differences between the two groups of prison releases with respect to the number of infractions during incarceration. As expected due to their offense seriousness and the resulting longer time served, a higher percentage of prisoners with PRS had infractions while incarcerated (84% compared to 43% of prisoners with no PRS). They also had a higher percentage with a greater number of infractions – 47% with five or more infractions compared to only 9% of prisoners with no PRS.
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
52%
16%
57%
16%
12%
16%
19%
25%
18%
13%
47%
9%
Total(N=19,370)
Prison Releases PRS(n=2,412)
Prison Releases No PRS(n=16,958)
Figure 3.2
Number of Infractions for Prison Releases during Incarceration
0 Infractions
1 Infraction
2-4 Infractions
5+ Infractions32
When examining the number of infractions per inmate, it is important to control for time served because prisoners with longer sentences (e.g., prisoners with PRS) have more time to accrue infractions. As shown in Table 3.9, the average number of infractions based only on prisoners who had an infraction was 4.8. As expected, the average number of infractions increased as time served increased.
Table 3.9
Average Number of Infractions for Prison Releases during Incarceration
Time Served
N
Infractions
# with Any
Avg.
0-4 Months
7,350
1,561
1.8
5-8 Months
4,014
1,858
2.6
9-24 Months
4,737
3,161
3.8
25 or More Months
3,269
2,759
9.0
Total
19,370
9,339
4.8
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
Summary
Chapter Three provided a detailed examination of criminal justice outcomes within the context of offenders’ time at risk to recidivate during the two-year follow-up.
Each offender’s actual time at risk was calculated by subtracting periods of incarceration in North Carolina’s prison system from the follow-up period.37 Seventy-eight percent of offenders in the FY 2010/11 sample were at risk to recidivate for the entire two-year follow-up period. Overall, average time at risk was very similar for prisoners and probationers.
Three measures of recidivism – recidivist arrest, conviction, and incarceration – were used to assess repeat involvement with the criminal justice system. The primary measure for recidivism – rearrests – indicated that 41% of the sample offenders had one or more rearrest in the two-year follow up period, with higher rearrest rates for prisoners than for probationers (see Table 3.10). For those offenders who were rearrested, the average time to first rearrest was 8.4 months and the average number of rearrests during the two-year follow-up was 2.0. The 23,441 sample offenders with a recidivist arrest accounted for 47,612 fingerprinted arrests over the two-year period.
Chapter Three also presented recidivist conviction and incarceration rates.38 Overall, prisoners had higher reconviction rates than probationers, but similar reincarceration rates (see Table 3.10). While prisoners released without PRS had the highest rates of rearrest and reconviction, probationers on intermediate punishment had the highest rate of reincarceration, possibly due to a higher incidence of revocations.
37 As noted previously, the time at risk measure does not account for time spent in local jails or prison facilities outside of North Carolina.
38 It must be noted that the data presented on recidivist incarcerations only include incarceration in North Carolina’s prisons. 33
Table 3.10
Criminal Justice Outcomes by Type of Punishment
Type of Punishment
N
Criminal Justice Outcomes: Two-Year Follow-Up
% Recidivist Arrest
% Recidivist Conviction
% Recidivist Incarceration
Probation Entries
Community Punishment
25,897
34.6
17.4
15.3
Intermediate Punishment
12,268
41.3
21.2
36.8
Subtotal
38,165
36.8
18.6
22.2
Prison Releases
No Post-Release Supervision
16,958
49.4
27.6
20.8
Post-Release Supervision
2,412
43.2
19.9
24.1
Subtotal
19,370
48.6
26.6
21.2
Total
57,535
40.7
21.3
21.9
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
The findings for personal characteristics and recidivism rates were consistent with current research – offenders who were male, black, youthful, single, uneducated, unemployed, and had a drug addiction problem had higher recidivism rates compared to their counterparts for all three criminal justice outcome measures. Examination of offense class of the current conviction and recidivism rates revealed that Class F through Class I felons had higher recidivism rates compared to violent felons (Class B1 through Class E) and misdemeanants. Habitual felons were most similar in their recidivism rates to this group (Class F through Class I felons), while registered sex offenders were more similar in their recidivism rates to misdemeanants.
Infractions while in prison were studied as an interim outcome measure for the 19,370 offenders released from prison. Forty-eight percent of all prisoners had one or more infraction during their incarceration. Most likely due to the severity of their offenses and the length of their incarceration, violent felons were more likely to have infractions, and a larger number of infractions, than other prisoners.
The information presented in Chapter Three suggests that type of punishment and offense class were related to recidivism in the FY 2010/11 sample. However, other factors also play an important role in explaining differences in recidivism rates. Chapter Four focuses on the FY 2010/11 probation sample and provides information on risk and need assessments, supervision level, violations and revocations while on supervision, and the criminal justice outcome measures.
34
CHAPTER FOUR
PROBATION ENTRIES IN FY 2010/11
Introduction
Chapter Three provides a sample-wide profile of offender recidivism and other outcome measures. This chapter turns to a further examination of the probationers in the sample, with a specific goal in mind. While the JRA of 2011 has only affected, in its earliest phases of implementation, portions of the probation entries in the sample during the final months of the probationers’ two-year follow-up, its future impact is expected to be greatest on the state’s community corrections. Further focus of this chapter is intended to take a fresh look at issues that will become more salient under the JRA, including the risk and need assessments and determination of the supervision level; probation violations and responses to these violations; and the relationship between these components and recidivism.
The next Correctional Program Evaluation Report, to be completed in 2016, will be based on a sample of offenders placed on probation or released from prison during FY 2012/13. In view of this next sample of offenders – and, more specifically, the probationers – expected to be processed and supervised under the provisions of the JRA, Chapter Four provides the comparative framework for the analysis of probationers and displays some of the current practices that will have a major effect on offenders once the JRA is fully implemented.
Statistical Profile of the FY 2010/11 Probation Entries
With community and intermediate punishments redefined under the JRA, this chapter will examine probationers as felons or misdemeanants based on their current conviction. Of the 38,165 probation entries in FY 2010/11, the majority (64.4%) had a misdemeanor as their most serious current conviction; the remaining probationers (35.6%) had a felony as their most serious current conviction.39 Chapter Two provides the personal characteristics, prior criminal history, and current conviction by type of punishment for probation entries. Since the majority of community punishment probationers are misdemeanants, and the majority of intermediate punishment probationers are felons, there were no major differences when examining probationers either by type of punishment or current conviction. Therefore, see Chapter Two for details of these characteristics.
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, impose punishment, determine supervision type and level, and provide rehabilitative and other services. The legislation requires 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. DACJJ currently uses the Offender Traits Inventory – Revised (OTI-R) to assess offender risk and the Offender Self-Report instrument and the Officer
39 Each probationer’s conviction(s) that placed him/her in the sample during FY 2010/11 were ranked in terms of seriousness and only the most serious conviction was used for analysis. For the sake of brevity, the term “most serious current conviction” is shortened to “current conviction” for the remainder of this chapter. 35
Interview and Impressions instrument to assess offender need in order to determine supervision level, program placement, and other interventions for probationers.40
Since the OTI-R was not fully implemented by FY 2010/11, the probation entries sampled in this report were assessed using an older version of the OTI-R, the Offender Traits Inventory (OTI).41 The offender assessments are administered within the first 60 days of probation supervision. Ninety-one percent of the probation entries in the sample had a completed OTI, while 88.8% of the probationers had a completed need assessment. Due to the link between risk assessment, need assessment, and supervision level assignment, only the probationers with completed risk and need assessments (n=33,900) will be discussed in this chapter.42
The OTI includes select demographic, financial, and employment information for the offender; a history of convictions and drug addiction; current disposition; and a subjective measure of the offender’s attitude. Each offender is assigned to one of four risk levels based on their score: high, moderate, low, and minimal. Table 4.1 provides the risk level distribution by current conviction. Of the 33,900
Table 4.1
Offender Risk and Need Levels for Probation Entries
Current Conviction
N
% Offender Risk Level
High
Moderate
Low
Minimal
Misdemeanor
21,760
17.0
34.5
34.0
14.5
Felony
12,140
38.4
34.0
20.2
7.4
Total
33,900
24.7
34.3
29.0
12.0
Current Conviction
N
% Offender Need Level
Extreme
High
Moderate
Low
Minimal
Misdemeanor
21,760
23.7
19.2
35.1
18.2
3.8
Felony
12,140
26.9
19.0
34.7
16.6
2.8
Total
33,900
24.9
19.1
35.0
17.6
3.4
Source: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
probationers with a completed OTI, 24.7% were assessed as high risk, 34.3% as moderate risk, 29.0% as low risk, and 12.0% as minimal risk. For felons, the majority (72.4%) were either assessed as high or moderate risk compared to slightly over half (51.5%) of the misdemeanants that were assessed as high or moderate risk. Only 7.4% of the felons were minimal risk, while 14.5% of the misdemeanants were minimal risk. The within-group composition of each risk level was as expected – the percentage of felons
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 DACJJ implemented the OTI-R by the spring of 2012.
42 For this report, risk and need assessment 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. 36
within each risk level declined from high risk to minimal risk. More felons were assessed as high risk (55.7%) than misdemeanants (44.3%), while more misdemeanants were assessed as minimal risk (77.8%) than felons (22.2%).
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. The need assessment divides the probationers into five need levels: extreme, high, moderate, low, and minimal. Of the 33,900 offenders with a completed need assessment, 24.9% were assessed as extreme need, 19.1% as high need, 35.0% as moderate need, 17.6% as low need, and 3.4% as minimal need (see Table 4.1). Examination of need level by current conviction shows little difference between felons and misdemeanants – 23.7% of misdemeanants and 26.9% of felons were assessed as high need, while 3.8% of misdemeanants and 2.8% of felons were assessed as minimal need. The within-group composition of each need level found no distinct trend – more misdemeanants were assessed as extreme need (61.3%) than felons (38.8%) and more misdemeanants were assessed as minimal need (71.3%) than felons (28.7%).
Supervision in the Community
DACJJ 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.43 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.44 Overall, 9.3% of probationers were assessed in Supervision Level 1, 30.9% in Level 2, 31.0% in Level 3, 23.1% in Level 4, and 5.7% in Level 5 (see Table 4.2). More felons than misdemeanants were placed in the most restrictive supervision, Level 1 (14.4% and 6.5% respectively). More misdemeanants than felons were placed in the least restrictive supervision, Level 5 (6.9% and 3.5% respectively). As with risk level, the percentage of felons within each supervision level declined from Level 1 (most restrictive) to Level 5 (least restrictive). Comparison of offense type within each supervision level indicated that more felons than
Table 4.2
Offender Supervision Level for Probation Entries
Current Conviction
N
% Offender Supervision Level
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Misdemeanor
21,760
6.5
26.9
33.0
26.7
6.9
Felony
12,140
14.4
38.2
27.4
16.5
3.5
Total
33,900
9.3
30.9
31.0
23.1
5.7
SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Correctional Program Evaluation Data
43 By policy, DACJJ sets a minimum supervision level of Level 3 for sex offenders and DWI Levels 1, 2, or 3. However, those exceptions to supervision level