North Carolina

Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission

Prepared By

Tamara Flinchum Ginny Hevener

Karen Jones Susan Katzenelson

Marlee Moore- Gurrera

Project Conducted in Conjunction with the

North Carolina Department of Correction

Submitted Pursuant to Session Law 1998- 212, Section 16.18

April 15, 2006

CORRECTIONAL PROGRAM

EVALUATION:

OFFENDERS PLACED ON PROBATION

OR RELEASED FROM PRISON

IN FISCAL YEAR 2001/ 02

Project Conducted in Conjunction with the

North Carolina Department of Correction

North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission

P. O. Box 2472

Raleigh, NC 27602

( 919) 789- 3684

www. nccourts. org/ courts/ crs/ councils/ spac

The Honorable W. Erwin Spainhour Susan Katzenelson

Chairman Executive Director

CORRECTIONAL PROGRAM

EVALUATION:

OFFENDERS PLACED ON PROBATION

OR RELEASED FROM PRISON

IN FISCAL YEAR 2001/ 02

NC SENTENCING AND POLICY ADVISORY COMMISSION

MEMBERSHIP

Hon. W. Erwin Spainhour, Chairman

Superior Court Judge

Talmage Baggett

NC Association of County Commissioners

Dr. David Barlow

Professor, Fayetteville State University

Sheriff Hayden Bentley

NC Sheriffs’ Association

Locke T. Clifford

NC Bar Association

William A. Dudley

NC Dept. Of Crime Control & Public Safety

Hon. R. Phillip Haire

State Representative

William P. Hart

NC Attorney General’s Designee

Mary Y. “ Larry” Hines

Private Citizen, Governor’s Appointee

Hon. Robert F. Johnson

NC Conference of District Attorneys

Hon. Carolyn K. Justus

State Representative

Gary Kearney

NC Dept. of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency

Prevention

Hon. Eleanor Kinnaird

State Senator

Charles Mann

NC Post- Release Supervision & Parole Commission

Judge H. Paul McCoy, Jr.

NC District Court Judges’ Association

Judge Douglas J. McCullough

NC Court of Appeals Designee

Moe McKnight

NC Retail Merchants’ Association

Hon. Henry Michaux, Jr.

State Representative

Luther T. Moore

Lieutenant Governor’s Appointee

Judge Fred G. Morrison, Jr.

Justice Fellowship

Chief Frank Palombo

NC Association of Chiefs of Police

Judge Ronald K. Payne

NC Conference of Superior Court Judges

Sherry Pilkington

NC Department of Correction

Cathy Purvis

NC Victim Assistance Network

June Ray

NC Association of Clerks of Superior Court

Lao E. Rubert

NC Community Sentencing Association

Billy J. Sanders

Commission Chairman’s Appointee

Hon. John J. Snow, Jr.

State Senator

Lyle J. Yurko

NC Academy of Trial Lawyers

Vacant

State Senator

NC SENTENCING AND POLICY ADVISORY COMMISSION

STAFF MEMBERS

=====================================================================

Susan Katzenelson

Executive Director

John Madler

Associate Director for Policy, Staff Attorney

Ginny Hevener

Associate Director for Research

Tamara Flinchum Karen Jones

Senior Research & Policy Associate Senior Research & Policy Associate

Marlee Moore- Gurrera Troy Page

Research & Policy Associate Research & Policy Associate

Deborah Andrews

Administrative Assistant

=============================================================================

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The staff of the North Carolina Sentencing and Policy

Advisory Commission offers its gratitude to the various individuals

and agencies whose knowledge and cooperation greatly enhanced this

report. We express our appreciation to Nicole Sullivan and her staff

at the Department of Correction’s Office of Research and Planning

who offered their assistance in providing data and reviewing

information contained in this report. We also wish to thank the

following persons who were helpful in providing information and

assisting in the site visits that were made by Sentencing Commission

staff during the course of the project: staff at Fountain Correctional

Center for Women, Harnett Correctional Institute, North Carolina

Correctional Institute for Women, Polk Correctional Institution,

Western Youth Institution, and Mary Frances Center; Division of

Prison’s administrative, program, education, and mental health

services staff; Virginia Price, Assistant Secretary, Division of Alcohol

and Chemical Dependency Programs and her staff; Tim Moose with

the Division of Community Corrections; and Barbara Boyce, Ray

Harrington, and field staff with the North Carolina Community

College System.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Defining Recidivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Guidelines Sentencing and Recidivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Comparison of Recidivism Rates with Previous Recidivism Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table 1.1: Rearrest Rates for North Carolina Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Research Design and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Follow- Up Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Time at Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Outcome and Process Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Analysis and Report Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

II. STATISTICAL PROFILE OF FY 2001/ 02 SAMPLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Type of Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 2.1: Type of Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Personal Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Criminal History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Table 2.1: Personal Characteristics by Type of Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 2.2: Prior Arrests by Type of Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Most Serious Current Conviction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 2.2: Most Serious Current Conviction: Felonies Only ( n= 27,733) . . . . 14

Figure 2.3: Most Serious Current Conviction: Misdemeanors Only ( n= 30,240) 15

Offender Risk and Recidivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 2.3: Most Serious Current Conviction by Type of Punishment . . . . . . . . 16

Components of Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 2.4: Offender Risk Level by Type of Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

III. CRIMINAL JUSTICE OUTCOME MEASURES FOR THE FY 2001/ 02 SAMPLE . . . . . 19

Definition of the Follow- Up Period and Time at Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 3.1: Percent at Risk and Average Time at Risk by Type of Punishment . . 20

Criminal Justice Outcome Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Recidivist Arrests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 3.2: Rearrest Rates by Type of Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Table 3.3: Rearrests by Type of Punishment and Crime Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 3.1: Rearrest Rates by Offender Risk Level: Three- Year Follow- Up . . 24

Table 3.4: Rearrest Rates by Type of Punishment and Offender Risk Level . . . . 25

Figure 3.2: Rearrest Rates by Type of Punishment and Risk Level: Three- Year

Follow- Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Recidivist Convictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 3.5: Reconviction Rates by Type of Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table 3.6: Reconvictions by Type of Punishment and Crime Type . . . . . . . . . . 28

Technical Revocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Table 3.7: Technical Revocation Rates by Type of Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Recidivist Incarcerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Table 3.8: Reincarceration Rates by Type of Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 3.3: Rearrest Rates: Three- Year Follow- Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 3.4: Criminal Justice Outcomes by Type of Punishment: Three- Year

Follow- Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Figure 3.5: Criminal Justice Outcomes by Risk Level: Three- Year Follow- Up 34

IV. MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF OUTCOME MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Multivariate Analysis: What is a Regression Model? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Dependent Variables ( Outcome Measures) Modeled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Independent Variables Used in the Regression Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Regression Analysis: Recidivist Arrest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table 4.1: Effect of Personal and Criminal Justice Factors on Recidivist Arrest 38

Regression Analysis: Recidivist Incarceration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Table 4.2: Effect of Personal and Criminal Justice Factors on Recidivist

Incarceration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Regression Analysis: Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Table 4.3: Employment in the Three Years Following Release to the

Community: All Offenders FY 2001/ 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Table 4.4: Effect of Personal and Criminal Justice Factors on Employment . . . 48

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

V. POPULATION PROFILE: FEMALE OFFENDERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

The Division of Prisons: The Prison Environment for Incarcerated Females . . . . . . . . . 54

Overview of Female Prisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Table 5.1: Prisons Housing Female Offenders in FY 2001/ 02 and FY 2005/ 06 55

Distinctions Between Incarcerated Female and Male Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Statistical Profile of the FY 2001/ 02 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Table 5.2: Type of Punishment by Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Table 5.3: Personal Characteristics: Female and Male Offenders . . . . . . . . . . 59

Table 5.4: Offender Risk Level by Type of Punishment: Female and Male

Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Table 5.5: Prior Arrests and Current Conviction: Female and Male Offenders 61

Description of Work, Program, and Treatment Assignments for Incarcerated Female

Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Academic Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Vocational Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Chemical Dependency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Mental Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Social Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Work Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Transitional Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Chaplaincy Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

The Division of Community Corrections: The Female Probationer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Criminal Justice Outcome Measures for the FY 2001/ 02 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Table 5.6: Criminal Justice Outcome Measures: Female and Male Offenders . 71

Figure 5.1: Rearrest Rates by Type of Punishment and Risk Level: Three- Year

Follow- Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Table 5.7: Employment in the Three Years Following Release to the

Community: Female and Male Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

VI. POPULATION PROFILE: YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Statutory Provisions and DOC Policy Relative to Youthful Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Table 6.1: Prisons Housing Youthful Offenders in FY 2001/ 02 and FY 2005/ 06 78

The Prison Environment: Youthful Offenders and Adult Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Youthful Offenders Versus Adult Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Youthful Male Offenders Versus Youthful Female Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Statistical Profile of the FY 2001/ 02 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Table 6.2: Personal Characteristics: Youthful and Adult Offenders . . . . . . . . . 82

Table 6.3: Prior Arrests and Current Conviction: Youthful and Adult

Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Description of Work, Program, and Treatment Assignments for Incarcerated Youthful

Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Academic Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Vocational Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Chemical Dependency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Mental Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Social Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Work Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Transitional Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Chaplaincy Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Targeted Programming for Youthful Prisoners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Programs for Youthful Offenders on Probation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Criminal Justice Outcome Measures for the FY 2001/ 02 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Table 6.4: Criminal Justice Outcome Measures: Youthful and Adult Offenders 95

Figure 6.1: Rearrest Rates by Age of Probationer and Risk Level: Three- Year

Follow- Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Figure 6.2: Rearrest Rates by Age of Prisoner and Risk Level: Three- Year

Follow- Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Figure 6.3: Employment Rates by Age of Offender: Three- Year

Follow- Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Table 6.5: Employment by Age of Offender in the Three Years Following

Release to the Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

VII. VOCATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Historical Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Program Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

General Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Program Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Availability of Vocational Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Description of Vocational Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Table 7.1: Number of Vocational Education Program Participants by Category:

FY 2001/ 02 Prison Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Statistical Profile of Vocational Education Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Table 7.2: Personal Characteristics: Vocational Education Participants in

Prison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Table 7.3: Prior Arrests and Current Conviction: Vocational Education Participants

in Prison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Table 7.4: Offender Risk Level: Vocational Education Participants in Prison 114

Criminal Justice Outcome Measures for the FY 2001/ 02 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Table 7.5: Criminal Justice Outcome Measures: Vocational Education

Participants in Prison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Figure 7.1: Three- Year Rearrest Rates by Risk Level: FY 2001/ 02 Prisoners 116

Table 7.6: Employment in the Three Years Following Release to the Community:

A Comparison of Vocational Education Participants and Prisoners Who

Did Not Participate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Table 8.1: Criminal Justice Outcomes: Three- Year Follow- Up . . . . . . . . . . . 120

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

APPENDIX A: ADULT RECIDIVISM RATES BY STATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Appendix B- 1: Individual Program and Correctional Supervision Summaries . . . . . . 131

Appendix B- 2: Summary Information for Correctional Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

APPENDIX C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

Appendix C- 1: Glossary of Major Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Appendix C- 2: Measuring Offender Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Figure C- 2.1: Variables Included in Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Appendix C- 3: Logistic Regression Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

Figure C- 3.1: Logistic Regression Results of Personal and Criminal Justice

Factors on Rearrest: All Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

Figure C- 3.2: Logistic Regression Results of Personal and Criminal Justice

Factors on Rearrest: Prisoners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

Figure C- 3.3: Logistic Regression Results of Personal and Criminal Justice

Factors on Rearrest: Probationers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

Figure C- 3.4: Multiple Regression Results of Personal and Criminal Justice Factors

on Prison Infractions: Prisoners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

Figure C- 3.5: Effect of Personal and Criminal Justice Factors on Technical

Probation Revocation: Probationers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Figure C- 3.6: Logistic Regression Results of Personal and Criminal Justice

Factors on Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

APPENDIX D: SITE VISIT PROTOCOL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

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 fourth report in

compliance with the directive and analyzes a sample of 57,973 offenders released from prison or

placed on probation in FY 2001/ 02 using a three- year follow- up period. The study also expands the

definition of recidivism beyond rearrest and reconviction to include technical probation revocation

and reincarceration. For the first time, this report focuses on two special populations served by the

North Carolina Department of Correction ( DOC): female offenders and youthful offenders. It also

takes a closer look at programs offered in prison with a specific focus on vocational education.

Data Sources

Data for offenders in the sample were provided by the Department of Correction, the

Department of Justice ( DOJ), and the Employment Security Commission ( ESC). Additional

information was collected during a series of interviews with correctional and community college

personnel and site visits statewide, which provide a descriptive context for the study.

Statistical Profile of the FY 2001/ 02 Sample

The sample of 57,973 offenders included 50.7% community probationers, 19.8%

intermediate probationers, 26.9% SSA prisoners and 2.6% FSA prisoners, all placed on probation

or released from prison during FY 2001/ 02. Almost seventy- nine percent of the offenders were

male, 54.4% were black, 14.7% were married, 45.9% had twelve or more years of education, and

34.2% were identified as having a substance

abuse problem by either a prison or probation

assessment. Their average age was 30.

The majority of offenders ( 81%) had one

or more prior arrests, with the rate varying

considerably from a low of 68.4% for

community punishment probationers to a high

of 97.5% for FSA prisoners. The sample as a

whole had 178,081 fingerprinted prior arrests.

Forty- eight percent of the sample had a most

serious current conviction for a felony offense.

For prisoners with a current felony conviction,

the majority had convictions for property

offenses, followed by convictions for drug

offenses ( see Figure 1). As anticipated, SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission,

FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

ii

prisoners were more likely to have a current conviction for violent offenses ( 23%) than probationers

( 13%).

A risk score was computed for

each offender in the sample using a

composite measure based on individual

characteristics ( i. e., social factors and

criminal record factors) identified in the

literature as increasing or decreasing an

offender’s risk of recidivating. As

shown in Figure 2, the SSA prison

release group had a higher percentage of

high risk offenders than FSA prison

releases and both groups of probationers.

Community punishment probationers had

the lowest percentage of high risk

offenders. Intermediate punishment

probationers fell in between SSA and

FSA prison groups with respect to the

percentage of high risk offenders. Risk

levels were largely a reflection of an

offender’s criminal history and were in line with the philosophy of Structured Sentencing, assigning

increasingly restrictive sanctions for the more serious, recidivism- prone offenders.

Time at Risk

While each offender was followed

for a fixed three- 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. This report takes into

account 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 percent of the sample at risk

for the entire follow- up period decreased

from 88% in the first year to 72% by the

third year.

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission,

FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission,

FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

iii

Criminal Justice Outcome Measures

Of the FY 2001/ 02 sample, 21.3% were rearrested during the one- year follow- up, 31.5%

were rearrested during the two- year follow- up, and 38.2% were rearrested during the three- year

follow- up ( see Figure 3). 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.

In addition to rearrest rates, three

other criminal justice outcome measures

( reconviction, technical revocation, and

reincarceration) were utilized. A

summary of these four measures of

recidivism for the FY 2001/ 02 sample is

provided in Figure 4.

Tracking the sample for three

years, a clear pattern emerged: while the

rates of rearrest increased for both

prisoners and probationers between the

first and the third year, the highest rates

of rearrest for all groups were in the first

year. In each subsequent year, rearrests

increased at a declining rate.

Reconviction, technical revocation, and

reincarceration rates followed a similar

pattern with the greatest increase during

the first year of follow- up, and smaller increases in the second and third years.

As noted earlier, rearrest rates for the entire sample were 21.3%, 31.5%, and 38.2% for the

first, second, and third year of follow- up, respectively. For those rearrested during the three years,

the average time to first rearrest was 12.7 months after entry to probation or release from prison. By

the end of the three- year follow- up, the FY 2001/ 02 sample accounted for 46,225 recidivist arrests,

including 9,239 arrests for violent offenses.

Overall, 9.6% of the sample had a reconviction in the first year of follow- up, 19.6% by the

second year, and 26.5% by the third year. For those with a reconviction during the three- year follow-up,

the average time to reconviction was 17.0 months. The sample accrued 22,438 recidivist

convictions of which 3,603 reconvictions were for a violent offense.

Technical revocation rates for the entire sample increased from 12.4% in the first year to

21.3% by the second year, and by 26.4% in the third year. For those with a technical revocation

during the follow- up period, their first technical revocation occurred an average of 14.7 months after

entry to probation or release from prison.

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission,

FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

iv

Overall, 12.1% of the sample were reincarcerated by the first year, 22.0% by the second year,

and 28.3% by the third year of follow- up. The average time to first incarceration for offenders

reincarcerated during the follow- up period was 15.4 months.

Independent of the measure used or the number of years tracked, recidivism rates were in

direct correlation with the type of punishment ( see Figure 4). However, it must be noted that these

groups were also composed of offenders who were very different in their potential to reoffend, based

on a composite risk measure developed for the study ( see Figure 2).

The lowest rearrest and reconviction rates were for community probationers, followed by

intermediate probationers and FSA prisoners, with the highest rearrest and reconviction rates for

SSA prisoners.

As expected, probationers, especially on intermediate supervision, had the highest technical

revocation rates ( see Figure 4). Although probationers are the primary population at risk of technical

revocations, prisoners may also be at risk of technical revocation due to violation of post- release

supervision, parole, or resulting from probation sentences imposed for new crimes committed during

the follow- up period.

Compared to the other types of punishment, probationers with an intermediate punishment

had the highest rate of reincarceration, almost 46% during the three- year follow- up period, due in

large part to their higher revocation rates.

As shown in Figure 5, rates for all of the criminal justice outcome measures during the three-year

follow- up period varied considerably by offender risk level, with a stair- step increase in rates

from low risk to medium risk to high risk. When compared to low risk offenders, high risk offenders

were over three and a half times more

likely to be rearrested, about four and

one- half times more likely to be

reconvicted, over two times more likely

to have a technical revocation, and over

four times more likely to be

reincarcerated.

Theoretically, reincarceration

rates should be higher than technical

revocation rates since reincarceration

can result from both new sentences and

t echnical revocat ions . The

approximately equal revocation and

reincarceration rates found in this study

result from limitations of the data on

recidivist incarcerations. The

reincarceration rates provided in this SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission,

FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

v

report were based on incarcerations in state prison using DOC’s OPUS data. However, in North

Carolina, only offenders who are sentenced to active terms greater than 90 days are incarcerated in

state prison, while those sentenced to active terms of 90 days or less are incarcerated in county jail.

Lack of automated statewide county jail data affected the analysis presented in this report in two

ways: 1) time incarcerated in county jails was not subtracted from actual time at risk during the

follow- up and, as a result, did not factor into the time at risk measure; and 2) incarceration in county

jails, either as a result of new sentences or technical revocations, was not included as part of the

recidivist incarceration measure.

Multivariate Analysis

Multivariate analysis was used to further explore factors correlated with the probability of

recidivism. This method aimed to isolate the direction and magnitude of the impact of an

independent variable on an outcome measure, such as rearrest, while controlling for the impact of

all the other independent variables. This study examined three main dependent variables as

indicators of recidivism: rearrest, reincarceration, and employment; and two secondary dependent

variables as indicators of offender misconduct: technical probation revocations and prison

infractions.

A number of factors increased an offender’s probability of rearrest during the three- year

follow- up, including being male, black, youthful at time of commitment to DOC, having a history

of substance abuse, having a higher risk score, having a more severe sentence ( as measured by

prison, intermediate punishment, or community punishment), number of prior arrests, having a prior

drug arrest, having a more serious prior arrest, or number of times placed on probation/ parole.

Factors that decreased the probability of rearrest included being married, employed, having at least

twelve years of education, having a felony as the current conviction, having a longer sentence, and

having more prior incarcerations. Age also decreased an offender’s chance of rearrest, with

offenders being less likely to be rearrested as they grew older. There were some variations between

probationers and prisoners as to the impact of these independent variables.

Two variables, prison infractions and probation technical revocations, were used not only as

predictors of recidivism but also as indicators of prisoner or probationer misconduct. For prisoners,

being a youthful offender, spending more time in prison, age at first arrest, having a more serious

prior arrest, and having a higher number of prison incarcerations were associated with increases in

the number of prison infractions acquired. Being male, married, employed, having at least twelve

years of education, having a history of substance abuse, and having a longer sentence length were

factors associated with a decreased probability of prison infractions.

For probationers, being male, black, youthful at age of commitment to DOC, having a history

of substance abuse, having a higher risk score, having a more serious prior arrest, number of prior

arrests, number of times placed on probation/ parole, number of prior probation/ parole revocations,

and being placed on probation with intermediate punishments significantly increased the likelihood

of a technical revocation. Conversely, being married, employed, having at least twelve years of

education, having a felony as the current conviction, and having fewer prior incarcerations were

factors found to reduce the probability of technical revocation.

vi

Similar to rearrest, an analysis examining correlates of reincarceration for all offenders found

being male, youthful at time of commitment to DOC, having a history of substance abuse, having

a higher risk score, having a felony as the current conviction, having a more severe sentence, having

more prior arrests, having a more serious prior arrest, an increase in prior probation/ parole sentences,

an increase in probation/ parole revocations, and number of prior incarcerations increased the

probability of reincarceration. Factors associated with a decrease in the probability of reincarceration

included being married, employed, having at least twelve years of education, and serving a longer

prison sentence.

Although this report primarily examined recidivism, another outcome measure assessed

whether or not an offender was able to secure legitimate employment following release into the

community. Factors associated with an increased chance of employment were being black, married,

youthful, having at least twelve years of education, having spent more time in prison, having a more

serious prior arrest, and number of times placed on probation/ parole. Factors that decreased an

offender’s chances of securing legitimate employment were being male, having a felony as the

current conviction, having a prior drug arrest, the number of probation/ parole revocations, and the

number of prior incarcerations.

Female Offenders

To gain a better understanding of female offenders, Sentencing Commission staff analyzed

FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program Evaluation Data pertaining to female offenders, conducted site

visits at three of the eight facilities that housed female offenders in FY 2001/ 02, interviewed

administrative and program staff at these facilities, and interviewed various staff at the state level

of the Division of Prisons ( DOP) to obtain an overview of programming available for female

offenders. While this report does contain information on female probationers, female prisoners are

highlighted since there is a sharper delineation of this group and, hence, programs and services

offered to them within the prison system.

Female offenders comprised a small percentage ( 21.3%) of the FY 2001/ 02 sample.

Compared to male offenders, female offenders were better educated, had a lower rate of prior arrests,

and had a lower incidence of substance abuse. Further, in line with national findings, female

offenders were less violent than male offenders. However, female prisoners had the highest

indication of substance abuse when compared to male and female probationers and male prisoners.

When comparing risk levels of male and female offenders overall, a much larger percent of females

were low risk and only half as many were high risk. In part because of the lower levels of risk and

violence found among female prisoners, they related to each other in a fairly nonaggressive and more

supportive manner than male prisoners, which allowed the DOC to house them in a less restrictive

prison setting.

Four criminal justice outcomes were examined for female offenders including rearrest,

reconviction, technical revocation, and reincarceration. When looking at three- year rearrest rates by

type of punishment and gender while controlling for risk level, males had higher rearrest rates than

females, except for low risk females who had slightly higher rearrest rates than low risk males ( see

vii

Figure 6). Further, compared to male

offenders, a lower percentage of females

were reconvicted, had technical

revocations, and were reincarcerated.

These differences between males and

females remained in multivariate

analyses examining rearrest, technical

revocations, and reincarceration when

controlling for personal characteristics,

current offense, and criminal history.

Even though the criminal justice

outcome measures were more favorable

for female offenders than for their male

counterparts, females, especially those

who were incarcerated, brought issues

with them that compounded their

problems and were more gender- specific

in nature. The DOC, in recognition of

female offenders being physically and sexually victimized, separated from their dependent children,

and coping with their problems through the use of drugs, have a comprehensive set of prison

programs that address the special needs of this population.

Youthful Offenders

Youthful offenders, defined as youth who entered the correctional system prior to their 21st

birthday, were the second specific correctional population highlighted in this study. To better

understand this subgroup, Sentencing Commission staff analyzed FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program

Evaluation Data, conducted site visits to three of the prisons that housed youthful offenders in FY

2001/ 02, interviewed administrative and program staff at these facilities, and conducted interviews

with various staff at the state level of the DOP to get an overview of available programming for

youthful offenders. Like the female offenders, closer attention was given to youthful offenders who

were released from prison.

Youthful offenders were examined as a whole, but were also grouped into subcategories by

age at commitment to DOC: 13 to 15, 16 to 17, and 18 to 21. As a whole, youthful offenders

comprised 22.5% of the FY 2001/ 02 sample. Youthful offenders had a higher percentage of males,

a lower percentage of blacks, and a lower percentage with a history of substance abuse as compared

to adult offenders. When looking at risk score, 41.5% of youthful offenders had a high risk score

as compared to 31.0% of adult offenders. Among the youthful subgroups, the percent of high risk

youthful offenders increased as age categories increased from 16 to 17 to 18 to 21.

Criminal history and current conviction were also examined for youthful offenders. The

percent of youthful offenders with a prior arrest was considerably less than that of adult offenders

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission,

FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

viii

with the exception of youthful prisoners aged 16 to 17 and 18 to 21 whose rate was similar to adults

( 91.9, 95.6, and 96.6% respectively). Turning to current conviction, misdemeanors were the most

common conviction for all offenders; however, the majority of youthful prisoners were convicted

of felonies.

Four criminal justice outcomes

were examined in this study including

rearrest, reconviction, technical

revocation, and reincarceration.

Overall, youthful offenders had notably

higher rates in all of the criminal justice

outcomes used to measure recidivism.

Even when controlling for risk, the

differences between youthful and adult

offenders’ rearrest rates remained ( see

Figure 7). Among the youthful

offender subgroups, prisoners aged 16

to 17 returned to the criminal justice

system more quickly than any other age

group. These differences between

youthful and adult offenders remained

in multivariate analyses examining

rearrest, technical revocations, and

reincarceration when controlling for personal characteristics, current offense, and criminal history.

The seriousness of this subgroup was confirmed not only by the analyses of data, but also by

interviews with prison staff and other research conducted nationally. Youthful offenders have been

characterized by aggressive tendencies, poor judgment, and minimally developed self- control. DOC

has programming available to meet some of the age- appropriate needs of the youthful offender

population. But, incarcerated youthful offenders, in particular the male youthful prisoners, represent

a volatile faction who pose unique challenges to the DOC in the areas of management, programming,

and planning for their transition back into the community.

Vocational Education

The Commission’s 2002 report examined the academic component of correctional education

and its effect on rearrest following release from prison. As an extension of the 2002 study, this

report examined the other major component of educational programming, vocational training. In this

endeavor, Sentencing Commission staff analyzed FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program Evaluation

Data, made site visits to five prisons that offer vocational training, and interviewed administrative

and program staff at these prisons and various staff at the state level of the DOP and the North

Carolina Community College System.

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission,

FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

ix

The DOC offers vocational education programs within the prison system through the

community college system. The number of slots for vocational educational training has increased

since FY 2001/ 02 and currently there are a total of 3,322 full- time slots available to be filled by

inmates in the prisons that offer this training. Vocational education is offered in prisons housing

inmates at all security levels; however, most of the opportunities for vocational education are at

medium custody facilities. Of the 17,118 prisoners in the FY 2001/ 02 sample, 3,409 prisoners

participated in at least one vocational education course at some time during their incarceration with

an average of 1.6 courses. Of those who participated in a vocational education course, 50%

completed the specific program.

Compared to prisoners who did not participate in vocational education programs, participants

had a lower percentage of males and blacks and had a higher percentage of offenders with at least

12 years of education and a higher incidence of substance abuse problems. Risk level and prior

arrests were similar for participants and nonparticipants; however, a difference did emerge when

looking at current conviction for each group, with participants having a larger percentage with a

felony as their current conviction.

Four criminal justice outcomes including rearrest, reconviction, technical revocation, and

reincarceration were examined for vocational education participants during the three- year follow- up

period. Rearrest rates varied by offender

risk level with high risk offenders being

more likely to be rearrested than low risk

offenders. When comparing prisoners

within the same risk level, only slight

differences were noted between

vocational education participants and

non- participants ( see Figure 8). Further,

vocational education participants had

rearrest and reconviction rates similar to

prisoners who did not participate in

vocational education programs, with

slightly lower rates than non- participants

for technical revocation and

reincarceration. A more consistently

lower rate in all four measures of

recidivism was found for prisoners who

completed their vocational education as

compared to those who participated in a

vocational education course but did not

complete it. While participation in a vocational education program did not significantly impact any

of the measures of recidivism or employment, the program provided a positive utilization of prisoner

time and, in turn, offered a viable management tool for DOC.

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission,

FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

x

Summary and Conclusions

Based on the findings of this report, several conclusions may be drawn:

< An offender’s assignment to a correctional program, in general, should not be viewed

as a panacea for criminal behavior. Offenders participating in a correctional program

bring with them many preexisting social and criminal problems, and while

correctional programs co- vary with recidivism, they should not be expected to have

a major impact on these problems and on preventing or reducing recidivism.

< The three- year follow- up showed an increase in the various measures of recidivism,

but these increases slow down over time, with the highest increases for all four

criminal justice outcomes occurring in the first year. This finding would appear to

underline the need for focusing resources and services in that critical time period,

whether it is the first year of a probationary sentence, the beginning of parole or post

release supervision, or the initial period following release from prison.

< Rearrest rates for the three- year follow- up have accentuated even more the need for

targeting North Carolina’s limited correctional resources to groups of offenders

whose criminal futures are the most likely to be affected by such services. This

finding might point to a recommendation for targeting medium risk offenders and

offenders with persistent substance abuse problems as the most likely to benefit from

correctional programs. Prisons, which increase the probability of recidivism even

when controlling for all other factors, should be reserved for the most serious,

violent, and high risk offenders, while community punishment probation should be

utilized for the least serious, low risk offender.

< Youthful offenders, defined as those who have not yet reached their 21st birthday

when entering the correctional system as inmates or probationers, were distinctly

different from adult offenders in their offenses and in their behavior while under

correctional supervision. Additionally, youthful offenders had higher rates than adult

offenders on all four indicators of recidivism ( i. e., rearrests, reconvictions, technical

revocations, and reincarcerations). This finding highlights the need for developing

programs and allocating resources designed specifically for youthful offenders to

rehabilitate and reintegrate them into their community upon release from correctional

supervision to reduce further criminal activity.

Figure 9 summarizes the three- year recidivism rates for the FY 2001/ 02 sample of

probationers and prisoners.

Figure 9

Three- Year Recidivism Rates for the FY 2001/ 02 Sample

SSA Prison Release

( n= 15,629)

Rearrest: 50.6%

Reconviction: 36.7%

Technical Revocation: 19.6%

Reincarceration: 36.4%

SSA Probation – Intermediate

Punishment

( n= 11,464)

Rearrest: 41.4%

Reconviction: 28.4%

Technical Revocation: 39.5%

Reincarceration: 45.5%

SSA Probation – Community

Punishment

( n= 29,391)

Rearrest: 30.1%

Reconviction: 20.2%

Technical Revocation: 25.5%

Reincarceration: 17.1%

FSA Prison Release

( n= 1,489)

Rearrest: 41.6%

Reconviction: 27.7%

Technical Revocation: 16.1%

Reincarceration: 30.2%

SSA

( n= 56,484)

Rearrest: 38.1%

Reconviction: 26.4%

Technical Revocation: 26.7%

Reincarceration: 28.2%

All Probation Entries and Prison Releases

( N= 57,973)

Rearrest: 38.2%

Reconviction: 26.5%

Technical Revocation: 26.4%

Reincarceration: 28.3%

Probation Entries

( n= 40,855)

Rearrest: 33.3%

Reconviction: 22.5%

Technical Revocation: 29.4%

Reincarceration: 25.1%

Prison Releases

( n= 17,118)

Rearrest: 49.8%

Reconviction: 35.9%

Technical Revocation: 19.3%

Reincarceration: 35.9%

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 issue of correctional resources and, specifically, their effectiveness in increasing

public safety and deterring future crime have continued to be of interest to legislators and policy

makers. It is the goal of most programs to sanction and control offenders, to offer them opportunities

that will assist in altering negative behavioral patterns, and, consequently, to lower the risk of

reoffending.

Studies which measure recidivism are a nationally accepted way to assess the effectiveness

of in- prison and community corrections programs in preventing future criminal behavior by

offenders reentering the community. The North Carolina General Assembly, aware of this trend,

incorporated the study of recidivism into the Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission’s mandate

from the start. The first recidivism study that was prepared for the Commission was completed in

1992 by Stevens Clarke and Anita Harrison of the Institute of Government at the University of North

Carolina Chapel Hill. 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 Commission produced the third and fourth recidivism reports in conjunction with the

Department of Correction’s Office of Research and Planning.

During the 1998 Session, the General Assembly redrafted the Commission’s original mandate

to study recidivism and expanded its scope to include a more in- depth evaluation of correctional

programs. This legislation ( Session Law1998- 212, Section 16.18) gives the following directive:

The Judicial Department, through the North Carolina Sentencing and Policy

Advisory Commission, and the Department of Correction shall jointly conduct

ongoing evaluations of community corrections programs and in- prison treatment

programs and make a biennial report to the General Assembly. The report shall

include composite measures of program effectiveness based on recidivism rates,

other outcome measures, and costs of the programs. During the 1998- 99 fiscal year,

the Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission shall coordinate the collection of

all data necessary to create an expanded database containing offender information

on prior convictions, current conviction and sentence, program participation and

outcome measures. Each program to be evaluated shall assist the Commission in the

development of systems and collection of data necessary to complete the evaluation

process. The first evaluation report shall be presented to the Chairs of the Senate

and House Appropriations Committees and the Chairs of the Senate and House

Appropriations Subcommittees on Justice and Public Safety by April 15, 2000, and

future reports shall be made by April 15 of each even- numbered year.

2

The first evaluation report, as required by law, was delivered to the General Assembly on

April 15, 2000. The current study is the fourth 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 various kinds of 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. This concern is understandable. A program may be

successful in educating, training, or counseling offenders, but if it does not reduce their subsequent

criminal behavior, the result will simply be repeat offenders who are better educated or have greater

self- confidence.

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.

The Sentencing Commission in its studies of recidivism uses rearrests as its primary measure

of recidivism, supplemented by information on reconvictions, technical probation revocations, 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.

3

Guidelines 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 likelihood of recidivism. Guidelines might also impact recidivism by altering

the characteristics, or “ mix,” of groups of offenders – for example, probationers or prisoners.

Altering 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. The 1996 “ National Assessment of Structured Sentencing” conducted by the U. S.

Department of Justice ( Austin and Nelson, 1996: 31- 34) identifies the following goals of the

guidelines movement: to increase sentencing fairness, to reduce unwarranted disparity, to establish

“ truth in sentencing,” to reduce or control prison crowding, and to establish standards that facilitate

appellate review of sentences. To meet these objectives and still control spending on prisons,

guidelines 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. 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 non- violent crimes less likely to be imprisoned,

and to have them serve shorter terms if imprisoned ( Austin et al., 1996: 125).

The National Assessment’s description of the guidelines movement and its tendency to

reallocate offenders from prison to probation is consistent with the history of North Carolina’s

Structured Sentencing legislation. Ronald Wright, in an article on “ Managing Growth in North

Carolina through Structured Sentencing” ( 1998: 7- 8), notes that the proposed sentencing guidelines

were acceptable to the General Assembly in 1993 because they combined three features: ( 1) they

increased the percentage of serious felons receiving prison terms and the length of time they would

serve; ( 2) they brought the time actually served in prison much closer to the sentence imposed than

under former law ( commonly referred to as ‘ truth in sentencing’); and ( 3) they limited costly

increases in the state’s prison capacity. The only way, Wright points out, to accomplish all three

objectives was to send fewer people to prison but for longer terms. As a result, he observes, the

proposed guidelines prescribed diversion of most misdemeanants and the least serious felons ( non-violent

felons with little or no prior record) from prison terms to community and intermediate

sanctions – that is, to some form of probation. While the guidelines became somewhat more severe

in the 1994 and 1995 legislative sessions, the original objective of diversion of less dangerous

offenders from prison persisted.

With this kind of shift from prison to probation actually occurring following the

implementation of Structured Sentencing, one possible hypothesis would be to expect the recidivism

rate of released prisoners to increase over time. This is because the percentage of prisoners with

prior records would increase, and prior criminal record is a strong predictor of recidivism. It is less

clear what would happen to the recidivism of probationers.

1 A summary table of Adult Recidivism Rates by State in Appendix A provides statistics from seven states

and from a U. S. Bureau of Justice Statistics report. The table, while providing useful information, demonstrates the

difficulty in arriving at meaningful comparisons between jurisdictions due to differences in the definitions of

recidivism, follow- up periods, and populations studied.

4

It is important to remember that guidelines sentencing emphasized not only the diversion of

some offenders from prison to probation, but also the use of intermediate punishments for those

diverted offenders. Intermediate punishments – i. e., enhanced forms of 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.

As documented in the literature, the rate differential in recidivism between probationers and

prisoners is largely – but not fully – accounted for by differences in the two groups’ criminal history.

These results, by themselves, suggest that diverting offenders with little or no criminal history to

probation might not make much difference in the group recidivism rate for probationers. However,

this might not hold true for the group sentenced to intermediate sanctions, which targets offenders

with more serious offenses and prior records than those sentenced to community sanctions. Two

other factors may tend to prevent increased recidivism among North Carolina probationers. One

factor is that intermediate punishment programs may help control recidivism. Whether they in fact

do so must be established through careful evaluation of the programs. Another factor is that

diversion of some offenders from prison to probation might prevent “ prisonization” – detrimental

effects of imprisonment – that would otherwise increase the propensity to reoffend.

Comparison of Recidivism Rates with Previous Recidivism Studies

The Sentencing Commission’s seven 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, samples up to, but not

including, FY 1996/ 97 are based only on offenders convicted and sentenced under or prior to the Fair

Sentencing Act ( FSA); all later samples, beginning with FY 1996/ 97, include a mixture of offenders

sentenced under the FSA and the SSA. The various studies also have different follow- up periods.

Nonetheless, some overall comparisons may be made as long as these factors are taken into

consideration. 1

Table 1.1 presents overall recidivism rates ( measured as rearrest) from each of the Sentencing

Commission’s previous reports. The table indicates that recidivism rates for offenders have been

fairly similar over the sample years, given the differences in follow- up time and sample composition.

The 1989 study, the FY 1996/ 97 study, and the FY 1998/ 99 study had a similar follow- up period ( of

approximately two years) and similar recidivism rates for all offenders, ranging from 31% to 33%.

The four other studies, with more extended follow- up periods ( of approximately three years),

reported slightly higher recidivism, with rearrest rates for all offenders between 33% and 38%.

2 Variable follow- up periods were used for sample years 1989 through 1994/ 95. Fixed follow- up periods

were used for sample years 1996/ 97 and 1998/ 99.

3 This category includes FSA offenders on regular probation through FY 1994/ 95 and SSA offenders on

community punishment probation beginning with FY 1996/ 97.

4 This category includes FSA prisoners released on regular parole through FY1994/ 95 and all FSA and

SSA prisoners beginning with FY 1996/ 97.

5 Since intermediate punishment probationers more likely would have gone to prison under the FSA,

community punishment probationers were thought to be most comparable to FSA regular probationers.

5

Table 1.1

Rearrest Rates for North Carolina Offenders

Sample

Year

Sample

Size

Follow- Up

Period2

( in months)

Rearrest Rates

All

Offenders

Probationers3 Prisoners4

1989 37,933 26.7 31.2% 26.5% 41.3%

1992/ 93 33,111 36.7 32.6% 22.8% 45.9%

1993/ 94 48,527 32.8 36.8% 30.7% 48.8%

1994/ 95 45,836 35.1 37.3% 31.3% 47.8%

1996/ 97 51,588 24 32.6% 26.3% 42.6%

1998/ 99 58,238 24 31.2% 24.2% 41.6%

1998/ 99 58,238 36 37.8% 29.7% 49.6%

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission

As noted earlier, the enactment of Structured Sentencing changed who is sentenced to prison

and who is placed on probation. Table 1.1 also provides a comparison of recidivism rates for

prisoners and probationers for the seven previous studies. Any comparison of FSA and SSA

prisoners needs to account for differences in the characteristics of these two groups relative to

offense seriousness and time served. The recidivism rates for FSA regular probationers can be

compared across the previous recidivism studies and with the SSA community punishment

probationers in the current study. 5 There were some differences in recidivism rates within each

category over the sample years, which may have resulted from variations in the follow- up periods,

and a greater and consistent difference between categories of prisoners and probationers in each

sample year.

6 Preexisting factors and current criminal justice involvement are also components in targeting offenders

for different correctional sanctions and treatment programs, and assessing their risk levels.

7 Pre- FSA cases and FSA probationers were excluded from the sample. Also excluded from analysis were

all DWI and traffic offenders.

8 Offense classes A through E are defined as violent offenses. Class A, First Degree Murder, carries a

death sentence or a life sentence without the possibility of release.

6

While it is too soon to draw valid comparisons between the overall recidivism of SSA and

FSA offenders, it is worth noting that recidivism rates over a two- year follow- up were around 32%

for the various samples, independent of composition. Structured Sentencing might have an impact

on recidivism rates by altering the deterrent effect of sentencing laws and by altering the

characteristics, or “ mix,” of groups of offenders, but it is possible that while the recidivism of

different groups of offenders will change, the overall recidivism rate will stay about the same.

However, fluctuation in the rates will ultimately be affected by a host of social and legal factors, in

addition to the sentencing laws. Future studies will continue to examine these issues.

Research Design and Methodology

The Sentencing Commission’s expanded legislative mandate translated to a more

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, technical probation revocation,

reincarceration, and employment. 6

Sample

The sample selected for study included all offenders released from prison by the North

Carolina Department of Correction ( DOC) or placed on probation during Fiscal Year 2001/ 02. The

final study sample includes 57,973 offenders. 7 Ninety- seven percent of this sample cohort consists

of Structured Sentencing cases, affording a comprehensive look at the recidivism of Structured

Sentencing offenders.

While all sample probationers were sentenced under the SSA, sample prisoners were divided

into those sentenced under the SSA or the FSA. The majority of SSA prisoners, convicted of

misdemeanors or felonies within offense classes F through I, were released without supervision. The

SSA mandates a nine- month post- release supervision period for all inmates convicted of a felony

in offense classes B1 through E, 8 and FY 2001/ 02 was the first year with a sufficient number of these

released offenders to be included in the study sample. FSA prisoners in the sample were either

released without further supervision ( max- outs) or were placed on parole supervision for the

remainder of their sentence.

9 Since each county jail maintains its own data, it was not possible to account for time served in county

jails during the follow- up period.

10 “ Current” in the context of this study refers to the most serious conviction and sentence for which the

offender was released to the community within the sample time frame.

7

Follow- up Period

Recidivism studies utilize varying lengths of time as their follow- up periods, 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

2001/ 02 sample of offenders with a fixed three- year follow- up period, with one- year, two- year, and

three- year rates provided. When not specified, recidivism will be defined based on the three- year

follow- up period.

Time at Risk

While each offender released into the cohort had an equal three- year follow- up period, not

all of them were on the street and “ at risk” of recidivism for the entire three years. The report takes

into account each sample 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 time

incarcerated from the follow- up period. 9

Outcome and Process Measures

< Recidivism, defined broadly to cover the offender’s possible span of reinvolvement

in the criminal justice system, to include rearrests, reconvictions, technical probation

revocations, and reincarcerations.

< Employment following an offender’s release into the community.

< Prison infractions for the prison release group included in the sample.

Data Sources

( A) Aggregate Data: three automated data sources were utilized to collect information on the

sample of offenders:

< The Department of Correction’s ( DOC) Offender Population Unified System ( OPUS)

provided demographic and prior record information, current convicted offense and

sentence, 10 correctional program assignment, type of punishment, and subsequent

technical probation revocations and prison incarcerations.

< The Department of Justice’s ( DOJ) data set was used to provide fingerprinted arrest

records for prior and recidivist arrests.

< Employment Security Commission ( ESC) records were used to collect employment

information about the sample of offenders prior to and following their current

involvement with the criminal justice system.

11 A glossary of relevant variables is included in the technical appendix ( see Appendix C).

8

The final data set for this study consists of about 300 items of information ( or variables) for

the sample of 57,973 offenders released to the community between July 1, 2001, and June 30, 2002,

and followed for three years. 11

( B) Site Visit Descriptive Data:

For this report, three specific targets were selected for in- depth analysis – programs for

female offenders, programs for youthful offenders, and vocational education programs.

To provide a descriptive context for the study, information was collected during a series of

site visits and interviews with correctional and community college personnel. Sentencing

Commission staff conducted a total of six site visits statewide, including visits to five correctional

facilities – Western Youth Institution; Polk Youth Institution; Fountain Correctional Center for

Women; North Carolina Correctional Institution for Women; Harnett Correctional Institution, and

one substance abuse treatment facility – Mary Frances Center ( Women).

Analysis and Report Outline

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, subsequent employment, and reinvolvement with the criminal

justice system ( i. e., rearrest; technical probation, post- release or parole revocation; reconviction; and

reincarceration).

Chapter Two presents a descriptive statistical profile of the sample and aggregate figures on

the incidence and type of prior criminal behavior. It also describes the sample in terms of offender

risk ( a composite “ Risk Factor Score” developed and assigned to each offender).

Chapter Three includes a descriptive analysis of the sample’s subsequent ( i. e., recidivistic)

criminal involvement, with special focus on the one-, two-, and three- year follow- up. This analysis

also allows for some comparisons between the recidivism of offenders released from prison

compared to those placed on some form of probation.

Chapter Four utilizes multivariate techniques to assess the relationship between recidivism

and various disposition types and correctional programs, while controlling for other relevant

preexisting factors. Risk Factor Scores are used in the analysis to isolate the impact of correctional

dispositions and programs on the probability of recidivism while holding constant the “ risk level”

of the offender.

Chapter Five presents a narrative description and statistical information of female offender

populations. Chapter Six describes in detail the youthful offender population. Chapter Seven reports

on prison programs for vocational education. Finally, Chapter Eight offers a short summary of the

study’s approach and main findings and closes with some observations on recidivism in North

Carolina following the enactment of Structured Sentencing.

12 Offenders whose offenses were committed on or after October 1, 1994, were sentenced under the

Structured Sentencing Act.

13 Felony offenders whose offenses were committed prior to October 1, 1994, were sentenced under the

Fair Sentencing Act. Misdemeanor offenders whose offenses were committed prior to October 1, 1994, were

sentenced under the Trial and Appellate Procedure Act of 1977.

14 Statistics presented in this report on SSA prison releases include offenders released on post- release

supervision. Detailed information for offenders released on post- release supervision is provided in Appendix B.

9

CHAPTER TWO

STATISTICAL PROFILE OF FY 2001/ 02 SAMPLE

Type of Punishment

As described in Chapter One, the study sample is comprised of 57,973 offenders who either

were placed on probation or were released from prison during FY 2001/ 02.

As shown in Figure 2.1, 97% ( n= 56,484) of the 57,973 offenders were convicted and

sentenced under the Structured Sentencing Act ( SSA). 12 The remaining 3% ( n= 1,489) were

convicted and sentenced under the Fair Sentencing Act ( FSA). 13 There were 40,855 probationers

and 17,118 prisoners in the FY 2001/ 02 sample. These can be further subdivided into the following

four categories based on type of punishment:

Probation Entries

‘ SSA probationers who received a community punishment;

‘ SSA probationers who received an intermediate punishment;

Prison Releases

‘ SSA prison releases14; and

‘ FSA prison releases.

FY 2001/ 02 Sample

The sample is comprised of all offenders who were placed on supervised

probation or were released from prison during FY 2001/ 02, with the following

exclusions:

‘ FSA probation entries;

‘ pre- FSA cases;

‘ 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.

Figure 2.1

Type of Punishment

SSA Prison Release

26.9% ( n= 15,629)

SSA Probation –

Community Punishment

50.7% ( n= 29,391)

SSA Probation –

Intermediate Punishment

19.8% ( n= 11,464)

Definitions for the Types of Punishment

SSA Probation Entries with a Community Punishment: An offender who was sentenced under the Structured

Sentencing Act and 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.

SSA Probation Entries with an Intermediate Punishment: An offender who was sentenced under the Structured

Sentencing Act and 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, and assignment to a day reporting center. 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.

SSA Prison Releases: An offender who was sentenced under the Structured Sentencing Act, 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. A small number ( n= 1,326 or about 8%) of offenders in this category received post- release

supervision.

FSA Prison Releases: An offender who was sentenced under the Fair Sentencing Act and was either given an early,

conditional release back into the community with supervision, or was unconditionally released from prison ( i. e., with

no supervision in the community) after serving his/ her entire sentence, minus credit for good time, gain time, or pre-conviction

confinement.

See Appendix B for further descriptions of the types of punishment and for many of the programs that fall under them.

FSA Prison Release

2.6% ( n= 1,489)

SSA

97.4% ( n= 56,484)

All Probation Entries and Prison Releases

( N= 57,973)

Probation Entries

70.5% ( n= 40,855)

Prison Releases

29.5% ( n= 17,118)

15 Fingerprinted arrest data from the DOJ were used to determine prior arrests. Prior arrests were defined

as fingerprinted arrests that occurred before the conviction that placed the offender in this sample.

11

This is the fourth correctional program evaluation report ( i. e., recidivism report) that includes

offenders sentenced under the SSA. Although it is tempting to do so, any comparative look at SSA

and FSA offenders based on this sample should be done with caution. Specifically, it is not

appropriate to contrast SSA prison releases with FSA prison releases because they are not

comparable in terms of offense seriousness and time served. The sample year for this study is FY

2001/ 02, seven years after the implementation of Structured Sentencing. As a result, most of the

serious offenders who were sentenced to prison under SSA were still in prison. For the most part,

only less serious offenders sentenced to prison under SSA ( primarily Class E- I offenders and

misdemeanants) had been released by 2002. Because they were a less serious offender population

in this sample, SSA prison releases have served substantially less time in prison than FSA prison

releases ( an average of 11.7 months for SSA prison releases versus 91.7 months for FSA prison

releases).

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. The following comparisons are appropriate to make: ( 1) a comparison of all

probationers with all prisoners; ( 2) a comparison of SSA probationers with SSA prison releases; and

( 3) a comparison of individual categories of probationers or prisoners with the sample as a whole.

Personal Characteristics

Table 2.1 contains information describing the personal characteristics of the FY 2001/ 02

sample. Of the 57,973 offenders, 78.7% were male, 54.4% were black, 14.7% were married, 45.9%

had twelve or more years of education, 34.2% were identified as having a substance abuse problem,

and their average age, at release from prison or placement on probation, was 30. Probationers ( and,

in particular, probationers with community punishments) had a higher percentage of females than

prisoners. On average, offenders who were placed on probation were slightly younger than offenders

who were released from prison.

Criminal History

It is important to look at the number of prior arrests for the offenders in the sample since

previous 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). Information on prior arrests for the FY 2001/ 02 sample is provided in

Table 2.2.15 Overall, 81% of offenders ( n= 46,961) had one or more prior arrests, with a total of

178,081 prior arrests for the entire sample. Ninety- six percent of prisoners had prior arrests

compared to almost 75% of probationers. While probationers were less likely than prisoners to have

prior arrests, they accounted for a higher volume of prior arrests due to the larger number of

probation entries in the FY 2001/ 02 sample ( 91,927 total prior arrests compared to 86,154 total prior

Table 2.1

Personal Characteristics by Type of Punishment

Type of Punishment N

%

Male

%

Black

Mean

Age

%

Married

% With

Twelve Years

of Education

or More

% With

Substance

Abuse

SSA

Probation

Entries

Community Punishment 29,391 70.6 48.7 29 15.4 49.1 23.6

Intermediate Punishment 11,464 84.2 55.4 30 14.7 42.9 31.7

PROBATION SUBTOTAL 40,855 74.4 50.6 29 15.2 47.3 25.8

Prison

Releases

SSA Prison Release 15,629 88.3 63.3 31 13.0 42.5 53.6

FSA Prison Release 1,489 94.6 64.5 36 20.1 44.3 60.4

PRISON SUBTOTAL 17,118 88.8 63.4 32 13.6 42.6 54.2

TOTAL 57,973 78.7 54.4 30 14.7 45.9 34.2

Note: There are missing values for self- reported years of education.

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

Table 2.2

Prior Arrests by Type of Punishment

Type of Punishment N

% Any

Prior

Arrest

# with

Any Prior

Arrest

Total Number of Prior Arrests

by Type of Crime

Overall Violent Property Drug Other

SSA

Probation

Entries

Community Punishment 29,391 68.4 20,104 51,890 9,503 26,188 13,863 9,809

Intermediate Punishment 11,464 90.5 10,374 40,037 7,811 19,371 11,375 7,724

PROBATION SUBTOTAL 40,855 74.6 30,478 91,927 17,314 45,559 25,238 17,533

Prison

Releases

SSA Prison Release 15,629 96.2 15,032 78,533 14,709 41,866 20,285 13,709

FSA Prison Release 1,489 97.5 1,451 7,621 1,673 4,845 1,079 987

PRISON SUBTOTAL 17,118 96.3 16,483 86,154 16,382 46,711 21,364 14,696

TOTAL 57,973 81.0 46,961 178,081 33,696 92,270 46,602 32,229

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

16 Each offender’s conviction( s) that placed him/ her in the sample as a prison release or probation entry

during FY 2001/ 02 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.”

14

arrests, respectively). Compared to the other types of supervision, probationers sentenced to a

community punishment had a considerably lower percentage of prior arrests ( 68.4%). The mean

number of prior arrests for each group can be calculated by dividing the total number of arrests for

a specific group by the number of offenders with any prior arrest for that group. The average number

of prior arrests for the 46,961 offenders with a prior arrest was 3.8 ( 178,081/ 46,961), with

probationers having an average of 3.0 prior arrests ( 91,927/ 30,478) and prisoners having an average

of 5.2 prior arrests ( 86,154/ 16,483). For all comparisons, prior property offenses comprised the

highest volume of arrests, followed by drug offenses. As expected, prisoners had a higher total

number and a higher mean number of violent prior arrests than probationers.

Intermediate punishment probationers fell in between community punishment probationers

and prisoners with regard to their arrest history. For example, they fell in between the two groups

when comparing the percent having prior arrests ( 90.5%) or a history of violence ( with an average

of 0.8 prior violent arrests for those having prior arrests). These findings confirm the philosophy

behind 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.

Most Serious Current Conviction

Overall, 48% ( n= 27,733) of the FY 2001/ 02 sample had a felony offense as the most serious

current conviction and 52% ( n= 30,240)

had a misdemeanor offense as the most

serious current conviction. 16 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 ( 43%), followed by

property offenses ( 39%). For prisoners

with a current felony conviction, the

majority had convictions for property

offenses ( 38%), followed by convictions

for drug offenses ( 32%). As anticipated,

prisoners were more likely to have a

current conviction for violent offenses

( 23%) than probationers ( 13%).

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission,

FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

15

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission,

FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

The majority of probationers and

prisoners with current misdemeanor

convictions were convicted of property

offenses – at 43% each ( see Figure 2.3).

Probationers had a higher percentage of

drug convictions ( 19%) compared to

prisoners ( 14%). As expected, prisoners

had a higher percentage of violent

convictions ( 38%) compared to

probationers ( 28%).

The most serious current

conviction by type of punishment is

presented in Table 2.3. Overall, 40.9% of

the sample had a most serious current

conviction for a property offense,

followed by 27.7% for drug offenses,

23.6% for violent offenses, and 7.9% for

“ other” offenses. Community punishment

probationers were more likely to have a most serious current conviction for a misdemeanor offense

( 80.4%) and the current conviction was most likely to be for a misdemeanor property offense

( 35.7%). Almost 75% 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 drug

offense ( 28.1%) or a felony property offense ( 26.9%). Almost 77% of SSA prison releases had a

most serious current conviction for a felony offense, with 29.0% for felony property offenses and

26.0% for felony drug offenses. The majority of FSA prison releases ( 96.2%) had current

convictions for felony offenses. FSA prison releases were most likely to have a current conviction

for felony property offenses ( 42.3%) and felony violent offenses ( 37.1%). The data presented in

Table 2.3 illustrate that SSA prisoners differ from FSA prisoners in terms of offense seriousness and,

therefore, are not comparable categories of offenders. The difference is further illustrated by the fact

that the average time served for prisoners was 11.7 months for SSA prison releases and 91.7 months

for FSA prison releases.

Offender Risk and Recidivism

Evaluations of correctional programs using recidivism as the outcome measure of “ success”

are fairly commonplace. However, a frequent problem encountered by both researchers and policy

makers interpreting the results of these studies is that most have no way to control for different levels

of offender risk. Offenders vary in their risk of recidivating, independent of any intervention

provided. This finding has been confirmed repeatedly in research, and is being applied in risk

assessments used for sentencing and in correctional policy to classify inmate custody levels and to

make parole decisions.

In a perfect research setting, offenders would be randomly selected into the various

correctional programs to be evaluated. In the reality of corrections this is not possible because of

Table 2.3

Most Serious Current Conviction by Type of Punishment

Type of Punishment N

Type of Conviction

% Total

% Violent % Property % Drug % Other

Fel. Misd. Fel. Misd. Fel. Misd. Fel. Misd. Fel. Misd.

SSA

Probation

Entries

Community Punishment 29,391 0.7 20.4 8.4 35.7 9.8 16.2 0.7 8.2 19.6 80.4

Intermediate Punishment 11,464 15.0 11.2 26.9 8.2 28.1 3.4 4.8 2.4 74.8 25.2

PROBATION SUBTOTAL 40,855 4.7 17.9 13.6 28.0 14.9 12.6 1.9 6.5 35.1 64.9

Prison

Releases

SSA Prison Release 15,629 16.2 9.0 29.0 9.9 26.0 3.2 5.4 1.3 76.6 23.4

FSA Prison Release 1,489 37.1 1.2 42.3 2.2 13.3 0.1 3.5 0.2 96.2 3.8

PRISON SUBTOTAL 17,118 18.0 8.3 30.2 9.2 24.9 3.0 5.3 1.2 78.3 21.7

TOTAL 57,973 8.6 15.0 18.5 22.4 17.9 9.8 2.9 5.0 47.8 52.2

Note: Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

17 Previous recidivism studies conducted by the North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory

Commission have used a measure of risk in the analysis, and found that many of the differences between programs

diminished when risk was controlled for ( Clarke and Harrison, 1992; NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory

Commission, 1998; 2000; 2002; 2004). See the section in Appendix C- 2 on risk for a more in- depth discussion of

how the risk score was developed for this study.

18 Of the FY 2001/ 02 sample, 54.4% were black, 40.3% were white, and the remaining 5.3% were Indian

( 1.9%), Asian or Oriental ( 0.2%), other ( 3.1%), or unknown ( 0.1%). Based on this distribution, race was collapsed

into two categories, black and non- black. White, Asian and Indian offenders as well as offenders with an “ other” or

“ unknown” race were included in the non- black category.

17

practical, public safety, and legal considerations. Instead, this study attempts to control statistically

for types of offenders by developing a risk model that divides offenders into three levels of risk:

high, medium and low. Using risk level as an independent control variable allows for a comparative

analysis of the recidivism rates of offenders who did and did not participate in a particular program

or intervention.

Components of Risk

Variables used to create the “ risk” measure for this study are those identified in the literature

as increasing or decreasing a person’s risk of being arrested. 17 For the purposes of this study, risk

is defined as the projected probability of rearrest, and is not intended to measure seriousness of

future offenses or offender dangerousness.

A composite measure, risk is made up of a number of factors that can be loosely divided into

the following three categories:

1. Personal Characteristics

< Offender’s age when placed on probation or released from prison

< Sex

< Race18

< Marital status

< Employment status at time of arrest for prisoners and at the time of probation

entry for probationers

< History of substance abuse problems as indicated by prison or probation

assessment

2. Criminal History

< Age at first arrest

< Length of criminal history

< Number of prior arrests

< Number of prior drug arrests

< Most serious prior arrest

< Number of prior probation/ parole revocations

< Number of prior probation sentences

< Number of prior prison sentences

18

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission,

FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

3. Current Sentence Information

< Offense class

< Maximum sentence length

A risk score was computed for all offenders in the sample based on these factors. The

offenders were then divided into three

groups of approximately equal size

according to their risk score, with the

lowest third as “ Low Risk,” the middle

third as “ Medium Risk,” and the top third

as “ High Risk.”

As shown in Figure 2.4, risk level

varied by the type of punishment.

Probationers sentenced to a community

punishment were much more likely to be

low risk than offenders supervised in other

ways. For instance, only 15.2% of SSA

prison releases were low risk compared to

46.2% of probationers sentenced to a

community punishment. Conversely,

prisoners were much more likely to be

high risk than probationers.

Summary

Chapter Two provided a description of the FY 2001/ 02 sample’s demographic characteristics,

prior criminal history, current conviction, and offender risk level. Of the 57,973 offenders placed

on probation or released from prison in FY 2001/ 02, 79% were male, 54% were black, 81% had at

least one prior arrest, and 48% had a most serious conviction for a felony offense. Offender risk

level was found to increase by type of punishment, with community punishment probationers having

the lowest risk scores and SSA prison releases having the highest risk scores. Chapter Three

examines the sample’s subsequent criminal involvement, as measured by rearrests, reconvictions,

technical revocations, and reincarcerations.

19 Each follow- up period reported is inclusive of the previous follow- up periods, e. g., the two- year follow-up

period contains information on events that occurred during the first and second years of follow- up. As a result,

the recidivism rates reported for each follow- up period cannot be added across follow- up periods.

20 Technical revocations result from failure to comply with the conditions of probation, post- release

supervision, or parole ( as opposed to a new violation of the law), such as having positive drug tests, failing to attend

court- ordered treatment, or violating curfew.

19

CHAPTER THREE

CRIMINAL JUSTICE OUTCOME MEASURES FOR THE FY 2001/ 02 SAMPLE

Definition of the Follow- Up Period and Time at Risk

Each offender in the FY 2001/ 02 sample was followed for a period of three years to

determine whether repeat criminal behavior occurred, with one- year, two- year, and three- year

recidivism rates reported. 19 The three- year follow- up period was calculated on an individual basis

using the prison release date plus three years for prison releases and using the probation entry date

plus three 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 technical probation, post- release supervision, or

parole revocations which result in incarceration or due to the commission of new crimes which result

in incarceration. 20 Incarcerations resulting from technical revocations may artificially reduce

recidivist arrests since the offender no longer has the same amount of time in the community to

recidivate. As a result, offenders who were not rearrested during the follow- up may appear to be a

success but may have actually experienced another type of criminal justice failure ( i. e., technical

revocation and incarceration) during the follow- up 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 by subtracting the length of time incarcerated

from the follow- up period. It is important to note that it was not possible to account for time spent

in county jails during the follow- up period since each of the State’s county jails maintains its own

data. In North Carolina, only offenders who are sentenced to active terms of 90 days or less are

incarcerated in county jail. Lack of automated statewide county jail data affects the data 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 technical 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 2001/ 02 sample. As

expected, the percent of the sample at risk for the entire follow- up period declined across the follow-up

period. Overall, 88% of the FY 2001/ 02 sample were at risk for the entire one- year follow- up

period, 78% were at risk for the entire two- year follow- up period, and 72% were at risk for the entire

three- year follow- up period. While there was relatively little difference between probationers and

prisoners with regards to the average time at risk for the one- year follow- up period, differences

between the two groups increased for the two- and three- year follow- up periods, with prisoners being

Table 3.1

Percent at Risk and Average Time at Risk by Type of Punishment

Type of Punishment N

Percent at Risk and Average Time at Risk

1- Year

Follow- Up

( 365 Days)

2- Year

Follow- Up

( 730 Days)

3- Year

Follow- Up

( 1,095 Days)

SSA

Probation

Entries

Community Punishment 29,391

94% 87% 83%

359 days 709 days 1,059 days

Intermediate Punishment 11,464

74% 61% 54%

329 days 643 days 963 days

PROBATION SUBTOTAL 40,855

88% 80% 75%

350 days 691 days 1,032 days

Prison

Releases

SSA Prison Release 15,629

86% 73% 64%

348 days 671 days 984 days

FSA Prison Release 1,489

89% 77% 70%

351 days 678 days 991 days

PRISON SUBTOTAL 17,118

87% 74% 64%

348 days 672 days 985 days

TOTAL 57,973

88% 78% 72%

350 days 685 days 1,018 days

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

21 Statistics presented in this report on SSA prison releases include offenders released on post- release

supervision. Detailed information for offenders released on post- release supervision is provided in Appendix B.

22 Fingerprinted arrest data from DCI were used to determine recidivist arrests and convictions. Recidivist

arrests were defined as fingerprinted arrests that occurred after an offender was released from prison or placed on

probation for the conviction that placed him/ her in the sample.

23 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), see the Commission’s 2004 recidivism report.

24 As noted in Chapter Two, it is not appropriate to contrast SSA prison releases with FSA prison releases

because they are not comparable in terms of offense seriousness and time served.

21

at risk fewer days than probationers ( 672 days compared to 691days for the two- year follow- up and

985 days compared to 1,032 days for the three- year follow- up, respectively). Of the four types of

punishment, probationers with an intermediate punishment had the lowest percentage of offenders

who were at risk for the entire follow- up period and were at risk fewer days during follow- up.

Criminal Justice Outcome Measures

The Sentencing Commission uses rearrests as its primary measure of recidivism,

supplemented by information on reconvictions, technical probation revocations, and reincarcerations

to assess the extent of an offender’s repeat involvement in the criminal justice system. While not

a traditional measure of recidivism, technical probation revocations were considered a criminal

justice outcome measure for this study due to the linkage between technical revocation and time at

risk during the follow- up period.

In the following sections, criminal justice outcome measures are presented for the entire

sample, as well as by type of punishment. 21

Recidivist Arrests22

Overall, 21.3% of the FY 2001/ 02 sample were rearrested during the one- year follow- up,

31.5% were rearrested during the two- year follow- up, and 38.2% were rearrested during the three-year

follow- up ( see Table 3.2). 23 Overall, prisoners were more likely to be rearrested than

probationers, with a 49.8% rearrest rate for the three- year follow- up period. Probationers with a

community punishment were the least likely of the four types of supervision to be rearrested. 24

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

22,124 offenders who were rearrested during the three- year follow- up accounted for a total of 46,225

arrests during this period, with 9,239 arrests for violent offenses, 21,190 arrests for property offenses,

12,946 arrests for drug offenses, and 13,042 arrests for “ other” offenses. While probationers were

Table 3.2

Rearrest Rates by Type of Punishment

Type of Punishment N

Rearrest Rates

1- Year

Follow- Up

2- Year

Follow- Up

3- Year

Follow- Up

SSA

Probation

Entries

Community Punishment 29,391 16.9 24.7 30.1

Intermediate Punishment 11,464 22.7 33.8 41.4

PROBATION SUBTOTAL 40,855 18.5 27.3 33.3

Prison

Releases

SSA Prison Release 15,629 28.6 42.2 50.6

FSA Prison Release 1,489 21.3 34.9 41.6

PRISON SUBTOTAL 17,118 28.0 41.6 49.8

TOTAL 57,973 21.3 31.5 38.2

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

Table 3.3

Rearrests by Type of Punishment and Crime Type

Type of Punishment

# with

Any

Rearrest

Total Number and Average Number of Arrests

During the Three- Year Follow- Up Period

Overall Violent Property Drug Other

# Avg. # Avg. # Avg. # Avg. # Avg.

SSA

Probation

Entries

Community Punishment 8,849 17,160 1.9 3,467 0.4 7,866 0.9 4,815 0.5 4,579 0.5

Intermediate Punishment 4,750 9,744 2.1 1,887 0.4 4,348 0.9 2,823 0.6 2,904 0.6

PROBATION SUBTOTAL 13,599 26,904 2.0 5,354 0.4 12,214 0.9 7,638 0.6 7,483 0.6

Prison

Releases

SSA Prison Release 7,906 17,974 2.3 3,559 0.5 8,316 1.1 5,028 0.6 5,163 0.7

FSA Prison Release 619 1,347 2.2 326 0.5 660 1.1 280 0.5 396 0.6

PRISON SUBTOTAL 8,525 19,321 2.3 3,885 0.5 8,976 1.1 5,308 0.6 5,559 0.7

TOTAL 22,124 46,225 2.1 9,239 0.4 21,190 1.0 12,946 0.6 13,042 0.6

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

24

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 2001/ 02

sample.

Table 3.3 also includes

information on the mean number of

rearrests for each group. The average

number of overall arrests for those who

were rearrested was 2.1 for the three- year

follow- up. Prisoners who were rearrested

had a slightly higher average number of

rearrests during the three- year follow- up

( 2.3) than probationers ( 2.0). Overall, the

average number of violent arrests was 0.4

for those with a recidivist arrest during

the three- year follow- up. Little variation

was found between the groups with

regard to recidivist arrests for violent offenses during the four- year follow- up, although prisoners had

a slightly higher average number of violent rearrests.

As shown in Figure 3.1, recidivism rates varied considerably by risk level, with a stair- step

increase in the percentage rearrested from low risk to medium risk to high risk. High risk offenders

had a rearrest rate of 62.3% during the three- year follow- up period – over three and one- half times

higher than the rearrest rate of low risk offenders ( 16.8%).

As shown in Table 3.4, the stair- step pattern in rearrest rates found for offender risk level for

the entire sample was also found when examining offender risk level by type of punishment. Figure

3.2 illustrates the relationship between type of punishment and rearrest during the three- year follow-up

period when controlling for risk level. Once risk level is controlled for, most of the differences

in rearrest rates between offenders on different types of supervision disappear. For the three- year

follow- up period, rearrest rates for low risk offenders ranged from 15.5% for probationers with a

community punishment to 20.9% for SSA prison releases, while rearrest rates for high risk offenders

ranged from 59.7% for probationers with a community punishment to 65.2% for SSA prison releases

over the three- year follow- up period.

For those who were rearrested during the three- year follow- up period, their first rearrest

occurred an average of 12.7 months after entry to probation or release from prison. There was little

variation in the time to first rearrest among the four groups. The average number of months to

rearrest was 12.7 for community punishment probationers, 12.8 for intermediate punishment

probationers, 12.6 for SSA prison releases, and 13.6 for FSA prison releases.

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission,

FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

Table 3.4

Rearrest Rates by Type of Punishment and Offender Risk Level

Type of Punishment

% Rearrest by Offender Risk Level

1- Year Follow- Up 2- Year Follow- Up 3- Year Follow- Up

Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High

SSA

Probation

Entries

Community Punishment 7.8 18.2 36.2 12.2 27.0 50.7 15.5 33.2 59.7

Intermediate Punishment 9.3 18.2 35.5 14.4 28.9 50.9 19.0 36.5 60.4

PROBATION SUBTOTAL 8.1 18.2 35.9 12.6 27.5 50.8 16.1 34.1 60.0

Prison

Releases

SSA Prison Release 8.7 18.2 39.7 15.2 30.3 56.0 20.9 38.5 65.2

FSA Prison Release 7.9 20.2 33.9 16.0 34.4 51.2 20.8 42.2 58.1

PRISON SUBTOTAL 8.6 18.4 39.4 15.3 30.8 55.8 20.9 38.9 64.8

TOTAL 8.1 18.3 37.5 13.0 28.4 53.1 16.8 35.4 62.3

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

25 Fingerprinted arrest data from the DOJ were used to determine recidivist arrests and convictions.

Recidivist convictions were defined as convictions that occurred after an offender was released from prison or placed

on probation for the conviction that placed him/ her in the sample.

26 Beginning with the 2004 report, an improvement was made in the way the Sentencing Commission uses

DOJ data to determine reconviction rates.

26

Recidivist Convictions25

Overall, 9.6% of the FY 2001/ 02 sample had a reconviction during the one- year follow- up

period, 19.6% had a reconviction during the two- year follow- up period, and 26.5% had a

reconviction during the three- year follow- up period ( see Table 3.5). 26 Overall, prisoners had a higher

percentage of recidivist convictions than probationers. For example, 35.9% of prisoners had a

recidivist conviction during the three- year follow- up compared to 22.5% of probationers.

Intermediate punishment probationers had a higher percentage of recidivist convictions during the

three- year follow- up than community punishment probationers, with 28.4% of intermediate

punishment probationers having recidivist convictions compared to 22.5% of community punishment

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

27

probationers. During the three- year follow- up period, 10.0% of low risk offenders, 23.9% of

medium risk offenders, and 45.4% of high risk offenders had a recidivist conviction.

Table 3.5

Reconviction Rates by Type of Punishment

Type of Punishment N

% Reconviction:

1- Year

Follow- Up

2- Year

Follow- Up

3- Year

Follow- Up

SSA

Probation

Entries

Community Punishment 29,391 7.5 15.0 20.2

Intermediate Punishment 11,464 10.5 20.8 28.4

PROBATION SUBTOTAL 40,855 8.3 16.6 22.5

Prison

Releases

SSA Prison Release 15,629 12.9 27.2 36.7

FSA Prison Release 1,489 7.7 20.2 27.7

PRISON SUBTOTAL 17,118 12.5 26.6 35.9

TOTAL 57,973 9.6 19.6 26.5

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

Table 3.6 provides information on the volume and types of recidivist convictions. The

15,337 offenders who had a recidivist conviction by the end of the three- year follow- up accounted

for 22,438 convictions during this period, with 3,603 convictions for violent offenses, 10,851

convictions for property offenses, 6,389 convictions for drug offenses, and 5,313 convictions for

“ other” offenses. While a lower percentage of probationers had a recidivist conviction than

prisoners, they accounted for a higher number of convictions than prisoners due to the larger number

of probation entries in the FY 2001/ 02 sample.

Table 3.6 also includes the average number of recidivist convictions for each group. The

average number of overall convictions for those with a recidivist conviction was 1.5 for the three-year

follow- up. Prisoners who were rearrested had a slightly higher average number of recidivist

convictions ( 1.5) than probationers ( 1.4). Overall, the average number of violent convictions was

0.2 for those with a recidivist conviction during the three- year follow- up. However, prisoners who

were rearrested had an average of 0.3 violent rearrests.

Table 3.6

Reconvictions by Type of Punishment and Crime Type

Type of Punishment

# with

Any

Conv.

Total Number and Average Number of Convictions

During the Three- Year Follow- Up Period

Overall Violent Property Drug Other

# Avg. # Avg. # Avg. # Avg. # Avg.

SSA

Probation

Entries

Community Punishment 5,936 8,458 1.4 1,301 0.2 4,064 0.7 2,368 0.4 1,851 0.3

Intermediate Punishment 3,256 4,626 1.4 706 0.2 2,145 0.7 1,407 0.4 1,150 0.4

PROBATION SUBTOTAL 9,192 13,084 1.4 2,007 0.2 6,209 0.7 3,775 0.4 3,001 0.3

Prison

Releases

SSA Prison Release 5,733 8,780 1.5 1,461 0.3 4,340 0.8 2,494 0.4 2,162 0.4

FSA Prison Release 412 574 1.4 135 0.3 302 0.7 120 0.3 150 0.4

PRISON SUBTOTAL 6,145 9,354 1.5 1,596 0.3 4,642 0.8 2,614 0.4 2,312 0.4

TOTAL 15,337 22,438 1.5 3,603 0.2 10,851 0.7 6,389 0.4 5,313 0.3

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

27 DOC’s OPUS data were used to determine technical revocations. Revocations are limited to those that

are technical in nature since revocations for new crimes would duplicate the recidivist arrest data. Although

probationers are the primary population at risk of technical revocation, prisoners may also be at risk of technical

revocation as a result of post- release supervision, parole, or due to new probation sentences consecutive to their

prison sentences or resulting from probation sentences imposed for new crimes committed during follow- up.

29

For offenders who had a recidivist conviction during the three- year follow- up period, their

first recidivist conviction occurred an average of 17.0 months after entry to probation or release from

prison. There was little variation in the time to first reconviction among the four groups. The

average number of months to reconviction was 16.8 for community punishment probationers, 16.9

for intermediate punishment probationers, 17.1 for SSA prison releases, and 18.2 for FSA prison

releases.

Technical Revocations27

Overall, 12.4% of the FY 2001/ 02 sample had a technical revocation during the one- year

follow- up period, 21.3% had a technical revocation during the two- year follow- up period, and 26.4%

had a technical revocation during the three- year follow- up period ( see Table 3.7). This analysis is

limited to revocations that are technical in nature since revocations for new crimes would duplicate

the recidivist arrest data. Of those offenders with a technical revocation during the three- year follow-up

period, 91% had one technical revocation, 8% had two technical revocations, and 1% had three

or more technical revocations. It is not surprising that the greatest increases in the technical

revocation rates are in the first and second year of the follow- up period since most probation

sentences in North Carolina do not exceed 3 years ( 36 months), although there are exceptions. It is

possible that technical revocations in the later years of the follow- up period resulted from new

probation sentences imposed during follow- up.

Of the four groups, probationers with an intermediate punishment had the highest technical

revocation rates during the follow- up period, with 39.5% having a technical revocation within the

three- year follow- up. Probationers with a community punishment had the second highest technical

revocation rates during the follow- up period, with 25.5% having a technical revocation within the

three- year follow- up period. It is not surprising that intermediate punishment probationers had a

higher technical revocation rate than community punishment probationers since intermediate

probationers are subject to closer monitoring and more restrictive sanctions while on probation.

During the three- year follow- up period, 15.6% of low risk offenders, 26.7% of medium risk

offenders, and 37.0% of high risk offenders had a technical revocation. For offenders who had a

technical revocation during the three- year follow- up, their first technical revocation occurred an

average of 14.7 months after entry to probation or release from prison. The average number of

months to technical revocation was 14.5 for community punishment probationers, 12.9 for

intermediate punishment probationers, 18.0 for SSA prison releases, and 15.9 for FSA prison

releases. One possible explanation for the longer average time to revocation for prison releases is

that they may have committed a new crime during follow- up for which they were placed on

probation and later revoked.

28 DOC’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. It does 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 technical 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 three- year follow- up for offenders who have no prior incarcerations, as well as for those

who have prior incarcerations.

30

Table 3.7

Technical Revocation Rates by Type of Punishment

Type of Punishment N

% Technical Revocation:

1- Year

Follow- Up

2- Year

Follow- Up

3- Year

Follow- Up

SSA

Probation

Entries

Community Punishment 29,391 12.0 21.0 25.5

Intermediate Punishment 11,464 22.2 33.8 39.5

PROBATION SUBTOTAL 40,855 14.9 24.6 29.4

Prison

Releases

SSA Prison Release 15,629 6.6 13.6 19.6

FSA Prison Release 1,489 6.7 11.6 16.1

PRISON SUBTOTAL 17,118 6.6 13.4 19.3

TOTAL 57,973 12.4 21.3 26.4

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

Recidivist Incarcerations28

Of the FY 2001/ 02 sample, 12.1% had a recidivist incarceration during the one- year follow-up

period, 22.0% had a recidivist incarceration during the two- year follow- up period, and 28.3% had

a recidivist incarceration during the three- year follow- up period ( as shown in Table 3.8). Recidivist

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 technical revocation during the follow- up period. Overall,

prisoners were more likely to have a recidivist incarceration than probationers, with a 35.9%

incarceration rate at the end of the three- year follow- up compared to 25.1% of probationers. Of the

31

four groups, probationers with community punishments had the lowest incarceration rate during the

follow- up period and probationers with intermediate punishments had the highest incarceration rate

during the follow- up period. The high incarceration rates for this group are most likely linked to the

high technical revocation rates for this group. Of those offenders with an incarceration during the

three- year follow- up period, 81% had one incarceration, 16% had two incarcerations, 3% had three

or more incarcerations.

During the three- year follow- up period, 10.9% of low risk offenders, 25.7% of medium risk

offenders, and 48.1% of high risk offenders had a recidivist incarceration. For those who had an

incarceration during the three- year follow- up period, their first incarceration occurred an average of

15.4 months after entry to probation or release from prison. The average number of months to

incarceration was 16.7 for community punishment probationers, 12.3 for intermediate punishment

probationers, 16.8 for SSA prison releases, and 16.4 for FSA prison releases.

Table 3.8

Reincarceration Rates by Type of Punishment

Type of Punishment N

% Reincarceration:

1- Year

Follow- Up

2- Year

Follow- Up

3- Year

Follow- Up

SSA

Probation

Entries

Community Punishment 29,391 6.1 12.9 17.1

Intermediate Punishment 11,464 25.9 38.7 45.5

PROBATION SUBTOTAL 40,855 11.6 20.2 25.1

Prison

Releases

SSA Prison Release 15,629 13.6 26.7 36.4

FSA Prison Release 1,489 11.2 22.7 30.2

PRISON SUBTOTAL 17,118 13.4 26.4 35.9

TOTAL 57,973 12.1 22.0 28.3

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

29 As noted previously, the time at risk measure does not account for time spent in local jails since currently

each jail maintains its own data and there is not a statewide automated data system.

30 It must be noted that the data presented on recidivist incarcerations only include incarceration in North

Carolina’s state prison system. It does not include periods of incarceration in county jails or incarceration in other

states. In North Carolina, offenders who are sentenced to active terms greater than 90 days are incarcerated in state

prison, while those sentenced to active terms 90 days or less are incarcerated in county jail. Theoretically,

reincarceration rates should be higher than technical revocation rates since reincarceration can result both from new

sentences and technical revocations. Reincarceration rates are lower than technical revocation rates for community

punishment probationers ( see Figure 3.4). This finding can be attributed to both new sentences imposed that result

in sentences served in county jail and to technical revocations that result in sentences served in county jail.

32

Summary

Chapter Three provided information on “ time at risk” 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 during follow- up and subtracting the time incarcerated from the follow- up

period. 29 Overall, 72% of the entire sample were at risk for the entire three- year follow- up period.

Time at risk for the three- year follow- up period varied considerably for prisoners and probationers,

as well as for the subcategories

comprising each group.

Examination of rearrest rates over

the three- year follow- up period indicates

that rearrest rates increase from year to

year, but at a decreasing rate. Figure 3.3

provides a summary of rearrest rates for

the three- year follow- up period for

probationers, prisoners, and the sample as

a whole. Overall, about 38% of the FY

2001/ 02 sample were rearrested during

the three- year follow- up period.

Prisoners had higher rearrest rates than

probationers.

Beginning with the 2004

recidivism report, the Sentencing

Commission expanded its definition of

recidivism to include technical

revocations and reincarcerations, in addition to the traditional measures of rearrest and reconviction.

Figure 3.4 summarizes criminal justice outcomes for the FY 2001/ 02 sample during the three- year

follow- up period by type of punishment. 30 Overall, prisoners had higher rearrest and reconviction

rates than probationers. Intermediate punishment probationers had higher rearrest and reconviction

rates than community punishment probationers. Probationers had higher technical revocation rates

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission,

FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

33

than prisoners, as would be expected given that probationers are the primary population at risk of

technical revocation. Of the four groups, intermediate punishment probationers had the highest

technical revocation rates and the highest reincarceration rates. As discussed in Chapter One, some

offenders who formerly would have gone to prison have been shifted to probation ( in this case,

intermediate punishment probation) with the implementation of Structured Sentencing. Probationers

with intermediate punishments are the most serious group of offenders supervised in the community.

Therefore, it is to be expected that they would fair worse than community punishment probationers

in terms of the various measures of recidivism.

Chapter Three also examined criminal justice outcomes by offender risk level. As shown in

Figure 3.5, rates for all of the criminal justice outcome measures during the three- year follow- up

period varied considerably by offender risk level, with a stair- step increase in rates from low risk to

medium risk to high risk. When compared to low risk offenders, high risk offenders were over three

and one- half times more likely to be rearrested, about four and one- half times more likely to be

reconvicted, over two times more likely to have a technical revocation, and over four times more

likely to be reincarcerated.

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2001/ 02 Correctional Program

Evaluation Data

34

While both type of

punishment and offender risk

level were found to highly

correlate with recidivism ( as

measured by the various

criminal justice outcomes in

Chapter Three), other factors

also play an important role in

explaining differences in

recidivism rates. Offenders

are sentenced and targeted for

correctional programs based

on legal factors such as the

seriousness of their offense

and prior record. This pre-selection

can also be seen as

classifying offenders according

to some notion of risk,

although not necessarily risk of

reoffending. This makes it

difficult to determine the

relative importance of offender

risk level ( as used in this study) versus type of punishment. Chapter Four expands the search for

correlates of recidivism by including the type of correctional supervision and sanctions imposed to

the list of factors analyzed. The multivariate analysis used in Chapter Four is a statistical method

to account ( or “ control”) for and assess the net impact of preexisting factors ( such as type of

punishment or offender risk level) on the probability of rearrest, technical revocation, or

reincarceration.

Source: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2001/ 02

Correctional Program Evaluation Data

31 Logistic regression involves regression using the logit ( i. e., the logarithm of the odds) of an outcome

occurring. This type of analysis is most appropriate for regression models with a dichotomous dependent variable

such as being rearrested or not.

32 The effects were