Correctional program evaluation : offenders placed on probation or released from prison in fiscal year ... |
Previous | 6 of 8 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
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
Object Description
Description
Title | Correctional program evaluation : offenders placed on probation or released from prison in fiscal year... |
Other Title | North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission correctional program evaluation : offenders placed on probation or released from prison in fiscal year... |
Date | 2006-04-15 |
Description | 2001/2002 |
Digital Characteristics-A | 2.2 MB; 203 p. |
Digital Format | application/pdf |
Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_borndigital\images_master\ |
Full Text | 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 |
OCLC number | 70222078 |