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

              North Carolina

Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission

Prepared By

Karen Calhoun Vicky Etheridge

Tamara Flinchum Ginny Hevener

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, 2008

CORRECTIONAL PROGRAM

EVALUATION:

OFFENDERS PLACED ON PROBATION

OR RELEASED FROM PRISON

IN FISCAL YEAR 2003/ 04

NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission

200 copies of this public document were printed at a total cost of $ 638.00,

or about $ 3.19 per copy.

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) 890- 1470

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 2003/ 04

NC SENTENCING AND POLICY ADVISORY COMMISSION

MEMBERSHIP

Hon. W. Erwin Spainhour, Chairman

Superior Court Judge

Dr. David Barlow

Professor, Fayetteville State University

Sheriff Hayden Bentley

NC Sheriffs’ Association

Hon. Stan Bingham

State Senator

Hon. Alice L. Bordsen

State Representative

Joseph B. Cheshire V

NC Academy of Trial Lawyers

Locke T. Clifford

NC Bar Association

Louise Davis

NC Community Sentencing Association

Judge Richard A. Elmore

NC Court of Appeals

Hon. Paul H. Gibson

NC Association of County Commissioners

William P. Hart

NC Attorney General’s Office

Mary Y. “ Larry” Hines

Private Citizen, Governor’s Appointee

Hon. Robert F. Johnson

NC Conference of District Attorneys

Hon. Eleanor Kinnaird

State Senator

Charles Mann

NC Post- Release Supervision & Parole

Commission

Judge H. Paul McCoy, Jr.

NC District Court Judges’ Association

Moe McKnight

NC Retail Merchants’ Association

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

Anthony E. Queen

NC Victim Assistance Network

June Ray

NC Association of Clerks of Superior

Court

Hon. Karen B. Ray

State Representative

Billy J. Sanders

Commission Chairman’s Appointee

Hon. John J. Snow, Jr.

State Senator

Hon. Timothy L. Spear

State Representative

Mildred Spearman

NC Department of Correction

George L. Sweat

NC Department of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention

Jonathan Williams

NC Dept. of Crime Control & Public Safety

NC SENTENCING AND POLICY ADVISORY COMMISSION

STAFF

Susan Katzenelson

Executive Director

John Madler

Associate Director for Policy, Staff Attorney

Ginny Hevener

Associate Director for Research

Karen Calhoun Tamara Flinchum

Senior Research & Policy Associate Senior Research & Policy Associate

Marlee Moore- Gurrera David Lagos

Senior Research & Policy Associate Research & Policy Associate

Vacant

Research & Policy Associate

Vicky Etheridge

Administrative Assistant

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow- up Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Time at Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

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

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

Report Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

II. STATISTICAL PROFILE OF FY 2003/ 04 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 for Offenders with Any Prior Arrest ( n= 46,578) . . . . 13

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

Figure 2.2: Most Serious Current Conviction: Felonies Only ( n= 26,808) . . . . 14

Table 2.3: Most Serious Current Conviction by Type of Punishment . . . . . . . . 15

Figure 2.3: Most Serious Current Conviction: Misdemeanors Only ( n= 30,175) 16

Table 2.4: Offense Class for Most Serious Current Conviction by Type of

Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Offender Risk and Recidivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 2.4: Offender Risk Level by Type of Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

III. CRIMINAL JUSTICE OUTCOME MEASURES FOR THE FY 2003/ 04 SAMPLE . . . . 21

Definition of the Follow- up Period and Time at Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 3.1: Percent at Risk and Average Time at Risk by Type of Punishment . . 22

Criminal Justice Outcome Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Table 3.2: Rearrest Rates by Type of Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

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

Table 3.3: Rearrests by Type of Punishment and Crime Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Table 3.4: Rearrest Rates by Type of Punishment and Offender Risk Level . . . 26

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

Follow- Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table 3.5: Rearrests by Risk Level and Crime Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 3.6: Offender Risk Level and Rearrest Rates by Offense Class for Most

Serious Current Conviction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Table 3.7: Reconviction Rates by Type of Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Table 3.8: Reconvictions by Type of Punishment and Crime Type . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Table 3.9: Reincarceration Rates by Type of Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Interim Outcome Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Table 3.10: Technical Revocation Rates by Type of Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Figure 3.3: Number of Infractions During Incarceration: Prisoners Only

( n= 17,093) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table 3.11: Infractions During Incarceration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 3.4: Rearrest Rates: Three- Year Follow- Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 3.5: Criminal Justice Outcomes by Type of Punishment: Three- Year

Follow- Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 3.6: Criminal Justice Outcomes by Risk Level: Three- Year Follow- Up 40

IV. MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF OUTCOME MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Multivariate Analysis: What is a Regression Model? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Regression Analysis: Recidivist Arrest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Table 4.1: Effect of Personal and Criminal Justice Factors on Recidivist Arrest 44

Regression Analysis: Recidivist Incarceration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

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

Incarceration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

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

V. OFFENDERS ON POST- RELEASE SUPERVISION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Statistical Profile of FY 2003/ 04 Prison Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Figure 5.1: FY 2003/ 04 Prison Releases ( n= 17,093) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Figure 5.2: Offender Risk Level for Prison Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Table 5.1: Personal Characteristics for Prison Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Table 5.2: Prior Arrests for Prison Releases with Any Prior Arrest ( n= 16,513) 60

Table 5.3: Most Serious Current Conviction for Prison Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Post- Release Supervision Policy and Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Criminal Justice Outcome Measures for the FY 2003/ 04 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Table 5.4: Criminal Justice Outcome Measures for Prison Releases: Three- Year

Follow- Up Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Table 5.5: Number of Rearrests for Prison Releases with Any Rearrest

( n= 8,580) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Figure 5.3: Rearrest Rates by Type of Prison Release and Risk Level: Three- Year

Follow- Up Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Interim Outcome Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Table 5.6: Technical Revocation Rates for Prison Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Figure 5.4: Number of Infractions During Incarceration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Supervision and Recidivism for SSA and FSA Prison Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Table 5.7: Two- Year Rearrest Rates for NC Prison Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

VI. AGING OFFENDER POPULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Statistical Profile of the FY 2003/ 04 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Figure 6.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Table 6.1: Personal Characteristics by Age of Offender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Table 6.2: Offender Risk Level by Age of Offender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Table 6.3: Prior Arrests and Current Conviction by Age of Offender . . . . . . . . 82

Aging Offenders within the Prison System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Special Issues Pertaining to the Aging Inmate Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Health Indicators for the FY 2003/ 04 Sample – Prisoners Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Table 6.4: Health Indicators by Age of Offender: Prisoners Only . . . . . . . . . . 90

Criminal Justice Outcome Measures for the FY 2003/ 04 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Table 6.5: Rearrest Information by Age of Offender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Table 6.6: Rearrest Rates by Offender Risk Level and Age of Offender During

the Three- Year Follow- Up Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Table 6.7: Rearrest Rates by Age of Offender and Health Indicators:

Prisoners Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Table 6.8: Criminal Justice Outcome Measures by Age of Offender During

the Three- Year Follow- Up Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Interim Outcome Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Table 6.9: Interim Outcome Measures by Age of Offender During the

Three- Year Follow- Up Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Figure 6.2: Recidivism Rates by Age of Offender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

APPENDIX A: ADULT RECIDIVISM RATES BY STATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF MAJOR VARIABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

APPENDIX C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Appendix C- 1: Individual Program and Correctional Supervision Summaries . . . . . . 122

Appendix C- 2: Summary Information for Correctional Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

APPENDIX D: PUNISHMENT CHARTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

APPENDIX E: MEASURING OFFENDER RISK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

Prediction of Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Measuring Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Figure E- 1: Variables Included in Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

APPENDIX F: MULTIVARIATE TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

Table F. 1: Multiple Regression Results of Personal and Criminal Justice Factors

on Prison Infractions: Prisoners FY 2003/ 04 ( n= 17,093) . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Table F. 2: Effect of Personal and Criminal Justice Factors on Technical

Revocation: Probationers FY 2003/ 04 ( n= 39,890) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

i

Figure 1

Most Serious Current Conviction: Felonies Only ( n= 26,808)

Probation Entries

( n= 13,772)

38%

43%

6%

13%

Violent Property Drug Other

Prison Releases

( n= 13,036)

38%

32%

8% 22%

Violent Property Drug Other

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 fifth

report in compliance with the directive and analyzes a sample of 56,983 offenders released from

prison or placed on probation in FY 2003/ 04 using a three- year follow- up period. It is the first

report to include only offenders sentenced under the Structured Sentencing Act ( SSA). The

study defines recidivism as rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration. In addition, two interim

outcome measures were examined: 1) technical revocation of probation or post- release

supervision for offenders supervised in the community and 2) prison infractions during

incarceration for prisoners in the sample. This report also focuses on offenders placed on post-release

supervision and the aging offender population.

Data Sources

Data for offenders in the sample were provided by the Department of Correction ( DOC)

and the Department of Justice ( DOJ). Additional information was collected in a series of

interviews with correctional personnel to provide a descriptive context for the study.

Statistical Profile of the FY 2003/ 04 Sample

The sample of 56,983 offenders included 49.5% community probationers, 20.5%

intermediate probationers, and 30.0% prisoners, all placed on probation or released from prison

during FY 2003/ 04. Seventy- eight percent of the offenders were male, 52.1% were black, 14.2%

were married, 42.7% had twelve or more years of education, and 39.1% were identified as

having a substance abuse problem by either a prison or probation assessment. Their average age

was 30.6.

Overall, the FY

2003/ 04 sample accounted

for a total of 182,979 prior

arrests. For offenders with

prior arrests, the number of

prior arrests increased by

type of punishment from

community punishment to

intermediate punishment to

prison – 45.8% of

community punishment

probationers, 25.2% of

intermediate punishment

probationers, and 14.4% of

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY

2003/ 04 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

ii

Figure 2

Offender Risk Level by Type of Punishment

58.0%

38.2%

24.8%

44.0%

38.3%

51.6%

56.8%

44.6%

3.7% 10.2%

18.4%

9.4%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Community Intermediate Prison

Release

Entire

Sample

Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission,

FY 2003/ 04 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

prison releases had only one prior arrest

compared to 3.3% of community

punishment probationers, 7.3% of

intermediate punishment probationers,

and 14.3% of prison releases with 10 or

more prior arrests. Forty- seven percent of

the sample had a most serious current

conviction for a felony offense. For

prisoners and probationers with a current

felony conviction, the majority had

convictions for property offenses,

followed by convictions for drug offenses

( see Figure 1). As anticipated, prisoners

were more likely to have a current

conviction for violent offenses ( 22%)

than probationers ( 13%).

A risk score was computed for each offender in the sample using a composite measure

based on individual characteristics ( e. g., 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, prisoners had a higher percentage of high risk offenders than either category of probationers.

Community punishment probationers had the lowest percentage of high risk offenders.

Intermediate punishment probationers fell in between prison releases and community punishment

probationers 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 71% by the third year.

iii

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission,

FY 2003/ 04 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

Figure 3

Rearrest Rates: Three- Year Follow- Up

21.2%

28.0%

18.3%

42.3%

27.6%

32.0%

33.7%

50.2%

38.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Probationers Prisoners Entire Sample

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

Criminal Justice Outcome Measures

Of the FY 2003/ 04 sample, 21.2% were rearrested during the one- year follow- up, 32.0%

were rearrested during the two- year follow- up, and 38.7% 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, two

other criminal justice outcome measures

( reconviction and reincarceration) were

utilized. A summary of these three

measures of recidivism for the FY

2003/ 04 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 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

21.2%, 32.0%, and 38.7% 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 12.8 months after

entry to probation or release from

prison. By the end of the three-year

follow- up, the FY 2003/ 04

sample accounted for 45,819

recidivist arrests, including 9,342

arrests for violent offenses.

Figure 4

Criminal Justice Outcomes by Type of Punishment: Three- Year

Follow- Up

30.9%

40.6%

50.2%

20.6%

27.5%

35.5%

18.3%

45.2%

36.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Community Punishment Intermediate Punishment Prison Releases

% Rearrest % Reconviction % Reincarceration

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission,

FY 2003/ 04 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

iv

Overall, 9.5% of the sample had a reconviction in the first year of follow- up, 19.5% by

the second year, and 26.4% by the third year. For those with a reconviction during the three- year

follow- up, the average time to reconviction was 17.1 months. The sample accrued 21,866

recidivist convictions of which 3,445 reconvictions were for a violent offense.

Overall, 12.0% of the sample were reincarcerated by the first year, 22.5% by the second

year, and 29.1% by the third year of follow- up. The average time to first incarceration for

offenders reincarcerated during the follow- up period was 15.8 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, with the highest rearrest and reconviction rates for prisoners.

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

the highest rate of reincarceration, 45% during the three- year follow- up period, due in large part

to their higher technical 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,

and over four times more likely

to be reincarcerated.

Interim Outcome Measures

In addition to the recidivism rates, information is provided on two interim outcome

measures: 1) technical revocation of probation or post- release supervision for offenders while

under supervision in the community and 2) infractions for prisoners prior to release from prison.

Revocations were limited to those that are technical in nature because revocations for new crimes

would duplicate the recidivist arrest data.

Figure 5

Criminal Justice Outcomes by Risk Level: Three- Year

Follow- Up

20.5%

48.5%

75.0%

12.7%

33.3%

56.9%

14.8%

36.7%

58.9%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk

% Rearrest % Reconviction % Reincarceration

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission,

FY 2003/ 04 Correctional Program Evaluation

v

Almost 12% of the FY 2003/ 04 sample, including both probationers and prisoners, had a

technical revocation during the one- year follow- up period, 21.9% had a technical revocation

during the two- year follow- up period, and 27.4% had a technical revocation during the three-year

follow- up period. Probationers with an intermediate punishment had the highest technical

revocation rates during the follow- up period, with 39.1% having a technical revocation within

the three- year follow- up. The higher technical revocation rates for intermediate probationers are

likely linked to the closer monitoring and more restrictive sanctions for these offenders while on

probation.

Almost 44% of the FY 2003/ 04 prison releases had an infraction while in prison. The

average number of infractions for the FY 2003/ 04 prison release sample was 2.0, while the

average number of infractions based only on prisoners who had an infraction was 4.6. When

examining the number of infractions per inmate, it is important to control for time served as

prisoners with longer sentences have more time to accrue infractions. As expected, the average

number of infractions increased as time served increased.

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. These analyses examined two main dependent variables

as indicators of recidivism – rearrest and reincarceration – and two interim 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, length of time served, or

number of times placed on probationary supervision ( i. e., probation, parole, or post- release

supervision). 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 prison sentence imposed, 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 black, a youthful offender, serving more time in prison, having a higher number

of prison incarcerations, and having a higher risk score were associated with increases in the

number of prison infractions acquired. Being male, having at least twelve years of education,

having a prior drug arrest, having a longer maximum sentence imposed, and the number of times

placed on probationary supervision were factors associated with a decreased probability of prison

infractions.

vi

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

having a history of substance abuse, having a prior drug arrest, having a more serious

prior arrest, number of times placed on probationary supervision, number of prior

revocations of probationary supervision, and being placed on intermediate punishment

probation significantly increased the likelihood of a technical revocation. Conversely,

being married, employed, having at least twelve years of education, and having a felony

as the current conviction were factors found to reduce the probability of technical

revocation.

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

offenders found being male, youthful at time of commitment to the 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 a more serious prior arrest, number of

times placed on probationary supervision, number of revocations of probationary

supervision, and number of prior incarcerations increased the probability of

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

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

longer prison sentence.

Offenders on Post- Release Supervision

With the passage of the Structured Sentencing Act by the General Assembly in

1994 came the abolishment of parole and the establishment of Post- Release Supervision

( PRS) as the mechanism for post- prison supervision for certain offenders. PRS is a

mandatory period of supervision for the most serious offenders following release from

prison for Class B1 through E felonies. The period of supervision is nine months unless

inmates have been convicted of a sex offense which requires registration with the State’s

sex offender registration program. PRS is administered by the Post- Release Supervision

and Parole Commission ( PRSPC). The Department of Correction’s Division of

Community Corrections ( DCC) handles the monitoring of offenders on PRS and is also

responsible for reporting violations of PRS to the PRSPC. This report is the first to

include a sizeable group of Post- Release Supervisees allowing for a more detailed

description of these offenders and a study of their patterns of recidivism.

Of the 17,093 prisoners released in FY 2003/ 04, 1,634 ( 9.6%) were convicted of

Class B1 through Class E felony offenses and were released from prison onto PRS. The

remaining 15,459 ( 90.4%) prisoners were convicted of Class F through Class I felony

offenses ( 73.8%) or Class A1 through Class 3 misdemeanor offenses ( 26.2%), and were

released from prison with no supervision to follow incarceration. On average, prisoners

released with PRS served 48.9 months in prison prior to release compared to 9.3 months

for prisoners with no PRS.

Compared to prison releases with no PRS, prison releases with PRS were more

likely to be male ( 92.8% versus 87.0%), to be black ( 69.2% versus 59.1%), and to have

substance abuse problems ( 59.6% versus 56.1%). PRS prison releases were also slightly

younger ( an average of 31.3 years of age versus 32.1 years of age) and less likely to have

vii

twelve or more years of education ( 32.0% versus 35.2%). The two groups of prison

releases differed substantially with respect to offender risk level. Offenders with PRS

were more likely to be low risk ( 31.4% compared to 24.1%) and less likely to be high

risk ( 9.0% compared to 19.4%) than those offenders with no PRS. With regards to

criminal history, prisoners with PRS had a higher percentage with only one prior arrest

and a lower percentage with ten or more prior arrests.

Three criminal justice outcomes – rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration –

were examined in this study. Prisoners with PRS had lower recidivism rates for all three

measures when compared to prisoners with no PRS ( see Figure 6).

Overall, 44.7% of

prisoners with PRS and

50.8% of prisoners with no

PRS were rearrested during

the three- year follow- up

period. Controlling for

offender risk level all but

eliminated the difference in

rearrest rates between

prisoners with and without

PRS, except for the low-risk

group, where prisoners

on supervision had lower

rearrest rates. A

multivariate analysis

confirmed that, when

controlling for other

relevant factors, no

significant differences in

recidivism remained between the two groups of prison releases.

Singling out PRS for study in this report also allowed for a comparison of how

supervision affects recidivism across sentencing structures – between post- release

supervision of SSA inmates and parole supervision of FSA inmates. The information

available across the years indicates that, independent of the changing composition of the

offender groups and the systems under which they were sentenced, released prisoners

tend to recidivate less when on post- prison supervision as they re- enter their

communities.

Aging Offender Population

Aging offenders, defined by the North Carolina DOC as offenders aged 50 or

older, were the second specific correctional population highlighted in this study.

Offenders were grouped into subcategories by age at prison release or probation entry to

highlight the relationship between age and recidivism. Age categories used by percent in

Figure 6

Criminal Justice Outcome Measures for Prison Releases

Three- Year Follow- Up Period

44.7%

50.8% 50.2%

28.6%

36.2% 35.5%

30.1%

36.8% 36.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Post- Release

Supervision

No Post- Release

Supervision

All Prison Releases

% Rearrest % Reconviction % Reincarceration

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission,

FY 2003/ 04 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

viii

Figure 7

Rearrest Rates by Age of Prisoner and Risk Level

76.3%

60.0%

25.9%

62.7%

44.7%

19.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk

49 & Under 50 & Older

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission,

FY 2003/ 04 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

the sample were 19 and under ( 14.0%), 20 to 29 ( 38.8%), 30 to 39 ( 25.7%), 40 to 49

( 16.3%), and 50 and older ( 5.2%).

Older offenders were more likely to be male, married, and have more than twelve

years of education. Overall, as offenders’ age increased their risk level decreased

regardless of whether a probationer or prisoner. Among probationers, the proportion

aged 50 and older who were low risk was much higher than those under 50 ( 91.3%

compared to 50.0%). Likewise, 69.9% of aging prisoners were low risk as compared to

22.5% of prisoners aged 49 and younger.

With regard to criminal history, older offenders had more prior arrests on average

than did their younger counterparts. Turning to current conviction, differences in the

most serious current conviction by age were noted for prisoners but not for probationers.

A higher proportion of prisoners aged 50 and older had a Class B1- E felony as their

current conviction compared to prisoners under the age of 50 ( 11.4% versus 9.5%) which

may be related to the length of time served for these serious offenses.

Health indicators as measured by acuity level ( i. e., level of required nursing care),

activity restrictions, and health visits ( medical and mental health) were only available for

the 17,093 prison releases in the sample. Generally, as age increased so too did acuity

level, activity restrictions, and number of health visits. Overall, increases in health

indicators were steady until the last age category – age 50 and older. The larger

differences noted in this age group occurred because the category age 50 and older

contained prisoners 50- 81 years old; a much larger interval than in the other age

categories.

Three criminal justice

outcomes were examined in

this study including rearrest,

reconviction, and

reincarceration. Generally

speaking, offenders aged 50

and older returned to the

criminal justice system at a

lower rate than did offenders

aged 49 and younger by all

three measures. Overall, 20.3%

of offenders aged 50 and older

were rearrested during the

three- year follow- up as

compared to 38.7% of all

offenders. Even when

controlling for risk, the

differences between age and rearrest within probationers and prisoners remained except

for medium risk probationers. For example among high risk probationers, those aged 50

and older had a rearrest rate of 68.8% versus 73.6% for probationers younger than 50. As

ix

seen in Figure 7, there was an even larger difference in rearrest rates among high risk

prisoners who were older versus younger than 50 years of age ( 62.7% as compared to

76.3%). The difference in rearrest rates between offenders aged 50 and older as

compared to 49 and younger remained in multivariate analyses examining rearrest even

when controlling for personal characteristics, health indicators, criminal history, and

current offense.

Summary and Conclusions

When information from the current report is added to the Sentencing Commission’s

previous recidivism reports, a broader spectrum of findings and tentative conclusions

emerge. These reports, covering large samples of offenders released in North Carolina

between FY 1993/ 94 and FY 2003/ 04, provide a framework to look at trends in the State’s

recidivism rates and related factors.

• Statewide recidivism rates have been remarkably consistent over the past ten years.

The findings indicate that recidivism rates for all offenders have been stable over

the sample years, given the differences in sentencing law and sample composition –

three- year rearrest rates for the five samples studied ranged between 37% and 39%.

• Intermediate punishment, as expected, provides an effective alternative in the range

of graduated sanctions between probation and incarceration.

Findings of this and previous reports confirmed that, while the general profile of

intermediate probationers more closely mimicked that of prisoners than of

community probationers, their rearrest rates were considerably and consistently

lower than those of prisoners. This finding lends continued support to the notion of

intermediate sanctions as a viable alternative to supervise certain offenders in the

community in lieu of incarceration. Providing supervision and resources following

an offender's placement in the community seemed to help released prisoners as well,

reaffirming the value of some type of reentry or post- release supervision.

• Offender age is a powerful predictor of future recidivism, and highlights the special

needs and challenges in managing both youthful and aging offenders.

In addition to race and gender, age has emerged as a strong predictive indicator of

criminality, whether age was measured in yearly increments or in categorical

intervals such as youthful and aging offenders. While the recidivism rate of

youthful offenders ( aged 21 and younger) was the highest of any age group, older

offenders ( aged 50 and older) seemed to age out of criminality.

x

• Expectations for correctional success in preventing future criminality should be

viewed realistically.

Components of an offender's criminal history, current offense, and experiences with

the correctional system are all elements strongly correlated with continued criminal

behavior. Expectations for rehabilitative success and deterrence should be

articulated in this context, and be realistic in weighing criminogenic factors brought

with an offender into the system compared to the short time and limited resources at

the DOC's disposal to reverse their impact.

• The timing and targeting of correctional resources is crucial in reducing recidivism.

Targeting resources to match offender needs might increase the probability of

rehabilitation; knowledge of factors that predict when offenders with certain

characteristics tend to recidivate would provide practical information to programs

for developing additional treatment or supervision protocols that could further

delay, or even prevent, recidivism.

• The validity of offender risk scores as a predictive tool might point to its use in the

criminal justice decision making process.

The use of risk scores in this and previous reports has proven to be the most

comprehensive predictive measure of recidivism. The risk score assigned to an

offender, which is comprised of preexisting personal and criminal history factors,

has been consistently associated with the disposition and program assignments

imposed by the court as well as with the offender’s probability of reoffending.

Since the most expensive correctional resources ( i. e., prisons) are predominantly

being used by the high risk offenders and minimal resources are required by the low

risk offenders, it may prove to be a good use of tax dollars to target medium risk

offenders for less restrictive correctional programming. This investment in

offenders who are medium risk may play an important part in reducing their

possibility of recidivating and ultimately utilizing more expensive resources. The

availability of risk scores earlier in the criminal justice process might also help

inform the discretion of decision makers such as judges and prosecutors at

conviction and sentencing.

In summary, Figure 9 provides a comprehensive view of the three- year recidivism

rates for FY 2003/ 04 sample of probationers and prisoners.

xi

Figure 9

Three- Year Recidivism Rates for the FY 2003/ 04 Sample

All Probation and Prison Releases

( N= 56,983)

Rearrest: 38.7%

Reconviction: 26.4%

Reincarceration: 29.1%

Prison Releases

( n= 17,093)

Rearrest: 50.2%

Reconviction: 35.5%

Reincarceration: 36.2%

Probation Entries

( n= 39,890)

Rearrest: 33.7%

Reconviction: 22.6%

Reincarceration: 26.1%

No Post- Release Supervision

( n= 15,459)

Rearrest: 50.8%

Reconviction: 36.2%

Reincarceration: 36.8%

Post- Release Supervision

( n= 1,634)

Rearrest: 44.7%

Reconviction: 28.6%

Reincarceration: 30.1%

Intermediate Punishment

( n= 11,667)

Rearrest: 40.6%

Reconviction: 27.5%

Reincarceration: 45.2%

Community Punishment

( n= 28,223)

Rearrest: 30.9%

Reconviction: 20.6%

Reincarceration: 18.3%

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Introduction

With the enactment of the Structured Sentencing Act ( SSA) in 1994, North Carolina

embarked on a new penal strategy. Since that time, Structured Sentencing has benefited the

criminal justice system by increasing consistency, certainty and truth in the sentencing of

offenders; setting priorities for the use of correctional resources; and balancing sentencing policies

with correctional resources. The 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. 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 ( now

named the School of Government). This recidivism study was followed by one that was

conducted in 1996 by Mark Jones and Darrell Ross of the School of Social Work at East Carolina

University. In 1997 and 1998, the 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 Law 1998- 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

2

Public Safety by April 15, 2000, and future reports shall be made by April 15 of

each even- numbered year.

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

April 15, 2000. The current study is the fifth 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.

In its studies of recidivism, the Sentencing Commission uses rearrests as the primary

measure of recidivism, supplemented by information on reconvictions and reincarcerations, to

assess the extent of an offender’s repeat involvement in the criminal justice system. The

advantages of arrest data, compared with other criminal justice system data, outweigh the

disadvantages. Rearrests, as used in this research, take into account not only the frequency of

repeat offending but also its seriousness and the nature of the victimization ( for example, crimes

against the person, crimes involving theft or property damage, or crimes involving illegal drugs).

The volume of repeat offending is handled by recording the number of arrests for crimes of

various types.

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, Jones, Kramer and Renninger, 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).

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.

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

4

“ prisonization” – detrimental effects of imprisonment – that would otherwise increase the

propensity to reoffend.

Comparison of Recidivism Rates for Previous Recidivism Studies

The Sentencing Commission’s previous recidivism reports provide a framework to look at

trends in the state’s recidivism rates. However, it should be noted that there are differences in the

recidivism studies that make comparisons difficult. For example, 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); the samples for FY 1996/ 97 through FY 2001/ 02 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 five other studies, with more extended follow- up periods ( of

approximately three years), reported slightly higher recidivism, with rearrest rates for all offenders

between about 33% and 38%.

Table 1.1 also provides a comparison of recidivism rates for probationers and prisoners for

the previous studies. The recidivism rates for FSA regular probationers can be compared across

the previous recidivism studies ( sample years 1989, 1992/ 93, 1993/ 94, and 1994/ 95) and with the

SSA community punishment probationers in the more recent studies ( sample years 1996/ 97,

1998/ 99, and 2001/ 02). Based on the studies with an approximate three- year follow- up period,

rearrest rates for FSA regular probationers ranged from 22.8% for the 1992/ 93 sample to 31.3%

for the 1994/ 95 sample, while recidivism rates for SSA community punishment probationers were

around 30% for the 1998/ 99 sample and the 2001/ 02 sample.

Recidivism rates for prisoners can also be compared across the studies. The rearrest rates

provided for prisoners for sample years 1989, 1992/ 93, 1993/ 94, and 1994/ 95 are for prisoners

released on regular parole prior to or under FSA, while the rearrest rates provided for prisoners for

sample years 1996/ 97, 1998/ 99, and 2000/ 01 are for prisoners released under both FSA and SSA.

The current study provides the first SSA only prisoner sample. The three- year rearrest rates for

FSA prisoners ranged from 45.9% for the 1992/ 93 sample to 48.8% for the 1993/ 94 sample, while

the three- year rearrest rates for SSA and FSA prisoners were almost 50% for the 1998/ 99 and

2001/ 02 samples. It must be noted that 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.

1 A summary table of Adult Recidivism Rates by State in Appendix A provides statistics from several 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.

Table 1.1

Rearrest Rates for North Carolina Offenders

Sample Rearrest Rates

Year Sample Composition Sample

Size

Follow- Up

Period2

( in months) All

Offenders Probationers3 Prisoners4

Studies with a Two- Year Follow- Up Period

1989 Offenders sentenced prior to or under FSA 37,933 26.7 31.2% 26.5% 41.3%

1996/ 97 Offenders sentenced under FSA and SSA 51,588 24 32.6% 26.3% 42.6%

1998/ 99 Offenders sentenced under FSA and SSA 58,238 24 31.2% 24.2% 41.6%

Studies with a Three- Year Follow- Up Period

1992/ 93 Offenders sentenced prior to or under FSA 33,111 36.7 32.6% 22.8% 45.9%

1993/ 94 Offenders sentenced prior to or under FSA 48,527 32.8 36.8% 30.7% 48.8%

1994/ 95 Offenders sentenced prior to or under FSA,

with some offenders sentenced under SSA 45,836 35.1 37.3% 31.3% 47.8%

1998/ 99 Offenders sentenced under FSA and SSA 58,238 36 37.8% 29.7% 49.6%

2001/ 02 Offenders sentenced under SSA, with some

offenders sentenced under FSA 57,973 36 38.2% 30.1% 49.8%

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission

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, 1998/ 99, and

2001/ 02.

3 This category includes FSA offenders on regular probation for sample years 1989, 1992/ 93, 1993/ 94, and 1994/ 95 and SSA offenders on community

punishment probation for sample years 1996/ 97, 1998/ 99, and 2001/ 02.

4 This category includes FSA prisoners released on regular parole through FY 1994/ 95 and all FSA and SSA prisoners beginning with FY 1996/ 97.

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 and over a three- year follow- up were close to 37%, 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, and reincarceration. 5

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 2003/ 04.

The final study sample includes 56,983 offenders sentenced under Structured Sentencing,

affording a comprehensive look at the recidivism of Structured Sentencing offenders. 6

Follow- up Period

Recidivism studies utilize varying lengths of time as their follow- up period, depending on

the availability of data and other resources. With both short term and long term recidivism being

of great interest to policy makers, this report provides information on the recidivism of the FY

2003/ 04 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 in the study sample 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

5 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.

6 Pre- Fair Sentencing Act ( FSA) and FSA offenders ( prisoners and probationers) were excluded from the sample. All

DWI and traffic offenders were also excluded from the sample.

7

incarceration in North Carolina’s prison system within the follow- up time frame and subtracting

the time incarcerated from the follow- up period. 7

Outcome and Process Measures

The outcome and process measures examined for this study include:

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

in the criminal justice system, to include rearrests, reconvictions, and

reincarcerations.

► Technical revocation of probation or post- release supervision for offenders

supervised in the community.

► Prison infractions during incarceration for prisoners in the sample.

Data Sources

( A) Aggregate Data: two 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, 8 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, as well as recidivist convictions.

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

the sample of 56,983 offenders released to the community between July 1, 2003 and June 30,

2004, and followed for three years. 9 A case profile was constructed for each sample offender,

comprised of personal and criminal history characteristics, the most serious current offense of

conviction, type of punishment imposed, correctional program assignments, and reinvolvement

with the criminal justice system ( i. e., rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration).

( B) Site Visit Descriptive Data:

For this report, two specific areas were selected for in- depth analysis – post- release

supervision and the aging offender population. To provide a descriptive context for the study,

information was collected during a series of interviews with correctional personnel at the state

level. For post- release supervision, Sentencing Commission staff conducted meetings with Post-

Release Supervision and Parole Commission members and staff, with the DOC’s Division of

Prisons ( DOP) staff, and with the DOC’s Division of Community Corrections’ ( DCC) Director

7 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; nor was it possible to account for time incarcerated in other states during the follow- up period.

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

released to the community within the sample time frame.

9 A glossary of relevant variables is included in Appendix B.

8

and his staff. Information relating to special issues ( e. g., medical, housing) for aging inmates was

gathered from interviews with the Director of Health Services, Assistant Director for Auxiliary

Services, Chief of Program Services, and their respective staff members within the DOC’s DOP.

Report Outline

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

on the incidence and type of prior criminal behavior. It also 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 and 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 for prisoners

released on post- release supervision. Chapter Six describes in detail the aging offender

population. Finally, Chapter Seven offers a short summary of the study’s main findings and closes

with some observations on recidivism in North Carolina following the enactment of Structured

Sentencing.

9

CHAPTER TWO

STATISTICAL PROFILE OF FY 2003/ 04 SAMPLE

Type of Punishment

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

were placed on probation or were released from prison during FY 2003/ 04.10

As shown in Figure 2.1, there were 56,983 offenders in the FY 2003/ 04 sample. There

were 39,890 ( 70%) probationers and 17,093 ( 30%) prisoners. These can be further subdivided

into the following four categories based on type of punishment:

Probation Entries

􀂉 probationers who received a community punishment;

􀂉 probationers who received an intermediate punishment;

Prison Releases

􀂉 prison releases with post- release supervision; 11 and

􀂉 prison releases with no post- release supervision.

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.

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

Sentencing Act ( SSA).

11 Statistics on prison releases presented in this chapter are based on all SSA prison releases ( i. e., those with post-release

supervision and those with no post- release supervision). Detailed information for offenders released on post-release

supervision is provided in Chapter Five.

FY 2003/ 04 Sample

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

supervised probation or were released from prison during FY 2003/ 04,

with the following exclusions:

􀂉 offenders with a most serious current conviction for driving

while impaired ( DWI); and

􀂉 offenders with a most serious current conviction for a

misdemeanor traffic offense.

10

Figure 2.1

Type of Punishment

Definitions for the Types of Punishment

Probation Entries: Offenders who were sentenced under the Structured Sentencing Act and received a probation

sentence ( i. e., the active sentence was suspended).

Probation Entries with a Community Punishment: An offender who received a community

punishment. Community punishments may consist of a fine, unsupervised probation ( although

unsupervised probationers were excluded from the sample), or supervised probation, alone or with one or

more of the following conditions: outpatient drug/ alcohol treatment, community service, assignment to

TASC, payment of restitution, or any other conditions of probation that are not considered an intermediate

punishment. Offenders with little or no prior criminal history who commit the lowest class felonies ( Class

H or I) and all misdemeanants may receive a community punishment.

Probation Entries with an Intermediate Punishment: An offender who received an intermediate

punishment. An intermediate punishment requires a period of supervised probation with at least one of the

following conditions: special probation, assignment to a residential treatment program, house arrest with

electronic monitoring, intensive probation, assignment to a day reporting center, and assignment to a drug

treatment court program. Generally, offenders who have a significant prior record and commit Class H or I

felonies and offenders who have little or no prior record and commit more serious non- violent felonies may

receive an intermediate punishment.

Prison Releases: An offender who was sentenced under the 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= 1,634 or almost 10%) of offenders in this category received

post- release supervision ( see Chapter 5 for a further description of post- release supervision and a statistical

comparison of prisoners released on post- release supervision with those receiving no supervision following release).

Prison Releases with Post- Release Supervision: Under Structured Sentencing, prisoners released with a

most serious offense for Class B1 through Class E felonies are released on post- release supervision for a

period of nine months, with the exception of sex offenders who are supervised for five years.

Prison Releases with No Post- Release Supervision: Under Structured Sentencing, prisoners released

with a most serious offense for Class F through Class I felonies and Class A1 through Class 3

misdemeanors are released from prison without any supervision.

See Appendix C for further descriptions of the types of punishment and for many of the programs that fall under

them.

11

Personal Characteristics

Table 2.1 contains information describing the personal characteristics of the FY 2003/ 04

sample. Of the 56,983 offenders, 78.3% were male, 52.1% were black, 14.2% were married,

42.7% had twelve or more years of education, 39.1% were identified as having a substance abuse

problem, and their average age, at release from prison or placement on probation, was 30.6.

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; 2006). Information on prior fingerprinted arrests for the FY 2003/ 04

sample is provided in Table 2.2.12 Prior arrests were defined as fingerprinted arrests that

occurred before the current conviction that placed the offender in this sample and, therefore, may

include the arrest( s) for the current conviction. Overall, the FY 2003/ 04 sample accounted for a

total of 182,979 prior arrests. For offenders with prior arrests, the number of prior arrests

increased by type of punishment from community punishment to intermediate punishment to

prison – 45.8% of community punishment probationers, 25.2% of intermediate punishment

probationers, and 14.4% of prison releases had only one prior arrest compared to 3.3% of

community punishment probationers, 7.3% of intermediate punishment probationers, and 14.3%

of prison releases with 10 or more prior arrests. This pattern is also evident when comparing the

average number of arrests for the subgroups. For offenders with prior arrests, the overall average

number of prior arrests was 3.9, with probationers having an average of 3.1 prior arrests and

prisoners having an average of 5.4 prior arrests. For all groups, prior property offenses

comprised the highest volume of arrests, followed by drug offenses. As expected, prisoners had

a higher mean number of violent prior arrests than probationers.

With regard to arrest history, intermediate punishment probationers were more similar to

prisoners than to community punishment probationers. For example, intermediate punishment

probationers fell in between community punishment probationers and prisoners regarding the

average number of prior arrests ( 4.0, 2.7, and 5.4, respectively). 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.

12 Fingerprinted arrest data from the DOJ were used to determine prior arrests. In actuality, all offenders in the

sample ( 100%) should have at least one prior arrest – the arrest that resulted in the conviction that placed the

offender in the study sample. Lack of at least one prior arrest may result from an arrest for which an offender was

not fingerprinted ( e. g., a misdemeanor offense for which fingerprinting is not required), indictment without an

arrest, or if no match was found for an offender in the DOJ criminal history database.

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

Probation Entries

Community Punishment 28,223 70.7 46.8 29.7 15.1 48.3 29.6

Intermediate Punishment 11,667 83.3 53.3 30.8 14.2 41.4 36.7

Subtotal 39,890 74.4 48.7 30.0 14.8 46.3 31.7

Prison Releases 17,093 87.6 60.1 32.0 12.9 34.9 56.5

TOTAL 56,983 78.3 52.1 30.6 14.2 42.7 39.1

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

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2003/ 04 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

.

Table 2.2

Prior Arrests for Offenders with Any Prior Arrest ( n= 46,578)

Number of Prior Arrests (%) Average Number of Prior Arrests

Type of Punishment N

# of

Prior

Arrests 1 2 3- 4 5- 9 10+ Overall Violent Property Drug Other

Probation Entries

Community Punishment 28,223 51,945 45.8 22.0 17.7 11.1 3.3 2.7 0.5 1.3 0.7 0.5

Intermediate Punishment 11,667 41,745 25.2 19.1 25.1 23.3 7.3 4.0 0.8 1.9 1.2 0.8

Subtotal 39,890 93,690 38.6 21.0 20.3 15.4 4.7 3.1 0.6 1.5 0.9 0.6

Prison Releases 17,093 89,289 14.4 15.2 23.7 32.4 14.3 5.4 1.0 2.9 1.4 1.0

TOTAL 56,983 182,979 30.0 18.9 21.5 21.4 8.1 3.9 0.7 2.0 1.0 0.8

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

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2003/ 04 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

14

Figure 2.2

Most Serious Current Conviction: Felonies Only ( n= 26,808)

Probation Entries

( n= 13,772)

38%

43%

6%

13%

Violent Property Drug Other

Prison Releases

( n= 13,036)

38%

32%

8% 22%

Violent Property Drug Other

Most Serious Current Conviction

Overall, 47% ( n= 26,808) of the FY 2003/ 04 sample had a felony offense as the most

serious current conviction and 53% ( n= 30,175) had a misdemeanor offense as the most serious

current conviction. 13 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 ( 38%). 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 current

conviction for violent offenses ( 22%) than probationers ( 13%).

The majority of prisoners and probationers with current misdemeanor convictions were

convicted of property offenses ( 41% and 44%, respectively) and violent offenses ( 41% and 27%,

respectively), as shown in Figure 2.3. As expected, prisoners had a higher percentage of violent

convictions compared to probationers. Probationers had a higher percentage of drug convictions

( 20%) compared to prisoners ( 13%).

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,

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

2003/ 04 were ranked in terms of seriousness and only the most serious conviction was used for analysis. For the

sake of brevity, the term “ most serious current conviction” is often referred to as “ current conviction.” See

Appendix B for information on the categorization of offenses as person, property, drug, and other.

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2003/ 04 Correctional Program

Evaluation Data

Table 2.3

Most Serious Current Conviction by Type of Punishment

Type of Conviction

% Violent % Property % Drug % Other

% Total

Type of Punishment N

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

Probation Entries

Community Punishment 28,223 0.5 20.5 7.4 37.1 8.7 17.1 0.7 8.0 17.3 82.7

Intermediate Punishment 11,667 14.3 9.9 27.2 8.5 29.7 3.6 4.9 1.9 76.1 23.9

Subtotal 39,890 4.6 17.4 13.2 28.7 14.9 13.1 1.9 6.2 34.5 65.5

Prison Releases 17,093 17.1 9.8 28.9 9.7 24.3 3.1 6.0 1.2 76.3 23.7

TOTAL 56,983 8.3 15.1 17.9 23.0 17.7 10.1 3.1 4.7 47.1 52.9

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

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2003/ 04 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

16

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2003/ 04 Correctional Program

Evaluation Data

followed by 27.8% for drug offenses, 23.4% for violent offenses, and 7.8% for “ other”

offenses. 14 Community punishment probationers were more likely to have a most serious current

conviction for a misdemeanor offense ( 82.7%) and the current conviction was most likely to be

for a misdemeanor property offense ( 37.1%). Seventy- six percent of intermediate punishment

probationers had a most serious current conviction for a felony offense and the current

conviction was most likely to be for a felony drug offense ( 29.7%) or for a felony property

offense ( 27.2%). Seventy- six percent of prison releases had a most serious current conviction for

a felony offense, with 28.9% for felony property offenses and 24.3% for felony drug offenses.

Table 2.4 presents information on the offense class of the most serious conviction for the

FY 2003/ 04 sample by type of punishment. Under Structured Sentencing, offenses are classified

based on offense seriousness, with Class A through Class E felonies considered the violent

felonies. The type of sentence imposed ( community, intermediate punishment, or active

sentence) and the sentence length are based on the offense class for the most serious offense and

on the offender’s prior criminal history ( see Appendix D for the felony and misdemeanor

punishment charts). 15 Offenders convicted of Class B1 through Class D felonies are required to

receive an active sentence. 16 Depending on their prior criminal history, offenders convicted of

Class E through G felonies may receive either an intermediate punishment or an active sentence,

while offenders convicted of Class H through Class I felonies may receive a community

punishment, an intermediate punishment, or an active sentence.

14 Of the offenders with a most serious current conviction for a violent offense ( n= 13,362), 8.3% ( n= 1,102) had a

conviction for an offense which requires registration as a sex offender under Article 27A of Chapter 14 of the NC

General Statutes.

15 For further information about Structured Sentencing, see the NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission’s

Structured Sentencing Training and Reference Manual.

16 Offenders convicted of first degree murder ( Class A) may receive either a death sentence or life without parole

under Structured Sentencing.

Figure 2.3

Most Serious Current Conviction: Misdemeanors Only ( n= 30,175)

Probation Entries

( n= 26,118)

44%

9%

20%

27%

Violent Property Drug Other

Prison Releases

( n= 13,036)

5%

13%

41%

41%

Violent Property Drug Other

17

Table 2.4

Offense Class for Most Serious Current Conviction by Type of Punishment

Offense Class for Current Conviction

Type of Punishment N %

B1- E

Felony

%

F- I

Felony

%

Misd

Probation Entries

Community Punishment 27,825 N/ A 16.7 83.3

Intermediate Punishment 11,633 4.3 71.8 23.9

Subtotal 39,458 1.3 32.9 65.8

Prison Releases 17,093 9.6 66.7 23.7

TOTAL 56,551 3.8 43.1 53.1

Note: Offenders with discrepant or unknown offense classes were excluded from this table ( n= 432). Due to the

length of sentences imposed for Class B1 felonies, there were no prisoners released in the FY 2003/ 04 sample with a

most serious conviction for a Class B1 felony. Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2003/ 04 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

For the FY 2003/ 04 sample, 3.8% had a most serious conviction for a Class B1 through E

felony, 17 43.1% had a most serious conviction for a Class F through Class I felony, and 53.1%

had a most serious conviction for a misdemeanor offense. Differences found in the offense class

composition of the sample subgroups are consistent with Structured Sentencing, which links

offense severity with type of punishment. The majority of community punishment probationers

had a most serious conviction for a misdemeanor offense ( 83.3%), while the majority of

intermediate punishment probationers and prisoners had a most serious conviction for a Class F

through Class I felony ( 71.8% and 66.7%, respectively). Almost 10% of prisoners had a

conviction for a Class B1 through Class E felony.

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

17 Structured Sentencing does not allow for the release of offenders convicted of first degree murder ( Class A),

explaining the absence of Class A offenders in the FY 2003/ 04 SSA sample.

18

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 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. 18 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

► Race19

► 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

► Prior drug arrest

► Most serious prior arrest

18 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; 2006). See the section in Appendix E on risk for a more in- depth discussion of how the risk score was

developed for this study.

19 Of the FY 2003/ 04 sample, 52.1% were black, 42.5% were white, and the remaining 5.4% were Indian ( 1.6%),

Asian or Oriental ( 0.2%), other ( 3.4%), 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.

19

► Number of prior probationary sentences – probation, parole, post- release

supervision

► Number of prior revocations of probationary supervision

► Number of prior prison sentences

3. Current Sentence Information

► Offense class

► Maximum sentence length

A risk score was computed for all offenders in the sample based on these factors. 20 For

this report, a methodological change was made in the categorization of the risk score into low,

medium, and high risk groups. 21 Risk scores – not the sample of offenders – were divided into

terciles. The range of risk scores was 0.01 to 0.99; thus, “ Low Risk” offenders had a score

between 0.01 and 0.33; “ Medium Risk” offenders had a score between 0.34 and 0.66, and “ High

Risk” offenders had a risk score between 0.67 and 0.99. Using the new methodology, 44.0% of

the offenders were “ Low Risk,” 46.6% were “ Medium Risk,” and 9.4% were “ High Risk.” 22

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 intermediate

punishment probationers and prison releases. For instance, only 24.8% of prison releases were

low risk compared to 58.0% of probationers sentenced to a community punishment. Conversely,

prisoners were much more likely to be high risk than either category of probationers.

Profiles of offenders in each risk level by the type of punishment were examined in an

effort to understand why some “ High Risk” offenders received community punishment and why

some “ Low Risk” offenders received active sentences. This inspection revealed that these

offenders were sentenced to their respective punishment type based upon the Structured

Sentencing punishment charts. For example, offenders may have a low risk level, but have a

Class C or D felony as their current conviction; thus, the only sentencing option is an active

sentence. Conversely, offenders may have a high risk level but have a misdemeanor as their

current conviction. Although considered “ High Risk,” community punishment is a sentencing

option for these offenders regardless of prior conviction level.

20 Risk scores are the probability that an offender will be rearrested during the follow- up period and are based on a

logistic regression model used to determine the impact of risk factors ( including personal characteristics, criminal

history, and current sentence information) on recidivism.

21 In previous reports, the sample of offenders was divided into three groups of 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.”

Recognizing that this approach allowed the definition of low, medium, and high risk to shift slightly based on the

distribution of risk scores for different samples of offenders, an improvement was made in the method of grouping

risk scores to provide standardized definitions of low, medium, and high risk that do not change from sample to

sample.

22 Data from previous Correctional Evaluation Reports was examined using this new approach to determine the

stability of low, medium, and high risk groups from sample year to sample year. In FY 1998/ 99, 48.0% were “ Low

Risk,” 42.7% were “ Medium Risk,” and 9.3% were “ High Risk.” In FY 2001/ 02, 45.7% were “ Low Risk,” 44.5%

were “ Medium Risk,” and 9.8% were “ High Risk.”

20

Figure 2.4

Offender Risk Level by Type of Punishment

58.0%

38.2%

24.8%

44.0%

38.3%

51.6%

56.8%

46.6%

10.2% 18.4% 9.4%

3.7%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Community Intermediate Prison Release Entire Sample

Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk

Summary

Chapter Two provided a description of the FY 2003/ 04 sample’s demographic

characteristics, prior criminal history, current conviction, and offender risk level. Of the 56,893

offenders placed on probation or released from prison in FY 2003/ 04, 78% were male, 52% were

black, 82% had at least one prior fingerprinted arrest, and 47% had a most serious current

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 prison

releases having the highest risk scores. Chapter Three examines the sample’s subsequent

criminal involvement, as measured by rearrests, reconvictions, and reincarcerations.

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2003/ 04 Correctional

Program Evaluation Data

21

CHAPTER THREE

CRIMINAL JUSTICE OUTCOME MEASURES FOR THE FY 2003/ 04 SAMPLE

Definition of the Follow- up Period and Time at Risk

Each offender in the FY 2003/ 04 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. 23 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 or post-release

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

crimes which result in incarceration. 24 Incarcerations resulting from technical revocations may

reduce recidivist arrests due to incapacitation 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, 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 information presented in this chapter in two ways: 1) time incarcerated in county jails is not

subtracted from actual time at risk during the follow- up period and 2) incarceration in county

jails, either as a result of new sentences or 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 2003/ 04 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 2003/ 04 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 71% 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

23 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.

24 Technical revocations result from failure to comply with the conditions of probation or post- release supervision

( as opposed to a new violation of the law), such as having positive drug tests, failing to attend court- ordered

treatment, or violating curfew.

22

Table 3.1

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

Percent at Risk and Average Time at Risk

Type of Punishment N 1- Year

Follow- Up

( 365 Days)

2- Year

Follow- Up

( 730 Days)

3- Year

Follow- Up

( 1,095 Days)

Probation Entries

Community Punishment 28,223 94%

359 days

87%

709 days

82%

1,058 days

Intermediate Punishment 11,667 75%

330 days

61%

639 days

55%

958 days

Subtotal 39,890 88%

351 days

79%

689 days

74%

1,029 days

Prison Releases 17,093 87%

350 days

73%

674 days

64%

988 days

TOTAL 56,983 88%

350 days

78%

684 days

71%

1,017 days

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2003/ 04 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

follow- up periods, with prisoners being at risk fewer days than probationers ( 674 days compared

to 689 days for the two- year follow- up and 988 days compared to 1,029 days for the three- year

follow- up, respectively). Of the three types of punishment, probationers with an intermediate

punishment had the lowest percentage of offenders who were at risk for the entire follow- up

period ( i. e., had the entire window of opportunity to reoffend) and, correspondingly, were at risk

fewer days during follow- up.

Criminal Justice Outcome Measures

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

supplemented by information on reconvictions and reincarcerations, to assess the extent of an

offender’s repeat involvement in the criminal justice system.

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

sample, as well as by type of punishment. 25

25 Statistics presented in this report on prison releases include offenders released on post- release supervision.

Detailed information for offenders released on post- release supervision is provided in Chapter Five.

23

Recidivist Arrests26

Overall, 21.2% of the FY 2003/ 04 sample were rearrested during the one- year follow- up,

32.0% were rearrested during the two- year follow- up, and 38.7% were rearrested during the

three- year follow- up ( see Table 3.2). 27 Overall, prisoners were more likely to be rearrested than

probationers, with a 50.2% rearrest rate for the three- year follow- up period. Probationers with a

community punishment were the least likely of the three types of punishment to be rearrested.

Prisoners who were rearrested during follow- up also had a higher number of rearrests than

probationers who were rearrested. For example, 43.8% of prisoners compared to 53.1% of

probationers had only one rearrest, while 9.4% of prisoners compared to 5.9% of probationers

had five or more rearrests. For those who were rearrested during the three- year follow- up

period, their first rearrest occurred an average of 12.8 months after entry to probation or release

from prison. There was little variation in the time to first rearrest among the three groups. The

average number of months to rearrest was 13.0 for community punishment probationers, 12.7 for

intermediate punishment probationers, and 12.6 for prison releases.

Table 3.2

Rearrest Rates by Type of Punishment

Rearrest Rates

Type of Punishment N 1- Year

Follow- Up

2- Year

Follow- Up

3- Year

Follow- Up

Probation Entries

Community Punishment 28,223 16.6 25.2 30.9

Intermediate Punishment 11,667 22.4 33.5 40.6

Subtotal 39,890 18.3 27.6 33.7

Prison Releases 17,093 28.0 42.3 50.2

TOTAL 56,983 21.2 32.0 38.7

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2003/ 04 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

26 Fingerprinted arrest data from DOJ 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.

27 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

NOTE: Of the FY 2003/ 04 sample, 44.0% ( n= 25,064) were low risk,

46.6% ( n= 26,544) were medium risk, and 9.4% ( n= 5,375) were high risk.

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission,

FY 2003/ 04 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

Figure 3.1

Rearres t Rates by Offender Risk Level:

Three- Year Follow- Up

20.5%

48.5%

75.0%

0 .0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk

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 22,036 offenders who were rearrested during the three- year follow- up accounted

for a total of 45,819 arrests during this period, with 9,342 arrests for violent offenses, 20,286

arrests for property offenses, 14,027 arrests for drug offenses, and 13,322 arrests for “ other”

offenses. 28 While probationers were less likely to be rearrested than prisoners, they accounted

for a higher volume of arrests due to the larger number of probation entries in the FY 2003/ 04

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 the average number of recidivist arrests

for violent offenses during the three- 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 75.0% during the three- year follow- up period – over three and

one- half times higher than the rearrest rate of low risk offenders ( 20.5%).

As shown in Table

3.4, the stair- step pattern in

rearrest rates found by

offender risk level for the

entire sample was also found

when examining rearrest

rates by type of punishment

and controlling for risk level.

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, the

differences in rearrest rates

between offenders in the

different punishment

categories are diminished.

For the three- year follow- up

period, rearrest rates for low

risk offenders ranged from

28 See Appendix B for information on the categorization of offenses as person, property, drug, and other.

Table 3.3

Rearrests by Type of Punishment and Crime Type

Total Number and Average Number of Arrests

During the Three- Year Follow- Up Period

Type of Punishment Overall Violent Property Drug Other

# with

Any

Rearrest

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

Probation Entries

Community Punishment 8,724 16,792 1.9 3,411 0.4 7,496 0.9 5,091 0.6 4,528 0.5

Intermediate Punishment 4,732 9,485 2.0 1,882 0.4 4,065 0.9 3,073 0.6 2,905 0.6

Subtotal 13,456 26,277 2.0 5,293 0.4 11,561 0.9 8,164 0.6 7,433 0.6

Prison Releases 8,580 19,542 2.3 4,049 0.5 8,725 1.0 5,863 0.7 5,889 0.7

TOTAL 22,036 45,819 2.1 9,342 0.4 20,286 0.9 14,027 0.6 13,322 0.6

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2003/ 04 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

Table 3.4

Rearrest Rates by Type of Punishment and Offender Risk Level

% Rearrest by Offender Risk Level

Type of Punishment 1- Year Follow- Up 2- Year Follow- Up 3- Year Follow- Up

Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High

Probation Entries

Community Punishment 9.2 24.5 49.5 14.8 36.9 66.2 19.0 44.8 74.2

Intermediate Punishment 11.0 26.0 47.0 17.4 39.3 64.2 21.9 48.0 73.0

Subtotal 9.6 25.1 48.2 15.4 37.8 65.1 19.6 45.9 73.6

Prison Releases 10.5 28.5 50.2 19.3 43.9 68.2 25.0 52.8 76.0

TOTAL 9.8 26.3 49.4 16.1 40.0 66.9 20.5 48.5 75.0

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2003/ 04 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

27

NOTE: Of the FY 2003/ 04 sample, 44.0% ( n= 25,064) were low risk, 46.6% ( n= 26,544) were medium risk, and

9.4% ( n= 5,375) were high risk.

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2003/ 04 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

19.0% for probationers with a community punishment to 25.0% for prison releases, while

rearrest rates for high risk offenders ranged from 74.2% for probationers with a community

punishment to 76.0% for prison releases over the three- year follow- up period.

For offenders rearrested during follow- up, the number of recidivist arrests increased as

risk level increased from low to high. For example, 65.1% of low risk, 49.4% of medium risk,

and 29.7% of high risk offenders had only one rearrest, while 2.5% of low risk, 6.1% of medium

risk, and 17.0% of high risk offenders had five or more rearrests. Table 3.5 provides further

information on the number of rearrests for low, medium, and high risk offenders who were

rearrested during follow- up. While only 9% of offenders were high risk, they accounted for 26%

( n= 11,726) of the 45,819 recidivist arrests for the sample. During the three- year follow- up

period, 5,143 low risk offenders were rearrested with a total of 8,170 arrests, 12,861 medium risk

offenders were rearrested with a total of 25,923 arrests, and 4,032 high risk offenders were

rearrested with a total of 11,726 arrests. As expected, the average number of arrests was lowest

Figure 3.2

Rearrest Rates by Type of Punishment and Risk Level: Three- Year Follow- Up

74.2%

44.8%

19.0%

73.0%

48.0%

21.9%

76.0%

52.8%

25.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk

Community Punishment Intermediate Punishment Prison Releases

Table 3.5

Rearrests by Risk Level and Crime Type

Total Number and Average Number of Arrests

During the Three- Year Follow- Up Period

Risk Level N Overall Violent Property Drug Other

%

Any

Rearrest

# with

Any

Rearrest

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

Low Risk 25,064 20.5 5,143 8,170 1.6 1,493 0.3 3,968 0.8 2,345 0.5 1,826 0.4

Medium Risk 26,544 48.5 12,861 25,923 2.0 5,295 0.4 11,274 0.9 8,116 0.6 7,303 0.6

High Risk 5,375 75.0 4,032 11,726 2.9 2,554 0.6 5,044 1.3 3,566 0.9 4,193 1.0

TOTAL 56,983 38.7 22,036 45,819 2.1 9,342 0.4 20,286 0.9 14,027 0.6 13,322 0.6

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2003/ 04 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

29

for low risk offenders and highest for high risk offenders, with an average of 1.6 and 2.9 arrests,

respectively. This pattern held true across all crime types.

Offender risk level and recidivism were also examined in relation to offense class for the

most serious current conviction ( see Table 3.6). In general, felons had higher risk levels than

misdemeanants. Compared to the other offense class groupings, offenders with a most serious

current conviction ( hereinafter referred to as “ conviction”) for a Class A1 through Class 3

misdemeanor offense had the highest percentage of offenders who were low risk ( 54.7%) and the

lowest percentage of offenders who were high risk ( 6.0%). Among felons, offenders with a

conviction for a Class B1 through Class E felony offense ( which are defined as violent offenses

under Structured Sentencing) had a higher percentage of low risk offenders and a lower

percentage of high risk offenders than those offenders with a conviction for a Class F through

Class I felony offense. Fourteen percent of offenders with a conviction for a Class F through

Class I felony offense were high risk – the highest of all offense groupings.

Overall, 41.4% of offenders with a conviction for a Class B1 through Class E felony,

44.5% of offenders with a conviction for a Class F through Class I felony, and 33.9% of

offenders with a conviction for a Class A1 through Class 3 misdemeanor were rearrested during

the three- year follow- up period. The offender risk level distribution, which is defined as risk of

rearrest, and the rearrest rate for offenders convicted of Class B1 through Class E felony offenses

indicates that offenders convicted of violent offenses are less likely to reoffend than those

convicted of non- violent felony offenses ( primarily property and drug offenses).

The stair- step pattern in rearrest rates found for offender risk level for the entire sample

and by type of punishment ( as shown in Table 3.4) was also found when examining offender risk

level by offense class for the most serious current conviction ( see Table 3.6). When controlling

for offender risk level, the differences in rearrest rates between offenders in the different class

groupings were diminished. For the three- year follow- up period, rearrest rates for each offense

class grouping ranged from 16.1% to 21.7% for low risk offenders, from 46.6% to 51.9% for

medium risk offenders, and from 74.6% to 77.9% for high risk offenders. From this analysis, it

appears that offender risk level nearly negates the link between offense class and rearrest.

Represented within Class B1 through Class E convictions is a special group of offenders

– habitual felons. An habitual felon is an offender with at least three prior felony convictions

( each conviction having occurred before he or she committed the next offense) who has currently

been convicted of a felony offense and who has been found by a jury to be an habitual felon.

( N. C. G. S '' 14- 7.1 to - 7.6) While habitual felons are sentenced as Class C felons, the

overwhelming majority of habitual felons have a Class F through Class I felony as their most

serious underlying conviction. 29

In order to examine whether habitual felons were more similar to offenders with a

conviction for a Class B1 through Class E felony or to offenders with a conviction for a Class F

29 According to the NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission’s annual statistical report, there were 651

habitual felon convictions in FY 2006/ 07 ( NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, 2008). Overall, 88%

( n= 576) had a conviction for a Class F through Class I felony as their most serious underlying conviction, with Class

F accounting for 7.2%, Class G for 24.4%, Class H for 38.4%, and Class I for 18.4%.

Table 3.6

Offender Risk Level and Rearrest Rates by Offense Class for Most Serious Current Conviction

% Rearrest

Offender Risk Level During the Three- Year Follow- Up Period

Offense Class for By Offender Risk Level

Most Serious

Current Conviction

N

%

Low

Risk

%

Medium

Risk

%

High

Risk

Overall

Low Medium High

Class B1 – E Felony 2,134 34.9 57.5 7.6 41.4 16.1 51.9 77.9

Class F – I Felony 24,399 31.5 54.5 14.0 44.5 21.7 50.0 74.6

Class A1 – 3 Misdemeanor 30,018 54.7 39.3 6.0 33.9 20.3 46.6 75.7

TOTAL 56,551 43.9 46.6 9.5 38.7 20.6 48.5 75.1

Note: Offenders with discrepant or unknown offense classes were excluded from this table ( n= 432). Due to the length of sentences imposed for Class B1

felonies, there were no prisoners released in the FY 2003/ 04 sample with a most serious conviction for a Class B1 felony.

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2003/ 04 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

31

through Class I felony, their distribution by offender risk level and rearrest rates were examined.

Of the 190 habitual felons in the FY 2003/ 04 sample, 19.0% were low risk, 59.0% were medium

risk, and 22.0% were high risk. During the three- year follow- up period, 54.7% of habitual felons

were rearrested. Habitual felons were more similar to offenders with Class F through Class I

felony convictions than to offenders with Class B1 through Class E felony convictions with

respect to their distribution by risk level and rearrest rates. In fact, they had a higher percentage

of high risk offenders ( 22.0% compared to 14.0%) and higher rearrest rates ( 54.7% compared to

44.5%) than offenders with a conviction for a Class F through Class I felony, which is not

surprising since, as discussed in Chapter Two, prior criminal history is a strong predictor of

recidivism.

Offenders who are required to register as sex offenders under Article 27A of Chapter 14

of the NC General Statutes are also a group of special interest. Offenders who are convicted of a

reportable offense are required to register as sex offenders. A reportable offense is defined as

“ an offense against a minor, a sexually violent offense, or an attempt to commit” such offenses. 30

Of the 1,102 offenders in the sample convicted of an offense for which they are required to

register as a sex offender, 15.3% ( n= 169) were convicted of a Class B1 through Class E felony,

82.1% ( n= 905) were convicted of a Class F through Class I felony, and the remainder were

convicted of a Class A1 misdemeanor or had a discrepant or unknown offense class. Almost

57% were low risk, 41.1% were medium risk, and 2.2% were high risk. Overall, 25.3% of the

offenders required to register as a sex offender had a recidivist arrest during the three- year

follow- up period. When compared to each offense class grouping, offenders required to register

as sex offenders had higher percentages of low risk offenders and lower percentages of high risk

offenders. They also had lower rearrest rates. These findings are consistent with the risk level

distribution and rearrest rates found for male prison releases who had participated in the Sex

Offender Accountability Responsibility ( SOAR) program while in prison ( see Appendix C).

Recidivist Convictions31

Overall, 9.5% of the FY 2003/ 04 sample had a reconviction during the one- year follow-up

period, 19.5% had a reconviction during the two- year follow- up period, and 26.4% had a

reconviction during the three- year follow- up period ( see Table 3.7). Overall, prisoners had a

higher percentage of recidivist convictions than probationers. For example, 35.5% of prisoners

had a recidivist conviction during the three- year follow- up compared to 22.6% of probationers.

Intermediate punishment probationers had a higher percentage of recidivist convictions during

the three- year follow- up than community punishment probationers, with 27.5% of intermediate

punishment probationers having recidivist convictions compared to 20.6% of community

punishment probationers.

Table 3.8 provides information on the volume and types of recidivist convictions. The

15,068 offenders who had a recidivist conviction by the end of the three- year follow- up

accounted for 21,866 convictions during this period, with 3,445 convictions for violent offenses,

30 Offenses against a minor and sexually violent offenses are defined in N. C. G. S. ' 14- 208.6.

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

convictions were defined as convictions for arrests that occurred after an offender was released from prison or

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

32

Table 3.7

Reconviction Rates by Type of Punishment

% Reconviction:

Type of Punishment N 1- Year

Follow- Up

2- Year

Follow- Up

3- Year

Follow- Up

Probation Entries

Community Punishment 28,223 7.4 14.9 20.6

Intermediate Punishment 11,667 10.4 20.4 27.5

Subtotal 39,890 8.3 16.5 22.6

Prison Releases 17,093 12.4 26.5 35.5

TOTAL 56,983 9.5 19.5 26.4

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2003/ 04 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

10,015 convictions for property offenses, 6,952 convictions for drug offenses, and 5,217

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 2003/ 04 sample.

Table 3.8 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.

Recidivist conviction rates were also examined by offense class and by offender risk level.

Overall, 26.0% of offenders with a most serious current conviction for a Class B1 through Class

E felony, 31.1% of offenders with a conviction for a Class F through Class I felony, and 22.8%

of offenders with a conviction for a Class A1 through Class 3 misdemeanor had a recidivist

conviction during the three- year follow- up period. As with rearrest rates, a stair- step pattern was

found in recidivist conviction rates by offender risk level, with 12.7% of low risk offenders,

33.3% of medium risk offenders, and 56.9% of high risk offenders having a recidivist conviction

during the three- year follow- up period.

For offenders who had a recidivist conviction during the three- year follow- up period, their

first recidivist conviction occurred an average of 17.1 months after entry to probation or release

from prison. There was little variation in the time to first reconviction among the three groups.

The average number of months to reconviction was 17.2 for community punishment

probationers, 16.8 for intermediate punishment probationers, and 17.1 for prison releases.

Table 3.8

Reconvictions by Type of Punishment and Crime Type

Total Number and Average Number of Convictions

During the Three- Year Follow- Up Period

Type of Punishment Overall Violent Property Drug Other

# with

Any

Conv.

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

Probation Entries

Community Punishment 5,799 8,229 1.4 1,279 0.2 3,770 0.7 2,599 0.4 1,815 0.3

Intermediate Punishment 3,209 4,457 1.4 665 0.2 1,966 0.6 1,481 0.5 1,092 0.3

Subtotal 9,008 12,686 1.4 1,944 0.2 5,736 0.6 4,080 0.5 2,907 0.3

Prison Releases 6,060 9,180 1.5 1,501 0.2 4,279 0.7 2,872 0.5 2,310 0.4

TOTAL 15,068 21,866 1.5 3,445 0.2 10,015 0.7 6,952 0.5 5,217 0.3

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2003/ 04 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

34

Recidivist Incarcerations32

Of the FY 2003/ 04 sample, 12.0% had a recidivist incarceration during the one- year

follow- up period, 22.5% had a recidivist incarceration during the two- year follow- up period, and

29.1% had a recidivist incarceration during the three- year follow- up period ( as shown in Table

3.9). Recidivist incarcerations may have occurred as a result of the sentence imposed for a new

crime committed 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 36.2% incarceration

rate at the end of the three- year follow- up compared to 26.1% of probationers. Of the three

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 reincarceration rate for this group is most likely

linked to their high technical revocation rate. Of those offenders with an incarceration during the

three- year follow- up period, 81.8% had one incarceration, 15.9% had two incarcerations, and

2.3% had three or more incarcerations.

Table 3.9

Reincarceration Rates by Type of Punishment

% Reincarcerations:

Type of Punishment N 1- Year

Follow- Up

2- Year

Follow- Up

3- Year

Follow- Up

Probation Entries

Community Punishment 28,223 6.1 13.3 18.3

Intermediate Punishment 11,667 25.3 38.8 45.2

Subtotal 39,890 11.7 20.8 26.1

Prison Releases 17,093 12.8 26.6 36.2

TOTAL 56,983 12.0 22.5 29.1

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2003/ 04 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

Recidivist incarceration rates were also examined by offense class and by offender risk

level. Overall, 32.3% of offenders with a most serious current conviction for a Class B1 through

32 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.

35

Class E felony, 39.3% of offenders with a conviction for a Class F through Class I felony, and

20.8% of offenders with a conviction for a Class A1 through Class 3 misdemeanor had a

recidivist incarceration during the three- year follow- up period. It is not surprising that offenders

with Class F through Class I felony convictions had higher reincarceration rates than those with

Class B1 through Class E convictions. While offenders with Class B1 through Class E felony

convictions are more likely to be in the FY 2003/ 04 sample as a prison release, offenders with

Class F through I felony convictions are more likely to be in the sample as a result of a

probationary sentence. Correspondingly, their higher reincarceration rates may be a function of

technical revocations that result in incarceration, in addition to recidivist arrests that lead to

reincarceration. As with the other measures of recidivism, a stair- step pattern was found in

recidivist incarceration rates by offender risk level, with 14.8% of low risk offenders, 36.7% of

medium risk offenders, and 58.9% of high risk offenders having a recidivist incarceration during

the three- year follow- up period.

For offenders who had an incarceration during the three- year follow- up period, their first

incarceration occurred an average of 15.8 months after entry to probation or release from prison.

The average number of months to incarceration was 17.5 for community punishment

probationers, 12.6 for intermediate punishment probationers, and 17.1 for prison releases.

Interim Outcome Measures

In addition to the recidivism rates provided in the previous section, information is

provided on two interim outcome measures – 1) technical revocation of probation or post- release

supervision for offenders while under supervision in the community and 2) infractions for

prisoners prior to release from prison. Technical revocations are a measure of offender

misconduct while being supervised in the community, while infractions are a measure of inmate

misconduct while incarcerated.

Technical Revocations33

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, from

probationary sentences that are consecutive to their prison sentences, or from probation

sentences imposed for new crimes committed during the follow- up period. This analysis is

limited to revocations that are technical in nature since revocations for new crimes would overlap

with the recidivist arrest data.

Overall, 11.9% of the FY 2003/ 04 sample had a technical revocation during the one- year

follow- up period, 21.9% had a technical revocation during the two- year follow- up period, and

27.4% had a technical revocation during the three- year follow- up period ( see Table 3.10). Of

those offenders with a technical revocation during the three- year follow- up period, 91.1% had

one technical revocation, 8.3% had two technical revocations, and 0.6% had three or more

technical revocations. The greatest increases in the technical revocation rates are in the first and

second year of the follow- up period, as might be expected since most probation sentences in

33 DOC’s OPUS data were used to determine technical revocations. Revocations are limited to those that are

technical in nature because revocations for new crimes would duplicate the recidivist arrest data.

36

Table 3.10

Technical Revocation Rates by Type of Punishment

% Technical Revocation:

Type of Punishment N 1- Year

Follow- Up

2- Year

Follow- Up

3- Year

Follow- Up

Probation Entries

Community Punishment 28,223 12.0 22.6 27.4

Intermediate Punishment 11,667 20.9 33.1 39.1

Subtotal 39,890 14.6 25.7 30.8

Prison Releases 17,093 5.5 12.9 19.3

TOTAL 56,983 11.9 21.9 27.4

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2003/ 04 Correctional Program Evaluation Data

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 violations of

new