Annual statistical report : summary statistics for the Division of Prisons & the Division of Adult Probation and Parole

              Alvin Keller Nicole E. Sullivan
Secretary of Correction Research and Planning Manager
2007-2008
Annual Statistical Report
North Carolina
Department of Correction
2009-2010
North Carolina
Department of Correction
ii
Table of Contents
Table of Contents................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables and Figures .................................................................................... iv
Overview of the North Carolina Department of Correction ...................................6
Vision Statement................................................................................................................. 6
Strategic Issues.................................................................................................................... 6
Office of Research and Planning............................................................................7
Supporting Successful Decisions........................................................................................ 7
OTS Accomplishments for 2009-2010 ............................................................................... 8
I. Division of Prisons...........................................................................................10
Costs of Incarceration for the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year ...................................................... 10
I.A. Prison Admissions ......................................................................................................... 11
Prison Admission Trend ................................................................................................... 11
Type of Admissions .......................................................................................................... 11
Admissions by Sentencing Grids...................................................................................... 12
Crime Type of 2009-2010 Prison Admissions.................................................................. 13
I. B. Prison Population.......................................................................................................... 16
Prison Population Trend ................................................................................................... 16
Prison Population by Sentencing Grids ............................................................................ 16
Crime Type of End of FY 2009-2010 Prison Population ................................................. 18
Inmate Activities............................................................................................................... 19
Work ................................................................................................................................ 19
Programs ........................................................................................................................... 20
Escapes and Captures........................................................................................................ 21
Inmate Disciplinary Infractions ........................................................................................ 21
I.C. Prison Releases ............................................................................................................. 24
Prison Release Trend ........................................................................................................ 24
Type of Release................................................................................................................. 24
Time Served by Inmates Released in the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year .................................... 25
I.D. Prison Population Projections....................................................................................... 27
II. Division of Community Corrections ...............................................................28
Cost of Sanctions .............................................................................................................. 29
II.A. Probation ...................................................................................................................... 30
Probation Entry Trend....................................................................................................... 30
Crime Type of 2009-2010 Probation Entries.................................................................... 30
Probation Population by Sentencing Grids ....................................................................... 31
Type of Probation Exits .................................................................................................... 32
II.B. Post-Release Supervision ............................................................................................. 34
Post-Release Entry Trend ................................................................................................. 34
Post-Release Population by Structured Sentencing Grids ................................................ 34
Type of Post-Release Exits ............................................................................................... 35
II.C. Parole........................................................................................................................... 36
Parole Entry Trend............................................................................................................ 36
Crime Type of Parole Population ..................................................................................... 36
iii
Type of Parole Exits.......................................................................................................... 37
II.D. Community Corrections Demographics....................................................................... 38
II.F. Supervised Offender Programs & Special Initiatives ................................................... 39
Community Service Work Program: ................................................................................ 39
Sex Offender Control:....................................................................................................... 39
Electronic Monitoring/ GPS: ............................................................................................ 39
Domestic Violence Offender Control: .............................................................................. 40
School Partnership: ........................................................................................................... 40
Transition Services: .......................................................................................................... 41
Limited English Proficient (LEP) Offender Program:...................................................... 41
Victim Notification Program: ........................................................................................... 41
II.G. Supervised Population Projections............................................................................... 43
III. Criminal Justice Partnership Program............................................................44
III.A. Day Reporting Centers................................................................................................ 45
Type of Admissions .......................................................................................................... 45
Admissions by Sentencing Grid ....................................................................................... 45
DRC Program Utilization ................................................................................................. 46
Type of Exits..................................................................................................................... 47
III.B. Satellite Substance Abuse Programs ........................................................................... 49
Type of Admissions .......................................................................................................... 49
Admissions by Sentencing Grid ....................................................................................... 49
SSA Program Utilization .................................................................................................. 50
Type of Exits..................................................................................................................... 52
III.C. Resource Centers......................................................................................................... 53
Type of Admissions .......................................................................................................... 53
Admissions by Sentencing Grid ....................................................................................... 53
RC Program Utilization .................................................................................................... 54
Type of Exits..................................................................................................................... 55
IV. Division of Alcoholism and Chemical Dependency Programs .....................57
IV.A. Community-Based Substance Abuse Treatment: ....................................................... 59
DART Cherry.................................................................................................................... 59
Enrollment in DART-Cherry ............................................................................................ 59
Exits from DART-Cherry ................................................................................................. 60
Black Mountain Substance Abuse Treatment Center for Women.................................... 61
V.B Prison-Based DACDP ................................................................................................... 63
Screening and Referral for Prison – Based Programs....................................................... 63
IV.C. DACDP Brief Treatment- 48 ...................................................................................... 64
IV.D. Intermediate DACDP Programs ................................................................................. 66
IV.E. Long-Term Treatment Programs................................................................................. 69
Private Treatment Centers................................................................................................. 70
IV.F. DACDP Aftercare ....................................................................................................... 73
V. Correction Enterprises .....................................................................................74
VI. Appendices .....................................................................................................76
Appendix A. DOC Populations by County of Conviction................................................... 76
Appendix B. Listing of Division of Prisons Facilities......................................................... 83
Appendix C. Listing of the DCC Judicial District Offices .................................................. 87
iv
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1: Authorized Budget and Actual Expenditures ......................................................................6
Table I.1: Daily Cost per Inmate for Fiscal Year 2009-2010: State Prisons ..................................10
Table I.2: Daily Cost per Inmate for Fiscal Year 2009-2010: Private Contract Prisons .................10
Figure I.A.1: Total Admissions by Crime Class..............................................................................11
Figure I.A.2: Prison Admissions......................................................................................................12
Table I.A.1: Misdemeanor Prison Admissions ...............................................................................12
Table I.A.2: Felony Prison Admissions...........................................................................................13
Figure I.A.3: Crime Type of 2009-2010 Prison Admissions............................................................14
Table I.A.3: Crime Type of 2009-2010 Prison Admissions by Felon/Misdemeanant Status..........14
Table I.A.4: Demographics of All Prison Admissions: Fiscal Year 2009-2010 ............................15
Figure I.B.1: Prison Population by Crime Class..............................................................................16
Table I.B.1: Misdemeanant Prison Population ................................................................................17
Table I.B.2: Felony Prison Population.............................................................................................17
Figure I.B.2: Crime Types of Prison Population on June 30th of Each Year...................................18
Table I.B.3: Crime Type of Prison Population on June 30, 2010....................................................18
Table I.B.4: Inmate Work Assignment by Work Category .............................................................19
Table I.B.5: Inmate Program Assignments......................................................................................20
Table I.B.6: Inmate Disciplinary Infractions for 2009-2010 ...........................................................22
Table I.B.7: Demographics of Total Prison Population on June 30, 2010 ......................................23
Figure I.C.1: Prison Releases...........................................................................................................24
Figure I.C.2: Type of Releases ........................................................................................................24
Table I.D.1: Prison Population Projections......................................................................................27
Table II.1: Cost of Sanctions for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 ................................................................29
Figure II.A.1: Probation Entries by Crime Class.............................................................................30
Figure II.A.2: Probation Entries by Crime Type .............................................................................31
Table II.A.1: Misdemeanor Sentencing Table for Probation Population on June 30, 2010 ............31
Table II.A.2: Felony Sentencing Table for the Probation Population on June 30, 2010 .................32
Figure II.A.3: Probation Exits in the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year ..........................................................33
Figure II.B.1: Post-Release Entries by Fiscal Year .........................................................................34
Table II.B.1: Felony Sentencing Table for the Post-Release Population on June 30, 2010 ............35
Figure II.B.2: Post-Release Exits in the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year .....................................................35
Figure II.C.1: Parole Entries by Fiscal Year....................................................................................36
Figure II.C.2: Crime Type of Parole Population on June 30, 2010 .................................................37
Figure II.C.3: Parole Exits in the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year................................................................37
Table II.D.1: Demographics of All Community Corrections Supervision Admissions ..................38
Table II.D.2: Demographics of All Community Corrections Supervision Population....................38
Table II.F.1: Victim Notification Program in the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year.......................................42
Table II.G.1: Total Supervision Projections (Absconders Excluded*) for June 30th .....................43
Table II.G.2: Total Absconders* Projections for June 30th ............................................................43
Figure III.A.1: Referral Sources for DRC Admissions....................................................................45
Table III.A.1: Misdemeanor Admissions to DRC Programs for the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year..........46
Table III.A.2: Felony Admissions to DRC Programs for the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year.....................46
Table III.A.3: DRC Program Utilization Data FY 2009-2010 ........................................................47
Figure III.A.2: DRC Type of Exits ..................................................................................................48
v
Table III.A.4: Demographics of DRC Admissions July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010 ................48
Figure III.B.1: Referral Sources for SSA Admissions.....................................................................49
Table III.B.1: Misdemeanor Admissions to SSA Programs for the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year...........50
Table III.B.2: Felony Admissions to SSA Programs for the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year......................50
Table III.B.3: SSA Program Utilization Data FY 2009-2010 .........................................................51
Figure III.B2: SSA Program Type of Exits .....................................................................................52
Table III.B.4: Demographics of SSA Admissions July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010 .................52
Figure III.C.1: Referral Sources for RC Admissions.......................................................................53
Table III.C.1: Misdemeanor Admissions to RC Programs for the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year.............54
Table III.C.2: Felony Admissions to RC Programs for the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year........................54
Table III.C.3: RC Program Utilization Data FY 2009-2010 ...........................................................55
Figure III.C2: RC Program Type of Exits .......................................................................................56
Table III.C.4: Demographics of RC Admissions July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010 ...................56
Table IV.A.1: 2009-2010 Enrollment for DART Cherry ................................................................59
Table IV.A.2: Demographics of DART Cherry Enrollment............................................................60
Figure IV.A.1: 2009-2010 Exits from the 28-Day DART Cherry Program....................................60
Figure IV.A.2: 2009-2010 Exits from the 90-Day DART Cherry Program....................................61
Table IV.B.1: 2009-2010 Referrals to DACDP Programs by Prison Diagnostic Centers...............63
Table IV.C.1: 2009-2010 Enrollments in DACDP Brief Treatment-48..........................................64
Figure IV.C.1: 2009-2010 DACDP Brief Treatment- 48 Exits .......................................................65
Table IV.C.2: Demographics of DACDP Brief Treatment-48 Enrollments....................................65
Table IV.D.1: 2009-2010 Enrollment in Intermediate DACDP Programs......................................66
Figure IV.D.1: 2009-2010 Exits from Intermediate DACDP Programs .........................................67
Table IV.D.2: Demographics of DACDP Intermediate Treatment Enrollment ..............................68
Table IV.E.1: 2009-2010 Enrollment in Long-Term Treatment Programs .....................................69
Table IV.E.2: Demographics of Long-Term Treatment Programs..................................................69
Figure IV.E.1: 2009-2010 Exits from Long-Term Treatment Programs.........................................70
Table IV.E.3: 2009-2010 Enrollment in Private Treatment Facilities.............................................71
Table IV.E.4: Private Alcohol/Drug Treatment Centers Enrollment ..............................................71
Figure IV.E.2: 2009-2010 Exits from Private Treatment ................................................................72
Table IV.F.1: 2009-2010 Enrollment in Continuing Care...............................................................73
Table V.1: 2009-2010 Average Daily Enrolment in NCCE ............................................................75
Figure VI.A.1 Prison Entries by County of Conviction: Fiscal Year 2009-2010............................76
Figure VI.A.2: DCC Entries by County of Conviction: Fiscal Year 2009-2010............................77
Figure VI.A.3: Prison Population by County of Conviction: June 30th, 2010...............................78
Figure VI.A.4: DCC Population by County of Conviction: June 30th, 2010.................................79
Table VI.A.1: Populations by County of Conviction ......................................................................80
6
Overview of the North Carolina
Department of Correction
The North Carolina Department of Correction, one of the largest agencies in State government, is
responsible for the custody, supervision, and rehabilitation of adult offenders sentenced to
community/intermediate punishments or prison. The Department is comprised of four
operational divisions that manage offenders directly, as well as numerous administrative support
sections. The major Divisions include the Division of Prisons, the Division of Community
Corrections, the Division of Alcoholism and Chemical Dependency Programs and Correction
Enterprises.
In 1998, the Department developed a long-range strategic plan, which is based on the following
vision statement and strategic issues:
Vision Statement
We, the employees of the Department of Correction, envision an organization respected by the
citizens of North Carolina for its effectiveness in responding to the problem of crime in our
society and working collaboratively with others to prevent crime through community
involvement. We see an organization providing public safety, opportunities for offenders to
become productive citizens, and growth and development for employees. We see ourselves
contributing to the creation of a society of law-abiding, responsible citizens.
Strategic Issues
• Lead proactively regarding corrections issues.
• Develop and train employees for personal and professional growth.
• Deliver effective services and programs using research and advanced technology.
• Emphasize cost efficient management of resources and accountability for high
quality results.
At the end of the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year, the Department of Correction had 19,540 permanent
employees, primarily working directly with offenders in the community or in prisons. The
Department is funded through legislative appropriations and receipts (e.g., Correction
Enterprises). The total authorized budget and actual expenditures for the Department of
Correction over the past five fiscal years are shown in the table below.
Table 1: Authorized Budget and Actual Expenditures
Fiscal
Year
North Carolina Department of
Correction Authorized Budget Actual Expenditures
Percent Change in
Actual Expenditures
over Previous Year
2009-2010 $1,403,028,420 $1,338,634,477 -8.53%
2008-2009 $1,508,499,024 $1,463,425,417 12.11%
2007-2008 $1,311,798,560 $1,305,322,344 8.97%
2006-2007 $1,208,819,047 $1,197,827,113 6.97%
2005-2006 $1,121,569,235 $1,119,765,756 7.84%
7
Office of Research and Planning
Supporting Successful Decisions
The Office of Research and Planning is part of the Secretary’s Office and provides support
services within the Department of Correction. The mission of the Office of Research and
Planning is to assist the department and staff to make informed decisions that will result in
successful outcomes. Staff includes research and evaluation analysts, policy development
analysts, correctional planners, and statisticians.
The Research section of the Office coordinates a variety of internal and external evaluation
projects. Research assists staff to evaluate effectiveness, modify policies and programs, and
report outcomes to policy makers. Research activities include the following:
 Obtain and organize topical information on research topics.
 Prepare statistical and topical reports.
 Conduct evaluations.
 Provide data and methodology review for evaluations.
 Approve human subject research involving staff and offenders under the supervision of the
Department of Correction.
 Provide technical assistance for conducting evaluations.
The Planning/Policy Analysis section of the Office provides consultation and technical
assistance in strategic planning and policy analysis to the sections and divisions in the
Department. Planning and policy analysis activities include the following:
 Develop a structure and process for planning.
 Conduct trend analyses and organizational assessments.
 Organize and facilitate meetings of work groups engaged in planning and policy analysis.
 Research, gather and organize information for policy and programming decisions.
 Consult on methods to implement and monitor plans and policies.
 Analyze information on science-based program interventions and best practices.
The Decision Support section of the Office provides aggregate statistical information and
software applications to assist Department managers and staff to make effective decisions.
Decision Support activities include the following:
 Provide answers to statistical questions about offenders.
 Develop computer programs to extract aggregate offender data.
 Analyze and interpret statistical information.
 Develop software applications to provide information about offenders.
 Provide internet-based decision support training.
 Prepare population forecasts and utilize simulation models.
The Program Development section of the Office provides consultation and technical assistance to
departmental managers and staff to implement new and effective programs that cross division
lines. Program development activities include the following:
 Identify sources of information and contacts on effective prison, probation and substance
abuse programs.
 Coordinate and facilitate work groups to develop program proposals.
 Assimilate materials to market new program concepts with internal and external groups.
 Prepare implementation plans for new probation, prison and/or substance abuse programs.
 Develop methods for assessing the effectiveness of new programs.
8
The Grants Management section identifies, solicits, applies for and manages all federal grants
being sought and awarded to the Department. Grants management includes ensuring compliance
with all appropriate federal and state laws, regulations and guidelines. Additional grants
management responsibilities include:
 Seek grant funding opportunities to support departmental priorities and initiatives
 Develop grant proposals and applications
 Advise and assist project directors within divisions regarding project implementation and
progress
 Provide information, updates and reports as requested to the Secretary’s Office, NC General
Assembly, legislative committees and other federal, state and local boards, commissions, task
forces, etc
 Respond to external requests for agency letters of support
The Office of Transition Services (OTS) was established in September 2006 to coordinate all
internal activities related to transition and reentry. OTS provides assistance to internal and
external stakeholders in developing policies and procedures, shaping new programs and providing
training for staff in effective transition and reentry. One of the major roles of this section is to
serve as a clearinghouse for resource materials related to transition and reentry. OTS staff is
working with local communities to establish local reentry partnerships/networks. These networks
consist of service providers at the local level to address housing, employment, treatment,
transportation, child care, health care, education and training. Technical assistance and support is
provided to the networks in an effort assist communities with providing services the offender
population. Additional staff responsibilities include:
 Managing federal and state grants awarded to the Department that support successful
offender transition and reentry;
 Providing staff support to workgroups and advisory boards designed to support successful
offender reentry;
 Maintaining a statewide database of state and local resources
OTS Accomplishments for 2009-2010
 Managed the Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI) grant. PRI was operational in three counties
(Nash/Edgecombe, New Hanover and Mecklenburg) and designed to provide pre and posts
release employment services to participants. The project served 283 offenders and assisted
142 with securing employment. The average wage was $8.00.
 Managed the Offender Employment and Training Initiative (OETI) grant. OETI was designed
to provide employment assistance for offenders in 11 counties including Durham, Guilford,
Forsyth, Buncombe, Cumberland, Rowan, Pitt, Gaston, Alamance, Mecklenburg and Wake.
The Offender Job Developers provided direct employment services to 3,465 offenders in
2010. Employment was secured for 416 offenders with an average hourly wage of $8.97
across the eleven OETI counties. Job Developers enrolled 104 offenders into various types of
short-term vocational training opportunities.
 Managed the Certified Communications grant. The grant provided 197 inmates at Wake
Correctional Center, Fountain Correctional Center and New Hanover Correctional Center an
opportunity to receive short-term training and national certifications in low voltage wiring
applications. Courses included Home Audio and Entertainment Systems, Integrated Voice
mail and Messaging, Intro to Telecommunications, Intro to Network Cabling Copper-Based
Systems, Intro to Network Cabling and Fiber Optic Based Systems.
 Hosted eleven local employment forums. The forums were designed to provide information
and guidance on the structure of NCDOC Programs/Services, current NCDOC initiatives
related to job training and employment preparation, importance of collaboration/partnerships
9
for successful offender reentry and the role of partner agencies in offender workforce
development. Seven-hundred and fifty-three (753) individuals attended. Attendance included
(476) individuals from various state agencies, (12) individuals from various federal agencies,
(15) employers and (250) faith and community based service providers.
10
I. Division of Prisons
The Division of Prisons is responsible for the custody, supervision, and rehabilitation of inmates.
As of June 30, 2010, there were 70 state prisons in North Carolina and three private non-profit
contracted facilities. In order to protect the community, staff, and inmates, the Division of
Prisons classifies prisons, inmates, and prison beds according to prison security designation,
inmate custody classification, and bed security levels, respectively.
The Secretary of the Department of Correction assigns the security designation of the prison
based on the physical design and structure of the prison, the type of cells in the prison (e.g. single
cells, dormitories), and the intensity and type of staff supervision (e.g. armed, unarmed). As of
June 30, 2010, there were 14 close, 23 medium, and 33 minimum security state prisons, and three
minimum security contracted facilities.
The Division receives felons and misdemeanants with prison sentences ranging from a minimum
of 90 days for certain misdemeanors to life imprisonment or death for crimes such as rape or
murder. Prison staff classify the individual inmate’s custody by analyzing factors such as current
crime, length of sentence, past criminal history, and past prison behavior record. At the end of
the 2009-2010 fiscal year, 48 percent of inmates in the prison population were assigned to
medium custody, 33 percent to minimum and 19 percent to close custody.
The Division provides rehabilitative activities for inmates. These activities include jobs,
educational programs, vocational programs, cognitive behavioral interventions, substance abuse
interventions, mental health interventions, and religious services.
Costs of Incarceration for the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year
The Department calculates the average cost of incarcerating minimum, medium, and close
custody inmates annually. The figures include the direct costs of inmate supervision/custody and
programs/activities, and indirect administrative costs for Department support of prisons. The
daily cost of incarcerating one inmate ranged from $64.59 in minimum custody to $88.39 in close
custody, with an average of $74.34 in 2009-2010 compared to an average of $73.85 in the 2008-
2009 fiscal year. The Department also had contracts with two private non-profit minimum
security substance abuse treatment facilities and one private non-profit minimum security
community re-entry facility during the year.
Table I.1: Daily Cost per Inmate for Fiscal Year 2009-2010: State Prisons
Inmate Custody Level Average Daily Population Daily Cost Per Inmate
Minimum 13,176 $64.59
Medium 19,476 $76.22
Close 7,590 $88.39
Average 40,240 $74.34
Table I.2: Daily Cost per Inmate for Fiscal Year 2009-2010: Private Contract Prisons
Private Facility 2009-2010 Average Daily Population Daily Cost Per Inmate
Mary Frances Center 99 $89.02
Evergreen Rehabilitation Center 99 $68.41
11
I.A. Prison Admissions
Prison Admission Trend
During fiscal year 2009-2010, there were 28,164 admissions to North Carolina prisons. Figure
I.A.1 shows the total number of admissions beginning in fiscal year 1999-2000, by felony and
misdemeanant status.
Figure I.A.1: Total Admissions by Crime Class
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10
Fiscal Year
Entries
Total Felon Misdemeanant
Fiscal
Year
1999-
2000
2000-
2001
2001-
2002
2002-
2003
2003-
2004
2004-
2005
2005-
2006
2006-
2007
2007-
2008
2008-
2009
2009-
2010
Total 25,273 23,299 23,760 23,593 25,326 26,070 27,257 27,936 28,535 30,350 28,164
Admissions to prisons decreased by 7.2% during the 2009-2010 fiscal year, with 2,186 fewer
admissions than in FY 2008-2009. This decrease is significantly different from than the average
2.0% rate of increase for the last ten fiscal years. The last fiscal year to show a decline in
admissions was 2003-2004 which had 0.7% fewer admissions than 2002-2003.
Type of Admissions
There are four types of admissions to prison: direct admissions, probation revocations,
parole/post-release supervision revocations, and safekeepers/pre-sentence diagnostic inmates.
Direct admissions result from a court-imposed active sentence to prison. Revocations are
violations of the conditions of probation, parole, or post-release supervision, including
committing new crimes. Safekeepers are un-sentenced defendants admitted to prison when
detention in the local jail poses a danger to the inmate or when medical care is needed. Pre-sentence
diagnostic admissions (PSD) are inmates who have been convicted, but the judge
requests an assessment before sentencing.
More than half (53.6%) the prison admissions in fiscal year 2009-2010 were probation
revocations1 or parole/post-release revocations and 42.6% were from direct admissions.
Safekeepers and pre-sentence diagnostic admissions accounted for 3.8% of admissions. Figure
I.A.2 shows prison admissions by type.
1 Fifty-four percent of prison admissions due to revocation is not the same as the probation revocation rate. These
prison admissions comprise a subset of offenders who had a probation revocation for technical violations or new
crimes. It is computed as a percentage of offenders entering prison, whereas the probation revocation rate is the
percentage of offenders who exited community supervision.
12
Figure I.A.2: Prison Admissions
14,718
388
11,986
1,072
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
Direct Probation Revocation Parole/Post-Release
Revocation
Safekeeper/PSD
Admission Type
Entries
Admissions by Sentencing Grids
The Structured Sentencing Act became effective in 1994. This sentencing policy prescribes
sentencing options for judges based on the severity of the crime and the prior record of the
offender. Judges are provided with specific sentencing options for the type and length of
sentence that may be imposed. DWI admissions and pre-structured sentencing inmates are
sentenced under different laws. Tables I.A.1 and I.A.2 illustrate the distribution of fiscal year
2009-2010 prison admissions for misdemeanants and felons.
Table I.A.1: Misdemeanor Prison Admissions
Prior Record Level
Crime Class I II III
Non-
Structured Total (%)
A1 109 438 1,349 0 1,896 20.2%
1 426 984 3,018 0 4,428 47.2%
2 34 146 188 0 368 3.9%
3 3 7 8 0 18 (<1%)
DWI 27 5 0 2,634 2,666 28.4%
Total 599 1,580 4,563 2,634 9,376
% (6%) (17%) (49%) (28%)
Convictions for Class 1 misdemeanors represent the largest group of misdemeanor prison
admissions. Offenses in Class 1 included larceny (31%), traffic violations (27%), and non-trafficking
drug (20%). Convictions for Driving While Impaired (DWI) were the next largest
contributors to misdemeanor admissions. These convictions were not part of Structured
Sentencing but rather the Safe Roads Act of 1983. The third most numerous crime class for
misdemeanor admissions to prison were Class A1. Almost all of the Class A1 offenses were
assaults (89%). The remainder of the misdemeanor offenses resulting in an admission to prison
included worthless checks, assaults, property and public order offenses.
Seventy-eight percent of all felony prison admissions in fiscal year 2009-2010 were for Class F
through Class I offenses. Class H offenses represented the largest group of felons admitted to
prison with 6,591 or 37% of all admissions in fiscal year 2009-2010. The majority of Class H
admissions were for breaking and entering (31%), followed by larceny (21%), and by non-
13
trafficking drug crimes (18%). Class I offenses made up the next largest group, sixty-nine
percent of which were for non-trafficking drug offenses but also included breaking and entering
(13%) and forgery (7%). Class G offenses included drug (non-trafficking) offenses (28%), as
well as public order crimes (24%), robbery (21%), and drugs trafficking (15%). Sexual offenses
(23%), public order crimes (18%), drugs trafficking (18%), and Habitual DWI (16%) were the
most frequent Class F offenses.
Table I.A.2: Felony Prison Admissions
Prior Record Level
Undefined or
Crime
Class I II III IV V VI Non-
Structured
Total (%)
A 49 13 7 6 0 2 0 77 (<1%)
B1 51 36 15 8 5 2 0 117 (<1%)
B2 105 98 51 26 4 4 0 288 (2%)
C 156 173 209 318 144 123 31 1,154 (7%)
D 396 311 136 99 22 13 3 980 (6%)
E 419 383 157 125 36 28 0 1,148 (6%)
F 492 501 343 220 64 65 3 1,688 (10%)
G 604 724 579 466 113 97 0 2,583 (15%)
H 1,124 2,157 1,376 1,190 381 357 6 6,591 (37%)
I 513 983 625 544 179 191 0 3,035 (17%)
Other 4 0 0 0 0 0 51 55 (<1%)
Total 3,913 5,379 3,498 3,002 948 882 94 17,716
(%) (22%) (30%) (20%) (17%) (5%) (5%) (1%)
Note: The totals from tables I.A.1 and I.A.2 do not include safekeeper and pre-sentence diagnostic admissions.
The remaining felony classes contain the most serious offenses. Class A offenses include first
degree murder and carry a punishment of death or life without parole. All Class B1 offenses were
sexual assaults. Most B2 admissions were for second degree murder (77%) followed by sexual
assaults (17%) and first degree murder (5%). In Class C, 67% of admissions were habitual felons,
12% of admissions were for sexual assault, and 9% of admissions were for assault. Sixty-six
percent of Class D admissions were for robbery, 14% for burglary, and 8% for manslaughter.
Finally, Class E admissions were mostly for crimes against a person including assaults (44%),
robbery (22%), and kidnapping and abduction (15%).
Crime Type of 2009-2010 Prison Admissions
Overall, 65% of the 2009-2010 prison admissions were for felony crime convictions. Crimes
resulting in a prison sentence are grouped in one of three categories: public order, property, and
crimes against a person.
The most frequent crime type for prison admissions was public order. This crime type accounted
for 46% of all admissions during the 2009-2010 fiscal year. This crime type included drug
offenses trafficking and non-trafficking (5,834), Habitual Driving While Impaired (2,909), traffic
14
violations (1,693), and habitual felons (778). Among public order crime admissions, 60% were
felons.
Property crimes accounted for 29% of all prison admissions. The most frequent offenses in this
category were larceny (2,846) and breaking/entering (2,745). Other offenses included fraud
(1,131), burglary (305), forgery (273), and auto theft (251). The majority of admissions (73%)
for property crimes were felons. Figure I.A.3 shows the number of admissions by crime type for
fiscal year 2009-2010 prison admissions.
Figure I.A.3: Crime Type of 2009-2010 Prison Admissions
7,951 (29%)
12,518 (46%)
6,573 (25%)
50 (< 1%)
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
Crimes Against a Person Property Crimes Public Order Crimes Not Reported
Crime Type
Entries
Note: This chart does not include safekeeper and pre-sentence diagnostic admissions.
There were 6,573 admissions for crimes against a person, which accounted for 24% of all prison
admissions in fiscal year 2009-2010. Forty-six percent of these crimes were assaults (3,053).
This category also included robberies (1,585), sexual offenses (880) and homicides (541). As
with property and public order crimes, the majority (67%) of crimes against a person were felon
admissions. Table I.A.3 shows 2009-2010 admissions by crime type and felon and misdemeanant
statuses.
Table I.A.3: Crime Type of 2009-2010 Prison Admissions by Felon/Misdemeanant Status
Crime Type Felon Misdemeanant Undefined Total (%)
Crimes Against a Person 4,379 2,194 0 6,573 24%
Property Crimes 5,796 2,155 0 7,951 29%
Public Order Crimes 7,493 5,025 0 12,518 46%
Not Reported 5 2 43 50 (<1%)
Total (%) 17,673 65% 9,376 35% 43 (<1%) 27,092
Note: This total does not include safekeeper and pre-sentence diagnostic admissions.
15
Table I.A.4: Demographics of All Prison Admissions: Fiscal Year 2009-2010
Age Female Male
Category White Black Other White Black Other Total
13-18 28 45 1 279 857 85 1,295 (5%)
19-21 128 106 10 933 1,839 170 3,186 (11%)
22-25 300 210 14 1,381 2,106 290 4,301 (15%)
26-30 417 243 21 1,675 2,194 416 4,966 (18%)
31-35 350 177 20 1,348 1,713 282 3,890 (14%)
36-40 308 185 18 1,231 1,490 177 3,409 (12%)
41-45 239 200 11 1,008 1,303 126 2,887 (10%)
46-50 164 138 8 831 1,108 67 2,316 (8%)
51-55 60 55 2 443 597 31 1,188 (4%)
56-60 18 20 . 173 267 13 491 (2%)
61-65 9 1 . 70 75 3 158 (<1%)
66-70 4 2 . 24 9 3 42 (<1%)
71+ 2 . . 23 10 . 35 (<1%)
Total 2,027 1,382 105 9,419 13,568 1,663 28,164
(%) (7%) (5%) (0%) (33%) (48%) (6%)
16
I. B. Prison Population
Prison Population Trend
On June 30, 2010, there were 40,102 offenders in the prison system, representing a 1.8% decrease
from the previous fiscal year. Figure I.B.1 shows the prison year end population from fiscal year
1999-2000 by felon-misdemeanant status. The prison population had continued to grow over the
previous nine years, with this being the first year with a slight decrease in the year end
population. The ten year period shows an average growth of 2.8%. There were 189 safekeepers
in the prison population on June 30, 2010.
Figure I.B.1: Prison Population by Crime Class
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Fiscal Year Ending
Population
Total Felon Misdemeanant
Date 6/30/00 6/30/01 6/30/02 6/30/03 6/30/04 6/30/05 6/30/06 6/30/07 6/30/08 6/30/09 6/30/10
Population 31,581 31,899 33,021 33,583 35,205 36,663 37,467 38,423 39,326 40,824 40,102
Prison Population by Sentencing Grids
Although 34% of prison admissions in fiscal year 2009-2010 were misdemeanants, this group
comprised only 6% of the population on June 30, 2010. This is largely due to shorter sentence
lengths for misdemeanor offenses. Thirty-nine percent of misdemeanant inmates in the prison
population at the end of the fiscal year were incarcerated for Class 1 offenses. Three-quarters of
these convictions were for larceny (35%), traffic violations (28%) or drugs (non-trafficking)
charges (18%). Most had a Prior Record Level of II or III. Thirty-five percent of misdemeanants
in the population were convicted for DWI and another 23% were incarcerated for a Class A1
offense. The majority of Class A1 convictions were for assaults (90%). Table I.B.1 shows the
crime class and prior record level for misdemeanants in prison at the end of Fiscal Year 2009-
2010.
17
Table I.B.1: Misdemeanant Prison Population
Prior Record Level
Crime Class I II III
Undefined or
Non-
Structured Total (%)
A1 20 79 422 0 521 (23%)
1 52 122 715 0 889 (39%)
2 3 13 22 0 38 (2%)
3 0 0 1 0 1 (<1%)
DWI 4 0 0 794 798 (35%)
Other/Undefined 0 0 0 4 4 (<1%)
Total 79 214 1,160 798 2,251
(%) (4%) (10%) (52%) (35%)
The profile of the felon inmate population was very different from the profile of felon admissions
to prison. Class A-E offenses represented 21% of prison admissions during 2009-2010 but
accounted for 60% of the prison population on June 30, 2010. These felons with long sentences
remain in the population over an extended period of time and account for the projected growth in
the prison population in the next few years. For example, consider the difference in the
admissions for Class A offenders and the number in the population. There were 77 Class A
admissions last fiscal year and on June 30, 2010 there were 1,681 in the population. The sentence
for these offenders is either life in prison or death. Table I.B.2 shows crime class and prior record
level for inmates in prison at the end of the fiscal year.
Table I.B.2: Felony Prison Population
Prior Record Level
Crime Class I II III IV V VI
Undefined or
Non-
Structured Total
A 846 111 80 45 8 9 582 1,681 (4%)
B1 692 487 243 170 36 30 0 1,658 (4%)
B2 1,088 1,157 593 367 81 48 1 3,335 (9%)
C 733 1,143 1,585 2,340 878 849 804 8,332 (22%)
D 1,560 1,362 999 744 220 168 341 5,394 (14%)
E 647 707 361 366 114 101 6 2,302 (6%)
F 1,028 774 602 447 174 185 52 3,262 (9%)
G 981 862 785 829 219 253 3 3,932 (10%)
H 579 1,227 1,034 1,165 554 690 67 5,316 (14%)
I 185 368 254 274 102 142 4 1,329 (4%)
Other 16 2 0 0 0 2 1,101 1,121 (3%)
Total 8,355 8,200 6,536 6,747 2,386 2,477 2,961 37,662
(%) (22%) (22%) (17%) (18%) (6%) (7%) (8%)
Note: The totals from tables I.B.1 and I.B.2 do not include offenders committed as safekeepers.
18
Crime Type of End of FY 2009-2010 Prison Population
Figure I.B.2 illustrates the crime types of the prison population at the end of the fiscal years for
2000 through 2010. There have been changes in the composition of the prison population during
this time period, and these changes may continue over time. The proportion of public order
crimes in the prison population has increased over the past ten years, from 29% of the population
in 2000 to 36% in 2010. There has been a decrease in the proportion of both crimes against a
person and property offenses in the prison population. Crimes against a person comprised 52% of
the population in 2000 and decreased to 49% in 2010. The proportion of property offenses in the
prison population has decreased over the past ten years, from 19% of the population in 2000 to
15% in 2010.
Figure I.B.2: Crime Types of Prison Population on June 30th of Each Year
Person
Property
Public Order
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Fiscal Year End
Prison Population
Note: These totals do not include offenders committed as safekeepers.
Crimes against a person comprised the largest proportion of convictions for inmates in the prison
population on June 30, 2010. The most frequent of these crimes were sexual offenses (25%),
followed by robbery (24%) and second degree murder (17%). Approximately 11% of the prison
population on June 30, 2010 was incarcerated for first degree murder. Inmates committed for
public order crimes were the second most numerous. The most frequent of these crimes included
drug crimes (41%) and habitual felon convictions (36%). Nine percent of inmates in prison for
public order crimes were convicted for DWI. Inmates committed for property crimes represented
the smallest proportion. The most frequent crimes in this category included breaking and
entering (36%) and larceny (22%). Table I.B.3 shows the crime type of inmates in prison at fiscal
year end by felon and misdemeanant statuses.
Table I.B.3: Crime Type of Prison Population on June 30, 2010
Crime Type Felon Misdemeanant Undefined Total (%)
Crimes Against a Person 18,956 559 0 19,515 (49%)
Property Crimes 5,680 446 0 6,126 (15%)
Public Order Crimes 12,966 1,246 0 14,212 (36%)
Not Reported 51 0 9 60 (<1%)
Total (%) 37,653 (94%) 2,251 (6%) 9 (<1%) 39,913
19
Inmate Activities
The Division of Prisons coordinates a wide range of inmate work, educational, and rehabilitative
programs. Inmates are required to either work full-time or participate in a full-time program.
Only inmates who pose a security risk, have health problems, or are in the admissions process are
exempt from the policy.
Work
In each prison facility, inmates are assigned a variety of jobs. Inmates are paid an incentive wage,
which is set by statute for the majority of these duties. Currently the incentive wage ranges from
$.40 to $1.00 per day depending on the work assignment. Most inmates who work (81%) do so
inside prison facilities. Table I.B.4 shows the average daily assignment by each category of job.
Table I.B.4: Inmate Work Assignment by Work Category
Inmate Work Assignments
In Prison Facilities
Average Daily Assigned
During 2009-2010
Unit Services 6,448
Food Service 3,606
Correction Enterprises 2,056
Prison Maintenance 1,966
Construction 389
Other Jobs 1,655
Outside Prison Facilities
Road Squads 2,289
Community Work Crews 154
State and Local Government 697
Work Release 721
Total 19,981
Unit Services - The largest assignment in prison facilities is Unit Services. Prison inmates in
these jobs perform janitorial and general maintenance duties. This assignment provides a relevant
job skill and is beneficial to the prison system because it reduces the cost of operating the
facilities.
Food Service – Inmates work in the kitchens of all prison facilities preparing and serving food to
other inmates. This assignment provides a relevant job skill and is beneficial to the prison system
because it reduces the cost of operating the facilities.
Correction Enterprises - Correction Enterprises is a separate division of the Department of
Correction, which administers industries at prison sites. Enterprise jobs provide opportunities to
put close and medium custody inmates to work inside prisons. Inmates are employed making car
license tags, street and highway signs, farming, food processing, printing, sewing, laundering, and
manufacturing. These jobs teach workers job skills and a work ethic which will enable them to
find employment upon release from prison. These jobs pay up to $3 per day based on skills
required for the job.
20
Prison Maintenance - Prison inmates are also involved in grounds keeping, light construction,
repair, and maintenance projects at prisons. These jobs include roofing, plumbing, electrical
wiring, and other unit improvements.
Construction - In addition to cleaning and maintaining prisons, some inmates are assigned to new
prison construction projects. Inmates are generally chosen based on pre-existing skills in the
construction industry. Like the other categories of work, this experience gives inmates valuable
work experience prior to release and helps to reduce the cost of new prison construction.
Road Squads - Minimum and medium custody inmates work on the state's roads, patching
potholes, clearing right-of-ways and picking up litter. Medium custody inmates work under the
supervision of armed correctional officers. Minimum custody inmates work under the direction of
Department of Transportation employees.
Community Work Crew and State and Local Government Agencies - Minimum or medium
custody inmates are assigned to Community Work Crews. One correctional officer supervises a
crew often inmates who perform short-term, labor-intensive projects such as hurricane cleanup,
litter cleanup, painting schools and cleaning school buses. State and local government agencies
have labor contracts for inmates to work for these agencies, often involving janitorial services and
grounds keeping.
Work Release - Inmates who have proven themselves trustworthy for limited release from
custody are allowed to leave the prison unit for jobs. These inmates are nearing their release date
and work for businesses in the community. North Carolina started the first work release program
in the country in 1957. Inmates on work release receive prevailing market wages from their
employers, but must pay a room-and-board fee to the prison unit. For fiscal year 2009-2010
inmates paid the Department of Correction $3,171,127 in per diem and $1,172,509 for
transportation and job-related expenses. They also paid child support and restitution totaling
$911,211. During this period inmates paid an additional $961,354 for personal expenses, spousal
support and other family expenses.
Programs
Inmates are recommended for participation in programs based on interests, abilities, needs and
whether the time remaining on their sentence allows completion of the program. At large
institutions, academic and vocational education programs are offered to inmates on a full-time
basis. These programs are offered on a part-time basis at other institutions.
Table I.B.5: Inmate Program Assignments
Average Daily Assignment for 2009-2010 Fiscal Year
Full Time Part Time
Academic Education 2,086 2,428
Vocational Education 2,236 846
Life Skills Programs 202 3,449
Academic Programs - The Division of Prisons works with the Community College System to
provide a full range of academic programs in prison. Adult basic education (ABE) is the primary
academic program for inmates. ABE provides to adult and youth inmates the basic knowledge
and skills necessary to become literate. Educational programs also prepare inmates for
meaningful and satisfying roles as working, contributing members of society. One hundred
percent of prison facilities offer academic programs for inmates. In the 2009-2010 fiscal year,
2,347 inmates passed the General Education Development (GED) test, 1,008 earned AA Degrees,
21
and 154 received college diplomas. Associate degree programs are offered by the Community
College System, and bachelor degree programs are offered at two prison sites through Shaw
University, a private university based in Raleigh, NC. In addition, the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill has offered correspondence courses to inmates for more than 30 years.
The Department of Correction contracts with the university to provide Independent Studies
courses and a limited number of university credit classroom courses
Vocational Programs - A wide variety of vocational programs such as computer literacy, food
service training, electrical engineering technology, brick masonry, and job readiness are provided
through local community colleges. Participation in these programs can help inmates obtain work
with Correction Enterprises or a work release assignment. There were 1,650 Vocational
Certificates awarded in the last fiscal year.
Life Skills Programs – Life skills programs include several types of programs such as parenting
skills, and Cognitive Behavioral Intervention (CBI). CBI programs teach offenders new ways of
thinking that can lead to changes in their behavior and actions, and ultimately affect their criminal
conduct. CBI programs use a combination of approaches to increase an offender’s awareness of
self and others. This awareness is coupled with the teaching of social skills to assist the offender
with interpersonal problems. These specific types of intervention programs assist offenders in
“restructuring” their thought process and teaches “cognitive skills” to assist in basic decision-making
and problem-solving. These programs are lead by prison or community college staff that
have been trained by the Department of Correction.
Escapes and Captures
The primary goal of the Department is to protect the community. However, some inmates escape
from prison each year though most are apprehended. In 2009-2010 there were 13 escapes.
Minimum custody inmates are often on work release and participate in other activities in the
community. Many escapes are the result of the minimum custody inmate not returning to the
prison on time from his/her job, so a capture is recorded the same day. All 13 inmates who
escaped during the 2009-2010 fiscal year were captured by July 10, 2010.
Inmate Disciplinary Infractions
Inmate conformity to prison rules is necessary for the orderly, safe, and secure operation of
correctional facilities. Effective, fair, and consistent disciplinary procedures enhance the orderly
operation of the facilities and reinforce appropriate behavior and responsibility. The disciplinary
offenses were reclassified in November 2000 into four classes from five, and all substance
possession offenses (e.g., alcohol or drugs) are now Class A. The most serious offenses remain in
Class A, and Class D offenses are the least serious infractions. An inmate can be charged with an
attempt to commit an offense, and that attempt is in the same class as the infraction itself.
In the 2009-2010 fiscal year there were 63,329 infractions (see Table I.B.6), which is a 6%
increase over the number of infractions during the 2008-2009 fiscal year (59,609 infractions).
More than 13% (8,083) were Class A infractions, of which 24% were for substance possession.
The next most frequent Class A offense was Involvement with Gang or STG, with 19% in the
2009-2010 fiscal year. There were 17,445 Class B infractions, including sexual act, damaging
property, weapon possession, interfering with staff and lock tampering. The majority of the
infractions in the 2009-2010 fiscal year were for Class C offenses, with 32,550 or 51% of the
total infractions for the year. Out of these, 46%, or 14,906 were for disobeying an order. Other
Class C infractions include profane language, fighting, unauthorized leave, bartering, threatening
staff, and theft of property. Possession of unauthorized items (including clothing and money),
being in an unauthorized location, and gambling are some of the infractions that make up the
Class D infractions.
22
Table I.B.6: Inmate Disciplinary Infractions for 2009-2010
Class Infraction Count
A Substance Possession 1,923
Assault Staff (with Weapon, Throwing Liquids or Sexual Intent) 781
Refuse to Submit to a Drug/Breath Test 463
Assault Person with Weapon 933
Involvement with Gang or STG 1,499
Fight Involving Weapons 238
Other Inmate Assault 100
Attempt Class A Offense 741
Other 1,405
Class A Total 8,083
B Sexual Act 2,939
Damage State/Another’s Property 836
Lock Tampering 1,566
Weapon Possession 870
High Risk Act 1,106
Interfere with Staff 547
Threaten to Harm/Injure Staff 1,575
Other 8,006
Class B Total 17,445
C Disobey Order 14,906
Profane Language 7,239
Unauthorized Leave 2,210
Fighting 3,033
Create Offensive Condition 262
Barter/Trade or Loan Money 1,119
Misuse or Unauthorized Use of Phone/Mail 1,097
Theft of Property 1,307
Unauthorized Funds 385
Other 992
Class C Total 32,550
D Unauthorized Items (No threat contraband) 2,228
Unauthorized Location 1,813
Gambling 332
Illegal Clothing 391
Other 487
Class D Total 5,251
Total Infractions 63,329
23
Presumptive punishments are established for each infraction such as: confinement in disciplinary
segregation for up to 60 days, demotion in custody, sentence reduction credits, and suspension of
privileges, including radio, organized sports, visitation, or other leisure time activities. There is
also an administrative fee of ten dollars paid by inmates found guilty of committing an infraction,
to offset the costs of staff time.
Table I.B.7: Demographics of Total Prison Population on June 30, 2010
Age Female Male
Category White Black Other White Black Other Total
13-18 8 15 2 102 461 36 624 (2%)
19-21 46 64 4 582 1,788 163 2,647 (7%)
22-25 181 138 11 1,249 2,736 372 4,687 (12%)
26-30 276 187 20 1,913 3,497 666 6,559 (16%)
31-35 300 169 31 1,768 3,462 589 6,319 (16%)
36-40 276 151 13 1,814 2,991 421 5,666 (14%)
41-45 238 170 17 1,653 2,537 276 4,891 (12%)
46-50 175 122 12 1,465 2,203 163 4,140 (10%)
51-55 75 51 5 908 1,223 109 2,371 (6%)
56-60 34 29 . 505 610 40 1,218 (3%)
61-65 17 6 . 302 244 20 589 (1%)
66-70 9 2 1 146 84 6 248 (<1%)
71+ 7 . . 89 43 4 143 (<1%)
Total 1,642 1,104 116 12,496 21,879 2,865 40,102
(%) (4%) (3%) (0%) (31%) (55%) (7%)
24
I.C. Prison Releases
Prison Release Trend
During the fiscal year 2009-2010, there were 28,889 releases from prisons. This 0.1% increase in
releases from the previous year continues the upward trend started in the 2002-2003 fiscal year.
Figure I.C.1 shows prison release by year beginning with fiscal year 1999-2000.
Figure I.C.1: Prison Releases
16,000
18,000
20,000
22,000
24,000
26,000
28,000
30,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Fiscal Year Ending
Total
Fiscal
Year
1999-
2000
2000-
2001
2001-
2002
2002-
2003
2003-
2004
2004-
2005
2005-
2006
2006-
2007
2007-
2008
2008-
2009
2009-
2010
Releases 25,614 22,806 22,638 23,034 23,709 24,618 26,457 26,986 27,637 28,860 28,889
Type of Release
Releases from prison are affected by sentencing policies. Inmates are usually released from
prison due to the expiration of their sentence, released on post-release (under structured
sentencing) or on parole (sentences prior to Structured Sentencing). The majority (83%) of
releases from prison in fiscal year 2009-2010 were due to the expiration of an inmate’s sentence.
Table I.C.2 shows the exit type for inmates released from prison during Fiscal Year 2009-2010.
Figure I.C.2: Type of Releases
1,092 (4%)
24,026 (83%)
1,210 (4%) 2,359 (8%)
202 (1%)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Expiration of
Sentence
Parole Post-Release Release
Safekeep/PSD
Other
Exit Type
Release
25
The number of inmates on post-release supervision continues to increase steadily. In 1998-1999
there were only 235 releases on post-release, 1,051 in 2000-2001 and 2,359 in the 2009-2010
fiscal year. These are releases of inmates incarcerated for Class B1 to Class E offenses under
Structured Sentencing. Inmates who exit prison on post-release have a mandatory nine months of
supervision upon release.
The releases due to parole have decreased steadily over the past few years, since only non-structured
sentence inmates are eligible for parole. In fiscal year 1998-1999, 21% of prison exits
were for parole, 13% in 2000-2001 and only 4% of prison exits for fiscal year 2009-2010. This
decrease in parole type exits is expected to continue since the proportion of the prison population
sentenced prior to Structured Sentencing will continue to decrease.
Safekeeper and Pre-sentenced diagnostic (PSD) releases are un-sentenced inmates who are held
temporarily in prison. Most prison exits in the category labeled “Other” were court ordered
releases, but also included the death of the inmate, Interstate Compact, and execution. There was
no execution in 2009-2010.
Time Served by Inmates Released in the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year
North Carolina enacted numerous sentencing laws in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s that govern
when and how inmates are released from prison. In 1994, North Carolina enacted Structured
Sentencing guidelines. The purpose of Structured Sentencing is to reserve prison for the most
serious and chronic offender, and to incarcerate those offenders for longer periods of time. Less
serious and less chronic offenders receive punishments in the community, or shorter prison
sentences. Structured Sentencing abolished discretionary parole release and authorized judges to
set a minimum and maximum sentence for felons and a flat sentence for misdemeanants, based on
the severity of the crime of conviction and the prior record level of the offender. Felony
Structured Sentencing inmates must serve the entire minimum sentence and may serve the
maximum sentence, an additional 20% above the minimum sentence. For example, an inmate
must serve 5 years and may serve up to 6 years unless he/she earns credits off the maximum
sentence for good behavior, working and participating in programs. Therefore, all felony inmates
sentenced under Structured Sentencing will serve at least 100% of their minimum sentence.
In FY 2009-2010, 17,038 Structured Sentencing felons were released from prison. These inmates
served, on average, 22.21 months in prison, serving 109% of their minimum sentence. These
releases reflect inmates with relatively short sentences for less serious offenses. The amount of
time served increases each year as inmates who receive longer sentences under Structured
Sentencing are released. This increase is expected to continue for several years.
Judges order misdemeanants to serve a specific sentence and they can earn 4 days per month off
their sentence for good behavior, working, and participating in programs. For example, a
misdemeanor inmate who has a sentence of 4 months must serve 3.5 months and may serve up to
4 months. During this period there were 6,597 Structured Sentencing misdemeanants released,
having served an average of 3.82 months and 96% of their sentence.
Prior to Structured Sentencing, inmates were sentenced under several different sentencing laws
which allowed the Parole Commission to release inmates early from prison to parole. The major
determinants of when inmates were released from prison under these parole-eligibility laws
depended on the good time and gain time credits the inmate earned. Prior to Structured
Sentencing, as soon as the inmate entered prison, he/she was awarded good time credits which
reduced the sentence by 50%, and he/she could also earn additional gain time credits off of the
sentence for positive behaviors.
26
In fiscal year 2009-2010, there were 214 non-Structured Sentencing felons released from prison
for the first time. Those who were paroled and then returned to prison were excluded from these
calculations. Since these inmates represented some very serious offenses, they served an average
of 218 months before release. These inmates served, on average, 54% of their court-imposed
sentences, due to good time, gain time and parole eligibility rules. During this period, 3,188 non-
Structured Sentencing misdemeanants were released from prison; the majority was serving time
for Driving While Impaired (DWI) convictions that fall under the Safe Roads Act. These inmates
served, on average, 6.5 months and 48% of their court-imposed sentence due to good time, gain
time and parole eligibility rules.
27
I.D. Prison Population Projections
Table I.D.1 shows 10-year prison population projections by fiscal year. The prison population
projections were completed in two parts. The Sentencing Commission prepared prison population
projections for all offenders sentenced on or after July 1, 2010 (new entries). The Department of
Correction prepared projections for all offenders in prison as of June 30, 2011 (resident prison
population). The final combined projections take into account the decline of the resident prison
population (structured sentencing releases, parole releases, and “max-outs”) and the buildup of the
new inmates (new sentences, probation revocations, parole revocations, and post-release
supervision revocations). Added to these figures is the estimated number of safekeepers and DWI
offenders held in the state prison system.
Table I.D.1: Prison Population Projections
FISCAL PROJECTION
YEAR as of June 30
Estimate Of Expanded
Operating Prison
Capacity1
Estimate Of Standard
Operating Prison
Capacity2
2010/11 41,811 39,954 34,246
2011/12 41,987 41,672 35,602
2012/13 42,013 41,924 35,796
2013/14 42,267 41,924 35,796
2014/15 42,562 41,924 35,796
2015/16 42,898 41,924 35,796
2016/17 43,220 41,924 35,796
2017/18 43,664 41,924 35,796
2018/19 44,208 41,924 35,796
2019/20 44,840 41,924 35,796
Prepared February 2011 by the Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission in conjunction with the Department of
Correction’s Office of Research and Planning
These projections include both the Expanded Operating Capacity (EOC) 1 and the Standard
Operating Capacity (SOC) 2 of all prison facilities. Based on these figures, the projected prison
population will exceed both standard and expanded operating prison capacity for all ten years of
the projection. The projected increase in the prison population can be attributed to changes in two
of the primary determining factors of the prison population: 1) an increase in the number of new
convictions for new crimes, which directly impacts the number of prison admissions; and 2) Fair
Sentencing Act (FSA) and pre-FSA inmates are serving longer sentences than previously
projected.
1 Expanded Operating Capacity (EOC) is the number of inmates housed in dormitories that operate at varying
percentages (not to exceed 130%) beyond their Standard Operating Capacity (SOC), plus the number of single cells
with one inmate per cell, plus the number of single cells that house two inmates per cell that meet American
Correctional Association (ACA) standards for space per inmate.
2 Standard Operating Capacity (SOC) is the number of single cells with one inmate per cell plus the number of inmates
who can be housed in dormitories by dividing the gross square feet of each dormitory by 50 square feet and rounding
to the closest double bunk configuration.
28
II. Division of Community Corrections
The Division of Community Corrections provides supervision of offenders sentenced to probation or
released from the Division of Prisons on parole or post-release supervision. Probation/parole officers
supervise offenders in the community by enforcing compliance with the conditions of probation, parole
or post-release supervision, and monitoring offender behavior. As of June 30, 2010 there were 111,743
offenders under the supervision of the Division of Community Corrections.
The Structured Sentencing Act (SSA), enacted in 1994, provides judicial guidelines to sentence
offenders to a community punishment, intermediate punishment, or active sentence in prison. The SSA
prioritizes prison resources for the most serious and chronic offenders and shifts some less serious, less
chronic offenders from prison sentences to intermediate punishments in the community. Intermediate
punishments are designed to be very intrusive and intense, restricting the offender’s liberty while they
remain in the community; community punishments are not as restrictive. The judge determines whether
to order an intermediate or a community punishment based on the seriousness of the offense and the
offender’s prior criminal record. An offender placed on intermediate punishment requires at least one
of the following sanctions: special probation, residential community corrections (RCC), electronic
house arrest (EHA), intensive supervision (ISC), day reporting center (DRC) or drug treatment court
(DTC). Examples of community punishments are traditional probation, community service, and victim
restitution.
DWI, parole, non-North Carolina, non-judgment and deferred prosecution cases are not included in the
intermediate and community populations, but are supervised by probation/parole officers according to
orders of the court, Interstate Compact Agreement, and/or the Parole and Post Release Commission.
Offenders on probation, parole, or post-release are supervised based on the conditions imposed, their
behavior, assessed risk of re-arrest and assessed needs. Probation and Parole Officers supervise low
risk/low need cases with traditional probation strategies, primarily in an office setting. Offenders
assessed at higher risk/needs levels have more rigorous contact requirements in their home and work
environments following an individualized case plan. An offender who violates their conditions of
supervision may subsequently receive additional sanctions from the court or Parole and Post Release
Commission, or other supervision requirements mandated by the officer through delegated authority,
such as requiring increased Community Service hours or drug screening. Officers are also responsible
for supervising special populations such as sex offenders and domestic violence offenders.
Officers refer offenders to rehabilitative services and work with other agencies to encourage
participation in programs such as substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, educational, and
vocational training. Additionally, officers are responsible also for a wealth of administrative work
associated with serving the courts such as presentence investigations and processing new cases.
The Division of Community Corrections also administers the Criminal Justice Partnership Program
(CJPP). The CJPP is a grant program to county governments to operate community corrections
programs. County advisory boards determine the type of community corrections program to operate
(e.g., day reporting centers, satellite substance abuse programs or resource centers). There are 94
counties involved in the Partnership initiative this fiscal year. These programs provide varying degrees
of structure and monitoring to offenders, and a range of rehabilitative services.
29
Cost of Sanctions
The Department calculates an average cost of sanctions annually. The figures include the direct costs
of supervision and indirect administrative costs. The average daily cost of supervising one offender
ranges from $3.44 on community/intermediate punishment to $15.27 on Criminal Justice Partnership
Sentenced Offender Programs.
Table II.1: Cost of Sanctions for Fiscal Year 2009-2010
Division of Community Corrections Programs Daily Cost Per Offender
Community/Intermediate Punishment $3.44
Community Work Service Program $0.97
Drug Screening (per specimen) $4.99 (per specimen)
Criminal Justice Partnership (Sentenced Offender Programs) $15.27
Electronic House Arrest/ Sex Offenders (GPS) $11.07
30
II.A. Probation
Probation Entry Trend
During the fiscal year 2009-2010, there were 65,917 new offender entries to probation, a 3% decrease
from the past year’s entries. Figure II.A.1 shows probation entries by felon and misdemeanant statuses.
Figure II.A.1: Probation Entries by Crime Class
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10
Fiscal Year
Probationers
Total Felon Misdemeanant
Fiscal
Year
2000-
2001
2001-
2002
2002-
2003
2003-
2004
2004-
2005
2005-
2006
2006-
2007
2007-
2008
2008-
2009
2009-
2010
Total 60,845 62,746 62,262 61,350 62,556 63,208 66,024 68,595 67,884 65,917
The vast majority (72%) of entries to probation were misdemeanants. Felons represent 27% of the
probation entries for fiscal year 2009-2010 and the rest are of unknown type. The proportion of felons
to misdemeanants has remained very consistent over the past ten years (average 27% felons to 72%
misdemeanants for the past 10 years).
Crime Type of 2009-2010 Probation Entries
The crimes of offenders entering probation supervision are grouped into one of three categories: public
order, property, and crimes against a person. The most frequent crime type for probation entries was
public order crimes, accounting for 56% of all entries to probation during the 2009-2010 fiscal year.
The predominant public order crimes, contributing the majority of entries to probation this fiscal year,
were drug offenses with 13,901 (38%), driving while impaired with 11,480 (31%) and other traffic
violations with 7,576 (21%).
Property crimes accounted for 29% of all entries to probation. The most frequent offense in this
category was larceny with 8,357 (44%) probationers, followed by breaking and entering with 3,787
(20%), fraud with 2,560 (14%), other property offenses 1,768 (9%), forgery with 916 (5%) and
worthless checks with 781 (4%).
There were 9,397 entries to probation for crimes against a person, contributing 14% of all entries to
probation for the 2009-2010 fiscal year. The majority of these crimes were assaults with 7,099 (76%).
This category also includes sexual offenses with 778 (8%) and robbery with 739 (8%).
31
Figure II.A.2: Probation Entries by Crime Type
675 (1%)
9,397 (14%)
36,902 (56%)
18,943 (29%)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
Crimes Against a Person Property Crimes Public Order Crimes Others
Crime Type
Entries
Probation Population by Sentencing Grids
The Structured Sentencing Act prescribes punishments in the community based on the seriousness of
the crime and criminal history. The probation population on June 30, 2010 was 107,414. Sixty-three
percent of this population was misdemeanant offenders. Table II.A.1 shows the distribution of the
misdemeanant population by their primary offense sentence.
Table II.A.1: Misdemeanor Sentencing Table for Probation Population on June 30, 2010
Prior Record Level
Crime Class I II III
Undefined or
Non-Structured Total (%)
A1 2,041 2,523 2,004 32 6,600 (10%)
1 11,334 12,578 8,368 103 32,383 (48%)
2 2,523 2,974 1,164 17 6,678 (10%)
3 845 818 413 5 2,081 (3%)
Non-Structureed Sentencing
Crimes 0 0 0 19,519 19,519 (29%)
Undefined 0 0 0 24 24 (<1%)
Total 16,743 18,893 11,949 19,700 67,285
% (25%) (28%) (18%) (29%)
Almost half (48%) of the misdemeanant probation population was convicted of Class 1 offenses. The
most frequent crime categories in the Class 1 offenses were traffic violations (27%), larceny (23%),
drug offenses (22%), fraud (5%) and breaking and entering (5%). Class 2 contributes 10% to
misdemeanant probationers, with the primary offenses in this class being worthless checks (19%), other
public order offenses (22%), traffic violations (18%) and assault (17%). Class A1 offenses contribute
10% to the misdemeanant population, the majority of which were assaults (87%). The remaining class,
Class 3, consists largely of non-trafficking drug offenses (48%), larceny convictions (25%), and public
order offenses (11%).
The second largest group of misdemeanors under supervision was probationers with non-Structured
Sentencing crimes, which comprised 29% of the population at the end of the fiscal year. These
offenders were sentenced for Driving While Impaired under separate legislation, the Safe Roads Act of
32
1983. Other non-Structured Sentencing offenders included Interstate Compact and offenders
supervised under Deferred Prosecution.
Table II.A.2: Felony Sentencing Table for the Probation Population on June 30, 2010
Prior Record Level
Undefined
or
Crime Class I II III IV V VI Non-
Structured
Total (%)
E 1,060 748 23 11 1 0 30 1,873 (5%)
F 1,500 1,036 502 36 3 1 103 3,181 (8%)
G 1,495 1,743 977 513 11 4 50 4,793 (12%)
H 6,421 5,283 2,061 1,162 263 20 423 15,633 (40%)
I 4,116 4,128 1,711 794 139 133 430 11,451 (29%)
Non-
Structured
Sentencing
Crimes
0 0 0 0 0 0 2,090 2,090 (5%)
Undefined 142 86 14 12 0 1 266 521 (1%)
14,734 13,024 Total 5,288 2,528 417 159 3,392 39,542
% 37% 33% 13% 6% 1% 0% 9%
Note: The Undefined category contains offenders that had missing crime information.
The felony sentencing table above describes felons in the probation population at the end of fiscal year
2009-2010. The felony crime class with the largest number in the probation population is Class H,
representing 40% of all felons on probation. The offenses in this crime class included drug charges
(22%), fraud (21%), breaking and entering (22%), and larceny (20%). Class I offenses represented
29% of probationers with felony convictions, largely non-trafficking drug offenses (70%) and forgery
(7%). Classes E, F and G represented the smallest proportion of felons with a structured sentence on
probation on June 30, 2010. Though the majority of these crimes were drug offenses (25%), these
classes also included more serious crimes such as assault (15%), sexual offenses (14%), and robbery
(12%).
Type of Probation Exits
Of the 66,990 probation exits in fiscal year 2009-2010, 15% were completions. In order to exit
probation supervision as a completion the offender must serve the entire term sentenced by the court
and meet all conditions of probation.
Revocations represent 35% of all exits from probation (probation revocation rate). An offender is
revoked due to non-compliance with the conditions of probation which includes committing a new
crime. Probation may also be revoked for technical violations of probation such as positive drug tests,
non-reporting, and failing to attend treatment among others. The exits classified as Elect to Serve (3%)
are often combined with the revocations for an overall revocation rate, because the offender will elect to
serve his or her suspended sentence rather than comply with additional sanctions imposed as a result of
the violation process. Both exits result in incarceration in state prisons or county jails.
33
Early terminations, which accounted for 33% of exits, may be a successful or unsuccessful end of
probation supervision. The court may satisfactorily terminate probation for several reasons. These may
be cases in which all conditions of probation were met early and the supervision ended. Other
possibilities for exits in the early termination category are considered unsuccessful. Examples are,
probation cases in which the offender absconded and is not apprehended within three years of the order
for arrest date (case is moved to unsupervised probation with District Attorney approval) or probation
ended due to incarceration on an unrelated conviction.
Figure II.A.3: Probation Exits in the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year
9,503 (14%)
1,849 (3%)
23,175 (35%) 22,096 (33%)
10,367 (15%)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Completion Revocation Early Termination Elect to Serve Other Exits
Finally, the “Other Exits” category includes exits due to the offender’s death, the closure of a case
sentenced in another state but supervised in North Carolina through an Interstate Compact Agreement,
or other termination not further described.
34
II.B. Post-Release Supervision
Post-Release Entry Trend
During the fiscal year 2009-2010, there were 2,240 entries to post-release supervision. The number of
post-release supervision entries has increased steadily since the 1996-1997 fiscal year due to the
Structured Sentencing Act. Figure II.B.1 illustrates this increase.
Figure II.B.1: Post-Release Entries by Fiscal Year
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10
Fiscal Year
Fiscal
Year
1999-
2000
2000-
2001
2001-
2002
2002-
2003
2003-
2004
2004-
2005
2005-
2006
2006-
2007
2007-
2008
2008-
2009
2009-
2010
Total 937 1,041 1,151 1,403 1,428 1,688 1,764 2,027 2,124 2,246 2,240
Post-release supervision provides oversight during the period of re-entry in the community for serious
offenders who have been sentenced and served prison terms. This form of supervision was
incorporated into the Structured Sentencing Act for offenders who serve long prison sentences and need
control and assistance readjusting to life outside of the correctional institution. All offenders serving a
prison sentence for a Class B1 through E felony conviction are supervised for nine months to five years,
depending on the offense, after completion of their required prison term.
Post-Release Population by Structured Sentencing Grids
The Sentencing Grid in Table II.B.1 reflects the population on post-release supervision at the end of
fiscal year 2009-2010. The number of offenders in the grid is relatively small due to the long prison
sentences for the offenses in these sentencing grid cells. This is the eighth year offenders convicted of
Class B2 offenses have entered post-release, and only the sixth year that Class B1 offenders have been
released on post-release because of the long active sentences for those crimes. As a result, the
distribution of the offenders on post-release supervision will not adequately reflect the prison
population convicted of these crimes for many years.
There were 2,268 inmates on post-release at the end of this fiscal year. This figure reflects a 0.27%
increase over the population of 2,262 at the end of the previous fiscal year. More offenders on post-release
supervision on June 30, 2010 were convicted of Class C offenses than any other offenses.
Within Class C the majority of the offenders were habitual felons (53%), followed by sexual assaults
(34%) and assaults (8%). All inmates released to post-release supervision for conviction of sexual
offenses are supervised for five years. The majority of Class E convictions were assaults (47%). Other
crime categories for Class E offenses on post-release supervision were robbery (17%), kidnapping and
abduction (15%), and sexual assault (10%). Among inmates supervised for Class D offenses, 59% had
robbery convictions. The other predominant crime categories in Class D were sexual assault (14%),
manslaughter (9%) and burglary (11%). As a group, offenders on post-release on June 30, 2010 had
35
most recently been incarcerated for sex offenses (22%), robbery (21%), assault (19%), and as habitual
felons (19%).
Table II.B.1: Felony Sentencing Table for the Post-Release Population on June 30, 2010
Prior Record Level
Crime Class I II III IV V VI
Undefined
or Non-
Structured
Total (%)
B1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 6
B2 59 21 8 3 0 1 0 92
C 189 169 170 179 67 34 4 812
D 221 180 105 56 15 7 1 585
E 252 279 118 66 14 11 0 740
Undefined 9 8 5 4 0 1 6 33
Total 735 658 406 308 96 54 11 2,268
% 32% 29% 18% 14% 4% 2% 0%
Type of Post-Release Exits
The majority (75%) of exits from post-release supervision were completions. When the offender
completes this period of supervision, the sentence for which the offender was placed on supervision is
terminated. An offender on post-release supervision may be revoked for a technical violation such as
positive drug tests, non-reporting, failing to attend treatment, or for additional criminal convictions.
There were 474 revocations. Sixteen offenders died and supervision was otherwise terminated for 92
offenders.
Figure II.B.2: Post-Release Exits in the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year
108 (5%)
474 (21%)
1,705 (74%)
0
300
600
900
1,200
1,500
1,800
Completion Revocation Other Exits
36
II.C. Parole
Parole Entry Trend
During the fiscal year 2009-2010, there were 1,669 entries to parole supervision. Overall, there has
been a steady decline in parole entries over the past nine years. This year, however, there was a 5%
increase over last year. Figure II.C.1 illustrates this trend.
Figure II.C.1: Parole Entries by Fiscal Year.
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10
Fiscal Year
Fiscal
Year
1999-
2000
2000-
2001
2001-
2002
2002-
2003
2003-
2004
2004-
2005
2005-
2006
2006-
2007
2007-
2008
2008-
2009
2009-
2010
Total 4,298 3,187 2,435 2,097 1,841 1,831 1,870 1,767 1,690 1,584 1,669
The decline in entries to parole was due to the adoption of Structured Sentencing. The Structured
Sentencing Act eliminated parole for offenders sentenced under those laws. The inmates who are
eligible for parole were sentenced for convictions under other sentencing laws. Non-Structured
Sentencing inmates comprised less than 10% of the prison population on June 30, 2010. Nearly half
(40%) of the entries to parole this fiscal year were sentenced under DWI laws.
Crime Type of Parole Population
There were 2,061 offenders on parole supervision on June 30, 2010. Figure II.C.2 shows the
crime types of the parole population. The majority of this population was convicted of crimes
against a person (50%). The majority of which were homicides (492), out of which 152 were first
degree murder, 340 second degree murder and 28 manslaughter. This was followed by robbery
(208), assault (129) and sex offenses (127). Public order crimes that this population was
convicted of included drug offenses (276) and driving while impaired (199). The most frequent
property crimes were burglary (141), larceny (67), and breaking and entering (36).
37
Figure II.C.2: Crime Type of Parole Population on June 30, 2010
117 (5%)
595 (29%)
325 (16%)
1,024 (50%)
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Crimes Against a Person Property Crimes Public Order Crimes Other
Type of Parole Exits
The majority (58%) of exits from parole supervision were completions. There were 66 (4%) exits from
parole supervision due to revocation. An offender on parole supervision may be revoked for the same
reasons as probation and post-release cases. The “Other” category includes cases in which there was a
closure of a case supervised in North Carolina but sentenced in another state, a successful or
unsuccessful termination, or the offender died.
Figure II.C.3: Parole Exits in the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year
622 (38%)
66 (4%)
959 (58%)
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Completion Revocation Other Exits
38
II.D. Community Corrections Demographics
Table II.D.1: Demographics of All Community Corrections Supervision Admissions
Age Female Male
Category White Black Other White Black Other Total
13-18 506 569 77 1,977 2,608 405 6,142 (9%)
19-21 949 962 84 3,033 3,601 509 9,138 (13%)
22-25 1,381 1,078 128 3,628 3,661 697 10,573 (15%)
26-30 1,571 1,117 137 3,825 3,714 818 11,182 (16%)
31-35 1,229 774 103 2,741 2,867 675 8,389 (12%)
36-40 1,154 698 84 2,587 2,372 462 7,357 (11%)
41-45 954 667 64 2,262 2,119 293 6,359 (9%)
46-50 739 490 49 1,846 1,822 176 5,122 (7%)
51-55 361 220 15 1,188 1,211 85 3,080 (4%)
56-60 166 90 9 551 604 43 1,463 (2%)
61-65 61 28 4 276 262 17 648 (<1%)
66-70 17 14 2 105 85 8 231 (<1%)
71+ 12 4 2 64 56 4 142 (<1%)
Total 9,100 6,711 758 24,083 24,982 4,192 69,826
(%) (13%) (10%) (1%) (34%) (36%) (6%)
Table II.D.2: Demographics of All Community Corrections Supervision Population
Age Female Male
Category White Black Other White Black Other Total
13-18 344 410 54 1,413 1,907 336 4,464 (6%)
19-21 1,059 1,185 109 3,886 4,524 691 11,454 (16%)
22-25 1,953 1,745 188 5,492 5,933 1,310 16,621 (24%)
26-30 2,535 1,987 223 6,405 6,476 1,800 19,426 (28%)
31-35 2,265 1,659 161 4,888 5,332 1,460 15,765 (23%)
36-40 1,988 1,281 136 4,470 4,104 994 12,973 (19%)
41-45 1,728 1,199 109 3,992 3,610 608 11,246 (16%)
46-50 1,401 914 85 3,405 3,059 351 9,215 (13%)
51-55 719 450 28 2,194 2,076 181 5,648 (8%)
56-60 349 223 13 1,059 1,164 81 2,889 (4%)
61-65 135 74 5 531 477 39 1,261 (2%)
66-70 33 25 2 233 186 16 495 (<1%)
71+ 24 4 2 155 99 2 286 (<1%)
Total 14,533 11,156 1,115 38,123 38,947 7,869 111,743
(%) (13%) (10%) (1%) (34%) (35%) (7%)
39
II.F. Supervised Offender Programs & Special Initiatives
The Division of Community Corrections offers a number of programs for offenders to participate
in during their period of supervision. These programs assist in supervision and provide a
specialized intervention to offenders.
Community Service Work Program:
The Community Service Work Program provides oversight of offenders ordered to perform
community service hours for criminal offenses, including DWI offenses. Offenders are assigned
to perform service to local communities in an effort to promote rehabilitation and restore or
improve the community. Over 3,500 agencies utilize community service offenders. The
coordinators' role has expanded to include court processing throughout the state.. The 215
Community Service Coordinators enrolled 65,591 offenders in the Community Service Work
Program. Offenders completed 1,941,574 hours. The types of work performed were general labor,
skilled labor, professional labor, and litter pick-up. The total dollar value of the hours performed
based on the type of labor was $14,054,592. Community service fees were collected in the
amount of $7,099,247.31
Sex Offender Control:
The mission of the Sex Offender Control Program is to enhance public safety and prevent further
victimization through teamwork with treatment providers, victim’s groups, and other criminal
justice agencies. All offenders ordered to the Sex Offender Control Program are required to abide
by the Sex Offender Control Program Special Conditions. These conditions prohibit: offender
contact with victims, possession of pornography, and travel and presence in certain locations.
Other conditions of this program require the offender to submit to psychological and
physiological assessments, as well as warrantless searches. Sex offender treatment providers
must agree to abide by guidelines and philosophy established by the Division of Community
Corrections for the treatment of sex offenders. There were 674 offenders under the Sex Offender
Control Program at the end of this fiscal year.
Electronic Monitoring/ GPS:
Session Law 2006-247 (H1896) required the Department of Correction to establish a sex offender
monitoring program using a continuous satellite based monitoring system to monitor sex
offenders in the community starting January 1, 2007. Offenders subject to monitoring include
those under probation, parole, or post-release supervision, as well as certain offenders who have
completed their periods of supervision or incarceration and no longer have supervision
requirements, but who are subject to lifetime tracking pursuant to statute. G.S. 14-208.40(a)
establishes two categories of offenders who are subject to GPS monitoring: (1) any offender
classified as a sexually violent predator, is a recidivist, or was convicted of an aggravated offense
(Mandatory GPS); and (2) any offender who has committed an offense involving the physical,
mental, or sexual abuse of a minor and requires the highest possible level of supervision and
monitoring based on the results of a risk assessment known as the STATIC-99 (Conditional
GPS). Both categories require that the offender be convicted of a reportable conviction and is
required to register as a sex offender. Offenders in the mandatory category also fall into the
lifetime tracking category, and will remain under GPS once any supervision or incarceration
period ends.
40
Domestic Violence Offender Control:
The Division of Community Corrections recognizes that domestic violence offenders are a special
population that requires unique case management expectations and a higher level of control and
treatment during supervision.
The goals of the program are to:
 Provide close supervision and control of domestic violence offenders
 Enhance the safety of domestic violence victims
 Ensure that the batterer completes treatment
 Coordinate the efforts of the courts, law enforcement, treatment providers and victim
advocates
During FY 2009-2010, field Probation Parole Officers were supervising 6,451 offenders at the
Domestic Violence level of supervision (in any given month, there are approximately 3500
Domestic Violence offenders being supervised statewide). Domestic Violence case management
combines effective use of supervision tools designed to assist the victim and control the offender
along with treatment resources to break the cycle of violence.
The Division of Community Corrections mandates a three-hour Domestic Violence training for
all field staff. From July-September, 2008 all current staff were trained and all new field
employees are now required to complete the training within the first forty five days of hire. The
training is contained on a CD so that staff can view the training at their work stations rather than
traveling to a traditional training site. Each District has a copy of the training and is able to
provide our community partners and Criminal Justice Partnership Program staff with the training.
The training is comprehensive and covers the topics which are relevant to community supervision
of Domestic Violence offenders.
The Division of Community Corrections continued to maintain partnerships with Batterer’s
Intervention Programs, Victim Agencies, and TASC by maintaining Memorandums of
Understanding (MOU) which outlines local processes, protocol and roles of each party. DCC will
continue to develop partnerships at the state level with local and state agencies, coalitions, and
victim service providers to bring a voice from across the spectrum to work together to provide
best practices in shaping the Domestic Violence Program.
DCC will continue to look at additional resources that will follow evidence based practices in
effectively supervising this highly volatile population while providing the officer with the
necessary tools to maintain offender accountability and to protect the victim.
School Partnership:
There are over 80 School Partnership officers supervising student probationers in both urban and
rural areas. In the urban areas, officers are assigned to individual schools that significantly
improve the working relationship with school officials. There were 394 offenders in this program
at the end of the fiscal year.
The School Partnership Program continues to be a very successful program and DCC realizes that
a earning a high school diploma/GED is one of the most important accomplishments that youthful
offenders can achieve. By working closely with school officials, probation officers can address
issues on the front end before they escalate to the level of suspension or expulsion from school.
41
Transition Services:
The Division of Community Corrections works in collaboration with other divisions in the
Department of Correction to provide support to offenders as they transition from prison to
community supervision and after the period of supervision ends. DCC is very instrumental in the
planning, developing and implementing strategies that will have a positive impact on individuals
who are seeking to be reunited with their family and community.
The DCC program staff spends a significant amount time assisting offenders that are transitioning
back to the community each year. Each year many offenders are being released without any place
to go. The staff work in collaboration with prison case managers and the probation field staff to
locate stable residences for returning offenders, and encourage field staff to establish
relationships within their communities so that once an offender is released they will be able to
have some services. In times such as these it has become increasingly difficult to find homes for
the homeless and especially the homeless sex offender population.
Limited English Proficient (LEP) Offender Program:
Because North Carolina has such a diverse population, the Division of Community Corrections
population consists of offenders from many different cultures and ethnic groups. Many of these
offenders are not fluent in English and it has been a challenge to effectively communicate with
and assist this portion of the population. Because Hispanics make up the largest portion of the
Limited English Proficient population, DCC has had many of the forms as well as the Risk Needs
Assessment Offender Self Report translated into Spanish. Although there are still barriers for
those offenders who do not read Spanish, DCC has been able to utilize a telephone translation
service to assist the staff with offenders who speak languages other than English. The telephone
translation service was utilized 404 times during Fiscal Year 2009-2010.
The program has and will continue to:
 Look at ways to increase the number of bilingual staff throughout the Division.
 Provide the Spanish version of the brochure “Completing Probation Successfully” to
offenders, community partners, families and the public.
 Contract with a telephone translating service so that officers can utilize their translation
service during office visits.
 Identify additional forms that need to be translated.
 Enhance the web page for the LEP Program so that staff can have access to tools to assist
them with this population.
Victim Notification Program:
The Division of Community Corrections established an Automated Victim Notification Program
to meet the division’s responsibilities in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, General Statute 15A-837.
Legislation mandated the Division of Community Corrections to notify victims of specific crimes
committed on or after July 1, 1999. The division has carried the notification process a step
further than mandated in that we give every victim the opportunity to be notified and we will
register victims only upon their request.
The notification process was established as a centralized victim notification program to ensure the
accuracy of the automated notification letters that generate by updates made to offender records
in the OPUS (Offender Population Unified System) computer system. There are twenty-six (26)
different letters that cover the above mandated notifications. Each day the system generates
42
approximately 125 notification notices explaining conditions of the offenders’ supervision or
movements into or out of an intermediate sanction, violations, hearings, absconding, capture,
restitution modifications, terminations, discharges, or death. The program is staffed by three (3)
personnel in the Administrative Program section in the DCC Administrative office (one statewide
advocate notification coordinator and two (2) information processing assistants). There are four
(4) Division Advocate Notification Coordinators, one assigned to each Division, working home
as duty station.
Table II.F.1 shows the “snap-shot” numbers of victims that have registered for services and the
offenders tied to those victims as of the end of the fiscal year. Also shown are the numbers of
notification letters sent during the fiscal year.
Table II.F.1: Victim Notification Program in the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year
Division Offenders Victims Notification Letter
First 810 1,152 6,285
Second 1,287 1,577 11,347
Third 897 1,285 9,271
Fourth 664 963 5,331
Administration 169 259 708
Total 3,827 5,236 32,942
43
II.G. Supervised Population Projections
Each year the Office of Research and Planning projects the total number of offenders who will be
under probation, post-release and parole supervision at the end of the fiscal year. The statistical
model projects the supervision population based on aggregate data trends. The primary factors
that influence the population projections are the projected number of entries to supervision and
the estimated average length of stay for various supervision levels. The population projection
integrates Structured Sentencing probation entry projections for the next five years provided by
the North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission. Length of stay and entries to
probation for Driving While Impaired, post-release supervision and parole are derived by
Research and Planning staff based on historical trends.
The analysis shows that Probation/Parole officer resources remain below the level required to
meet the supervision caseload goal of 60. Surveillance officer resources are above the level
required to meet a caseload goal of 50 absconders. The tables below show the projections for the
end of year population, and the current position resources versus projected staffing needs for
active cases and cases in absconder status.
Table II.G.1: Total Supervision Projections (Absconders Excluded*) for June 30th
Fiscal Year
Projected End Of Year
Supervision
Population On
June 30
Required
Officer
Resources
Current
Officer
Resources
Additional
Resources
Needed
FY 10-11 100,917 1,682 1,465 214
FY 11-12 100,997 1,683 1,465 217
FY 12-13 101,757 1,696 1,465 218
FY 13-14 102,480 1,708 1,465 243
FY 14-15 103,902 1,732 1,465 267
Table II.G.2: Total Absconders* Projections for June 30th
Fiscal Year
Projected End Of Year
Supervision
Population On
June 30
Required
Officer
Resources
Current Officer
Resources
Additional
Resources
Needed
FY 10-11 10,995 220 254 -34
FY 11-12 11,003 220 254 -34
FY 12-13 11,086 222 254 -32
FY 13-14 11,165 223 254 -31
FY 14-15 11,320 226 254 -28
*An absconder is an offender on probation who is actively avoiding supervision by making his/her whereabouts unknown to
the supervising officer. The Division of Community Corrections currently assigns the responsibility for capturing absconders
to surveillance officers. Once the absconder is captured, he/she returns to active supervision by the probation/parole officer.
44
III. Criminal Justice Partnership Program
The Criminal Justice Partnership Act of 1994 expands sentencing options by adding community-based
sanctions for offenders receiving non-prison sentences. The Act created the Criminal
Justice Partnership Program (CJPP), which provides state funds to help counties create sentenced
offender and pretrial release programs. A local advisory board is responsible for developing,
implementing, operating, monitoring, and evaluating a local community corrections plan.
The goals of the CJPP are to reduce recidivism, reduce the number of probation revocations,
reduce alcoholism and other drug dependencies among offenders, and to reduce the cost of
incarceration. The populations eligible for Criminal Justice Partnership Program services are:
intermediate punishment offenders (misdemeanor or felony, and especially probation violators)
and offenders serving terms of parole/post-release supervision.
The types of programs eligible for CJPP grants include: Day Reporting Centers, Substance Abuse
Services, and Resource Centers, targeting intermediate punishment offenders. As of June 30,
2010, 94 of the 100 counties in North Carolina are participating in the Partnership operating 83
programs. These programs include 18 Day Reporting Centers, 42 Satellite Substance Abuse
programs, and 23 Resource Centers.
Although the counties have wide latitude on program design, all of the sentenced offender
programs provide some combination of substance abuse treatment, education and employment
services. Day Reporting Centers combine sanctions and services. Offenders must report as
required and participate in assigned services. Satellite substance abuse centers provide a range of
treatment services, on-site and off-site. Resource Centers coordinate a variety of program
interventions, some on-site and others off-site.
The CJPP average cost per offender per day for the 2009-2010 fiscal year for the Sentenced
Offender was $21.61 for Day Reporting Centers, $11.90 for Satellite Substance Abuse Centers
and $11.02 for Resource Centers. Cost is calculated by dividing total grant expenditures and
DOC associated costs by the average offender daily population. These reported costs do not take
into consideration expenditures funded by the county or any other outside sources.
CJPP local programs store data in and report data from a computer system called the CJPP
Information Management System (IMS). The data was extracted from the IMS system as of
November 6, 2010. Data for participants in the Sentenced Offender programs was also obtained
from the Department of Correction's Offender Population Unified System (OPUS) as of
November 6, 2010.
45
III.A. Day Reporting Centers
Day Reporting Centers (DRC) are facilities that serve as an intermediate punishment. Offenders
are required to report and comply with a structured schedule that includes activities such as
obtain/maintain employment, individual counseling, treatment, cognitive behavioral
interventions, life skills training, educational or vocational classes, employment training, and/or
community work projects.
Type of Admissions
Offenders eligible to attend a DRC include those sentenced by the court to an intermediate
punishment, those required to attend by the Post-Release Supervision and Parole Commission as
a condition of a term of parole, post-release supervision, or probationers required to attend by the
court as a result of a probation violation.
During the 2009-2010 fiscal year, there were 1,421 admissions to DRC programs. Of the
offenders admitted to local DRC programs during the fiscal year, the state courts referred 838
(59%), 536 (38%) were from a probation violation court order, and 47 (3%) admissions were
referred by the Parole Commission.
Figure III.A.1: Referral Sources for DRC Admissions
536 (38%)
838 (59%)
47 (3%)
0
500
1,000
1,500
State Courts Probation Violation Parole Commission
Referral Source
Admissions
Admissions by Sentencing Grid
Of the offenders admitted to the Day Reporting Centers, 40% were misdemeanants. More than
half (64%) of all misdemeanants were convicted of Class 1 crimes. Crimes in Class 1 included
non-trafficking drug offenses, larceny, assault, other traffic violations and breaking and entering.
The next two largest misdemeanant crime class contributors to CJPP admissions were Class 2 and
Class A1. The majority of offenders convicted of crimes in Class 2 were convicted of public
order and assault, and the large majority of those in Class A1 were convicted of assault.
46
Table III.A.1: Misdemeanor Admissions to DRC Programs for the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year
Prior Record Level
Undefined
Crime Class I II III
or Non-
Structured Total (%)
A1 10 26 13 0 49 (9%)
1 104 150 103 0 357 (64%)
2 19 55 18 0 92 (16%)
3 11 21 6 1 39 (7%)
Other/Undefined 16 2 3 0 21 (4%)
Total 160 254 143 1 558
(%) (29%) (46%) (26%) (<1%)
The majority (61%) of Day Reporting Center admissions for the 2009-2010 fiscal year were
felony offenders. Seventy two percent of the felony offenders admitted were convicted for Class
H or I offenses. The most frequent Class G, H, and I offenses were non-trafficking drug offenses,
larceny, and breaking and entering. Class I offenses also included forgery and fraud, and Class G
offenses also included robbery and other public order crimes.
Table III.A.2: Felony Admissions to DRC Programs for the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year
Prior Record Level
Crime
Class I II III IV V VI Total (%)
E 24 13 1 2 1 0 41 (5%)
F 10 19 0 0 0 0 29 (3%)
G 36 62 25 7 0 0 130 (15%)
H 133 155 58 20 4 1 371 (43%)
I 54 107 60 26 4 1 252 (29%)
Other 19 6 8 5 1 1 40 (5%)
Total 276 362 152 60 10 3 863
(%) (32%) (42%) (18%) (7%) (1%) (<1%)
DRC Program Utilization
There were 2,077 offenders that utilized DRC services during fiscal year 2009-2010, which
represents 80% of the yearly service goal. Table III.A.3 shows utilization figures and service
goals for each DRC program.
47
Table III.A.3: DRC Program Utilization Data FY 2009-2010
Location
Population
on July 1,
2009 Entries Exits
Offender
Utilization
Yearly
Offender
Service
Goal
Percent
of
Offender
Goal
Utilized
Cost Per
Day Per
Offender
BERTIE 41 52 53 93 93.00 100% $13.83
BUNCOMBE 22 35 33 57 62.00 92% $42.19
CUMBERLAND 38 62 82 100 134.75 74% $24.69
DURHAM 50 92 91 142 166.75 85% $19.22
FORSYTH 79 212 211 291 263.00 111% $13.53
GASTON 27 89 104 116 230.50 50% $31.29
GUILFORD 43 74 83 117 237.50 49% $36.23
HALIFAX 33 71 81 104 85.50 122% $15.37
HERTFORD 20 40 35 60 73.50 82% $18.30
LENOIR 31 25 20 56 45.00 124% $14.44
MECKLENBURG 62 93 75 155 208.50 74% $23.52
MOORE 38 116 124 154 166.00 93% $12.63
NEW HANOVER 21 89 66 110 149.00 74% $18.07
NORTHAMPTON 26 35 42 61 64.50 95% $19.39
ONSLOW 37 53 59 90 92.00 98% $21.13
RANDOLPH 23 88 71 111 175.50 63% $22.50
WAKE 37 140 140 177 240.50 74% $38.62
WAYNE 28 55 59 83 113.00 73% $26.92
TOTAL 656 1,421 1,429 2,077 2,600.50 80% $21.61
Type of Exits
There were 1,429 exits from DRC programs during the 2009-2010 fiscal year. Six hundred four
(42%) were exited by successful completion, and a large majority of those went on to either
complete their period of supervision or are still being actively supervised. The second most
frequent type of exit from DRC programs is a probation technical violation 577 (40%). This
occurs when an offender commits a technical violation of a specific condition, such as failing a
drug test. The “Other” category includes 63 (5%) offenders who transferred from the program,
never reported to the program, were inappropriate for the program, or were released for medical
reasons.
48
Figure III.A.2: DRC Type of Exits
63 (5%)
577 (40%)
185 (13%)
604 (42%)
0
200
400
600
800
Successful Completion Unsuccessful Removal Prob Tech Violations Other
Exit Type
Exits
Table III.A.4: Demographics of DRC Admissions July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010
Age Female Male
Category White Black Other White Black Other Total
13-18 9 7 0 40 122 8 186 (13%)
19-21 13 25 1 76 230 5 350 (25%)
22-25 12 29 1 58 153 3 256 (18%)
26-30 31 22 1 41 122 2 219 (15%)
31-35 16 17 1 34 58 3 129 (9%)
36-40 18 17 0 18 38 3 94 (7%)
41-45 12 8 0 17 30 0 67 (5%)
46-50 3 13 0 18 32 1 67 (5%)
51-55 2 6 0 8 12 0 28 (2%)
56-60 3 4 0 7 6 0 20 (1%)
61-65 0 0 0 1 3 0 4 (<1%)
66-70 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 (<1%)
TOTAL 119 148 4 319 806 25 1,421
(%) (8%) (10%) (0%) (22%) (57%) (2%)
49
III.B. Satellite Substance Abuse Programs
CJPP substance abuse treatment programs provide substance abuse services that may include
education, out-patient counseling, aftercare, residential, and in-patient services to offenders.
Type of Admissions
Offenders eligible to attend a SSA include those sentenced by the court to an intermediate
punishment (e.g., intensive supervision program, house arrest with electronic monitoring,
residential program, Drug Court or special probation), those required to attend by the Post-
Release Supervision and Parole Commission as a condition of a term of parole or post-release
supervision or probationers required to attend by the court as a result of a probation violation.
Probation officers may also use delegated authority to refer an offender to a SSA in response to a
violation.
During the 2009-2010 fiscal year, there were 1,792 admissions to SSA programs. Of the
offenders admitted to local SSA programs during the fiscal year, the state courts referred 360
(20%), 1,413 (79%) of admissions were referred by probation officers, or were from a probation
violation court order, and 19 (1%) admissions were referred by the Parole Commission.
Figure III.B.1: Referral Sources for SSA Admissions
1,413 (79%)
360 (20%)
19 (1%)
0
500
1,000
1,500
State Courts Probation Violation Parole Commission
Referral Source
Admissions
Admissions by Sentencing Grid
Of the offenders admitted to the Satellite Substance Abuse programs, 40% were misdemeanants.
More than half (61%) of all misdemeanants were convicted of Class 1 crimes. Crimes in Class 1
included non-trafficking drug offenses, larceny, assault, other traffic violations and breaking and
entering. The next largest misdemeanant crime class contributor to CJPP admissions was Class
A1. The majority of offenders convicted of crimes in Class A1 were convicted of assault.
50
Table III.B.1: Misdemeanor Admissions to SSA Programs for the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year
Prior Record Level
Crime Class I II III
Undefined or
Non-
Structured Total (%)
A1 11 35 54 1 101 (14%)
1 83 187 160 4 434 (61%)
2 8 41 17 0 66 (9%)
3 5 10 15 0 30 (4%)
Other/Undefined 77 3 2 1 83 (12%)
Total 184 276 248 6 714
(%) (26%) (39%) (35%) (<1%)
The majority (60%) of all Satellite Substance Abuse admissions for the 2009-2010 fiscal year
were felony offenders. Seventy-three percent of the felony offenders admitted were convicted for
Class H or I offenses. The most frequent Class G, H, and I offenses were offenses for non-trafficking
drug offenses, larceny, and breaking and entering. Class I offenses also included
forgery and fraud, and Class G offenses also included robbery and other public order crimes.
Table III.B.2: Felony Admissions to SSA Programs for the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year
Prior Record Level
Crime Undefined or
Class I II III IV V VI Non-
Structured
Total (%)
E 25 20 1 1 0 0 0 47 (4%)
F 26 36 11 2 0 0 0 75 (7%)
G 32 47 21 12 0 0 0 112 (10%)
H 98 179 76 37 4 0 0 394 (37%)
I 77 176 98 33 8 5 0 397 (37%)
Other 30 8 5 6 1 0 3 53 (5%)
Total 288 466 212 91 13 5 3 1,078
(%) (27%) (43%) (20%) (8%) (1%) (<1%) (<1%)
SSA Program Utilization
There were 2,555 offenders that utilized SSA services during fiscal year 2009-2010. This figure
represents 94% of the yearly service goal. Table III.B.3 shows utilization figures and service
goals for each SSA program.
51
Table III.B.3: SSA Program Utilization Data FY 2009-2010
Location
Population
on July 1,
2009 Entries Exits
Offender
Utilization
Yearly
Offender
Service
Goal
Percent
of
Offender
Goal
Utilized
Cost Per
Day Per
Offender
ALAMANCE 26 62 65 88 110.25 80% $11.20
ALLEGHANY 10 17 10 27 19.00 142% $11.81
ANSON 16 32 32 48 70.00 69% $8.75
ASHE 17 29 21 46 51.00 90% $8.36
AVERY 17 18 24 35 23.75 147% $10.35
BEAUFORT 23 59 59 82 78.75 104% $12.93
BRUNSWICK 25 83 69 108 102.50 105% $7.93
CABARRUS 11 27 18 38 85.25 45% $13.21
CALDWELL 43 47 75 90 72.00 125% $10.09
CASWELL 5 17 6 22 20.00 110% $18.76
CATAWBA 16 86 64 102 101.50 100% $15.10
COLUMBUS 12 44 45 56 57.50 97% $18.32
CRAVEN 33 85 61 118 126.75 93% $6.96
DUPLIN 27 34 34 61 66.50 92% $9.83
EDGECOMBE 23 40 60 63 91.00 69% $12.84
GREENE 12 48 47 60 76.00 79% $14.25
HAYWOOD 1 30 13 31 27.50 113% $8.11
JACKSON-SWAIN 23 39 45 62 59.75 104% $21.97
JOHNSTON 18 64 71 82 102.50 80% $53.99
JONES 2 10 10 12 16.25 74% $8.28
MADISON 14 20 26 34 14.25 239% $8.18
MARTIN 25 41 44 66 64.50 102% $10.45
MITCHELL 8 34 25 42 52.75 80% $9.30
NASH 25 71 70 96 66.50 144% $12.18
PAMLICO 9 21 19 30 26.25 114% $6.34
PENDER 40 50 57 90 99.25 91% $6.81
PITT 61 98 107 159 192.25 83% $13.65
POLK 9 11 14 20 24.75 81% $13.26
RICHMOND 12 41 33 53 59.75 89% $16.87
ROWAN 26 54 61 80 89.50 89% $11.99
RUTHERFORD 26 72 75 98 114.00 86% $6.77
SAMPSON 34 75 64 109 77.00 142% $16.39
SCOTLAND-HOKE 27 76 75 103 95.00 108% $14.23
STANLY 12 19 20 31 53.50 58% $13.88
TRANSYLVANIA 12 38 37 50 46.00 109% $11.61
TYRRELL 7 17 15 24 19.75 122% $26.55
UNION 13 49 41 62 57.00 109% $28.75
WASHINGTON 3 19 12 22 26.50 83% $32.61
WATAUGA 8 32 25 40 45.25 88% $11.73
WILSON 14 50 44 64 63.00 102% $14.14
YADKIN 16 28 31 44 44.50 99% $16.31
YANCEY 2 5 3 7 50.00 14% $58.28
TOTAL 763 1,792 1,727 2,555 2739.00 94% $11.90
52
Type of Exits
There were 1,727 exits from SSA programs during the 2009-2010 fiscal year. There were 893
(52%) offenders exited by successful completion, and a large majority of those went on to either
complete their period of supervision or are still being actively supervised. The second most
frequent type of exit from DRC programs is a probation technical violation 527 (30%). This
occurs when an offender commits a technical violation of a specific condition, such as failing a
drug test. The “Other” category includes 170 (10%) offenders that transferred from the program,
never reported to the program, were inappropriate for the program, or were released for medical
reasons.
Figure III.B2: SSA Program Type of Exits
170 (10%)
527 (30%)
137 (8%)
893 (52%)
0
300
600
900
1,200
Successful
Completion
Unsuccessful
Removal
Prob Tech Violations Other
Exit Types
Exits
Table III.B.4: Demographics of SSA Admissions July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010
Age Female Male
Category White Black Other White Black Other Total
13-18 5 2 0 45 32 2 86 (5%)
19-21 19 6 1 110 74 7 217 (12%)
22-25 37 19 2 167 131 9 365 (20%)
26-30 35 25 2 116 138 6 322 (18%)
31-35 35 19 2 93 99 3 251 (14%)
36-40 25 8 2 77 68 2 182 (10%)
41-45 23 12 1 61 39 3 139 (8%)
46-50 19 12 0 53 36 0 120 (7%)
51-55 5 7 0 22 33 1 68 (4%)
56-60 2 1 0 12 12 0 27 (2%)
61-65 0 0 0 9 4 0 13 (<1%)
66-70 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 (<1%)
TOTAL 205 111 10 766 667 33 1,792
(%) (11%) (6%) (1%) (43%) (37%) (2%)
53
III.C. Resource Centers
Resource Centers (RC) are programs for offenders that provide or coordinate participation in
services such as cognitive behavioral interventions, counseling, treatment, life skills classes,
educational and/or vocational classes, employment assistance and/or community work projects.
Type of Admissions
Offenders eligible to attend a RC included those sentenced by the court to an intermediate
punishment (e.g., intensive supervision program, house arrest with electronic monitoring,
residential program, Drug Court or special probation), those required to attend by the Post-
Release Supervision and Parole Commission as a condition of a term of parole or post-release
supervision or probationers required to attend by the court as a result of a probation violation.
Probation officers may also use delegated authority to refer an offender to a RC in response to a
violation.
During the 2009-2010 fiscal year, there were 1,314 admissions to RC programs. Of the offenders
admitted to local RC programs during the fiscal year, the state courts referred 546 (41%), 746
(57%) of admissions were referred by probation officers, or were from a probation violation court
order, and 22 were referred by the Parole Commission (2%).
Figure III.C.1: Referral Sources for RC Admissions
746 (57%)
546 (41%)
22 (2%)
0
200
400
600
800
State Courts Probation Violation Parole Commission
Referral Source
Admissions
Admissions by Sentencing Grid
Of the offenders admitted to the Resource Center, 48% were misdemeanants. More than half
(58%) of all misdemeanants were convicted of Class 1 crimes. Crimes in Class 1 included non-trafficking
drug offenses, larceny, assault, other traffic violations and breaking and entering. The
next largest misdemeanant crime class contributor to RC admissions was Class A1. The large
majority of offenders convicted of crimes in Class A1 were convicted of assault.
54
Table III.C.1: Misdemeanor Admissions to RC Programs for the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year
Prior Record Level
Crime Class I II III
Undefined or
Non-
Structured Total (%)
A1 20 40 30 1 91 (14%)
1 100 146 116 1 363 (58%)
2 16 42 13 0 71 (11%)
3 7 15 7 0 29 (5%)
Other/Undefined 69 3 3 0 75 (12%)
Total 212 246 169 2 629
(%) (34%) (39%) (27%) (<1%)
The majority (52%) of Resource Center program admissions for the 2009-2010 fiscal year were
felony offenders. Seventy-two percent of the felony offenders admitted were convicted for Class
H or I offenses. The most frequent Class G, H, and I offenses were offenses for non-trafficking
drug offenses, larceny, and breaking and entering. Class I offenses also included forgery and
fraud, and Class G offenses also included robbery and other public order crimes.
Table III.C.2: Felony Admissions to RC Programs for the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year
Prior Record Level
Crime Undefined or
Class I II III IV V VI Non-
Structured
Total (%)
E 11 19 1 1 0 0 0 32 (5%)
F 11 18 8 0 0 0 0 37 (5%)
G 24 44 26 8 0 0 0 102 (15%)
H 69 121 56 30 8 0 0 284 (41%)
I 48 84 39 27 4 0 0 202 (29%)
Other 16 5 3 1 2 1 0 28 (4%)
Total 179 291 133 67 14 1 0 685
(%) (26%) (42%) (19%) (10%) (2%) (<1%) (<1%)
RC Program Utilization
There were 1,854 offenders that utilized RC services during fiscal year 2009-2010. This figure
represents 86% of the yearly service goal. Table III.C.3 shows utilization figures and service
goals for each RC program.
55
Table III.C.3: RC Program Utilization Data FY 2009-2010
Location
Population
on July 1,
2009 Entries Exits
Offender
Utilization
Yearly
Offender
Service
Goal
Percent
of
Offender
Goal
Utilized
Cost Per
Day Per
Offender
ALBEMARLE
REGION 69 85 84 154 167.50 92% $14.29
ALEXANDER 25 35 41 60 78.50 76% $10.52
BURKE 21 25 25 46 69.50 66% $16.37
CARTERET 30 47 49 77 100.50 77% $7.55
CHEROKEE 5 35 16 40 24.50 163% $12.46
CLAY 6 9 13 15 11.50 130% $14.22
CLEVELAND 26 60 60 86 74.00 116% $11.09
DAVIDSON 1 69 61 70 98.00 71% $2.07
DAVIE 16 47 45 63 65.00 97% $11.25
GRAHAM 2 11 5 13 13.00 100% $9.93
HARNETT 29 84 77 113 178.00 63% $14.61
HENDERSON 32 93 77 125 105.00 119% $8.71
IREDELL 28 109 81 137 168.75 81% $8.27
MACON 9 39 28 48 42.00 114% $12.49
MCDOWELL 15 39 38 54 43.75 123% $13.50
MONTGOMERY 26 59 54 85 132.50 64% $8.52
ORANGE-CHATHAM
41 82 91 123 142.50 86% $12.10
ROBESON 35 114 79 149 157.00 95% $6.84
ROCKINGHAM 18 56 29 74 130.50 57% $8.67
STOKES 25 42 56 67 72.00 93% $12.41
SURRY 31 48 61 79 83.50 95% $10.00
VGFW 31 67 78 98 109.50 89% $30.66
WILKES 19 59 51 78 95.50 82% $13.07
TOTAL 540 1,314 1,199 1,854 2162.50 86% $11.02
Type of Exits
There were 1,199 exits from RC programs during the 2009-2010 fiscal year. There were 578
(48%) exits by successful completion, and a large majority of those went on to either complete
their period of supervision or are still being actively supervised. The second most frequent type
of exit from DRC programs is a probation technical violation 420 (35%). This occurs when an
offender commits a technical violation of a specific condition, such as failing a drug test. The
“Other” category includes 60 (5%) offenders that transferred from the program, never reported to
the program, were inappropriate for the program, or were released for medical reasons.
56
Figure III.C2: RC Program Type of Exits
60 (5%)
420 (35%)
141 (12%)
578 (48%)
0
300
600
900
Successful Completion Unsuccessful Removal Prob Tech Violations Other
Exit Type
Exits
Table III.C.4: Demographics of RC Admissions July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010
Age Female Male
Category White Black Other White Black Other Total
13-18 5 2 1 51 26 2 87 (7%)
19-21 18 9 0 108 73 17 225 (17%)
22-25 34 10 2 96 73 12 227 (17%)
26-30 35 10 5 100 77 14 241 (18%)
31-35 33 9 3 72 52 13 182 (14%)
36-40 28 4 2 44 32 4 114 (9%)
41-45 12 2 2 45 34 1 96 (7%)
46-50 14 5 2 40 21 3 85 (6%)
51-55 2 0 0 14 21 0 37 (3%)
56-60 4 0 0 5 8 0 17 (1%)
61-65 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 (<1%)
66-70 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 (<1%)
TOTAL 185 51 18 576 418 66 1,314
(%) (14%) (4%) (1%) (44%) (32%) (5%)
57
IV. Division of Alcoholism and
Chemical Dependency Programs
The Division of Alcoholism and Chemical Dependency Programs (DACDP) is one of four major
Divisions of the Department of Correction (DOC). Its mission is to plan, administer and
coordinate chemical dependency screening, assessment, intervention, treatment, and aftercare
services for offenders. Throughout DACDP, there are 237 positions, including state-level
administration, two district office teams, two community-based programs and prison-based
program staff. The Division provides regular training and clinical supervision for clinical staff,
encourages input from all staff as to program development, and is commit