|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
|
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
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
Title | Annual statistical report : summary statistics for the Division of Prisons & the Division of Adult Probation and Parole |
Date | 2010 |
Description | 2009-2010 |
Digital Characteristics-A | 1246 KB; 88 p. |
Digital Format | application/pdf |
Full Text | 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 |
OCLC number | 35700222 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
A |
|
B |
|
C |
|
D |
|
F |
|
G |
|
L |
|
M |
|
N |
|
O |
|
R |
|
S |
|
T |
|
V |
|
W |
|
|
|