Recidivism Rates - NC DOC Prisoners Released To Mecklenburg County

Similar documents
Offender Screening. Oklahoma Department of Mental health and Substance Abuse Services

Reentry on Steroids! NADCP 2013

Testimony of Adrienne Poteat, Acting Director Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia

Statistics on Women in the Justice System. January, 2014

Introduction. 1 P age

A Preliminary Assessment of Risk and Recidivism of Illinois Prison Releasees

LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD. Statewide Criminal Justice Recidivism and Revocation Rates

North Carolina Criminal Justice Performance Measures

2009 Florida Prison Recidivism Study Releases From 2001 to 2008

Domestic Violence Offenders in Missouri

External Advisory Group Meeting June 2, 2015

In many jurisdictions, state and local government

Michigan Drug Court Recidivism. Definitions and Methodology

FOCUS. Views from the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Attitudes of US Voters toward Prisoner Rehabilitation and Reentry Policies

6/16/2010. Participant. Public Defender Assistant District Attorney. Assessor Counselor

The Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Program: Evaluation and Recommendations

COMMUNITY SAFETY VICTIM RESPECT OFFENDER ACCOUNTABILITY

Governor Jennifer M. Granholm,

Mental Health & Addiction Forensics Treatment

CUMULATIVE SECOND YEAR COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF PIMA COUNTY S DRUG TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE TO PRISON PROGRAM REPORT

Criminal Justice Policy Workgroup: Background Information

Pierce County. Drug Court. Established September 2004

The Second Chance Act Frequently Asked Questions

Most states juvenile justice systems have

Published annually by the California Department of Justice California Justice Information Services Division Bureau of Criminal Information and

[As Amended by Senate Committee of the Whole] SENATE BILL No By Joint Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice Oversight 1-11

Denver Sobriety Court Program Memorandum of Agreement

SENATE FILE NO. SF0112. Substance abuse prevention and treatment-juveniles.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SECOND CHANCE ACT (SCA)

Reentry & Aftercare. Reentry & Aftercare. Juvenile Justice Guide Book for Legislators

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

THINKING ABOUT CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM By Daniel T. Satterberg

The Justice Reinvestment Initiative

Office of the Bexar County Criminal District Attorney

It s all apples and oranges. January 31, 2012 Nathan Brady OLRGC

The Hamilton County Drug Court: Outcome Evaluation Findings

Community Based Corrections Substance Abuse Treatment For the Higher Risk Offender

Criminal Justice 101. The Criminal Justice System in Colorado and the Impact on Individuals with Mental Illness. April 2009

REDUCING STATEWIDE RECIDIVISM: CHECKLIST FOR STATE REENTRY COORDINATORS

Hamilton County Municipal and Common Pleas Court Guide

2011 REGULAR SESSION HB 463 PENAL CODE AND CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES LEGISLATION Full text of the bill:

MANDATORY SUPERVISION COURT: Blueprint for Success

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

(1) Sex offenders who have been convicted of: * * * an attempt to commit any offense listed in this subdivision. (a)(1). * * *

Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court

LANCASTER COUNTY ADULT DRUG COURT

Con-Quest Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program Outcome Evaluation. February 2004

Utah s Voice on Mental Illness

Contra Costa County: A Model for Managing Local Corrections

Orange County, Texas Adult Criminal Justice Data Sheet

Evaluation of the Performance of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Rehabilitation Tier Programs

Hamilton County Municipal and Common Pleas Court Guide

Proposition 5. Nonviolent Offenders. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation. Statute.

Overall, 67.8% of the 404,638 state

January 2014 Report No

Working Paper # March 4, Prisoner Reentry and Rochester s Neighborhoods John Klofas

Report on Adult Drug Court: eligibility, procedure, and funding Prepared for the State of Rhode Island General Assembly revised April 26, 2007

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE STATE

ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION IN A NUTSHELL

How To Calculate The Cost Of A Jail Based Substance Abuse Treatment Program

Stopping the Revolving Door for Mentally Ill Offenders in the Criminal Justice System via Diversion and Re-entry Programs

Criminal Justice Quarterly Report January 2009-March 2009

FACT SHEET. Views from the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Youth Under Age 18 in the Adult Criminal Justice System. Christopher Hartney

SENTENCING REFORM FOR NONVIOLENT OFFENSES: BENEFITS AND ESTIMATED SAVINGS FOR ILLINOIS

Massachusetts Recidivism Study: A Closer Look at Releases and Returns to Prison

LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Sixty-third Legislature First Regular Session IN THE SENATE SENATE BILL NO. 1026

Frequently Asked Questions on 2011 Criminal Justice Realignment

The Erie County Drug Court: Outcome Evaluation Findings

N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 and 39:4-50.4a August 9, 2004

Community Supervision in Texas

MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT SENTENCING/DISPOSITION SHEET

Criminal Justice Study Consensus Questions

Ready for Reform? Public Opinion on Criminal Justice in Massachusetts

Statewide Evaluation of 2003 Iowa Adult and Juvenile Drug Courts

DECRIMINALIZATION OF CANNABIS. An overview of national, state and local government policy considerations

One Hundred Tenth Congress of the United States of America

Creation of the Task Force on the Penal Code and Controlled Substances Act

Youth and the Law. Presented by The Crime Prevention Unit

Long-term Impact Evaluation of Specialized Sex Offender Probation Programs In Lake, DuPage and Winnebago Counties

ABA COMMISSION ON EFFECTIVE CRIMINAL SANCTIONS

Publicly Available Data On Crime and Justice in the District of Columbia

Services Provided for Polk County Residents

Justice Reinvestment in New Hampshire

MEDINA COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT EARLY INTERVENTION PRE-TRIAL PROGRAM

Alternatives to Pretrial Detention: Southern District of Iowa

2010 CRIMINAL CODE SENTENCING PROVISIONS. Effective July 29, 2010

Re-validation of the Nonviolent Offender Risk Assessment Instrument: Study Update

National Trends: Policy Initiatives

Young Adult Justice Programs Concept Paper January 10, 2011

Community Corrections

Criminal Justice Research Report

New Mexico Corrections Department (NMCD) Mike Estrada Program Manager Community Corrections

County of San Diego SB 618 Reentry Program. May 3, 2007

Data Management Plan. County of Sonoma CCP Data Management and Evaluation Sub-committee

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

AN ACT. The goals of the alcohol and drug treatment divisions created under this Chapter include the following:

The Impact of Arizona s Probation Reforms in 2010

SENATE BILL No. 123 page 2

Iowa Department of Corrections. Report to the Board of Corrections

A Model for Managing Local Corrections

Transcription:

Recidivism Rates - NC DOC Prisoners Released To Mecklenburg County 2009-2011 Overview This analysis briefly examines the post-release criminal activity (i.e., recidivism 1 ) of individuals returning to Mecklenburg County following a period of incarceration in a North Carolina prison. A random sample (n=400) of all prisoners released to the county between September 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011 was used. During that period, a total of 3,169 offenders returned to the county. The review extends to December 31, 2012. General Observations Offenders released to Mecklenburg County were predominantly male (94%) and black (76%). Their average age at admission to DOC was 33; the average age at discharge, 34. A majority of the released offenders had a history of substance abuse (60 percent) and unemployment (53 percent), while 7 percent self-reported a history of mental health issues. Criminal History Eighty percent of offenders had been imprisoned for a felony conviction; the largest majority (69 percent), of which were for a Class F - I violation. Ten percent were released from a Class A1-3 misdemeanor sentence. On average, an offender had eight previous convictions and, for sentencing purposes, was classified by North Carolina as a Level III defendant. Nearly half of those released had been incarcerated for a probation violation. The vast majority (87 percent) were under probationary supervision prior to their most recent incarceration. Half had previously served an active prison sentence. (See Table 2) Table 2. History of Criminal Behavior Average number of prior convictions: 8 Average prior record level: III Average sentence length in months: 52 % Incarcerated for violating probation: 49% Current offense class: Felony - Class F-I 69% Felony - Class C-E 11% Misdemeanor Class A1-3 10% Post Release Revocations 6% Other 4% Had a previous incarceration (twice on average) 50% Had a previous probationary sentence (three times on average) 87% 1 An offender is considered to have recidivated if arrested on a new charge following release. 1

Percent with Multiple Arrests Percent Rearrested Post-Release Arrests 2,3 Thirty-five percent of offenders were re-arrested within one year of their release. The rate of recidivism increased to 47 percent over two years. 4 Half of those rearrested failed within 174 days of their release. 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 32% 24% 14% 4% Figure 2. Recidivism Rate 47% 41% 43% 39% 44% 35% 29% State Average 30 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720 Days The length of time to an offender s first post-release arrest was found to be predictive of their likelihood for multiple arrest events following their release. Sixty-four percent of offenders who recidivated were arrested more the once in the two-year period reviewed. The sooner an offender was arrested following release, the more likely he was to have multiple arrest events. For example, 93 percent of those arrested within 30 days of their release were arrested again at a later date. 5 (See Figure 3) Figure 3. Likelihood of Mutiltiple Arrest Events 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 93% 80% 76% 55% 38% 1-30 31-90 91-180 181-270 271-360 Days to First Post-Release Arrest 2 Only arrests occurring in Mecklenburg County are considered. 3 Based on most serious charge. 4 A 2009 NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission study found a first-year recidivism rate of 29 percent and a two-year rate of 44 percent. 5 This observation is consistent with National Research Council (2007) findings that offenders are most at risk to reoffend in the first months following release and underscores the importance of incorporating prisoner re-entry best practices to reduce recidivism. 2

Focusing on the first post-release arrest, charges were generally distributed among violent (27 percent), drug- (25 percent), and property-related (21 percent) crimes. Misdemeanors were the dominant charge class, representing 39 percent of all the initial arrest events, followed closely by felonies (35 percent). Ten percent of arrests were the result of a traffic violation. (See Figure 4) Figure 4. Post-Release Arrest Types 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Violent Drug Property Other Traffic 10% 17% 21% 25% 27% 3

GEOGRAPHIC RELOCATION A brief GIS analysis was performed to identify the neighborhoods which offenders were returning and to better understand the health or capacity these neighborhoods to support the offender. The results of the analysis are depicted on the map found on page 5. The colors represent the number of offenders returning to a particular neighborhood. Those colored red received the greatest number of offenders (between 79 and 138), while those colored green received the fewest (up to 25). As evident in the map, prison returns are heavily concentrated in an arc that extends clockwise from south to east Charlotte. Remarkably, while these neighborhoods represent slightly more than one-third of the county s population, they receive nearly 70 percent of all returning offenders. According to the Quality of Life Study 6, which assesses the social, economic, crime, and physical characteristics of neighborhoods, 27 percent of those within the arc were considered challenged; that is, they offered below average quality of life when compared to the rest of Mecklenburg County. County-wide, only 16 percent of neighborhoods are considered challenged. Such conditions suggest that a sizeable portion of offenders return to communities may be poorly equipped to provide the support and resources necessary to moderate an offender s criminogenic risk factors, those characteristics which make criminal activity more likely. Additional analysis is necessary to better understand the impact of returning offenders on neighborhoods and the resource needs and strategies necessary to facilitate their successful return to the community. 6 An annual analysis performed by the City of Charlotte which assesses the social, economic, crime, and physical characteristics of neighborhoods. The report is found at: http://charmeck.org/qol/pages/default.aspx 4

5