pa 511 - cost benefit analysis (cba) of the justice reinvestment act

Joe PraterPA 511 – Fall 2015

Executive Summary

“We have over two million people behind bars right now,” John Oliver said. “We have

more prisoners at the moment than China. Than China! We don’t have more of anything than

China other than, of course, debt to China”1. The host of HBO’s Last Week Tonight, John Oliver

brings a comedic comparison to a fundamental issue in the United States. As a result of Richard

Nixon’s “War on Drugs” campaign in the 1970’s, policies were put into place with intentions to

discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of illegal narcotics. In 1971, Nixon

referred to America’s drug problem as “public enemy number one”, and continued to stress the

importance of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. With harsh

penalties being enforced for minor drug charges, America’s prison population began to increase

dramatically. Though the growth in inmate populations was minimal during the 1970’s,

progression became very apparent moving into the 1980’s. After 1980, the number of arrests for

all crimes had risen by 28%, and the number of drug offenses rose by 126%2. The “war on

drugs” was taking many drug abusers and distributers off of the streets, but is that the real answer

to the problem? Do non-violent offenders need to be behind bars?

North Carolina has faced similar increases in the number of incarcerated citizens. The

overpopulation of prisons has been created by harsh penalties for non-violent crimes. With the

implementation of the Justice Reinvestment Act (JRA), North Carolina has made essential

adjustments to sentencing offenders and releasing those already incarcerated into community

supervision (post-release supervision). With this new data-driven approach, the state of North

Carolina has made strides in improving public safety and alleviating the issue of overcrowding in

prisons. The JRA was not a piece of legislation drafted to just accommodate an alleviation of

1 HBO, 20142 McKey, 1989


prison overcrowding, it was a comprehensive plan created to address the entire continuum of the

state’s criminal justice system. This comprehensive plan targeted sentencing and active sentences

through rehabilitation, re-entry, and post-release supervision. With these alternatives in mind,

government officials came together to create a plan that treats and rehabilitates offenders to

reduce recidivism. The outcomes resulting from a reduction in recidivism are expanded upon in

the following analysis.

After the passing of the JRA (2011), between the years 2011and 2013, the state’s prison

system experienced a 14% reduction in recidivism. Probation revocations have also dropped by

50% between 2011 and 2014. The state’s crime rate has since fallen by 11% since the

implementation of the legislation. These changes have allowed the state to add over 175

additional probation officer jobs as a result of the savings. The state has also been able to close

11 correctional facilities and reprioritize 8 million dollars towards improving existing

community-based treatment resources. The most impressive improvements made by the Justice

Reinvestment Act have been the reduction in prison populations. In 2005, North Carolina had a

prison population of 36,663. Before the JRA was passed in June of 2011, the prison population

had risen to 41,030. Much of this trend can be attributed to the fact that 50% of prison

admissions were probation violations (76% of those admissions were due to technical

violations)3. This high recidivism rate was being referred to as the “revolving door”. Meaning,

most offenders where leaving and then re-entering the system.

Prior to the JRA, projections showed that the state’s prison population would rise to

43,220 between 2015 and 2017. Since being passed, the JRA has helped bring the prison

population down to 37,059. This is a 3,971 drop (14.6%) in prison population in a short 3-year

3 NCDPS, 2015


span. With the legislation implemented, the state of North Carolina has saved, based on

projections, $560 million dollars3. These savings, as a whole, will be broken down into more

detail throughout this analysis.

This analysis will look at the many benefits resulting from the implementation of this

legislation. More specifically, this study will concentrate on analyzing the effects that the passing

of the JRA have had on the North Carolina prison system in the following facets:

Prison Population

Prison Composition

Population Trends

Prison Releases

Probation Revocations

Swift and Certain Sanctions

Community-Interventions/Post-Release

Supervision

Financial Impacts (Sum of all Outcomes)

Most data used in this analysis were received from either the North Carolina Department

of Public Safety’s Rehabilitative Programs and Services Section or the nonprofit Council of State

Governments (CSG) Justice Center.

This analysis will look specifically at measuring the benefits and outcomes of the

legislation by determining annualized savings, annualized costs, and costs averted that result

from the implementation of the JRA. Monetized outcomes will be calculated by comparing

current direct costs (inmates, facilities, staff, etc.) to those same costs in the past (previous fiscal

years) to present how much has been saved since implementing the JRA. Said savings will be a

result of prison closures, consolidations, operating budgets, prison conversions, etc. Costs that

will be analyzed consist of adding staff, funding new programs, etc. Total costs and total savings

will be netted to define the total benefits. Projections will also assist in predicting how much will

continue to be saved (cost avoidance) moving forward.


Here is an initial look at the savings, costs, and avoidance costs that will be expanded

upon throughout this analysis:

Annualized SavingsPrison Closures – Staff Reductions $117.72 MillionConsolidations ‐‐ Staff Reductions $3.53 MillionOperating Budget – Lower Prison Population $64.19 MillionPrison Conversions – Staff Reductions $9.54 Million

Total JRA Reductions: $194.98 MillionAnnualized CostsAdditional Probation Parole Officers & Equipment $24.05 MillionIncrease Parole Commission Staff $1.90 MillionFund CRV Centers $8.53 Million

Total JRA Costs $34.48 MillionCosts AvertedPrison Construction & Operation (based on 2010 projections) $560.00 Million

Total JRA Cost Avoidance $560.00 Million

However, this analysis does not take into effect other likely indirect benefits that

come in the form of cost savings to society. For example, an offender who is sentenced to

community supervision as opposed to being incarcerated is more likely to contribute to a

society’s economy by having the opportunity to be employed or receive an alternative

type of income. Offenders who are parents are more likely to have beneficial impacts

with their children when being on community supervision rather than being incarnated.

This can indirectly result in the child being less susceptible to falling into a life of crime,

being incarcerated, abusing drugs, or depending on public assistance and welfare

programs. All of these benefits/avoidances (and more) have monetary values but will not

be addressed in this analysis.


Justice Reinvestment Act: a Bipartisan Approach to a More Efficient Prison System?

With increases in incarcerations, prison systems across the country suffered from

the financial backlash of a growing inmate population; North Carolina’s prisons system is

no exception. Like all other state governments, North Carolina aims to ensure the safety

of their citizens through enforcing laws and providing programs that both prevent crime,

but more importantly, rehabilitate those who have committed such crimes.

Across the nation, state’s prison systems were beginning to reach capacity with

their prison populations. This epidemic sparked a national-level Justice Reinvestment

project lead by the nonprofit Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center. In

2009, CSG began collecting data on North Carolina’s criminal justice system to try to

pinpoint issues that could be contributing to the crisis. In 2011, the CSG issued a report

that contained the following findings regarding North Carolina’s criminal justice system:

North Carolina’s prison population was projected to increase by 10 percent

between 2010 and 2020,

Most felons (all Class F-1 offenders, who account for 85 percent of all felons) had

no community supervision upon release from prison,

More than half of new prison admissions were revoked probationers,

Community-based treatment programs were not allocated in an evidence-based

way, and

North Carolina was unusual in the number of misdemeanants housed in its prison

system instead of local jails.4

4 Council of State Governments Justice Center, 20141


As a result of these findings, North Carolina state government officials worked to

find a solution to these issues. Governor Beverly Purdue, the North Carolina General

Assembly, and the CSG created House Bill 642, the Justice Reinvestment Act. The bill

passed easily and was signed into law by the Governor on June 23, 2011. The signed bill

included the following policies:

Creates a new classification of low-level felonies to keep non-violent offenders

out of prison.

Empowers probation officers to use swift and certain jail sanctions in response to

violations of conditions of supervision.

Sets up a system of “quick dips” to send probationers/parolees with technical

violations (missing a meeting, failing a drug test) in a local jail for a few days,

putting them on electronic monitoring, or sending them for drug/mental health

treatment.

Increases sentences for people convicted of repeat breaking-and-entering

offenses.

Requires mandatory supervision for everyone convicted of felonies upon release

from prison by creating a system that closely evaluates, educates, treats and

supervises prisoners after release, requiring some supervision for everyone

released.

Provides substance abuse treatment, cognitive behavioral services, and other

evidence-based programming to people on supervision who have the greatest need

for treatment and are at the highest risk of reoffending.

David Guice, North Carolina’s current Commissioner of Adult Corrections, was a

Republican state legislator when the Justice Reinvestment Act was passed in 2011. Guice 2


commented on the bi-partisan support when stating “Historically I think folks, especially

Republicans, always came across not wanting to be seen in any way being soft on crime.

For many years when there was legislation put forth that could be seen in any way as

being soft on crime, you wouldn’t get the support of the Republican folks”5. He later

clarified the goals of the legislation by stating that “the approach was, let’s not look at

something based on whether this is being soft on crime, let’s look at these things from the

standpoint of, let’s be smart in spending taxpayer dollars. Let’s look and see what the

data were saying in North Carolina, let’s look at North Carolina data, and look at national

models that were successful in changing people’s behavior. You have to address the

underlying issues of why someone made a bad decision”5. During his tenure as a

representative in the legislature, Guice had a passion for public safety and the Justice

Reinvestment Act. Wanting to ensure that the policies were going to be upheld, Guice

was then appointed to the position of Commissioner of Adult Corrections within the

North Carolina Department of Public Safety.

Background on the North Carolina Department of Public Safety

In 2012, as a result of North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue’s legislative

approved Executive Order 85, the state consolidated all state cabinet-level public safety

departments to create the North Carolina Department of Public Safety (NCDPS). Prior to

the legislative change, public safety related departments existed separately as their own

stand-alone entities. Governor Perdue, along with the North Carolina General Assembly,

decided to combine the public safety entities to create one cost-efficient and consistent

5 Haskins, 2015 3


department. The consolidation consisted of the uniting of the Department of Correction,

the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Department of

Crime Control and Public Safety into the North Carolina Department of Public Safety

(NCDPS). Within the new NCDPS, there are six divisions: Adult Correction and Juvenile

Justice (ACJJ), North Carolina State Highway Patrol (NCSHP), Alcohol Law

Enforcement (ALE), Emergency Management (NCEM), North Carolina National Guard

(NCNG), and State Bureau of Investigation (SBI). This study will focus on the Prisons

section within ACJJ. Adult Corrections is responsible for the operation of Prisons,

Community Corrections, Alcohol and Chemical Dependency Programs, and Correction

Enterprises. This study will focus on the effects the JRA has had on the financial aspects

of Adult Correction.

In 1998, the Division of Adult Correction developed a long-range strategic plan,

which is based on the following vision statement and strategic issues3:

Vision Statement: We, the employees of Adult 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.4


Deliver effective services and programs, using research and advanced technology.

Emphasize cost efficient management of resources and accountability for high

quality results.3

The Justice Reinvestment Act was constructed to improve sentencing, supervision, and

treatment options for offenders. The old days of throwing someone in a cell and having them

serve an adult-version of “time out” are over. Time has proven that the old methods are placing a

financial burden on the state, as well as a mental and physical taxation on the inmates.

Additionally, that approach has proven unsuccessful in meeting the objectives of rehabilitating

offenders with hopes for a successful reentry back into society. The state decided to come up

with a solution that could alleviate both of these issues. The name “Justice Reinvestment”

practically defines its objective; if you invest in the offender, more than likely they will reinvest

back into society. Think of the old saying “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach

a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime”. The same can be applied to this legislation, “Give

an offender time in prison and punish him for his sentence. Rehabilitate an offender and give him

another opportunity at post-release success”. Guice summarized by saying, “the General

Assembly has reinvested back into the community”5.

Since being passed in 2011, the JRA has brought many benefits to the state of North

Carolina. Current governor, Pat McCrory stated, “The progress our state has made to reduce

corrections costs while holding offenders more accountable for their behavior is nothing short of

remarkable”. McCrory, a republican, shows great support for this legislation that was brought

into effect by Perdue’s democratic administration.

Within the Division of Adult Corrections and Juvenile Justice, the Section of

Rehabilitative Programs and Services was created to provide assistance to other sections within

ACJJ. Most of the data from this study comes from this section’s work. Section staff includes,

5


among others, research and evaluation analysts, policy development analysts, and correctional

planners. Section responsibilities consist of, but are not limited to:

Obtaining and organizing topical information on research topics,

Preparing statistical and topical reports,

Conducting evaluations,

Providing data and methodology review for evaluations,

Providing answers to statistical questions about correctional populations,

Analyzing and interpreting statistical information,

Preparing population forecast and utilizing simulation models, and

Consulting on methods to develop, implement, and monitor plans and polices.3

Using all previously mentioned responsibilities, the Rehabilitative Programs and Services

section has been able to analyze the use and effectiveness of evidence-based practices that are

functionally applied within the prisons and community corrections operations of North Carolina.

The premise of the following study is to analyze how the implementation of the

Justice Reinvestment Act of 2011 has affected the North Carolina prison system. More

specifically, how much money has been saved by decreasing the number of incarcerated

offenders. It’s a simple concept: if the judicial system can transition offenders from

residential programs (incarceration) to community programs, the cost of housing inmates,

feeding inmates, providing medical care, etc. will drop dramatically. Also, less prisoners

would mean less facilities. This would decrease costs associated with building

maintenance, power, water, personnel, etc. Investing more in rehabilitative programs can

also prevent an offender from entering the criminal system as a repeat-offender, therefore

avoiding the costs associated with processing, housing, or supervising that same offender.

The same could be said with investing more in post-release supervision. Mental health

6


and substance abuse programs can also decrease the likelihood of an offender being

dependent on social programs. One could examine a multitude of intermediate goods

(positive or negative downstream effects) such as all of the indirect effects of an offender

being in society rather than being “behind bars”. These are all effects that can be

analyzed at a later time; this analysis will primarily focus on the financial benefits of this

particular legislation and its effects on the North Carolina prisons system.

Direct Costs of Inmates

In order to analyze benefits of avoiding placing individuals in prisons, first you must

establish how much each prisoner is costing taxpayers. There are three different custody levels in

the North Carolina prison’s system and each has specific costs. The three custody levels are

minimum custody, medium custody, and close custody. Close custody costs are more expensive

than minimum custody for obvious reasons. Close custody inmates require more supervision,

therefore more correctional officers. Closed custody inmates also require more security,

therefore more expensive infrastructure (buildings, barriers, etc.). The importance here is to

realize each custody level brings specific costs to the department. According to a memo sent

from the NCDPS Controller, James Cheroke, to the Secretary of NCDPS, Frank L. Perry, the

daily costs by custody level, including overhead, are as follows6:

Custody Level Daily Cost (Including Overhead)

Minimum Custody $70.18

Medium Custody $82.14

Close Custody $95.78 Figure 1 Average Daily Costs per Inmate by Custody Level 6

6 Cheroke, 20157


With these daily costs, yearly costs can be calculated by simply multiplying the above

numbers by 365. Prisons are obviously operated 24-hours a day, 365 days a year. If multiplied by

365, the yearly cost for each inmate (by custody level) would be as follows:

Custody Level Yearly Cost (Including Overhead)

Minimum Custody $25,615.70

Medium Custody $29,981.10

Close Custody $34,959.70

Figure 2 Average Yearly Cost per Inmate by Custody Level

With these yearly costs, we can establish an average costs per year by custody level. This

is performed by taking the yearly costs listed above and multiplying these figures by the

population for each custody level. These costs are as follows:

Custody Level Current Custody Level PopulationEstimated Yearly Cost per Custody

Level

Minimum Custody 12,385 $317,250,444.50

Medium Custody 18,800 $563,644,680.00

Close Custody 6,337 $221,539,618.90

Total: $1,102,434,743.40

Figure 3 Average Yearly Cost per Custody Level Populations

These costs will be used throughout the analysis to represent two options; taxpayer

money that is being spent on housing inmates, or taxpayer money that is being saved by avoiding

having inmates housed in NCDPS facilities.

Prison Population

As previously discussed, the growth of the North Carolina prison population has been an

issue that has brought great concern to senior management within NCDPS. In NCDPS’

performance measures, drafted by the Rehabilitative Programs & Services, population growth of

prisons from 1997-2015 is as follows:

8


Figure 4 NCDPS, 2015 3

As shown above, since the enactment of the JRA, the population of North

Carolina prisons has decreased by 9.6%. With a 29% increase between 200-2009,

NCDPS searched for a resolution to alleviate the financial burden of overcrowded

prisons. Upon the passing of the JRA, the reduction in prison population allowed the

department to remain out of jail backlog, for four fiscal years and save approximately $1

million dollars per month during the first four months of the 2011 fiscal year. With the

population now down to 37,059 inmates, the department has saved close to $64.2 million

dollars since the close of the 2012 fiscal year4. Here is a look at the backlogs for the

state’s prison population from fiscal year 2007-2015:

Column1 Average Daily Backlog Yearly Costs (Millions)FY 2007 27 $0.40FY 2008 125.00 $1.83FY 2009 208 $3.04FY 2010 659 $9.67FY 2011* 402 $6.85FY 2012 0 $0.00FY 2013 0 $0.00FY 2014 0 $0.00FY 2015 0 $0.00

*through only first 6 months of FY2010-20119


Prison Composition (Prison Admission by Reason)

In the North Carolina prison system, there are basically two types of inmates that enter

the system: new criminal convictions and probation revocations. New criminal convictions are

inmates who have committed a criminal act that is not associated with a previous crime and their

new sentence stands alone from any prior activity. Probation revocations occur when an offender

is on probation but commits a probation violation that results in the offender being incarcerated.

Prior to the JRA, most admissions to the prison system were a result of revocations of probation

terms. By 2008-2009, the percentage of new admissions had increase by nearly 53%4. The JRA

also specifies that only major violations can land an offender back in the prison system.

Meaning, prior to the JRA, probationers that committed technical violations (minor offenses on

their probation) were placed back in prison. In an attempt to alleviate the number of offenders

incarcerated, the JRA gives penalties to technical violations that do not require an offender to

return to prison. Of the 53% increase previously mentioned, 76% of those revocations were

admissions attributed to technical violations3. The JRA now places probationers who commit

technical violations (i.e. failure to attend treatment, positive drug screens) to be confined to 90

days in CRV’s (Confinement in Response to Violation) and then be returned to community

supervision. Since the JRA, there has been a significant drop in the number of admissions

coming as a result of probation revocations:

10



As depicted above, there was a 40% drop in the number of admissions due to

revocations compared to the year prior to enactment of the JRA. This resulted in going

from 15,118 admissions to 9,079. The JRA limits the length of incarceration to 90 days

for people who were convicted of felony offenses who violate the conditions of their

probation, but have not committed a new crime or absconded. Prior to JRA, the probation

revocation rate was 37.6%, meaning the exiting probation was unsuccessful. During

2015, the revocation rate fell to 18.6%, resulting in a 57% decrease in the number of

offenders failing supervision3:


The new CRV alternative has proven to be a more rehabilitative form of punishment for

probation revocations. Since December of 2014, NCDPS has opened three CRV centers; two for

11


men and one for women. The centers provide structured cognitive behavioral and substance

abuse interventions for high risk offenders. Education and employment services, along with

recreational and other pro-social activities are included as a part of these units’ correctional

behavior management model. To maximize cost efficiencies, two of these CRV’s were stood up

through the re-use of previously-closed prison facilities, thus avoiding the cost of building new

facilities. The third CRV, for females, has been embedded within an existing prison but is kept

separate from the prison population. The CRV entries are now expected to average around 2,500

offenders per year. This approach to probation violations is a prime example of the vision

associated with the JRA: reinvesting in offenders to allow them to become a greater contribution

to society. Here is a look at the CRV entries since 2012:

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 20150

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

CRV Entries: FY 2012 - FY 2015


In order to provide the most beneficial services to offenders, the JRA now requires

probation officers to asses probationers for their risk of reoffending and supervise them

accordingly. The JRA now sets caseloads at 60 for officers, allowing them to place greater

emphasis on high and medium risk offenders by allowing more quality contacts that focus on

12


offender’s crime producing needs. During the year prior to JRA, high risk revocation rates

dropped from 64%. With the JRA allowing officers to focus on high and medium risk offenders,

the revocation rates for high risk offenders has dropped to 50% as of 2015. Over that same

period, medium risk offender revocations dropped from 37% to 31% and low risk offenders

dropped from 31% to 10%3:

Figure 8 NDPS 2015 3

Population Trends

Prior to the JRA, projections showed that the prison population in North Carolina would

rise to 43,220 by 2017. Once the JRA was enacted, it was predicted that the population would be

38,264 by 2017. As a result of the legislation, the population has now decreased to 37,0594:


13


Prison Releases/Community Interventions/Post-Release Supervision

A very stark reality not well-known by the public is the fact that 95% of incarcerated

inmates will eventually return to society. In fact, in fiscal year 2013-2104, the North Carolina

prison system had 23,000 inmates complete their sentences and were released back into society.

In many states, inmates who complete their sentence are pushed back onto the street with nothing

more than a one-way bus ticket. North Carolina has made great strides to reevaluate the “reentry”

facet of an inmate’s life. Community intervention has been created to help transition newly

released inmates back into society. Released inmates are placed into specific community

intervention programs based on risk-and-needs assessments that are conducted on the inmates.

This ensures that any issues they might have (substance abuse, behavioral issues, etc.) are

continued to be rehabilitated after they are released from prison. Community interventions and

the outcomes of those programs are discussed later in this analysis.

As stated before, the JRA focuses closely on how offenders are released back into

society. The new legislation requires every offender with a felony conviction to receive 9-12

months of post-release supervision (including community interventions). The premise of having

post-release supervision is to ensure that offenders make a suitable transition back into society.

This supervision can greatly reduce the chances of an offender committing another crime and

entering back into the system. Keeping an offender from re-entering the system is both a societal

and financial goal for the department. Focusing on reentry will help formerly incarcerated

citizens become greater assets to society. Prior to the JRA, only 16% of people who had been

convicted of felonies received post-release supervision after leaving prison; by 2015, this number

has increased by %75 and will continue to grow3:

14



Like any program offered to offenders, the success of the programs must be evaluated.

The new sentencing options for judges offers advanced supervised release (ASR) to encourage

individuals to complete prison-based cognitive behavioral programs to reduce the likelihood of

offenders reentering the system. Here is a look at the current outcomes that have resulted from

those who have been put on (ASR):

The JRA created funding streams for community interventions that address criminogenic

needs and other barriers of the offender population. Over 10,000 offenders have been served

each year between 2013 and 2015. NCDPS’ Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice

15



has contracts with programs and services thanks to the Treatment for Effective Community

Supervision appropriation3:

Short-term cognitive behavioral and substance abuse interventions are provided at

Recidivism Reduction Programs, which are most numerous and serve the largest number

of offenders receiving services.

Intensive, longer term interventions are provided at Community Intervention Centers;

operate primarily in urban areas of the state.

Transitional housing offers temporary housing for the general population (up to 90 days)

and sex offenders (up to 60 days).

Funding specifically for Intensive Outpatient Substance Abuse Treatment began with

limited funding during fiscal year 014-2015.

With programs and services in place, offenders receive rehabilitative help that can

prevent the likelihood of them committing another crime, and placing them back in prison.

By investing in these programs, NCDPS is reaping the benefits of seeing lower recidivism

rates; this saves taxpayer dollars by keeping individuals out of prison. Keeping individuals

out of prison allows those individuals to be a more beneficial contribution to society. Here is

a look at the increase of offenders utilizing the programs previously mentioned3:

16



Swift and Certain Sanctions

One of the new components of the JRA consisted of giving probation officers the ability

to invoke swift and certain sanctions to non-compliant offender behaviors. Under the new law, a

probation officer may require an offender sentences to community punishment to:

Perform up to 20 hours of community service and pay the fee prescribed by law;

Report to the offender’s probation officer on a frequency to be determined by the officer;

Submit to substance abuse assessment, monitoring, or treatment;

Submit to house arrest with electronic monitoring;

Submit to “quick dip” confinement, a period or periods of confinement in a local

confinement facility, for a total of no more than 6 days per month in any 3 separate

months during the period of probation. This confinement may be imposed only as 2- or 3-

day consecutive periods;

Submit to an electronically monitored curfew; or

Participate in an educational or vocational skills development program, including an

evidence-based program.7

7 NC G.S. 15A-1343.2(e) 17


During the fiscal year 2014-2015, NCDPS assessed the impact of the “quick dip”

confinement programs to reveal the impact of these sanctions. During that year, nearly

3,900 quick dips were ordered in response to non-compliant offender behavior, nearly

three times the number ordered during the previous year4. NCDPS’ Rehabilitative

Programs and Services section compared outcome for 368 offenders who had a quick dip

to a group of matched offenders who did not have a quick dip as a response to a similar

non-compliance during the previous year (2013-2014). The results of the assessment

showed that the 92% of the offenders with a “quick dip” showed a positive outcome

compared to about 53% of offenders from the comparison group, who did not have a

quick dip. This assessment confirms that the quick dip alternative is helping offenders

avoid going back to prison all while rehabilitating the offender and reducing their

likelihood of committing another offense. Here is a look at the total outcome from the

quick dip control group:


Financial Impacts (Sum of all Outcomes)

18


Many financial savings have resulted from the passing of the JRA. Most

importantly, NCDPS has been able to close 11 prisons along with their supporting

Regional offices resulting in a reduction in the overall operating budget. With the

transition of offenders being incarcerated to being placed in community programs and

community supervision (probation), NCDPS has had to increase staffing for

probation/parole officers along with parole commission staff. Funds have also been

allocated to operation and treatment dollars for the openings of the previously mentioned

CRV centers. In total, NCDPS has been able to save more than 160 million dollars

through fiscal year 2014-2015. Here is a look at the net impacts in millions of dollars

from fiscal year 2011-2012 to fiscal year 2014-20153:


The figures above shows a net saving of approximately 160 and a half million dollars. These are

assumptions made anticipating funding and capacity needs prior to the passing of the JRA. If we

are to consider inflation rates, the Department has really saved close to 162 million dollars:

FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15Annual

Savings ($) $17,430,000 $28,310,000 $59,160,000.00 $55,600,000.00

Inflation Factor 229.48 233.50 238.34 238.64

Real Terms ($2015) $18,125,747.74 $28,932,445.61 $59,233,223.04 $55,600,000.00

Total: $161,891,416.40

19


Inmate costs are based on the EOC capacity based on the absence of the JRA. Staffing costs are

annualized based on recurring and non-recurring general fund dollars. Facility costs assume

savings are recurring due to reduced prison population as a result of the JRA. Below is an

itemized account of costs and savings from the general fund (graphed above). This accounts for

many items discussed throughout the analysis (population/inmate cost, staff costs, prison

closures, CRV openings, etc.)3:

General Fund Dollars

FY11-12 FY12‐13 FY13‐14 FY14‐15 TotalsFunded Capacity (EOC) 41,168 41,924 41,924 41,924Average Daily Population 39,676 37,743 37,490 37,516

Difference ‐1,492 ‐4,181 ‐4,434 ‐4,408Annual Cost Per Inmate $4,469.45 $4,238.63 $4,398.14 $4,605.87 Inmate costs ($6,668,419.40) ($17,721,712.03) ($19,501,352.76) ($20,302,674.9)6

)($64,194,159.15)

Probation Officer Positions

$0.00 $0.00 $7,598,244.00 $16,446,844.00 $24,045,088.00 Parole Commission Positions $0.00 $169,267.00 $681,094.00 $1,056,094.00 $1,906,455.00

Other Prison Staff Reductions

$0.00 $0.00 ($475,296.00) ($3,058,256.00) ($3,533,552.00)Staff Costs $0.00 $169,267.00 $7,804,042.00 $14,444,682.00 $22,417,991.00 Prison Closures ($10,759,336.00) ($10,759,336.00) ($44,862,416.00) ($51,342,589.00) ($117,723,677.00)Conversions $0.00 $0.00 ($2,600,000.00) ($6,936,433.00) ($9,536,433.00)CRV Center Openings $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,533,220.00 $8,533,220.00 Facility Costs ($10,759,336.00) ($10,759,336.00) ($47,462,416.00) ($49,745,802.00) ($118,726,890.00)Total General Fund ($17,427,755.40) ($28,311,781.76) ($59,159,726.76) ($55,603,794.96) ($160,503,058.15)


Sensitivity Analysis

Using the itemized figures above, here is a sensitivity analysis of the growing costs

avoided (savings) after implementation of the JRA legislation:

Year 0 (FY 11-12) 1 (FY12-13) 2 (FY13-14) 3 (FY 14-15) Totals

Costs (Inmates) (-$6.67) (-$17.72) (-$19.50) (-$20.30) (-$64.19)

Costs (Staff) $0.00 $0.17 $7.80 $14.44 $22.41

Costs (Facilities) (-$10.76) (-$10.76) (-$47.46) (-$49.74) (-$118.72)

Net (Benefits) (-$17.43) (-$28.31) (-$59.16) (-$55.60) (-$160.50)

20


With a gradual decrease in the inmate population, the savings from inmate costs went

from saving $6.67 million in fiscal year 2011-2012 (Year 0) to $20.3 million in fiscal year 2014-

2015 (year 3). This totaled to save the state $64.19 million in inmate costs over the first four

fiscal years. Once the legislation was implemented, the transition from incarceration to

community supervision required a need for more probation officers and parole commission

positions. This is shown where the staff costs went from $0 in fiscal year 2011-2012 (Year 0) to

$14.44 million in fiscal year 2014-2015 (Year 3). This cost is considered an “investment”.

Meaning, paying for these positions are contributing to the decrease in recidivism, therefore

leading to lower inmate costs and facility costs (prison closures). The costs for these new staff

members have totaled to $22.41 million for the first four fiscal years. The savings for Facilities

has also grown over the past four fiscal years. Upon implementation, the state saved $10.76

million due in the first two fiscal years as a result of prison closures. Prison closure savings grew

gradually over the next 3 fiscal years, totaling savings at $117.7 million over the four fiscal

years. NCDPS also converted some of the closed facilities (downsizing) which contributed to

$2.6 million in savings in fiscal year 2013-2104 and $6.94 million in fiscal year 2014-2015. The

opening of CRV Centers cost the state $8.53 million in fiscal year 2014-2015 but can also be

looked at as an “investment” because these CRV’s and the programs they offer have shown to

aide in the reduction of recidivism. The facility costs total showed to save the department

$118.73 million between fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2014-2015. The net benefit created by the

sum of all inmate cost savings (-$64.19 million), staff costs/cost savings (net $22.42 million),

and facility costs/cost savings (-$118.72 million) has a total of $160.5 million saved for the

department.

Not considered in this analysis is the savings attributed to avoiding the building of new

facilities to accommodate for the previously projected populations. With the previous projections 21


of having 43,220 inmates by 2015- 2017, the department was anticipating having to pay $560

million for new facilities to accommodate that population. Luckily, the JRA has reduced the

population, allowing the department to avoid those costs.

Conclusion

The main objective of the Justice Reinvestment act is very clear: invest in the inmates

now, and avoid repercussions later. These avoided repercussions can be both societal and

financial. Refer to the old saying “You can pay me now, or you can pay me later”. Investing in

rehabilitating and setting up these inmates for success is an opportunity to avoid having to pay

for any future criminal sentences within the criminal justice system. It’s simple, prevent them

from committing crimes and you prevent having to pay for their future incarceration. Going back

to the original figures presented regarding daily costs per inmate, depending on the custody of

the inmate, taxpayers are paying anywhere from $70.18 to $95.78 a day to incarcerate an inmate.

If treatment is applied and post-release supervision is utilized, these costs can be avoided. Sure, it

costs to provide programs and supervision, but after all, that’s what an “investment” really is.

Pay for it now, and reap the benefits later. Once you reap the benefits, re-invest. It’s a cycle that

has the potential to alleviate many social and financial burdens. North Carolina is breaking

ground on this great opportunity; an opportunity that will spark interest with the rest of the

country, and hopefully other states will follow suit.

This analysis shows that the benefits of the Justice Reinvestment Act far exceed

the costs. The results presented confirms that this legislative act should continue to not

only save the taxpayer money, but create a more enjoyable, law abiding society.

22


References:

2 Austin J, McVey AD. The 1989 NCCD prison population forecast: the impact of the war on

drugs. San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1989.

6 Cheroke, James. Daily Cost Per Inmate For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2014.

Memo. NCDPS. Raleigh. January 2015.

4 Council of State Governments Justice Center. Justice Reinvestment in North Carolina: Three

Years Later (New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2014). \

6 NC G.S. 15A-1343.2(e)

5 Haskins, Shelly. 5 Things Alabama Can Learn from North Carolina’s Prison Reforms.

AL.com. N.p., 4 Feb. 2015. Web.

1 HBO. Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Prison. Perf. John Oliver. YouTube.com. Last

Week Tonight, 20 July 2014. Web.

3 NCDPS. North Carolina Criminal Justice Performance Measures (JRA Metrics). Rehabilitative

Programs and Services, 16 Oct. 2015. PDF.

23

pa 511 - cost benefit analysis (cba) of the justice reinvestment act

Documents