CEPP-JRI Mecklenburg
Analysis of Arrest Processing Data – Frequent Arrestees
Kevin Baldwin, Ph.D.
Applied Research Services, Inc.
April 11, 2012
The CJAG working group in Mecklenburg County was curious as to the characteristics of citizens who
were arrested on a frequent basis, out of proportion to their actual numbers. An extract of arrest data
inclusive of years 2008 through 2011 was used in order to provide empirical data to address these
questions. The source data, organized such that each record represented a separate charge, was
reformatted such that each record represented a separate arrest episode, with the most serious charge
being identified as the charge of record. During this time period there were a total of 163,733 arrest
episodes. Table 1, below, provides the number of arrest episodes per year, 2008 through 2011.
Table 1. Arrests by Year, 2008 – 2011.
Year
2008
2009
2010
2011
Totals
Number
42,987
41,839
39,095
39,812
163,733
Percent
26.3
25.6
23.9
24.3
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
26.3
51.8
75.7
100.0
A total of 86,162 individuals (as indicated by the number of unique PIDs) accounted for these arrest
episodes, with an average of 1.9 arrests per arrestee over the four years from 2008 to 2011. Looking at
the top 1% of arrest episodes however, we find that 51 arrestees (.05%, or five one-hundredths of one
percent) of all arrestees account for fully 1% of all arrest episodes, an amount far out of proportion to
their actual number. In terms of frequency of arrests, the top five individuals accounted for 70, 65, 62,
56, and 55arrests over the four year span.Eighteen arrestees accounted for just under half (49.7%) of
the total arrest episodes for this entire group of 51 arrestees.
When examining the charges brought against this group of arrestees (counting the most serious charge
only), the offenses are overwhelmingly misdemeanor in nature (93%), followed by felony (4.4%) and
traffic (2.6%) offenses. Table 2, below, provides the 15 most common charges, which together account
for three-quarters of all charges.
Mecklenburg County JRI Initiative – Frequent Arrestees Analysis
Page 1
Table 2. Charges (listing most serious charge per arrest episode only).
Charge
Number
Trespass - Second Degree – Notified Not to Enter
Solicit Alms/Beg for Money
Drug Paraphernalia – Possession of
Intoxicated and Disruptive
Larceny (Misdemeanor) – Under $50
Larceny (Misdemeanor) - $50 - $199
Soliciting from the Street or Median
Resisting Public Officer
Alcoholic Bev. – Consume Wine/Beer on Public Street
Probation Violation
Driving While License Revoked
Larceny (Misdemeanor) - $200 and up
Open Container Ordinance
Alcoholic Bev. – Public Consumption
C/S – SCH II – Possession of Cocaine
113 other charges
302
199
147
133
110
57
53
48
46
36
35
34
34
29
28
Percent
17.7
11.7
8.6
7.8
6.4
3.3
3.1
2.8
2.7
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.7
1.6
24.4
Cumulative
Percent
17.7
29.3
37.9
45.7
52.2
55.5
58.6
61.4
64.1
66.2
68.3
70.3
72.2
73.9
75.6
100.0
Sixty-one percent of arrestees had only one charge for the arrest episode of record, while 23.6% had
two charges, 8.5% had three charges, and 3.7% had four charges.In terms of arrest type, close to three
quarters (72.2%) were the result of a visual arrest (code ORD), 21.4% were due to the issuance of an
Order for Arrest (OFA), and 6.4% were the result of an arrest warrant being issued.
Regarding the type of bond issued, secured bonds were indicated in 96.4% of arrest episodes, with no
bond issued (code: NBD) at 1.3% and NULL at 1%.A third of arrest episodes had a bond amount of $500,
with 12% each having bond amounts of $1000 and $250. After removing the null cases, 1092 out of
1657 arrest episodes, or 66%, had bond amounts of $500 or less. The vast majority (93.2%) of arrest
episodes ended with a NULL release, with 2.8% receiving a secured bond, 2.3% an unsecured bond, and
1% released via a Written Promise to Appear (code WPA).
Taken together, it would appear that a relatively large number of arrests concern a very small number of
persons, in that five one hundredths of one percent (.05%) of arrestees accounted for 1% of all arrest
episodes during the four years between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011. These persons were
most likely to be arrested for minor crimes, often referred to as public order or public nuisance offenses,
such as begging, trespassing, and public alcohol use and/or intoxication. This pattern of offenses is
suggestive of a typical problem concerning offenses committed by persons afflicted with mental illness
and or substance abuse issues, and who are also likely to be homeless. These data suggest that provision
of mental health, substance abuse, and related social services within the community has the potential to
reduce the demonstrated overutilization of criminal justice resources by this small group of persons.One
possible means of addressing these offenders, many of whom are likely to be suffering from mental
illness, would be to have officers who have received Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training respond to
Mecklenburg County JRI Initiative – Frequent Arrestees Analysis
Page 2
these arrest situations. Doing so may result in transport of the potential arrestee to a mental health or
social services facility and correspondingly reduce the likelihood that some of these situations result in
an arrest. Such diversions save public funds and allow officers to devote theirtime to relatively more
serious offenses and offenders. They also have the potential to address the underlying issues presented
by these individuals, potentially reducing their likelihood of future arrest and incarceration. These data,
and the conclusions derived from them, closely mirror the findings of a study of chronic offenders
published in March, 2007 by the Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s Office.1
1
Eberly, T.A., Takahashi, Y., & Messina, M. (2007). Chronic Offender Study: Final Report. Charlotte, NC:
Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s Office, Research and Planning Unit.
Mecklenburg County JRI Initiative – Frequent Arrestees Analysis
Page 3