Justice Reinvestment at the Local Level:
Summary of Phase I Data
Analysis Efforts
Mecklenburg County
April 3, 2013
CEPP-JRI Mecklenburg
Summary of Phase I Data Analysis Efforts
Table of Contents
Page #
Executive Summary
i
Background and Introduction
1
Methods
2
Findings
4
Key Findings of Interest
9
Key Finding 1: Low Level Offenses
9
Key Finding 2: Mental Illness/Homelessness (Frequent Jail Utilizers)
13
Key Finding 3: Recidivists
16
Cost Impact Projections
20
Proposed Strategies
20
Next Steps
22
Appendix
23
Applied Research Services, Inc.
663 Ethel Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30318
404-881-1120
www.ars-corp.com
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
these arrest situations.
Executive Summary
Justice Reinvestment at the Local Level Summary of Phase I Data Analysis Efforts
Mecklenburg County
April 3, 2013
Key Finding #3: Recidivists A large percentage of offenders
recidivate, after having been released either from the jail or to
Mecklenburg County from North Carolina prisons. Recidivists
look very similar to non-recidivists in terms of their personal and
offense characteristics. Given the proportion of these episodes
which involved a probation or parole violation (12%), any
reduction in arrests for these charges would be felt most acutely
in a reduction in jail bed days, given the relatively high
proportion of bed days consumed by probation/parole violators.
The Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) was launched by the
United States Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) in 2006 in order
to address the increase in corrections spending at both the state
and local levels. The JRI efforts in Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina built upon and augmented the work of the preexisting
Mecklenburg County Criminal Justice Advisory Group (CJAG).
Oversight and coordination of the JRI efforts in Mecklenburg
County was provided by Thomas Eberly, Criminal Justice
Manager for Mecklenburg County. Training and Technical
Assistance has been provided to Mecklenburg County by the
Center for Effective Public Policy (CEPP) and Applied Research
Services (ARS). As the provider of analytic support for JRI efforts
in Mecklenburg County, ARS was tasked with examining the
arrest, jail, and other criminal justice data. ARS research staff
sought and received from the Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s
Office data on all arrests and jail releases for a four-year period
from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2011 for analysis.
Data was also obtained from the North Carolina Administrative
Office of the Courts, North Carolina Office of Indigent Services,
and the National Center for State Courts.
The CJAG focus groups and workgroup examined these and
other findings in detail, and proposed a number of potential
strategies to address these issues as well as the issue of citizeninitiated complaints. Potential strategies and objectives were
developed by the workgroup and approved by the CJAG on
March 5, 2013. Approved strategies include: increase the use of
citations for low level offenses, decrease the volume of driving
while license revoked cases, reduce the intake of mentally ill
persons who are not a threat to public safety, provide short-term
crisis intervention services and diversion options via a single
service location, provide housing/shelter solutions coupled with
proactive case management and social services for frequent
service users, provide confidential screening and service-need
assessments to offenders, coordinate community-based service
delivery to targeted risk groups, establish a comprehensive
offender reintegration framework for state prisoners released to
Mecklenburg County, increase referrals to alternative dispute
resolution settings, increase the use of summons when
alternative dispute resolution is not appropriate and public
safety is not impacted, and establish a citizen-initiated complaint
docket. The Mecklenburg workgroup and CJAG are proactively
using the data findings to more effectively utilize scarce
correctional resources and to better respond to the needs of
offenders.
Mecklenburg County Jail data showed that there were 163,733
arrests between 2008 to 2011. These arrest episodes included
86,162 unique individuals with an average of 1.9 arrests during
the time period. While bookings overall decreased each year in
the study period, with the exception of 2008 to 2009, female
bookings have seen a statistically significant increase.
Key Finding #1: Low Level Offenses The top five offenses
booked into the jail between 2008 and 2011 were: Driving While
Impaired, Driving While License Revoked, Drug Paraphernalia –
Possession of, Misdemeanor Possession of Marijuana and
Assault on a Female – Non-Aggressive Physical Force. These low
level offenses consume significant jail and court resources.
Key Finding #2: Mental Illness/Homelessness (Frequent Jail
Utilizers) A small group of offenders (referred to as frequent jail
utilizers) account for a relatively large number of arrests and jail
episodes, far out of proportion to their numbers. These
offenders commit nuisance crimes and both previous research
and anecdotal evidence suggest that they very likely have issues
with mental illness, substance abuse, and homelessness. 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
Dr. Kevin Baldwin
Applied Research Services, Inc.
404-881-1120 ext. 104
www.ars-corp.com
kbaldwin@ars-corp.com
i
CEPP-JRI Mecklenburg
Summary of Phase I Data Analysis Efforts
Kevin Baldwin, Ph.D.
Applied Research Services, Inc.
April 3, 2013
Background and Introduction
The Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) was launched by the United States Bureau of Justice Assistance
(BJA) in 2006 in order to address the increase in corrections spending at both the state and local levels.
Justice Reinvestment efforts are highly data-driven and are designed to reduce corrections spending
without reducing public safety. Costs avoided through implementation of JRI strategies are reinvested
into alternative criminal justice strategies that over the long term decrease crime and strengthen
communities. These efforts rely on in-depth analysis of criminal justice data from a number of sources as
a means of identifying the drivers of criminal justice costs, especially in the area of corrections. Once the
major drivers are identified teams comprised of stakeholders in the criminal justice systems, aided by
content experts under contract with BJA, closely examine the data and findings. Using their experience
and insights from the data, the teams identify evidence-based approaches and policies aimed at
addressing the identified drivers and assessing the potential impacts of proposed strategies designed to
reduce costs and redirect funds to alternative strategies.
The Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) efforts in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina built upon and
augmented the work of the preexisting Mecklenburg County Criminal Justice Advisory Group (CJAG).
Oversight and coordination of the JRI efforts in Mecklenburg County was provided by Thomas Eberly,
Criminal Justice Manager for Mecklenburg County. Training and Technical Assistance has been provided
to Mecklenburg County by the Center for Effective Public Policy (CEPP) and Applied Research Services
(ARS). As the provider of analytic support for JRI efforts in Mecklenburg County, ARS was tasked with
examining the arrest, jail, and other criminal justice data, with the goals being to answer the following
questions:






Who is being arrested and why?
Who is coming into the jail and why?
How long are people staying in the jail? (by offender and offense characteristics)
Why are people leaving the jail, and where they are going?
What costs are associated with arrests, arrest processing, jail, court, and related areas?
What cost impacts might be realized by implementing selected strategies?
This report will detail the analytic efforts and findings of data analysis, placed within the context of
Mecklenburg’s larger JRI efforts.
1
CEPP-JRI Mecklenburg: Summary of Phase I Data Analysis Efforts – Applied Research Services, Inc.
Methods
Data Systems and Capacity for Research
An initial analysis of data systems and research capacity in Mecklenburg’s criminal justice community
was conducted in March, 2011, as part of their JRI Phase I application. At the time of this initial analysis
two systems were in place to collect jail-related data, and they planned to install a web-based system in
September, 2011. They used the Offender Management System (OMS) by Ciscon, which at that time had
been in use for about ten years. They were also in the initial stages of implementing a justice system
data warehouse (a SAP product known as Business Objects) designed to combine data across a number
of agencies and disparate sources and scheduled to come online June, 2011 (full implantation was
delayed a number of months, but is now fully operational). The OMS system has remained in place, as
the new warehouse draws data from it and other systems. The seven local law enforcement agencies
each have their own data system and are also part of the data warehouse network.
The Sheriff’s Office has staff on hand who generate jail data reports, including quarterly reports which
include trend analyses. They also send out daily population reports to key stakeholders, such as judges,
the DA’s office, the sheriff’s office, and local chiefs of police. In addition, they can generate ad-hoc
reports. The new warehouse system provides enhanced reporting functions and also allows the county
manager’s office (for whom the county criminal justice manager works) to also generate reports.
The data warehouse came about due to the lack of ability to look at trends and facilitate data driven
decision making. A task force of concerned citizens was convened, and the work began on the
warehouse in November, 2010. There exists a dashboard on the public website, where citizens can see
information on a wide variety of criminal justice issues. The warehouse was populated going back to
2003, and allows for the examination of both individual and aggregate data.
While the OMS system is capable of generating data extracts, the data warehouse has significantly
expanded this capacity. The County Manager’s Office conducted a recidivism study a couple years ago
on a random sample of jail inmates, but they had to rely on manual data collection (individual computer
checks). They are confident about their ability to create data extracts with the warehouse and are
excited about the potential to receive outside guidance on using more data to drive decision making.
While they currently do not have the capacity to examine the length of time between critical events in
the criminal justice continuum (data reside in multiple systems across agencies), the data warehouse is
expected to allow for this in a comprehensive manner. Data is currently shared across agencies, and key
players are reported to get along very well.
The only reported data limitation is “Garbage In, Garbage Out” (e.g., 20 ways to spell Charlotte), which
remains a challenge with the data warehouse. The county is reducing such occurrences by instituting
self-completing fields and drop-down boxes to replace free-form data entry text fields. The single largest
barrier at present is the city, county, and state agencies with various levels of data systems, each with
different technological capacities.
2
CEPP-JRI Mecklenburg: Summary of Phase I Data Analysis Efforts – Applied Research Services, Inc.
Overall, the completion of Mecklenburg’s criminal justice data warehouse in June 2011 addresses
perhaps the single most significant barrier in cross-systems criminal justice research – the inability of
separate agency data systems to interface with one another. This, along with strategic thinking and good
oversight from the Governor’s Information Technology committee and an apparent history of
collaborative decision making and excellent local leadership, made Mecklenburg County an excellent
candidate for Phase I JRI work.
Data Gathering and Analysis
ARS research staff sought and received from the Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s Office data on all arrests
and jail releases for a four-year period from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2011. While the
arrest dataset included all arrests during this period, the jail extract contained information on all persons
released during the specified time period, a dataset typically referred to as a release cohort.
In addition to the arrest and jail data, we also sought and obtained the following data and resources:







North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, Criminal Case Information Statistical Extract,
a series of files concerning individual-level data on court cases and actions;
North Carolina Office of Indigent Services, FY10 North Carolina Public Defender and Private
Assigned Counsel Cost Analysis;
North Carolina Office of Indigent Services, FY07 North Carolina Public Defender and Private
Assigned Counsel Cost Analysis;
North Carolina Office of Indigent Services, FY 11 Reclassification Impact Study;
North Carolina Office of Indigent Services, North Carolina’s Criminal Justice System: A
Comparison of Prosecution and Indigent Defense Resources;
North Carolina Office of Indigent Services, Time Needed to Resolve Criminal Cases: A
Comparison of Attorney Types; and
National Center for State Courts, North Carolina Assistant District Attorney/Victim Witness Legal
Assistant Workload Assessment: Final Report.
The arrest and jail extracts contained selected fields (variables) of interest, and was organized such that
each record represented a unique charge. For analytic purposes, the data was restructured such that
each record represented a unique jail episode, and as a result each record could (and often did) contain
more than one charge. The most serious charge in each episode was identified, and represents the
charge of record for each unique arrest and jail episode. Once the data files were restructured, our next
step was to work with the Sheriff’s IT staff to validate the arrest and jail data. This entailed performing a
series of frequency counts and descriptive statistics to ensure that our data accurately reflected the
numbers generated by the Sheriff’s office.
3
CEPP-JRI Mecklenburg: Summary of Phase I Data Analysis Efforts – Applied Research Services, Inc.
Findings
Once the arrest and jail data had been validated, we began to perform statistical analyses in order to
delineate the nature and characteristics of arrest and jail episodes and of the offenders themselves. The
larger aim of the analyses was to identify the drivers of the arrest and jail populations, in order to
identify potential areas where specific policy changes and/or strategies could be implemented to
address JRI priorities.
Trends in Arrests, 2008 - 2011
The Charlotte metropolitan area grew more rapidly during 2000 to 2010 than any other urbanized area
with a population of 1 million or more, evidencing a growth rate of 64.6 percent during that decade. By
way of comparison, the population growth rate in urbanized areas nationally was 14.3 percent (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2012). Despite this prodigious growth, arrests decreased from 2008 through 2011, as
can be seen in Table 1, below.
Table 1. Arrests by Year, 2008 – 2011.
Year
2008
2009
2010
2011
Totals
Number of
Arrests
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 accounted for these arrest episodes, with an average of 1.9 arrests per
arrestee over the four years from 2008 to 2011.
Table 2, below, provides the racial/ethnic background of arrest episodes.
Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Arrest Episodes.
Race/Ethnicity
Black
White
Hispanic
Other
Total
Frequency
103509
40660
17799
1765
163733
Percent
63.2%
24.8%
10.9%
1.1%
100%
Regardless of how we categorize crimes, significant differences exist in regards to race/ethnicity. These
differences however must be viewed in light of the overall representation of these racial/ethnic
categories in the dataset as a whole, in which Blacks make up 63% of arrest episodes, Whites make up
25% of arrest episodes, and Hispanics make up 11% of episodes. With respect to their overall
representation in the data, Blacks are less likely to be arrested for drug and traffic offenses than other
4
CEPP-JRI Mecklenburg: Summary of Phase I Data Analysis Efforts – Applied Research Services, Inc.
types of offenses, while Whites are more likely to be arrested for drug and traffic offenses than other
types. Hispanics are more likely to be arrested for traffic offenses than they are for other types of
offenses.
Trends in Jail Bookings, 2008 - 2011
In addition to examining arrest trends, it is also critical to look closely at jail bookings and the
characteristics of these episodes. Table 3, below, provides statistics regarding jail bookings for our 2008
through 2011 release cohort.
Table 3. Jail Bookings and Releases, 2008 – 2011
Year
2007 and before
2008
2009
2010
2011
Total
Bookings
2084
31868
34443
33615
31127
133137
Percent
2%
24%
26%
25%
23%
100%
Releases
NA
32041
34648
33821
32627
133137
Percent
0%
24%
26%
25%
25%
100%
As with the arrest data, jail bookings decreased each year, with the exception of the increase from 2008
to 2009.
The tables below provide data relative to the demographic characteristics of jail inmates for the fouryear period from 2008 through 2011. These data represent unique bookings rather than unique
individuals, and therefore individual persons can and often do appear in the data more than once.
Table 4. Race/Ethnicity of Jail Bookings, expressed as percent of total.
Race/Ethnicity
Black
White
Hispanic
Other
2008 (%)
61.9
21.5
9.9
6.7
2009 (%)
61.8
21.9
10.0
6.3
2010 (%)
63.1
21.7
8.5
6.7
2011 (%)
63.2
22.4
7.5
6.9
Table 5. Gender of Jail Bookings, expressed as percent of total.
Gender
Male
Female
2008 (%)
83.4
16.6
2009 (%)
83.0
17.0
2010 (%)
81.6
18.4
2011 (%)
81.2
18.8
As indicated in table 5, above, the percentage of female bookings into the jail has increased over the
past four years. This change is statistically significant, and therefore may be of interest in terms of future
programming and planning.
5
CEPP-JRI Mecklenburg: Summary of Phase I Data Analysis Efforts – Applied Research Services, Inc.
Regarding the types of crimes represented by bookings during this period, table 6, below, indicates the
classification of the most serious offense at the time of booking, for releases during 2008 through 2011.
Table 6. Crime Type of Jail Bookings, expressed as percent of total.
Crime Type
Misdemeanor
Felony
Traffic
Total
2008 (%)
52.7
30.0
17.3
100.0
2009 (%)
53.2
28.0
18.7
100.0
2010 (%)
53.2
29.0
17.8
100.0
2011 (%)
52.5
29.4
18.1
100.0
As is apparent from the data in Table 6, above, the distribution of misdemeanors, felonies, and traffic
offenses has remained quite stable over the past four years. We further coded offenses according to
whether they represented person, property, drug, or other offense, with the results appearing in Table
7, below.
Table 7. Crime class of Jail Bookings, expressed as percent of total.
Crime Class
Person
Property
Drug
Other (inc. traffic)
2008 (%)
19.2
14.8
30.1
35.8
2009 (%)
19.3
15.0
27.4
38.2
2010 (%)
20.5
16.3
27.1
36.0
2011 (%)
21.8
16.3
26.5
35.8
The above data on crime type reveals a statistically significant difference in the representation of these
categories over the past four years, with an increase in person offenses and a corresponding decrease in
drug offenses. Property and other offenses remained relatively consistent over the time span. This trend
suggests that the jail population is increasingly made up of violent offenders, reflecting national trends
as well as citizens’ and policy makers’ preferences.
In terms of number of charges per booking, 43.5%, 47%, 46.9%, and 48% of bookings represented only a
single charge in the years 2008 through 2011, respectively. Ninety percent of jail bookings represented
four or fewer charges.
As would be expected, jail occupants are released for a number of reasons, with the most frequent
being that pretrial offenders made bond and post-conviction offenders completed their sentence. The
table on the next page provides the reasons for release of upwards of 95% of releases each year.
6
CEPP-JRI Mecklenburg: Summary of Phase I Data Analysis Efforts – Applied Research Services, Inc.
Table 8. Type of Release by Year, expressed as a percent.
Type of Release
Bond Satisfied
Sentence Expired
Other Jurisdiction
Unsecured
Dismissed
Released on Probation/Parole
Released per Court
Pretrial Release
Complied
All others
2008 (%)
43.4
15.0
14.6
12.3
4.3
3.1
1.3
1.1
1.0
3.9
2009 (%)
45.0
12.9
13.0
16.6
3.6
2.4
1.4
0.7
0.9
3.5
2010 (%)
46.0
12.3
12.5
17.4
3.6
2.0
1.2
0.4
0.9
3.7
2011 (%)
44.6
13.2
12.7
16.3
3.7
2.0
0.9
0.6
1.0
5.0
In addition to the data in Table 8, above, it is important to note that only about 13% to 15% of releases
were accounted for by transfer each year.
Besides knowing why persons are released from jail, it is of course also critical to examine the reasons
why people enter jail in the first place. Table 9, below, provides the top 25 charges (most serious charge
only) for jail episodes, 2008 through 2011.
Table 9. Top 25 Charges (Jail Episodes) 2008 – 2011.
Charge (Most Serious Only)
Frequency
Percent
10740
8.1
Cumulative
Percent
8.1
Driving While License Revoked
9285
7
15
Drug Paraphernalia - Possession Of
7014
5.3
20.3
Assault On A Female – Non-Agg. Phys. Force
5264
4
24.3
C/S-Sch. VI - Possess Marijuana – Misdemeanor
5196
3.9
28.2
Assault Or Simple Assault And Battery
4476
3.4
31.5
C/S-Sch. II - Possess Cocaine
3858
2.9
34.4
Assault On A Female - Agg. Phys. Force
3451
2.6
37
Resisting Public Officer
3426
2.6
39.6
Breaking and/or Entering (Felony)- With
3422
2.6
42.2
Trespass - 2nd Degree-Notified Not
3413
2.6
44.7
Larceny (Misdemeanor) - Under $50
2419
1.8
46.5
Larceny (Misdemeanor) - $50-199
2201
1.7
48.2
Intoxicated And Disruptive
2086
1.6
49.8
C/S-Sch. II - P/W/I/S/D Cocaine
2075
1.6
51.3
Larceny (Misdemeanor) - $200 & Up
2070
1.6
52.9
IV-D Non-Support Of Child
2064
1.6
54.4
No Operator's License
1875
1.4
55.8
C/S-Sch. VI - P/W/I/S/D Marijuana
1873
1.4
57.2
Fugitive/Extradition Other State
1787
1.3
58.6
Driving While Impaired
7
CEPP-JRI Mecklenburg: Summary of Phase I Data Analysis Efforts – Applied Research Services, Inc.
Communicating Threats
1448
1.1
59.7
Breaking and/or Entering (Misdemeanor)
1193
0.9
60.6
Probation Violation - Out Of County
1188
0.9
61.5
Probation Violation
1155
0.9
62.3
DV Protective Order Violation
1093
0.8
63.1
Table 10, below, provides the top five offenses (via the percent of all charges) responsible for people
coming into the jail during the four year span between 2008 through 2011.
Table 10. Top Five Offenses, 2008 – 2011.
Offense (Literal)
Driving While Impaired
Driving While License Revoked
Drug Paraphernalia – Possession of
Possession of Marijuana, Misdemeanor
Assault on a Female – Non-Aggressive Physical Force
All others
2008 (%)
7.8
6.5
5.9
4.3
3.7
71.8
2009 (%)
7.8
7.5
5.3
4.1
3.7
71.7
2010 (%)
8.2
6.9
5.1
3.7
3.8
72.4
2011 (%)
8.5
7.1
4.8
3.6
4.7
71.3
The following data provide information on the Length of Stay (LOS) for jail episodes where these
offenses represent the most serious offense, for the years 2008 through 2011.
Table 11. Average LOS (ALOS) for the Top Five Offenses, 2008 – 2011.
Offense (Literal)
Driving While Impaired*
Driving While License Revoked*
Drug Paraphernalia – Possession of*
Marijuana – Possession of (Misdemeanor)*
Assault on a Female – Non-Aggressive Physical Force*
Average Length of Stay (ALOS)
2008
2009
2010
2011
20.1
13.3
11.1
7.8
6.4
4.5
3.3
4.5
11.9
9.5
7.8
7.9
5.2
2.9
3.4
4.0
18.3
14.4
13.8
13.0
* Year-to-year decreases significant at the .05 level
As is apparent from Table 11, above, the average length of stay for each of these offenses has decreased
significantly over the past four years. These decreases are most significant for jail episodes due to DUI
and Assault on a Female – Non-Aggressive Physical Force. Given the volume associated with these
particular offenses, the decreasing ALOS suggests that these trends are certainly in the right direction,
and should be sustained.
The above data concerning the top five offenses, together with discussions among CJAG team members,
the focus groups, and the working group, all suggested that taking a closer look at these relatively low
level offenses likely presents opportunities to employ JRI strategies. Additionally, taking a closer look at
the offenders who are most frequently arrested and jailed is also likely to present opportunities to bring
JRI methods to achieve cost savings and cost avoidance strategies.
8
CEPP-JRI Mecklenburg: Summary of Phase I Data Analysis Efforts – Applied Research Services, Inc.
Key Findings of Interest
Results of data analysis, along with subsequent review and discussion with CJAG members and the JRI
workgroup, suggested that four key findings would be the focus of future JRI efforts, as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Low Level Offenses
Mental Illness/Homelessness
Recidivism
Citizen Complaints
The first three findings, and the data supporting each, are addressed in order in the following section.
Key Finding 1: Low Level Offenses
The results of data from the Arrest Processing Center, Jail, and the courts together indicated that a high
percentage of arrests and jail episodes involved low-level offenses such as Driving While License
Revoked (DWLR), Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and Misdemeanor Possession of Marijuana.
Averages for these offenses from 2008 – 2011 are as follows:
o
o
o
o
DWLR: 3000 arrests; 2300 jail episodes
Possession of Drug Paraphernalia: 2000 arrests; 1700 jail episodes
Misdemeanor Possession of Marijuana: 1700 arrests and 1300 jail episodes
By way of comparison, there were 41,000 annual arrests and 33,000 annual jail episodes
We performed numerous analyses of arrest and jail data concerning “lower level” offenses, specifically
certain misdemeanors and low level (H and I level offenses in North Carolina) felonies. These analyses
focused on the volume of these cases and the local criminal justice resources expended to deal with
them. What we found is that a relatively low number of lower level offenses dominate both arrest and
jail episodes. For instance, in our 2008-2011 arrest cohort, there are 1162 unique charges listed as the
most serious charge. Five of these offenses account for over 50% of arrest episodes. By contrast, 990
unique charges account for only 5% of arrest episodes.
In addition to documenting the impact of lower level offenses on local criminal justice resources, it was
also thought important to examine the degree to which these same offenses impact the courts. Data
obtained from the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (NC AOC) on traffic and non-traffic
misdemeanor cases in Mecklenburg County were examined to document the impact of these offenses
on the local courts. The data included the top 15 charges in descending order of cases filed between July
1, 2010 and June 30, 2011. The two tables on the next page provide data on traffic and non-traffic
misdemeanor cases, respectively.
9
CEPP-JRI Mecklenburg: Summary of Phase I Data Analysis Efforts – Applied Research Services, Inc.
Table 12. Traffic Offenses.
Charge (text)
All
Driving While Impaired
DWLR
Reckless Driving To Endanger
Speeding
No Operators License
Hit/Run Fail Stop Prop Damage
Reckless Drvg-Wanton Disregard
Fail To Heed Light Or Siren
Fict/Alt Title/Reg Card/Tag
Drive After Consuming < 21
Flee/Elude Arrest W/Mv (M)
Hit/Run Leave Scene Prop Dam
Open Cont Aftr Cons Alc Subofn
Fail To Stop For Stopped Bus
Fictitious Info To Officer
Cases
Filed
900
319
163
69
64
58
35
30
17
16
16
16
10
9
8
8
Cases
Pending
748
344
101
45
45
31
24
23
15
11
9
14
8
8
1
9
Cases Pending Median Days
175
212
140
157
177
160
140
160
120
107
125
248
250
119
98
351
Cases
Disposed
721
149
159
65
63
56
23
24
23
22
11
11
7
15
8
12
Cases Disposed Median Days
168
221
166
191
136
135
140
239
170
157
141
105
119
369
103
340
Cases Pending Median Days
155
160
108
150
147
200
155
220
305
132
156
142
259
130
111
Cases
Disposed
3,518
883
376
416
367
157
139
95
96
96
54
53
46
50
28
Cases Disposed Median Days
190
246
176
182
174
275
257
126
94
177
168
253
130
183
236
Table 13. Non-Traffic Misdemeanor Offenses.
Charge (text)
All
Possess Drug Paraphernalia
Misdemeanor Larceny
Resisting Public Officer
Possess Marijuana Up To 1/2 Oz
Assault On A Female
Carrying Concealed Gun(M)
Communicating Threats
Misd. Prob. Viol Out Of County
Poss. Stolen Goods/Prop (M)
Assault Govt. Official/Emply.
Injury To Personal Property
Assault With A Deadly Weapon
Simple Assault
DV Protective Order Viol (M)
Cases
Filed
3,295
777
394
366
285
168
128
106
94
80
75
65
52
46
33
Cases
Pending
2,268
578
232
222
164
156
98
79
64
44
59
56
41
32
29
The above tables confirm that the same types of cases that dominate the arrest and jail rolls also
consume significant court resources. In addition to costs borne by law enforcement, it is critical that
costs of other components of the criminal justice continuum be considered in an attempt to quantify the
fiscal considerations of JRI work. Costs of court personnel are therefore a necessary and substantial
component of any examination of the price of adjudication. To that end, we also gathered data on
10
CEPP-JRI Mecklenburg: Summary of Phase I Data Analysis Efforts – Applied Research Services, Inc.
attorney time and costs, as well as administrative (non-attorney) court costs. Two sources of data were
used for analyses involving attorney costs – a March, 2010 report by the National Center for State
Courts (NCSC) entitled “North Carolina Assistant District Attorney/Victim Witness Legal Assistant
Workload Assessment – Final Report” and a number of reports from the North Carolina Office of
Indigent Counsel Services (NCIDS). Unfortunately these reports utilized different methodologies, and
therefore the costs are not directly comparable. Nonetheless, they are illustrative of the significant costs
associated with the prosecution and defense of crimes in North Carolina. In addition, administrative
court costs were derived from the Court Costs and Fees Chart, January 2012 published by the North
Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts.
The table below provides data regarding the average number of minutes expended by attorneys per
case type, taken from tables included in the NCSC report on state attorney workload assessment (The
data for this report were compiled between 2008 and 2010). The number of minutes was multiplied by
an hourly rate of $75, which is equivalent to the current hourly rate of Private Appointed Counsel (PAC)
and Public Defenders in North Carolina.
Table 14. Attorney Time per Case Type.
Case Type
Case Weight
(Minutes)
6.5
Annual
Filings
1,644,763
Cost per
Case
$8.13
Misdemeanor, other than DWI or Drug
19
373,781
$23.75
DWI
43
60,793
$53.75
Drug offense, other than trafficking
55
86,982
$68.75
Drug Trafficking
510
3,340
$637.50
Other Felony (F,G,H,I)
236
67,190
$295.00
Other Felony (A,B,C,D,E)
467
15,230
$583.75
Sex Crime
1,027
3,736
$1,283.75
Homicide, other than 1st Degree Murder
1,537
763
$1,921.25
10,073
446
$12,591.25
3,586
Unknown
$4,482.50
Traffic
1st Degree Murder
Generic Murder
A March 2011 study by the North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services (NCIDS) analyzed all File
Numbers disposed of in 2009, finding that Private Appointed Counsel (PAC) resolved cases more quickly
than retained attorneys, needing on average two to six fewer weeks to resolve cases than retained
attorneys. Public Defenders (PDs) resolved cases more quickly than both PAC and retained attorneys,
resolving cases more rapidly than retained attorneys in 21 of 28 different case types and 19 of 28
different case types when compared to PAC.
11
CEPP-JRI Mecklenburg: Summary of Phase I Data Analysis Efforts – Applied Research Services, Inc.
A 2011 report by the NCIDS entitled “FY10 North Carolina Public Defender and Private Assigned Counsel
Cost Analysis” provides the following costs per disposition in Mecklenburg County:
Table 15. Costs per Disposition.
Cost per Disposal
District Expenditure
PAC District Expenditure
PAC State-wide Expenditure
FY2008
$346
$498
$428
FY2010
$368
$498
$435
As would be expected, costs varied considerably based on the type of case and court venue. The
following table provides PAC cost equivalents for FY 2010 PD Office Reported Dispositions, by type of
case and court venue. Cost per case was derived by simply dividing district cost by the number of cases
in the district (District N).
Table 16. PAC Cost Equivalents, Mecklenburg County.
Type of Case
District N
District Cost
District Court
Cost Per Case
Superior N
Felony A
0
0
0
Felony B
12
$10,928.00
$910.67
Felony C
17
$9,618.00
$565.76
Felony D
58
$27,180.00
$468.62
Felony E
35
$14,128.00
Felony F
32
Felony G
Felony H
Felony I
Felony PV
DWI*
0
Superior Cost
Superior Court
Cost Per Case
0
0
31
$56,423.00
$1,820.10
195
$230,321.00
$1,181.13
162
$174,349.00
$1,076.23
$403.66
52
$42,476.00
$816.85
$12,975.00
$405.47
92
$71,968.00
$782.26
106
$39,546.00
$373.08
229
$154,389.00
$674.19
564
$181,560.00
$321.91
566
$317,026.00
$560.12
525
$159,037.00
$302.93
350
$174,345.00
$498.13
158
$32,763.00
$207.36
1673
$387,978.00
$231.91
856
$266,725.00
$311.59
17
$10,292.00
$605.41
Misdemeanor
Non-Traffic*
Other Traffic*
8340
$1,903,857.00
$228.28
76
$33,260.00
$437.63
2750
$595,323.00
$216.48
28
$10,030.00
$358.21
Withdrawals
1187
$227,441.00
$ 191.61
309
$171,992.00
$556.61
* = Appeals in Superior Court
As is apparent from the above tables, misdemeanors and level H and I felonies account for substantial
expenditures relative to other categories of crimes.
A Closer Look at DWLR Cases
The preponderance of DWLR cases, as well as the corresponding resources consumed in adjudicating
them, prompted the work group to take a closer look at DWLR cases in Mecklenburg County. Using the
2008-2011 arrest data, only cases for which the most serious charge was for Driving While License
Revoked (DWLR) were included in the following series of analyses.
12
CEPP-JRI Mecklenburg: Summary of Phase I Data Analysis Efforts – Applied Research Services, Inc.
The following table provides a breakdown, by year and race/ethnicity, for all DWLR cases. The
percentages represent the percent for each race/ethnicity within each year.
Table 17. Race/Ethnicity for DWLR Cases.
Race/Ethnicity 2008
2009
2010
2011
Black
70%
70%
71%
71%
Hispanic
9%
10%
9%
9%
White
20%
19%
19%
19%
Other
1%
1%
1%
1%
Totals
100%
100%
100%
100%
There is no significant relationship between year of arrest and race/ethnicity with regard to DWLR
offenders. When we examine gender however, there is a significant increase in the percentage of DWLR
episodes involving females between the years 2008 and 2011, with females accounting for 17% of
episodes in 2008 and 20% in 2011. This reflects a larger trend of females increasing involvement in
arrest episodes in general over this same time period, a trend which has implications for correctional
programming and planning efforts. None of the arrest episodes was indicated as having involved a
probation violation, and it appears that the number of arrest episode for these DWLR offenders that
involved more than one charge has decreased over the last four years, from 33% in 2008 to 27% in 2011.
According to the North Carolina Office of Indigent Counsel Services, there are over 70 distinct reasons
why a person’s driver’s license can be revoked. Data from the Department of Motor Vehicles is required
to ascertain the reasons why members of the current arrest cohort had their driver’s licenses revoked.
Such a process is beyond the scope of the current JRI work, put perhaps data from the District
Attorney’s Office can at least indicate whether the revocation occurred due to a previous DUI, rather
than non-payment of child support or any of the many other reasons for license revocations.
Key Finding 2: Mental Illness/Homelessness (Frequent Jail Utilizers)
A small group of offenders (referred to as frequent jail utilizers) account for a relatively large number of
arrests and jail episodes, far out of proportion to their numbers. These offenders commit nuisance
crimes and both previous research and anecdotal evidence suggest that they very likely have issues with
mental illness, substance abuse, and homelessness.
A total of 86,162 individuals (as indicated by the number of unique PIDs) accounted for all 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 48 arrestees (.05%, or five one-hundredths of one
percent) of all arrestees account for fully 1% of all arrest episodes (1704 total arrest episodes between
them), 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 55 arrests over the four year span. Eighteen arrestees
accounted for just under half (49.7%) of the 1704 total arrest episodes for this entire group of 48
arrestees.
13
CEPP-JRI Mecklenburg: Summary of Phase I Data Analysis Efforts – Applied Research Services, Inc.
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 18, below, provides the 15 most common charges for this group, which
together account for three-quarters of all charges.
Table 18. Charges for Frequent Jail Utilizers (listing most serious charge per arrest episode only).
Charge
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
Number
Percent
302
199
147
133
110
57
53
48
46
36
35
34
34
29
28
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
These arrestees were predominantly African American (69%) and male (98%). 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 1% as missing. A third of arrest episodes had a bond amount of
$500, with 12% each having bond amounts of $1000 and $250. After removing the missing cases, 1092
out of 1657 arrest episodes, or 66%, had bond amounts of $500 or less. The vast majority (93.2%) of
arrest episodes have no bond release information, with 2.8% receiving a secured bond, 2.3% an
unsecured bond, and 1% released via a Written Promise to Appear (code WPA).
Likely due to their status as frequent arrestees as well as other characteristics, 94% of the arrest
episodes for this group also involved a jail stay. As such, this group of 48 persons had a combined total
of 1601 jail episodes between 2008 and 2011, for a total of 21,445 bed days. Table 19, below, provides
the total number of bed days for this group for each year from 2008 – 2011, as well as the total cost of
these bed days using cost figures provided by the jail.
14
CEPP-JRI Mecklenburg: Summary of Phase I Data Analysis Efforts – Applied Research Services, Inc.
Table 19. Bed days consumed by the 48 most frequent users of the jail, 2008 – 2011.
Year
2008
2009
2010
2011
Total (Avg.)
Total Bed
Days
4715
5488
5664
5578
21445
Cost per Day
(average)
$102.15
$110.05
$124.73
$131.04
($116.99)
Total Cost
$ 481,637.25
$ 603,954.40
$ 706,470.72
$ 730,941.12
$ 2,508,850.55
As is apparent from the data above, this group of 48 persons accounted for 1704 arrests and 1601 jail
episodes over a four year period. The jail episodes resulted in a total of 21,445 bed days, for a cost of
over $2.5 million dollars. These costs are considerable, and do not include the cost borne by the
arresting agencies or the cost of processing them in the Arrest Processing Center and Jail.
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. Fully 94% of these
arrests were followed by a jail episode, at the cost of just over $2.5 million dollars in bed days alone.
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.
In terms of next steps, 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 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 their time 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.
15
CEPP-JRI Mecklenburg: Summary of Phase I Data Analysis Efforts – Applied Research Services, Inc.
Key Finding 3: Recidivists
A large percentage of offenders recidivate, after having been released either from the jail or to
Mecklenburg County from North Carolina prisons. Recidivists look very similar to non-recidivists in terms
of their personal and offense characteristics.
Hope L. Marshall, MS, LCAS, Enterprise Management Analyst for Criminal Justice Services in the
Mecklenburg County Manager’s Office, drew a random sample of 400 North Carolina prison inmates
who were released to Mecklenburg County, checking for the presence of a re-arrest in the two years
following their release. The resulting dataset included those former inmates (N = 184, or 46% of the
total sample of prison releases) who were arrested in Mecklenburg County during the two-year followup period. The data included their OTIS number (a prison identification number), their PID (the local
identification number used to identify arrestees and jail inmates in Mecklenburg County), arrest date
and arrest number. If they were arrested a second time during the same two-year follow-up period, that
information was also included. This data, which included data from 2012, was merged with the four-year
arrest cohort (arrests 2008 through 2011) used in Mecklenburg’s Justice Reinvestment Initiative efforts
to date, and described in depth in previous sections of this report. This arrest dataset, rather than
containing one record per person as is the case with the data provided by Ms. Marshall, contains a
separate record for each arrest episode. Given that each record represents a single arrest, each record
also includes all charges brought at the time of the arrest, and is keyed off the most serious charge at
the time of arrest.
As noted above, 184 (46%) of the random sample of 400 prisoners released from North Carolina prisons
to Mecklenburg County had at least one arrest in the two years following their release. A total of 119
(30%) had two arrests within the follow-up period, while 75 (19%) had three or more arrests.
Using the PID field common to the two datasets, 170 of the 184 members of the prison release cohort
were identified in the 2008 – 2011 arrest cohort. During the four years encompassed by the arrest
cohort, the average number of arrests for this sample of recidivists was 6 (range from 1 to 38), with a
median of 4 and a mode of 6. Twenty-two of the members of the sample had only one arrest in the 2008
– 2011 dataset, due to the inclusion of 2012 arrest data in Ms. Marshall’s sample. Just under nine-in-ten
arrest episodes (89.3%) involved African American arrestees, with 6.1% involving Caucasians and 4%
involving Asians. Ninety-eight percent of arrests for this group represented males.
An examination of the crime classifications (most serious offense) involved in these arrest episodes can
be seen in Table 20.
16
CEPP-JRI Mecklenburg: Summary of Phase I Data Analysis Efforts – Applied Research Services, Inc.
Table 20. Crime Classification.
Crime
Classification
Felony
Misdemeanor
Traffic
Total
Missing
Total
Frequency
472
435
58
965
2
967
Percent
48.8
45
6
99.8
0.2
100
Valid
Percent
48.9
45.1
6
100
Cumulative
Percent
48.9
94
100
The types of crimes (most serious offense) involved in these arrest episodes can be seen in Table 21,
below.
Table 21. Crime Type.
Crime
Type
Person
Property
Drug
Other
Total
Missing
Total
Frequency
Percent
147
190
225
403
965
2
967
15.2
19.6
23.3
41.7
99.8
0.2
100
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
15.2
19.7
23.3
41.8
100
15.2
34.9
58.2
100
As can be seen in the tables above, about half of arrest episodes involve a misdemeanor, and 43%
involved a drug or property offense as the most serious charge. As might be expected, a number of the
arrest episodes involved either a probation or parole violation. In fact slightly more than one-in-ten
(11.7%) did, with the violation being listed as the most serious charge in the vast majority (91%) of these
cases (see Table 22, below).
Table 22. Arrest Episode Includes a Probation/Parole Violation.
Episode Includes a
Probation/Parole
Violation
No
Yes
Total
Missing
Total
17
Frequency
852
113
965
2
967
Percent
88.1
11.7
99.8
0.2
100
Valid
Percent
88.3
11.7
100
Cumulative
Percent
88.3
100
CEPP-JRI Mecklenburg: Summary of Phase I Data Analysis Efforts – Applied Research Services, Inc.
As previously indicated, each record in the 2008 – 2011 arrest cohort represents a single arrest episode
which can, and often does contain more than one charge brought at the time of arrest. Table 23, below,
provides the number of charges per arrest episode for this sample of released prison inmates.
Table 23. Number of Charges per Arrest Episode.
# of Charges
at this Arrest
Episode
1
2
3
4
5
6 or more
Total
Frequency
397
180
128
125
40
97
967
Percent
41.1
18.6
13.2
12.9
4.1
10.0
100
Cumulative
Percent
41.1
59.7
72.9
85.8
90
100
As can be seen in the above table, 60% and 90% of arrest episodes for this sample included two and five
charges or less, respectively.
The top 25 specific charges involved in the arrest episodes for this sample can be found in Table 24,
below.
Table 24. Top 25 Charges (Charge Literal), Most Serious Charge at Arrest Episode.
Rank
Charge Literal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Probation Violation
Drug Paraphernalia - Possession Of
Trespass - Second Degree - Notified Not To Enter
Breaking and/or Entering (Felony)- With Force
Driving While License Revoked
C/S-Sch. VI - Possess Marijuana - Misdemeanor
C/S-Sch. II - Possess Cocaine
Resisting Public Officer
C/S-Sch. II - P/W/I/S/D Cocaine
Assault On A Female – Non-Agg. Phys. Force
Bond Termination
C/S-Sch. VI - P/W/I/S/D Marijuana
Assault On A Female - Agg. Phys. Force
Possession Of Firearm By Felon
Consp. Robbery Dangerous Weapon
Larceny (Misdemeanor) - Under $50
Parole Violation
Communicating Threats
Larceny (Misdemeanor) - $50-199
Break/Enter Motor Vehicle - $200 & Up
18
Frequency
Percent
90
63
61
51
39
37
30
30
26
24
24
17
14
14
13
13
13
12
12
11
9.3
6.5
6.3
5.3
4
3.8
3.1
3.1
2.7
2.5
2.5
1.8
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
Cumulative
Percent
9.3
15.8
22.1
27.4
31.4
35.3
38.4
41.5
44.2
46.6
49.1
50.9
52.3
53.8
55.1
56.5
57.8
59
60.3
61.4
CEPP-JRI Mecklenburg: Summary of Phase I Data Analysis Efforts – Applied Research Services, Inc.
Rank
Charge Literal
21
22
23
24
25
26-155
Larceny (Misdemeanor) - $200 & Up
Robbery With Dangerous Weapon - Individual (Felony)
Probation Violation - Out Of County
Assault Govt. Official/Emply – Non-Agg. Phys.
Breaking and/or Entering (Felony)-Without Force
All other charges (N = 130 other separate charges)
Frequency
Percent
11
11
10
9
9
967
1.1
1.1
1
0.9
0.9
33.4
Cumulative
Percent
62.6
63.7
64.7
65.7
66.6
100
As can be seen in Table 5 (above), the top 25 charges account for 67% of all arrest episodes for this
sample of prison inmates released to Mecklenburg County. Eleven charges account for fully half of all
arrest episodes for this sample. As regards the Mecklenburg County Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI)
efforts, four of the top six charges (representing 21.6% of this sample’s arrest episodes) are included
among those selected for consideration as part of the proposed JRI strategies. About half of the arrest
episodes involved misdemeanors, and about 12% involved either a probation or parole violation. Only
about 15% represented an offense against another person or persons.
Conclusions Regarding Recidivism
An analysis of recidivism extended the findings of a separate analysis conducted by the County
Manager’s Office involving a random sample of 400 inmates released from North Carolina prisons to
Mecklenburg County and followed through 2012. Slightly less than half (46%) of the total random
sample of 400 prisoners released from North Carolina prisons to Mecklenburg County had at least one
arrest in the two years following their release. A total of 119 (30%) had two arrests within the follow-up
period, while 75 (19%) had three or more arrests. This sample of 184 recidivists was merged with a
separate dataset containing all arrests in Mecklenburg County from 2008 through 2011. A total of 170 of
the 184 members of the prison release cohort were identified in the 2008 – 2011 arrest dataset. During
the four years encompassed by the arrest cohort, the average number of arrests for this sample of
recidivists was 6 (range from 1 to 38), with a median of 4 and a mode of 6. As such, this group of 170
represented 967 separate arrest episodes over a four-year period. Given that four of the top six charges
listed as the most serious offense involved in these arrests was for charges already identified as
potential JRI strategies, it stands to reason that effecting strategies designed to address these charges
would impact both recidivist former prison inmates as well as potential arrestees in general. Given the
proportion of these episodes which involved a probation or parole violation (12%), any reduction in
arrests for these charges would be felt most acutely in a reduction in jail bed days, given the relatively
high proportion of bed days consumed by probation/parole violators.
19
CEPP-JRI Mecklenburg: Summary of Phase I Data Analysis Efforts – Applied Research Services, Inc.
Cost Impact Projections
Our next step was to attempt to identify potential cost impacts associated with proposed policies
designed to address the focus areas delineated above. We utilized the numbers of arrests and jail
episodes from 2008 through 2011, as well as the length of stay data associated with a number of specific
offenses, to calculate cost projections for the strategy targets. The event data used for these projections
was the arrest and jail data described earlier. We obtained and/or calculated both average costs (the
total budget divided by the total number of events) and marginal costs (the costs associated with adding
a single event) for the low level offenses and frequent jail utilizers. We included the following types of
costs:






arrest costs
arrest processing costs
jail bed costs
court processing costs
public defense costs
prosecution costs
We began by calculating baseline cost projections, which projected cost impacts if no new strategies or
policies were implemented. Then we projected 10% and 20% reductions in arrests and/or jail episodes
and calculated out the cost impact projections for two and four years after implementing the potential
strategies. The projections suggest that potential costs impacts, in decreasing order, would be realized
by addressing the following issues:




DWLR
Possession of Drug Paraphernalia
Misdemeanor Possession of Marijuana
Frequent Jail Utilizers (based on limited sample of 48)
Should the suggested strategies be implemented and result in a 10% reduction in service demand,
projections using marginal costs suggest that a cost impact of approximately $5.4 million could be
realized over a four-year period. These cost projections are conservative, and it is likely that more longterm cost avoidance figures would be realized as well. The detailed results of these projections can be
found in Appendix A.
Proposed Strategies
The CJAG focus groups and workgroup examined these and other findings in detail, and proposed a
number of potential strategies to address these issues as well as the issue of citizen-initiated complaints.
20
CEPP-JRI Mecklenburg: Summary of Phase I Data Analysis Efforts – Applied Research Services, Inc.
The following potential strategies and objectives were developed by the workgroup and approved by
the CJAG on March 5, 2013:
Finding
Low Level Offenses
Strategies
Increase use of citations for low
level offenses
Decrease the volume of driving
while license revoked cases
Mental
Illness/Homeless
Reduce the intake of mentally ill
persons who are not a threat to
public safety
Provide short-term crisis
intervention services and diversion
options via a single service location
Provide housing/shelter solutions
coupled with proactive case
management and social services for
frequent service users
Provide confidential screening and
service-need assessments to
offenders
Recidivism
Citizen-initiated
Complaints
Coordinate community-based
service delivery to targeted risk
groups
Establish a comprehensive offender
reintegration framework for state
prisoners released to Mecklenburg
County
Increase referrals to alternative
dispute resolution (ADR) settings
Objectives
 Implement low-level arrest proxy tool and
training
 Add low-level arrest trend report to CJAG
agenda
 Formalize DWLR alternatives to arrest policy
 Add DWLR trend report to CJAG agenda
 Implement driver’s license restoration clinic
 Reduce or delay “automatic” loss of driver’s
license for non-safety reasons
 Formalize protocol for strategic deployment
of CIT officers
 Institute continuing education and annual
certifications standards for CIT officers
 Create community-based mental health
crisis center
 Formalize protocol for utilization of crisis
center by law enforcement
 Implement supportive housing pilot project
 Evaluate supportive housing pilot outcomes
and cost savings
 Expand pilot project if successful
 Implement offender screening and
assessment policy
 Implement offender screening and
assessment program
 Initiate presentence reports for felony
defendants
 Complete offender service-need audit
 Complete community resource/service audit
 Complete service integration plan
 Formalize prisoner re-entry plan
 Launch community resource center
 Launch residential re-entry center


Increase the use of summons when
alternative dispute resolution is not
appropriate and public safety is not
impacted
Establish a citizen-initiated
complaint docket
21



Conduct ADR advocacy training for law
enforcement and magistrates
Explore the use of community courts in
targeted neighborhoods as ADR settings
Implement a warrant/summons issuance
tracking system
Include warrant/summons issuance trend
report on CJAG agenda
Establish a citizen-initiated complaint docket
CEPP-JRI Mecklenburg: Summary of Phase I Data Analysis Efforts – Applied Research Services, Inc.
Next Steps



Establish mechanisms to effect proposed strategies detailed above, ensuring buy-in and
collaboration among participating agencies
Establish a means of tracking above objectives using measurable indicators, so as to document
progress towards strategy implementation. Ensure that the means of tracking, and the
corresponding data regarding progress towards strategy implementation and achievement of
objectives, is operationalized and available to all stakeholders. This would likely best be
accomplished by having the means of tracking and reporting available through the county
criminal justice warehouse and Internet-based reporting system.
Select appropriate strategies for potential JRI Phase II funding, and make application for said
funding.
22
CEPP-JRI Mecklenburg: Summary of Phase I Data Analysis Efforts – Applied Research Services, Inc.
Appendix A. Projected Cost Impacts.
Summary of Projected Potential Cost Impacts
Projected Savings Targets - in decreasing order of potential savings
Marginal Costs
Order
Offense
2 Year Projected 4 Year Projected
Average Costs
2 Year Projected
4 Year Projected
1 DWLR
Arrrest and Jail
Total
Baseline
-$211,259.54
-$673,277.85
-$203,955.30
-$651,542.14
10% reduction
$729,594.28
$1,543,765.90
$910,682.32
$1,903,020.24
20% reduction
$2,830,825.79
$5,989,811.69
$3,533,447.39
$7,383,718.52
Net 10%
$940,853.81
$2,217,043.75
$1,114,637.61
$2,554,562.38
Net 20%
$3,042,085.33
$6,663,089.54
$3,737,402.69
$8,035,260.66
Baseline
-$263,801.76
-$838,917.20
-$256,497.52
-$817,181.48
10% reduction
$934,759.13
$1,975,125.01
$1,115,847.17
$2,334,379.35
20% reduction
$3,626,865.43
$7,663,485.03
$4,329,487.03
$9,057,391.86
Net 10%
$1,198,560.89
$2,814,042.20
$1,372,344.69
$3,151,560.83
Net 20%
$3,890,667.19
$8,502,402.23
$4,585,984.54
$9,874,573.35
Marginal Costs
Order
Offense
2 Year Projected 4 Year Projected
Average Costs
2 Year Projected
4 Year Projected
2 Poss. Drug Para.
Arrrest and Jail
Baseline
$33,233.76
$88,414.95
$146,461.95
$383,101.87
10% reduction
$438,677.21
$863,997.48
$614,862.01
$1,170,822.11
20% reduction
$1,702,067.56
$3,352,310.23
$2,385,664.58
$4,542,789.80
Marginal Costs
Order
Offense
2 Year Projected 4 Year Projected
Total
Baseline
4 Year Projected
$77,045.66
$210,864.82
$190,273.85
$505,551.74
10% reduction
$568,565.01
$1,106,225.25
$744,749.81
$1,413,049.88
20% reduction
$2,206,032.24
$4,292,153.95
$2,889,629.26
$5,482,633.53
Marginal Costs
Order
Average Costs
2 Year Projected
Offense
2 Year Projected 4 Year Projected
Average Costs
2 Year Projected
4 Year Projected
3 Poss. Marijuana (M)
Arrrest and Jail
Total
Baseline
$27,639.17
$63,706.35
$53,944.70
10% reduction
$340,705.27
$670,347.90
$398,818.64
$776,026.03
20% reduction
$1,321,936.43
$2,600,949.85
$1,547,416.33
$3,010,981.01
$206,419.20
Baseline
$52,557.00
$134,784.46
$78,862.53
10% reduction
$442,999.50
$864,962.69
$501,112.88
$970,640.82
20% reduction
$1,718,838.08
$3,356,055.23
$1,944,317.97
$3,766,086.39
Marginal Costs
Order
$135,341.09
Offense
2 Year Projected 4 Year Projected
Average Costs
2 Year Projected
4 Year Projected
4 Frequent Fliers
Arrrest and Jail
Total
Baseline
-$16,037.55
-$53,130.50
-$80,187.76
10% reduction
$30,332.24
$67,094.33
$151,661.18
$335,471.63
20% reduction
$117,689.08
$260,325.98
$588,445.39
$1,301,629.91
Net 10%
$46,369.79
$120,224.83
$231,848.95
$601,124.13
Net 20%
$133,726.63
$313,456.48
$668,633.15
$1,567,282.41
Baseline
-$41,265.68
-$134,235.91
-$105,415.89
-$346,757.91
10% reduction
$152,135.51
$320,801.76
$273,464.45
$589,179.06
20% reduction
$590,285.76
$1,244,710.81
$1,061,042.07
$2,286,014.74
Net 10%
$193,401.19
$455,037.66
$378,880.34
$935,936.96
Net 20%
$631,551.44
$1,378,946.72
$1,166,457.97
$2,632,772.64
Marginal Costs
Order
Offense
2 Year Projected 4 Year Projected
-$265,652.50
Average Costs
2 Year Projected
4 Year Projected
5 NOL
Arrrest and Jail
Total
Baseline
$31,605.64
$85,168.48
$55,876.40
$142,087.49
10% reduction
$75,884.65
$139,066.41
$99,547.26
$176,504.66
20% reduction
$294,432.44
$539,577.67
$386,243.37
$684,838.08
Baseline
$44,370.35
$118,005.67
$68,641.10
$174,924.69
10% reduction
$94,119.38
$170,682.80
$117,781.99
$208,121.05
20% reduction
$365,183.18
$662,249.26
$456,994.12
$807,509.67
Figures in red text indicate costs, rather than savings.
Four-year trends for DWLR and Frequent Fliers are such that the baseline represents additional costs incurred.
For these categories, the 10% and 20% net figures represent the difference between the costs at baseline and the savings at 10% and 20%.
23
CEPP-JRI Mecklenburg: Summary of Phase I Data Analysis Efforts – Applied Research Services, Inc.