1. Joe Prater
PA 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
1 HBO, 2014
2 McKey, 1989

2. Joe Prater
PA 511 – Fall 2015
prisons. The JRA was not a piece of legislation drafted to just accommodate an alleviation of
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.
3 NCDPS, 2015

3. Joe Prater
PA 511 – Fall 2015
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 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

4. Joe Prater
PA 511 – Fall 2015
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 Savings
Prison Closures – Staff Reductions $117.72 Million
Consolidations ‐‐ Staff Reductions $3.53 Million
Operating Budget – Lower Prison Population $64.19 Million
Prison Conversions – Staff Reductions $9.54 Million
Total JRA Reductions: $194.98 Million
Annualized Costs
Additional Probation Parole Officers & Equipment $24.05 Million
Increase Parole Commission Staff $1.90 Million
Fund CRV Centers $8.53 Million
Total JRA Costs $34.48 Million
Costs Averted
Prison 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.

5. Joe Prater
PA 511 – Fall 2015
1
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, 2014

6. Joe Prater
PA 511 – Fall 2015
2
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.

7. Joe Prater
PA 511 – Fall 2015
3
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
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
5 Haskins, 2015

8. Joe Prater
PA 511 – Fall 2015
4
entities to create one cost-efficient and consistent 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.
 Deliver effective services and programs, using research and advanced technology.

9. Joe Prater
PA 511 – Fall 2015
5
 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,

10. Joe Prater
PA 511 – Fall 2015
6
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 and substance abuse programs can also decrease the likelihood of an offender

11. Joe Prater
PA 511 – Fall 2015
7
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, 2015

12. Joe Prater
PA 511 – Fall 2015
8
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 Population
Estimated 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:

13. Joe Prater
PA 511 – Fall 2015
9
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 $0.40
FY 2008 125.00 $1.83
FY 2009 208 $3.04
FY 2010 659 $9.67
FY 2011* 402 $6.85
FY 2012 0 $0.00
FY 2013 0 $0.00
FY 2014 0 $0.00
FY 2015 0 $0.00
*through only first 6 months of FY2010-2011

14. Joe Prater
PA 511 – Fall 2015
10
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:

15. Joe Prater
PA 511 – Fall 2015
11
Figure 5 NCDPS, 2015 3
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:
Figure 6 NCDPS, 2015 3
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
men and one for women. The centers provide structured cognitive behavioral and substance

16. Joe Prater
PA 511 – Fall 2015
12
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:
Figure 7 NCDPS, 2015 3
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
offender’s crime producing needs. During the year prior to JRA, high risk revocation rates
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
CRVEntries: FY 2012 - FY2015

17. Joe Prater
PA 511 – Fall 2015
13
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:
Figure 9 NCDPS, 2015 3

18. Joe Prater
PA 511 – Fall 2015
14
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:

19. Joe Prater
PA 511 – Fall 2015
15
Figure 10 NCDPS, 2015 3
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
Figure 11 NCDPS, 2015 3

20. Joe Prater
PA 511 – Fall 2015
16
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:

21. Joe Prater
PA 511 – Fall 2015
17
Figure 12 NCDPS, 2015 3
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

22. Joe Prater
PA 511 – Fall 2015
18
 Participate in an educational or vocational skills development program, including an
evidence-based program.7
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:
Figure 13 NCDPS, 2015 3
7 NC G.S. 15A-1343.2(e)

23. Joe Prater
PA 511 – Fall 2015
19
Financial Impacts (Sum of all Outcomes)
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:
Figure 14 NCDPS, 2015 3
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 14-15
Annual
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

24. Joe Prater
PA 511 – Fall 2015
20
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 Totals
Funded Capacity (EOC) 41,168 41,924 41,924 41,924
Average Daily
Population
39,676 37,743 37,490 37,516
Difference ‐1,492 ‐4,181 ‐4,434 ‐4,408
Annual 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)
Figure 15 NCDPS, 2015 3
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)

25. Joe Prater
PA 511 – Fall 2015
21
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

26. Joe Prater
PA 511 – Fall 2015
22
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.

27. Joe Prater
PA 511 – Fall 2015
23
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.