Louisiana Legislative Auditor - Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Louisiana's Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders, LLA, 2016Louisiana Legislative Auditor - Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Louisiana's Incarceration Rate, 2016
Download original document:
![Brief thumbnail](/media/cache/d2/6a/d26a6da3a81b42765f9c809f5eae4523.jpg)
Document text
![Brief thumbnail](/media/cache/d2/6a/d26a6da3a81b42765f9c809f5eae4523.jpg)
Document text
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
EVALUATION OF STRATEGIES TO REDUCE LOUISIANA’S INCARCERATION RATE AND COSTS FOR NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS PERFORMANCE AUDIT SERVICES ISSUED AUGUST 31, 2016 LOUISIANA LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR 1600 NORTH THIRD STREET POST OFFICE BOX 94397 BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70804-9397 LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR DARYL G. PURPERA, CPA, CFE ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR FOR STATE AUDIT SERVICES NICOLE B. EDMONSON, CIA, CGAP, MPA DIRECTOR OF PERFORMANCE AUDIT SERVICES KAREN LEBLANC, CIA, CGAP, MSW FOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO THIS PERFORMANCE AUDIT, CONTACT MICHAEL BOUTTE, PERFORMANCE AUDIT MANAGER, AT 225-339-3800. Under the provisions of state law, this report is a public document. A copy of this report has been submitted to the Governor, to the Attorney General, and to other public officials as required by state law. A copy of this report is available for public inspection at the Baton Rouge office of the Louisiana Legislative Auditor. This document is produced by the Louisiana Legislative Auditor, State of Louisiana, Post Office Box 94397, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9397 in accordance with Louisiana Revised Statute 24:513. Ten copies of this public document were produced at an approximate cost of $40.00. This material was produced in accordance with the standards for state agencies established pursuant to R.S. 43:31. This report is available on the Legislative Auditor’s website at www.lla.la.gov. When contacting the office, you may refer to Agency ID No. 9726 or Report ID No. 40150009 for additional information. In compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance relative to this document, or any documents of the Legislative Auditor, please contact Elizabeth Coxe, Chief Administrative Officer, at 225-339-3800. LOUISIANA LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR DARYL G. PURPERA, CPA, CFE August 31, 2016 The Honorable John A. Alario, Jr., President of the Senate The Honorable Taylor F. Barras, Speaker of the House of Representatives Dear Senator Alario and Representative Barras: This report provides the results of our audit to evaluate potential strategies to reduce Louisiana’s incarceration rate and costs for nonviolent offenders. I hope this report will benefit you in your legislative decision-making process. We would like to express our appreciation to the management and staff of the Department of Corrections and other stakeholders interviewed for their assistance during this audit. Sincerely, Daryl G. Purpera, CPA, CFE Legislative Auditor DGP/aa INCARCERATION RATE 2016 1600 NORTH THIRD STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 94397 • BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70804-9397 WWW.LLA.LA.GOV • PHONE: 225-339-3800 • FAX: 225-339-3870 Louisiana Legislative Auditor Daryl G. Purpera, CPA, CFE Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders August 2016 Audit Control # 40150009 Introduction According to the U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ), as of December 2014, Louisiana had the highest incarceration rate in the United States with an estimated 816 of every 100,000 residents incarcerated. Recognizing that reforms were needed to reduce Louisiana’s incarceration rate, the Legislature recently created the Louisiana Justice Reinvestment Task Force. 1 This task force, with assistance from The Pew Charitable Trusts, will review the criminal justice system and use a data-driven approach to develop recommendations by March 2017 related to the following three goals: (1) Reduce correctional populations and associated correctional spending by focusing prison space on serious and violent criminals. (2) Hold offenders accountable more efficiently by implementing research-based supervision and sentencing practices. (3) Reinvest savings into strategies to decrease recidivism, including improved reentry outcomes. To provide information to the Legislature and to assist the task force in developing recommendations, the purpose of this report was to evaluate potential strategies to reduce incarceration rates and costs for nonviolent offenders in Louisiana. We focused specifically on the nonviolent offender population as, in addition to having the highest incarceration rate, Louisiana incarcerates a higher number of nonviolent offenders than the national average. According to Department of Corrections (DOC) data, of the 128,612 individuals 1 Exhibit 1 Felony Conviction History for Offenders Fiscal Years 2009-2015 Total offenders: 128,612 53,242 41.4% Violent offenders 75,370 58.6% Nonviolent offenders 22,851 17.8% 52,519 40.8% Drug-related crimes only Not drugrelated crimes only Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using data from DOC. HCR 82 of the 2015 Regular Session initially and continued by HCR 69 of the 2016 Regular Session. 1 Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders incarcerated or under DOC supervision during fiscal years 2009 to 2015, 75,370 (58.6%) had nonviolent offenses only, meaning they had no violent convictions in their past, and 22,851 (17.8%) had drug offenses only. Exhibit 1 on the previous page shows the percent of nonviolent offenders in DOC custody from 2009 to 2015. We also found that 17,610 (73.7%) of 23,904 DOC offenders represented by public defenders 2 from 2010 to 2015 had nonviolent charges and nonviolent convictions only. Appendix C lists the 10 most prevalent types of nonviolent offenses. To address high incarceration rates, Louisiana and 17 In fiscal year 2015, Louisiana spent other states participated in the Justice Reinvestment Initiative approximately $680.4 million on (JRI) facilitated by the USDOJ in 2010. The purpose of this incarceration, an increase of $25.2 million (3.9%) from the previous fiscal year. initiative was to identify specific drivers contributing to each state’s incarceration rate. In Louisiana, this initiative identified three drivers including the large percentage of nonviolent offenders in prison, technical violations of parole resulting in offenders returning to prison, and the declining use of parole. To address these drivers, the Legislature passed several reforms in 2011 and 2012 that allowed administrative sanctions for technical Exhibit 2 violations of probation and parole and Incarceration Rate per 100,000 US Residents − 2014 increased eligibility for traditional and 816 good time parole. For a timeline and 900 700 800 description of recent reforms, see 700 584 593 597 599 633 Appendix D. As a result of these efforts, 600 471 513 517 526 500 Louisiana has made some progress in 400 reducing its incarceration rate. 300 200 According to the USDOJ, Louisiana 100 ranks fourth in the nation for decreasing 0 the number of prisoners in 2014 but still has the highest incarceration rate in the country. Exhibit 2 shows Louisiana’s rate compared to other states and the US. Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using data from the USDOJ. While incarceration is necessary for offenders who pose a threat to public safety, implementing strategies to reduce Louisiana’s incarceration rate, especially for nonviolent offenders, could reduce costs and still keep the public safe. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, states that have implemented criminal justice reforms have seen their crime rates remain low while saving millions of dollars in prison construction and operating costs, freeing up revenue that can be used for schools and other priorities. Our evaluation of potential strategies to reduce incarceration rates and costs for nonviolent offenders and our recommendations to DOC and the Legislature are outlined on the pages that follow. Appendix A contains DOC’s and the Louisiana District Attorneys Association’s responses to the report. Appendix B contains our scope and methodology. 2 We obtained data from the Public Defender Board and matched cases with the DOC population to determine what the original charge was in each case. The 23,904 cases represent the cases that had a corresponding DOC record and not the entire population of public defender cases. 2 Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Objective: Evaluate potential strategies to reduce Louisiana’s incarceration rate and costs for nonviolent offenders. To evaluate potential strategies to reduce Louisiana’s incarceration rate and reduce costs for nonviolent offenders, we researched best practices, surveyed each judicial district in the state, and interviewed an array of criminal justice stakeholders including judges, district attorneys, sheriffs, public defenders, DOC staff, the Louisiana Supreme Court, and the Louisiana Sentencing Commission. We also researched other states, specifically focusing on southern states with similar drivers of incarceration rates that have successfully implemented bi-partisan reform. In addition, we analyzed DOC’s data on offenders incarcerated or on supervision from 2009 to 2015. Based on this review and analysis, we identified several strategies that have been used effectively in other states to reduce incarceration rates. These strategies focus particularly on nonviolent offenders and are organized based on key decision points within the criminal justice system. These decision points and associated strategies are summarized in Exhibit 3. Details regarding each strategy are summarized on the pages that follow. Exhibit 3 Decision Points and Associated Strategies Decision Point Strategy Pre-incarceration: Providing alternatives to incarceration that include services to help prevent or divert low risk or nonviolent offenders from being incarcerated. Expanding pretrial diversion and specialty courts could reduce the incarceration rate by diverting nonviolent offenders from prison. However, while Louisiana’s drug courts have demonstrated cost savings, better data collection is needed for pretrial diversion and other specialty courts to evaluate whether these programs are effective. (pp. 4-7) Sentencing: Ensuring that sentences are fair and proportionate to the crime committed. Sentencing reforms, such as reducing the use of mandatory minimum sentences and the habitual offender law for nonviolent offenders, and sentencing certain nonviolent offenders to probation instead of prison could reduce the incarceration rate. (pp. 7-10) During Incarceration: Providing effective rehabilitation programs to offenders while they are incarcerated to help reduce recidivism and facilitate their successful re-entry into society. Release: Providing effective and appropriate levels of supervision to offenders after they are released. Expanding rehabilitation programs in local facilities that are effective at decreasing recidivism would help reduce the incarceration rate. Although local jails house more nonviolent offenders, they have fewer rehabilitation programs and higher recidivism rates than state facilities. (pp. 10-13) Further expanding re-entry services at the local level to help offenders transition back into society would help reduce the incarceration rate. Re-entry programs can reduce recidivism by 32% and save approximately $14 million per year. (pp. 13-16) Because reform efforts have resulted in more offenders on parole, the caseloads of probation and parole officers have increased by 12.9%. Reducing the amount of supervision required for low-risk, nonviolent offenders could lower the incarceration rate by focusing probation and parole resources on offenders most likely to re-offend. (pp. 17-20) Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff from information on pages 4-20 of this report 3 Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Expanding pretrial diversion and specialty courts could reduce the incarceration rate by diverting nonviolent offenders from prison. However, while Louisiana’s drug courts have demonstrated cost savings, better data collection is needed for pretrial diversion and other specialty courts to evaluate whether these programs are effective. Louisiana offers both pretrial diversion programs, administered by district attorney offices, and specialty (or problem-solving) courts. Pretrial diversion is an alternative means of processing a criminal case that may result in the dismissal of the charge(s) if the defendant completes the program, thus “diverting” an offender from incarceration. Specialty courts are programs that address a range of social issues, such as mental health and substance abuse, in order to solve specific problems rather than issue punishments. According to the USDOJ and the National Conference of State Legislatures, 3 pretrial intervention and specialty courts are effective at reducing incarceration rates because offenders are provided with specialized services that address issues driving criminal behavior such as substance abuse and mental illness instead of being sent to prison. By targeting the underlying root causes of criminal activity, the goal of these programs is to ultimately reduce offenders’ recidivism. Since no centralized data exists on all of these programs (except for drug courts), we surveyed all 42 judicial districts to determine the prevalence, cost, and success of these programs in Louisiana and found the following: At least 37 (88.1%) of the 42 district attorney offices operate a pretrial intervention program; however, the lack of centralized data on eligibility criteria, program costs, and performance outcomes makes it difficult to determine whether these programs are effective. Pretrial intervention programs have no centralized oversight or standardized collection of information about costs and outcomes, and each district attorney’s office operates its programs differently. In Louisiana, the district attorney is responsible for deciding, often on a case-by-case basis, what crimes and offenders are eligible for pretrial intervention, 4 how much an offender must pay to participate in the program, and what services are offered or required. According to our survey, the most common services offered were supervision, anger management, and counseling − either by external service providers or internal staff. Most district attorney offices also had a range of fees, from $50 to $2,500 depending on the type of offense, and some waived fees if participants could not pay. In addition, some district attorney offices collected outcome information, such as the number of participants completing the program, while others did not collect any information. However, while some district attorney offices reported tracking re-arrests, no standardized reporting of recidivism exists, which would be a good indicator of the effectiveness of these programs. Therefore, requiring standardized reporting and the collection of certain cost and outcome information, such as recidivism rates, would help Louisiana expand programs that are working so the state could invest resources in 3 Bureaus of Justice Assistance, “Pretrial Diversion Programs: Research Summary,” October 2010. National Conference of State Legislatures, “Principles of Effective State Sentencing and Corrections Policy,” August 2011. 4 Usually nonviolent crimes are eligible. 4 Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders those that are most effective. Appendix E shows the results of our survey of pretrial intervention programs for each judicial district. At least 28 (66.7%) of the 42 judicial districts have a specialty court. However, while the Supreme Court collects standardized information on drug court costs and outcomes, requiring that other specialty courts collect similar information would help demonstrate their effectiveness. In a survey conducted by the National Center for State Courts, 5 respondents stated that specialty courts were one of states’ most effective nonincarceration programs for nonviolent and other suitable felony offenders. Most specialty courts are composed of multi-disciplinary teams, from within and outside the criminal justice system, that include the lead judge, prosecuting attorney, defense attorney, treatment providers, case managers, probation officers, and professionals such as psychologists or counselors. In Louisiana, 13 district courts operate specialty courts other than drug courts such as DWI/Sobriety courts, Re-entry courts, Veteran’s courts, and Mental Health/Behavioral Health courts. However, while all 13 courts reported tracking some type of outcome measure, no standardized reporting of outcomes for these courts exists. In addition, 26 (61.9%) of the 42 judicial districts reported having one or more drug courts, which are the most common type of specialty court across the nation. Drug courts involve a tailored, phased treatment system. The Louisiana Supreme Court provides funding, administrative support, and oversight for drug courts. It collects data on participants, the number of hours of treatment performed, and tracks the various programs for compliance with the program’s standards. According to the Supreme Court, in 2014, Louisiana drug courts served 4,926 participants and had a graduation rate of 43% with a total cost of $17,140,308, or an average of $3,480 per participant. Since the drug court’s inception, the Supreme Court reported a total of 8,949 graduates. Graduates in 2012 had a 10.2% recidivism rate as 89.8% remained free of additional convictions three years after graduation. Exhibit 4 on the following page provides examples of specialty courts in Louisiana and the number of judicial districts with each type. Appendix F shows the types of specialty courts in each judicial district along with budget and participation numbers. 5 National Center for State Courts, “Getting Smarter About Sentencing: NCSC’s Sentencing Reform Survey,” Williamsburg, Va., 2006. 5 Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Exhibit 4 Types of Specialty Courts Fiscal Year 2014 Number of Judicial Districts Description Drug Court 26 Addresses substance abuse through a tailored, phased treatment program, including judicial oversight and community supervision. Louisiana has both adult and juvenile drug courts. DWI/Sobriety Court 6 Accountability court dedicated to changing the behavior of DWI offenders through intensive treatment and supervision. These courts are postconviction. Family Preservation Court/Domestic Violence Court 6 Addresses needs of offenders charged with child abuse, domestic violence, or failure to pay child support. Participants receive counseling, which may include in-patient or out-patient counseling. 5 Supervision and treatment program for less serious nonviolent offenders, including drug testing and counseling, educational opportunities, and employment assistance. Offenders serve time at Louisiana State Penitentiary and are paired with a mentor who may be serving a life sentence. Veteran’s Court 5 Addresses war-related illnesses, such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, that may contribute to substance abuse, domestic violence, and arrests. Veterans work out their sentence through treatment, counseling, and community service. Mental Health Court (Adult/Juvenile) 5 Addresses the needs of offenders with mental illness, who have a wide range of charges, through treatment plans and monitoring requirements. Participants may also receive substance abuse treatment. Court Type Re-entry Court Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using self-reported survey data. The Louisiana Supreme Court estimates that each offender sent to drug court instead of prison saves $29,390 for offenders in state facilities and $7,913 for offenders in local facilities over a two-year period. Applying these estimates to actual DOC data, we found that 8,822 offenders had drug possession only charges in their criminal histories. Housing these offenders in a local facility for two years would cost approximately $157.2 million, while sending these offenders through drug court would cost approximately $87.3 million, a savings of approximately $69.8 million. 6 In order to place more offenders in specialty courts, however, community resources, such as substance abuse treatment, must be available. Other states have recently expanded specialty courts. For example, in 2014, Mississippi reinvested $10.8 million of averted prison spending into specialty courts as part of a large reform package that is expected to save the state $266 million through 2024 by reducing the incarceration rate. In Louisiana, there has been legislative interest in expanding specialty courts. For example, in the 2016 Regular Session, Act 221 created re-entry courts in three judicial districts, and Senate Concurrent Resolution 117 commended the Louisiana Supreme Court on the effectiveness of drug courts and requested a report on plans and proposals to expand other specialty courts by February 1, 2017. 6 This estimate assumes that all 8,822 offenders would be deemed eligible for drug court. 6 Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Matter for Legislative Consideration 1: The Legislature may wish to consider designating an entity to collect consistent and standardized cost and performance outcomes for pretrial diversion programs in order to determine the effectiveness of these programs. Matter for Legislative Consideration 2: The Legislature may wish to consider requiring other specialty courts to collect consistent and standardized cost and performance outcomes similar to drug courts so that it can better determine whether these programs are effective. Sentencing reforms, including reducing the use of mandatory minimum sentences and the habitual offender law for nonviolent offenders, and sentencing certain nonviolent offenders to probation instead of prison could reduce the incarceration rate. Louisiana’s laws directly affect the state’s incarceration rate as they affect who goes to jail and for how long. In Louisiana, sentences, or the penalties assigned to crimes, are written into the same laws that establish the crimes. This means that each crime in Louisiana carries a unique sentence in law that prescribes a term of incarceration, a fine, or both. In addition, sentencing enhancements, like the habitual offender law, are included in statute and can be used to add increased penalties for offenders who have been previously convicted of a crime. Appendix G shows all Louisiana statutes that offenders were convicted under from fiscal year 2009 to 2015. It also includes whether the crime carries a mandatory minimum and whether offenders were sentenced under the habitual offender law for that crime. Previous reform efforts have not typically focused on sentencing because of its complexity and the difficulty in building consensus among different entities. While some reforms, such as legislation removing some mandatory minimum sentences, have tried to address the impact of sentencing, new mandatory minimum sentences are often placed into law that counteract previous reform efforts. As discussed below, new sentencing reforms, particularly for nonviolent offenses, could reduce the incarceration rate and ensure that sentences are proportional to the crime committed. More than half of the mandatory minimum laws in Louisiana are for nonviolent crimes. Mandatory minimum sentences contribute to a high incarceration rate as offenders must be sentenced to incarceration instead of supervision. Louisiana has 599 statutes in Titles 14 and 40. Of these, there are at least 164 mandatory minimum sentences − 91 (55.5%) for nonviolent crimes and 73 (44.5%) for violent crimes. 7 Sentences are considered mandatory minimums if the statute includes some or all of the phrase “without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.” However, some offenders sentenced under mandatory minimum sentences are able to earn good time credits that contribute to early release 7 In Titles 14 and 40, there are more nonviolent crimes in total than violent crimes which could contribute to the higher number of nonviolent mandatory minimum sentences. 7 Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders to good time parole if eligible. 8 Article 890.1 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure allows judges and district attorneys to waive the use of mandatory minimum sentences as long as they both agree; however, judges and public defenders we interviewed stated that these waivers are rare because it can be difficult for judges and district attorneys to reach an agreement. Mandatory minimum sentences dictate the lowest sentence of incarceration a judge can order for certain crimes. Statutes that carry mandatory minimum sentences remove judicial discretion in sentencing. This can lead to a high incarceration rate, particularly for nonviolent offenders who may not have been sentenced to incarceration or who may have been sentenced to a lower amount of time had the mandatory minimum sentence not been in place. Additionally, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, mandatory minimums actually shift sentencing discretion from judges to prosecutors because prosecutors can choose whether to charge an offender with an offense that carries a mandatory minimum sentence or to offer a plea bargain to a lesser crime or one that does not carry a mandatory minimum. In 2001, Louisiana passed Act 403, which removed several mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent crimes; however, some of these sentences, like the mandatory sentence for Simple Burglary of a Pharmacy, have been placed back into law. Additionally, mandatory minimum sentences are often increased in law. For example, Act 368 of the 2014 Regular Session increased the mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of manufacture of, distribution of, or possession with intent to distribute Schedule I narcotics from five to 10 years. In 2014, the Louisiana Sentencing Commission recommended in its report to the Governor and the Legislature, a modification of mandatory minimum sentencing that would allow the court to sentence a defendant charged with crimes requiring a mandatory minimum sentence to a lesser penalty if substantial and compelling reasons exist to do so, but no legislation allowing for the implementation of this recommendation was introduced. Other states have implemented similar provisions. For example, in 2014, Mississippi gave judges the option to bypass mandatory minimum sentences for drug trafficking offenses when the sentence is not in the interest of public safety. The habitual offender law allows for enhanced A third-time offender sentenced sentences for offenders with two or more convictions, under the habitual offender law even for nonviolent crimes. This means that nonviolent for manufacture or distribution of marijuana would be sentenced to offenders could serve long sentences for a series of minor 20 to 60 years, as opposed to five crimes. We found that 77.5% of cases sentenced under to 30 years if not convicted as a 9 the habitual offender law were for nonviolent offenses. habitual offender. Under the habitual offender law, offenders who commit a second or subsequent felony within 10 years of completing a sentence for a previous felony conviction may be prosecuted as a habitual offender. This law increases the minimum sentence length an offender can receive. The use of the habitual offender law, in part, contributes to the high incarceration rate because sentences enhanced by the law may be much longer than sentences not enhanced by the law. According to DOC data, 15,235 of the 344,366 (4.4%) cases 8 Any person convicted of a sex crime, second-conviction violent crime, or as a habitual offender for a sex or violent crime is automatically ineligible for good time. Offenders sentenced to life imprisonment may earn good time that can be applied at such time as the offender’s sentence is commuted to a specific number of years. 9 Previous convictions may have been for violent crimes. 8 Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders for offenders in our scope were habitual offender cases. 10 Out of these cases, however, only 22.5% (3,434 of 15,235) included violent crime convictions. This means that 77.5% (11,801 of 15,235) of habitual offender cases were for nonviolent offenses. Some states have incorporated reforms targeting sentencing enhancements and habitual offender laws, including Kentucky and North Carolina. In 2011, Kentucky passed a reform package bill that included a provision to eliminate sentencing enhancements for second and subsequent drug possession offenses and prohibit the use of the persistent felony offender statute when a defendant is charged with felony drug possession. In 2011, North Carolina modified the habitual offender law by introducing graduated sentencing enhancements to make sentences more proportional to the severity of the underlying conviction. As a result of these and other reforms, North Carolina has experienced an eight percent drop in its prison population, and the percentage of individuals entering prison has dropped by 21 percent. In addition, in fiscal year 2014, the state saved $48 million and closed 10 prisons. Additional sentencing reforms could reduce Louisiana’s incarceration rate by directing nonviolent offenders to probation or community programming instead of prison. As stated previously, 58.6% of offenders in Louisiana were incarcerated for only nonviolent offenses. Other states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, and South Carolina that also have a high percentage of nonviolent offenders, have recently implemented reforms to allow for the use of probation or community programs instead of incarceration for the sentencing of certain nonviolent offenses. In Alabama, this reform was incorporated by adding a new class into the penalty classification system that targets low-level, nonviolent offenses. For example, low-level property offenses, like Theft of Property in the Third Degree, and drug offenses, like possession of a controlled substance, 11 are now both considered a Class D felony; the penalty requires judges to sentence offenders to a community program where available or probation for a period of two years. In Mississippi, legislation expanded judicial discretion to order drug court or nonadjudicated probation for all drug offenders except traffickers. Introducing the ability to sentence offenders in Louisiana directly to probation or community programming for low-level, nonviolent offenses would result in a cost savings to the state as offenders would be diverted from incarceration to probation, which is less expensive. For example, using DOC data we identified 4,065 offenders convicted of Schedule IV drug possession from fiscal years 2009 to 2015. According to the data, this crime carries a median sentence of three years. If sentenced to probation for two years instead of incarceration for the median sentence, the cost savings for these offenders would be between approximately $101 and $232 million depending on whether they were housed in a state or local facility. Exhibit 5 on the following page illustrates the potential cost savings for the 4,065 offenders. 10 These 15,235 (4.4%) cases, which include cases prior to fiscal year 2009, represent 10% of all offenders, as many offenders have multiple cases in their history. 11 Unlawful Possession in Alabama covers the possession of controlled substances in all drug schedules I-V except for marijuana. 9 Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Exhibit 5 Probation Cost Savings for 4,065 Offenders Convicted of Possession of Schedule IV Drug Fiscal Years 2009-2015 In State Facility Incarceration for three-year median sentence 12 Probation for two years Cost savings In Local Facility Incarceration for three-year median sentence Probation for two years Cost savings $239,592,695.51 7,661,264.85 $231,931,430.66 $108,638,517.26 7,661,264.85 $100,977,252.41 Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using budget information and unaudited data from the Corrections and Justice Unified Network (CAJUN) database. Matter for Legislative Consideration 3: The Legislature may wish to evaluate the effects mandatory minimum sentences have on Louisiana’s incarceration rate and consider reducing the number of mandatory minimum sentences for some nonviolent offenses. Matter for Legislative Consideration 4: The Legislature may wish to evaluate the effects the habitual offender law has on Louisiana’s incarceration rate and consider narrowing its use to exclude some nonviolent offenders. Matter for Legislative Consideration 5: The Legislature may wish to evaluate how sentences for nonviolent offenders affect Louisiana’s incarceration rate and consider including provisions that require sentencing of certain nonviolent offenders to probation or community programming in lieu of incarceration. Expanding rehabilitation programs in local facilities that are effective at decreasing recidivism would help reduce the incarceration rate. Although local jails house more nonviolent offenders, they have fewer rehabilitation programs and higher recidivism rates than state facilities. Using DOC data, we found that of the 55,605 offenders incarcerated on average each year during fiscal years 2009 to 2015, 13 more than half (29,936 or 53.8%) were incarcerated in a local jail. In addition, from fiscal year 2009 to 2015, the average total sentence for offenders in local facilities was 12 13 This example assumes these offenders served their full sentence. Fiscal year 2015 is only through May 15, 2015. 10 Louisiana houses more offenders in local facilities than any other state. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Louisiana housed 50.8% of state offenders in local facilities. Kentucky was the next highest at 41.4%. Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders approximately five years, which means offenders in local jails are released more frequently than offenders in state facilities where the average sentence is approximately 11 years. 14 DOC estimates that 14,500 (80.6%) of the 18,000 discharges every year are from local jails. Currently, DOC offers a variety of certified treatment and rehabilitation programs (CTRP) that eligible offenders can participate in to receive good time credit. These programs include basic education courses such as GED or high school equivalency classes, faith-based programs such as Bible and values courses, treatment programs for issues such as substance abuse, and job skills such as welding or automotive technology. According to the 2014 Government Efficiencies Management Support (GEMS) report, 15 expanding CTRP programming could save approximately $6.5 million per year. However, DOC does not require that all local facilities offer these programs. As a result, some local facilities may offer no programs, while others place heavy emphasis on rehabilitation programs, Exhibit 6 such as the Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s 1, 3, and 5-Year Recidivism Rates for State Offenders Released from State Institutions and Local Jails Office, which is also a certified substance abuse treatment provider. Local State Year According to DOC, of the 105 local Recidivism Rate Recidivism Rate facilities that house state offenders, 17.6% 15.5% 1st Year rd 46 (43.8%) offer no treatment 37.1% 34.4% 3 Year programs. The lack of effective 44.9% 41.3% 5th Year rehabilitation programs at local Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using information facilities may be one reason why local from DOC’s 2015 Briefing Book. These rates are for offenders jails have higher recidivism rates than released in 2009 and the most current recidivism rates for the 5th year of release. state facilities, as shown in Exhibit 6. According to DOC, the primary reason local facilities do not offer these programs is lack of funding. In fiscal year 2015, local jails received approximately $171.5 million, or 25% of DOC’s total budget. DOC pays local facilities $24.39 per offender per day. According to the Louisiana Legislative Fiscal Office’s (LFO) survey of southern states, 16 as of July 2014, the average per diem among states that used local jails was $26.67 and ranged from a low of $12.00 in Virginia to $49.53 in Tennessee. This survey also reported that DOC spent only 1.2% on rehabilitation programs at both state and local facilities, which was the lowest among other southern states. 17 To address these funding issues, DOC has used a mix of state and local funding to expand good time approved rehabilitation programs at local jails. DOC also has 20 transition specialists who serve 25 local facilities, teaching good time approved courses. 18 Because of this, enrollment in CTRP courses in local facilities has increased by 944%, from 14 The average excludes life and death sentences. The Division of Administration contracted with Alvarez and Marsal to research and recommend cost-savings strategies in state agencies. These recommendations were outlined in the GEMS report issued May 2014. 16 LFO, “Survey of Adult Correctional Systems: A Report Submitted to the Fiscal Affairs and Government Operations Committee,” 2014. LFO compiles this report every year based on a survey of other southern states. 17 Louisiana was the lowest among the southern states offering rehabilitative programs. 18 These transition specialists are funded by implementing recommendations from GEMS. These recommendations resulted in savings by expanding access to certified treatment rehabilitation programs, allowing more offenders to earn credits and be released earlier. 15 11 Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders 1,555 in fiscal year 2010 to 16,234 in fiscal year 2015. Exhibit 7 summarizes the number of participants by category of CTRP programs from fiscal years 2010 to 2015. Exhibit 7 Participation in Rehabilitation Programs Fiscal Years (FY) 2010 to 2015 16,000 14,000 12,000 Substance Abuse 10,000 Treatment 8,000 Job Skills 6,000 Faith Based 4,000 Education 2,000 0 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using statistics from DOC. DOC is also considering a graduated per diem structure where the per diem rate for local jail facilities would vary based on the availability of treatment and re-entry programs provided. Facilities offering no programming would receive a lower per diem rate than those facilities providing programming. The goal of this structure would be to increase re-entry services at the local level; however, this structure has not yet been established. Although it may not be possible for local facilities to offer a wide array of treatment programs, it is important that the ones they do offer are effective. However, DOC does not measure recidivism by individual program which would help it determine effectiveness. Although DOC calculates recidivism for educational programming as a whole and for substance abuse treatment at its Blue Walters program, 19 DOC does not currently measure recidivism for each individual rehabilitation program. Without this information, DOC cannot determine whether the programs it offers are working. In the absence of recidivism data, DOC could use evidence based programs to ensure that the programs it offers are effective. Programs are considered evidence based if they have been rigorously evaluated and these evaluations show that the program produces the expected positive results (such as reduced recidivism) that can be attributed to the program itself rather than to other extraneous factors. Some states require the use of evidence-based practices. For example, legislation in Kentucky mandates that 75% of expenditures for supervision and intervention programs be spent on evidence-based programs by 2016. Using Washington State Institute for Public Policy’s inventory of evidence-based programs for adult corrections, 20 we found that DOC currently offers two evidence-based 19 Blue Walters is a 90-day substance abuse treatment program at Richwood Correctional Facility in Monroe, Louisiana. 20 Steve Aos, Marna Miller, and Elizabeth Drake. “Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and What Does Not,” Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2006. 12 Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders cognitive behavioral programs (Moral Reconation Therapy and Thinking for a Change) at local facilities that have been proven to reduce recidivism by 8.2%. A total of 44 local facilities offered these treatment programs, but only 192 offenders participated in them in fiscal year 2015. Even when local facilities offer rehabilitation programs, offenders often transfer frequently, which can disrupt participation. While some transfers are due to court appearances, substance abuse treatment, or medical issues, those housed in local facilities may be transferred to other facilities so that empty beds can be filled. Such transfers do not take an offender’s rehabilitation needs into account, and offenders may be sent to a facility with little or no resources to meet their needs. For example, one offender was transferred 22 times in four years and often spent less than one month in a local facility before being transferred. Currently, local facilities have to notify DOC when offenders are transferred, but DOC does not have any criteria for when offenders should or should not be transferred between local facilities. Recommendation 1: DOC should evaluate recidivism and/or other outcomes for each of its rehabilitation programs so that it can target its resources toward programs that are proven to work. Summary of Management’s Response: DOC agrees with this recommendation; however, the department noted an inherent difficulty in determining the effectiveness of individual programs in reducing recidivism as offenders often participate in multiple programs prior to release. Recommendation 2: DOC should require that transfers between local facilities take into account an offender’s participation in treatment programs. Summary of Management’s Response: DOC agrees with this recommendation and stated it currently takes participation in rehabilitation into consideration if information about the participation is entered into CAJUN, the department’s data system, by transition specialists at the local level. Matter for Legislative Consideration 6: The Legislature may wish to consider requiring that local facilities offer specific evidence-based programs. Further expanding re-entry services at the local level to help offenders transition back into society would help reduce Louisiana’s incarceration rate through decreased recidivism. Re-entry programs can reduce recidivism by 32% and save approximately $14 million per year. Re-entry programs assist offenders in transitioning back into society after incarceration and can lead to reduced recidivism. Once released, offenders are often placed back into the same social setting that may have contributed to their commission of a crime. To help with this transition, offenders can take a 100-hour re-entry program prior to release, which includes courses such as anger management, employment skills, job placement assistance, money 13 Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders management, and problem solving. The re-entry program also assists offenders in procuring needed documents such as state identification cards and social security cards. According to the GEMS report, DOC re-entry programs are reducing recidivism by as much as 32%. However, as with rehabilitation programs, all state facilities offer re-entry programming but not all local facilities do. According to DOC data, only 40 (38.1%) of the 105 local facilities offer the 100hour program. Expanding re-entry to all local facilities is important since offenders are often released from facilities far from their homes. Offenders released from facilities with no reentry program may not be linked with services, housing, or employment in their communities and may be more likely to recidivate. As offenders return to society, they can be faced with many environmental challenges like unemployment, poverty, substance abuse, and mental health issues. Linkage with resources in the offender’s community that address these issues is important in reducing recidivism and assisting offenders to become productive citizens. For example, an offender sentenced in Orleans Parish who intends to return there after release may be released from a facility in North Louisiana that does not offer re-entry programs. Once the offender returns to New Orleans, he may not be linked to local services to help him find employment or housing in the region. Exhibit 8 shows from where in the state all offenders convicted in Orleans Parish 21 were released between fiscal years 2009 and 2015. Approximately 62.8% of releases were from local facilities, while 34.4% were from state facilities. 22 Exhibit 8 Offenders Convicted in Orleans Parish and Released Statewide Local facilities State facilities Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using unaudited data from the CAJUN database. 21 22 Orleans Parish has the largest number of convictions statewide. The remaining 2.8% were released from other facilities including out-of-state facilities. 14 Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders In an effort to expand re-entry resources at the local level and allow offenders to receive re-entry programming near their communities, DOC has opened nine regional reentry centers where local offenders go to complete the 100-hour program. Each regional reentry center can serve 600 offenders per year. However, while DOC has seen large growth in the number of offenders participating in the re-entry program since 2009, not all offenders are able to participate as an average of 14,500 offenders are released from local facilities each year. The GEMS report estimated that opening additional re-entry centers could save approximately $14 million per year. According to the report, increasing investment in effective re-entry programs that reduce recidivism and result in cost savings not only provides an opportunity to reduce crime and improve public safety but also significantly reduces the prison population and the cost of re-incarceration. DOC’s analysis of recidivism for offenders in re-entry programs found an overall reduction in recidivism for those who participated in the program versus those who did not. Overall, 12.5% of offenders with re-entry programming in fiscal year 2014 returned within one year versus 15.4% of offenders with no programming. Exhibit 9 shows recidivism by each re-entry center. Exhibit 9 One-Year Recidivism with Re-entry Programs Compared to No Programs Fiscal Year 2014 Without Programming With Re-entry Programming 15.41% 12.56% 14.06% 13.73% 12.04% Overall Florida Parishes Jefferson 5.97% Southwest Central Region 17.90% 12.57% 15.34% 13.73% Capital Area Northeast Region 19.19% 11.27% 14.15% 11.98% Southeast Region Northwest Region 17.51% 16.16% 8.45% 8.94% Transitional Center for Women Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using data from DOC. 15 Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders DOC’s use of a risk and needs assessment will help it prioritize offenders for the reentry program and develop individualized re-entry plans for those offenders most likely to re-offend. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 23 risk and needs assessments help identify appropriate programs, treatments, and services, which enables states to target corrections resources more effectively. North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia all use risk and needs assessments to develop and individualize supervision plans and re-entry conditions. In April 2015, DOC received a Justice Reinvestment Initiative grant to develop a risk and needs assessment tool based on evidence-based principles of “risk, need, and responsivity.” The risk assessment was created by Louisiana State University and is called the Targeted Intervention Gaining Enhanced Reentry (TIGER) instrument. DOC plans to use the risk assessment at various decision points to help determine appropriate interventions. According to DOC, the tool will provide objective, evidence-based recommendations and guide case planning. In addition to re-entry planning, this tool could ultimately be used by courts to inform sentencing decisions, by local jails to determine which rehabilitation programs offenders should take, and by probation and parole to provide information on appropriate supervision levels. Recommendation 3: DOC should work with the Legislature to obtain the funding needed to expand re-entry programs at the local level. Summary of Management’s Response: DOC agrees with this recommendation and stated that despite reduction in staff it has continued in its efforts to expand re-entry programming at the local level through the expansion of re-entry centers, opening of day reporting centers, expansion of adult basic education programs, opening of a transitional work program for women, expansion of residential substance abuse treatment beds, and the use of federal Pell Grants to provide education classes at the local level. Recommendation 4: Once the TIGER risk and needs assessment is finalized, DOC should use it to identify those offenders most likely to benefit from re-entry programs and ensure that those offenders are able to participate. Summary of Management’s Response: DOC agrees with this recommendation and stated the purpose of the TIGER tool is to target programming based on the individual needs of each offender. Additionally, the department is considering a policy change that would require that offenders complete an entire case plan prior to receiving early release credits to ensure offenders successfully participate in all TIGER recommended individualized programming. 23 National Conference of State Legislatures, “Principles of Effective State Sentencing and Corrections Policy,” August 2011. 16 Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Because reform efforts have resulted in more offenders on parole, the caseloads of probation and parole officers have increased by 12.9%. Expanding strategies to reduce the amount of supervision required for low-risk, nonviolent offenders could reduce the incarceration rate by focusing probation and parole resources on offenders most likely to re-offend. In fiscal year 2015, DOC had 511 officers to supervise 71,917 offenders on probation and parole. Since 2009, average caseloads have increased by 12.9%, as shown in Exhibit 10. These increases are due to reforms that have increased the number of offenders released on parole and decreased parole revocations as discussed in the following paragraphs. Exhibit 10 Average Probation and Parole Caseload Fiscal Years 2009-2015 140 135 130 125 120 115 134 124 137 137 138 140 127 Since 2009, Louisiana has FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 increased the number of offenders Caseload released on good time parole by 46.7%, Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using from 25,063 in 2009 to 36,775 in 2015. information from DOC. Offenders can be released early from prison on either traditional or good time parole. Traditional parole is a release prior to full sentence served for eligible offenses, which must be approved by the Louisiana Pardon and Parole Board’s Committee on Parole. Good time parole is a set rate of time that an eligible offender can earn for good behavior and self-improvement activities to reduce prison time. See Appendix H for an explanation of the differences between good time parole and traditional parole eligibility and how time is accrued for good time parole. In 2011 and 2012, Louisiana reformed good time and parole eligibility requirements and reduced the amount of time offenders have to be incarcerated A good time-eligible offender with a prior to release, which increased the number of offenders three-year sentence housed in a state eligible for early release and allowed eligible offenders to facility with no disciplinary issues would automatically be released in be released earlier. Exhibit 11 summarizes the number of 1.2 years or in 9.5 months if that offenders released on traditional and good time parole from offender took the maximum number fiscal year 2009 to 2015. As a result of the increase in of certified treatment rehabilitation releases to parole, more offenders are now being supervised program courses. in the community by DOC’s Probation and Parole. 17 Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Exhibit 11 Number of Offenders on Parole and Good Time Parole Fiscal Years 2009 - May 15, 2015 2,894 36,775 3,854 25,063 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Good Time Parole FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Parole Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using unaudited data from the CAJUN database. Additionally, fewer offenders have returned to prison because of technical violations. Since 2009, the number of parole revocations due to technical violations has decreased by 37.2% from 27.3% (1,211 of 4,435 revocations) in fiscal year 2009 to 17.1% (648 of 3,781) in fiscal year 2015. 24 Offenders released on parole are subject to certain conditions they must abide by for the duration of supervision and are monitored by DOC. Conditions include meeting court-required obligations such as paying child support, refraining from owning or possessing firearms, permitting visits from the parole officer, and paying fees. Offenders can have their parole status revoked because of a violation of any of these conditions − called a technical violation − or the commission of a new crime. In Louisiana, the Justice Reinvestment Initiative 25 found that 23.6% of 2009 prison admissions were because of technical violations of parole. To address revocations, reforms were passed in Louisiana to allow probation and parole officers to use alternatives to re-incarceration, such as allowing DOC to sanction offenders administratively without returning to court for approval or reducing the amount of time offenders have to return to prison. For example, Act 402 of the 2007 Regular Legislative Session allowed offenders who violated parole conditions to spend up to 90 days in jail in lieu of revocation. According to an evaluation conducted by The Pew Charitable Trusts in 2014, this legislation resulted in the decreased use of approximately 2,034 jail and prison beds a year and saved taxpayers an average of $17.76 million in annual corrections costs. Other reforms, such as the use of graduated sanctions and day reporting centers have also contributed to the decrease in revocations. Exhibit 12 illustrates how the number of revocations has decreased since 2009. While the decrease in revocations has contributed to lowering the state’s incarceration rate, it 24 Our analysis of technical revocations does not include probation revocations because the CAJUN database does not accurately collect technical revocations for probation. 25 Urban Institute and Bureau of Justice Assistance, “Justice Reinvestment Initiative State Assessment Report,” January 2014. 18 Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders also means more offenders are under the supervision of DOC’s Probation and Parole, which increases its caseload. Exhibit 12 Percentage of Revocations from Technical Violations Fiscal Years 2009-2015 35% 30% 25% 28.70% 27.15% 20% 18.29% 15% 17.09% 10% FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Good Time FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Parole Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using unaudited CAJUN data. Expanding strategies to reduce supervision levels of low-risk offenders can decrease re-incarceration of offenders by reducing caseloads, allowing DOC to focus limited resources on high-risk offenders who are more likely to re-offend. However, DOC should determine if current efforts to reduce the supervision levels of low-risk offenders are effective. According to The Pew Charitable Trusts, 26 moderate- to high-risk offenders benefit the most from supervision while low-risk offenders often do worse under these conditions. In addition, low-risk offenders on probation and parole who are compliant with all conditions reduce the intensity of supervision of high-risk offenders who are more likely to benefit from supervision and programs. To address this issue, some states are implementing different options for supervising low-risk offenders including administrative supervision, risk-based supervision levels, early termination of supervision, and compliance credits. These options can reduce caseloads of probation and parole officers, reduce supervision costs, and reduce recidivism. As of April 2016, Louisiana has 6,619 offenders on administrative supervision and 633 offenders on suspended probation or parole status. These offenders are not required to be seen in the field or to report to their district office as long as all conditions of supervision are met. However, DOC does not currently measure whether offenders on reduced supervision are able to complete supervision without committing a new crime or having their status revoked. This information would provide evidence that reduced supervision levels are effective and successful. Additionally, according to Pew, the use of a validated risk and needs assessment tool that measures the probability of an offender re-offending is a best practice of community corrections. 26 Pew Center on the States’ Public Safety Performance Project, “Policy Framework to Strengthen Community Corrections,” December 2008. 19 Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders As mentioned earlier, Louisiana has developed a risk and needs assessment tool (TIGER) that will help it implement risk-based supervision. According to DOC, TIGER is 133% better at predicting the likelihood of recidivism than is its current risk assessment tool (LARNA). DOC is in the process of finalizing the TIGER risk and needs assessment tool and will be moving to implement the tool soon. Once TIGER is implemented and DOC demonstrates that reduced supervision levels are appropriate and successful, DOC could also pursue additional reforms that allow for early termination of parole or compliance credits for parole for low-risk offenders. For example, other states, like Arkansas and Mississippi, have implemented early termination of parole and/or compliance credits for parole in order to reduce the number of low-risk offenders who comply with parole conditions. Exhibit 13 summarizes the other options not currently used in Louisiana and examples from states that have used them. Exhibit 13 Options for Supervising Low-risk Offenders Type Description State Examples Early Termination Courts have the discretion to grant early termination of a sentence if all requirements have been met, such as restitution paid in full. Arkansas granted authority to its corrections department to discharge offenders at half of their community supervision term if they have complied with court-ordered requirements. Compliance Credits Provides offenders on supervision with a monthly credit if they comply with supervision requirements. Mississippi allows offenders in supervision to earn time off their sentence by complying with court-ordered conditions. Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, “Principles of Effective State Sentencing and Corrections Policy” and the Pew Charitable Trusts Public Safety Performance Project Issue Briefs. Recommendation 5: DOC should evaluate whether its current efforts regarding reduced supervision levels for low-risk offenders are effective. If these efforts demonstrate success, DOC should consider expanding the use of reduced supervision levels, including the feasibility of early termination of supervision. Summary of Management’s Response: DOC agrees in part with this recommendation. The department stated that it agrees with the concept of reduced levels of supervision but is concerned about the potential negative impact to public safety that could result from the expansion of reduced supervision to medium-risk offenders. Additionally, the department stated that early termination of parole and good time supervision would require legislative changes. LLA Additional Comments: Our recommendation is for DOC to consider expanding strategies for low-risk offenders only. 20 APPENDIX A: MANAGEMENT’S RESPONSE A. 1 A. 2 A. 3 A. 4 APPENDIX B: SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY We conducted this evaluation under the provisions of Title 24 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, as amended. This report generally covers fiscal years 2009 to 2015 (July 1, 2008, through May 15, 2015); however, some of our analyses, such as our offender history analysis, included data records prior to these fiscal years. The objective of this informational report was to evaluate potential strategies to reduce Louisiana’s incarceration rate and costs for nonviolent offenders. To answer our informational objective, we performed the following steps: Researched and reviewed relevant state legal statutes, including the Louisiana Criminal Code and the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act. We created an index of crimes and penalties and identified statutes with mandatory minimum sentences. Our analysis uses statutes current as of the 2015 legislative session. We joined this index to Department of Corrections’ (DOC) data; therefore, it is our best approximation of what crimes offenders were convicted of. However, as statutes change over time, older convictions may not be exact matches. We tried to factor in past statutory changes when possible, such as the Title 40 reorganization in 2006. We attempted to harmonize the DOC data and our legal index. Researched and reviewed published research, state reports, and best practices related to the criminal justice system, including drivers of incarceration nationally and in Louisiana, bail reform, pretrial intervention, and sentencing practices. Our research included the following: Vera Institute for Justice The Urban Institute Pew Center on the States American Bar Association Pelican Institute Brennan Center for Justice Interviewed a variety of criminal justice stakeholders involved with the Louisiana Justice Reinvestment Task Force, including judges, sheriffs, district attorneys, public defenders, DOC officials and staff, Louisiana Sentencing Commission members, the Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement, research groups (such as the Pelican Institute), nonprofit community organizations, and advocacy groups. Based on these stakeholder interviews, we also: B.1 Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix B Visited districts identified as providing additional services to offenders, such as the Lafayette Sheriff’s Office and Pointe Coupee Parish Sheriff’s Office. Met with the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee and the Picard Center in Lafayette to understand the role of data in their work. Visited Elayn Hunt Correctional Center to gain an understanding of the DOC intake and screening process. Met with the Baton Rouge District Attorney’s Office to understand its pretrial intervention process. Met with Louisiana Supreme Court staff to discuss drug courts and other specialty courts in the state. Developed and conducted statewide surveys of judicial districts and district attorneys regarding pretrial intervention programs and specialty courts. Thirtynine of 42 district attorneys responded to our survey regarding pretrial intervention, and we received a response from all 42 judicial districts regarding specialty courts. For those that did not respond to our survey, we attempted multiple contacts for a response. However, note that not all responses were complete. Obtained and analyzed DOC data from the Corrections and Justice Unified Network (CAJUN) database for all offenders either incarcerated during the period of July 1, 2008, through May 15, 2015, or on supervision (i.e. probation or parole) during that time period who were previously incarcerated. We conducted limited reliability testing on the data for consistency and reasonableness. We used DOC data to: Create a criminal history record for each offender to determine the makeup of offenders’ convictions for their entire criminal history. For example, we determined how many offenders had at least one violent conviction in their history. Calculate the number of convictions per offense/statute, the sentence length per offense, and the total sentence length per case. Because both offenses and cases can be served concurrently or consecutively, we could not calculate the overall sentence per offender using DOC data. We also calculated the statewide median sentence per offense. Determine how many offenders were housed in local and state facilities over the course of each fiscal year from 2009 to 2015. B.2 Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix B We also determined the makeup of offenses for the offenders housed in local and state facilities and on community supervision. Determine revocation rates for offenders on probation, parole, and good time parole, and what percentage of revocations was due to technical violations. Determine how many offenders participated in a certified rehabilitation treatment program while incarcerated. Obtained and analyzed Public Defender Board data for all closed cases between fiscal years 2010 and 2015. We conducted limited reliability testing on the data involving consistency and reasonableness. We joined the Public Defender data to DOC data in order to compare initial charges at filing to those at conviction. Our join resulted in 23,904 cases (out of 953,481) that had a match in DOC data on offender name, docket, and district and also had valid statue entries. We also determined how many of these matches resulted in plea bargains, trials, or other outcomes using the Public Defender’s case result code. B.3 APPENDIX C: TOP 10 NONVIOLENT OFFENSES Top 10 Nonviolent Offenses Fiscal Years 2009 - May 15, 2015 Statute Statute Title Number of Offenders Convicted Percent of Offenses R.S. 40: 967 C2 Prohibited Acts - Schedule II Drug; penalties, Possession, Other Schedule II 23,947 13.60% R.S. 14:62 Simple burglary 15,095 8.57% R.S. 40: 967 B4b Prohibited Acts - Schedule II Drug; penalties, Manufacture; Distribution: cocaine, oxycodone, or methadone 10,207 5.79% R.S. 14:67 Theft (including Amended Amounts) 9,515 5.40% R.S. 14:98 Operating a vehicle while intoxicated 8,248 4.68% R.S. 40:966 B3 Penalty for drugs listed in Schedule I; Manufacture; Distribution, Schedule I (marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinols (or chemical derivatives), synthetic cannabinoids) 7,662 4.35% R.S. 40:966 E2a Penalty for drugs listed in Schedule I; Possession of marijuana or synthetic cannabinoids, Second Conviction 5,056 2.87% R.S. 14:95.1 Possession of firearm or carry concealed weapon by person convicted of certain felonies 4,799 2.72% R.S. 14:62.2 Simple burglary of an inhabited dwelling 4,699 2.67% R.S. 40: 969 C2 Prohibited Acts - Schedule IV Drug; penalties, Possession 4,183 2.37% Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using unaudited data from the CAJUN database. C.1 APPENDIX D: CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORMS Criminal Justice Reforms 2011-2015 Act Year Reform Impact Area Description Act 104 2011 Release and Supervision Authorizes probation and parole officers to impose administrative sanctions for technical violations of parole and probation. Act 153 2011 Release and Supervision Mandates evidence-based practice training for Parole Board and Pardon Board members and requires the Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPS&C) to conduct a risk and needs assessment on every parole-eligible offender for the parole board to use in making parole decisions. Act 168 2011 Release and Supervision Requires electronic monitoring and home incarceration service providers to report outcomes of home incarceration. Act 186 2011 Release and Supervision Simplified and consolidated the good time and earned credit statutes for nonviolent, non-sex offenders. Act 285 2011 Release and Supervision Made first-time nonviolent, non-sex offenders convicted of a felony eligible for parole after serving 25 percent of their sentence, down from 33 percent under the previous law. Act 110 2012 Release and Supervision Creates transparency in the earning of good time, setting the rate of time earned at one-and-a-half days for every day served. Act 123 2012 Release and Supervision Eliminated state risk review panels. Act 158 2012 Release and Supervision Prevents notification of administrative sanctions from being introduced as evidence. Act 159 2012 Release and Supervision Allows the parole board to consider second-time nonviolent, non-sex offenders after they have served 33 percent of their sentences. Act 160 2012 Trial and Sentencing Provides that mandatory minimums can be waived for certain nonviolent, non-sex crimes if the prosecutor, defense counsel, and judge agree. Act 399 2012 Trial and Sentencing Expands Louisiana’s re-entry courts as a means to rehabilitate nonviolent, non-sex offenders. Act 401 2012 Release and Supervision Act 714 2012 General Merged the functions of the Boards of Pardon and Parole to save money and improve efficiency. Act 152 2013 Release and Supervision Provides relative to simple escape from a work release program. Act 183 2013 Release and Supervision Increases the total number of credits that may be earned by an offender for participation in certified treatment and rehabilitation programs. Provides for parole eligibility for certain offenders sentenced to life imprisonment if certain conditions are met. D.1 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix D Criminal Justice Reforms 2011-2015 Act Year Reform Impact Area Description Act 347 2013 Trial and Sentencing Provides for the use in the 22nd Judicial District Court (JDC) of a validated risk/needs assessment tool at the pretrial stage. Act 388 2013 Trial and Sentencing Provides relative to the sentencing for third or subsequent Operating While Intoxicated conviction. Allows waiver of mandatory minimum sentence if accepted into drug division probation program. Act 389 2013 Trial and Sentencing Provides relative to sentencing and treatment of certain offenders convicted of certain violations of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law. Act 191 2014 Release and Supervision Act 2 2014 General Repeals the statutory authorization for DPS&C to conduct certain pilot programs. Act 327 2014 Trial and Sentencing Authorizes the 1st and 26th JDCs to establish a re-entry division of court. Act 337 2014 Trial and Sentencing Amends eligibility requirements for participation in drug courts and provides relative to annual evaluations of drug courts. Act 6 2014 Release and Supervision Act 634 2014 Trial and Sentencing Authorizes the waiver of minimum mandatory sentences pursuant to existing law for certain crimes of violence. Act 7 2014 Trial and Sentencing Authorizes the 15th JDC to establish a re-entry division of court. Act 199 2015 Trial and Sentencing Extends the length of probation for defendants participating in drug court or sobriety court. Act 295 2015 Trial and Sentencing Amends certain criminal penalties for possession of marijuana. Act 299 2015 Release and Supervision Act 79 2015 Trial and Sentencing HCR 82 2015 General Provides for intensive parole supervision for certain offenders sentenced as habitual offenders. Reduces the length of time certain applicants are required to wait before filing a subsequent application with the Board of Pardons. Provides with respect to technical parole violations. Authorizes the 25th JDC to establish a re-entry division of court. Provides relative to re-entry courts. Creates the Louisiana Justice Reinvestment Task Force to develop certain sentencing and corrections policy recommendations. Source: Created by legislative auditor’s staff using information from the Louisiana Legislature’s website. D.2 APPENDIX E: 2014 PRETRIAL INTERVENTION PROGRAMS BUDGETS AND PARTICIPANTS 2014 Pretrial Intervention Program Budgets and Number Served, by Judicial District (JDC) JDC Parishes Served Pretrial Intervention Budget Number of Individuals Served 1st Caddo $187,631 1,188 2nd Claiborne, Jackson, Bienville $104,400 100 Union, Lincoln Did not respond to survey Did not respond to survey 4th Morehouse, Ouachita $424,303 9,800 5th Franklin, Richland, West Carroll Does not have pretrial intervention programs Does not have pretrial intervention programs 6th Madison, East Carroll, Tensas Did not provide 49 7th Catahoula, Concordia $150,000 1,650 8th Winn $58,000 350 Rapides Did not provide 100 3 rd 9 th 10th Natchitoches Did not provide 103 11 th Sabine Did not respond to survey Did not respond to survey 12 th Avoyelles Did not provide 300 Evangeline $100,000 846 Calcasieu $369,000 1,270 15th Acadia, Lafayette, Vermilion Did not provide 638 16th Iberia, St. Martin, St. Mary $955,000 4,318 Lafourche $300,000 1,110 18th Iberville, West Baton Rouge, Pointe Coupee $0 132 19th East Baton Rouge $1,500,000 3,911 East Feliciana, West Feliciana $237,440 1,662 21st Livingston, Tangipahoa, St. Helena Did not provide 350 22nd St. Tammany, Washington Did not provide 795 23rd Assumption, Ascension, St. James $0 0 24th Jefferson Did not provide Did not provide 13th 14 17 20 th th th E.1 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix E 2014 Pretrial Intervention Program Budgets and Number Served, by Judicial District (JDC) JDC Parishes Served Pretrial Intervention Budget Number of Individuals Served 25th Plaquemines $12,000 200 26 th Bossier, Webster Did not provide Did not provide 27 th St. Landry Did not provide Did not provide LaSalle $15,000 198 St. Charles $517,000 2,025 30th Vernon $115,000 577 31st Jefferson Davis $50,000 250 Terrebonne $1,000,000 2,326 28th 29 32 th nd 33rd Allen $125,000 667 34 th St. Bernard $0 0 35 th Grant Did not provide 233 36th Beauregard $45,000 101 th Caldwell Did not provide 6 38th Cameron Did not provide Did not provide 39th Red River $128,575 247 St. John the Baptist Did not respond to survey Did not respond to survey Orleans Orleans Did not provide 355 42nd DeSoto Does not have pretrial intervention programs Does not have pretrial intervention programs 37 40 th Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using JDC’s self-reported data. E.2 APPENDIX F: 2014 SPECIALTY COURTS BUDGETS AND PARTICIPANTS 2014 Specialty Courts Budgets and Participants, by Judicial District (JDC) JDC Parishes Types of Courts Operated Stated Budget Stated Number of Participants for 2014 1st Caddo Drug Court Veteran’s Court Drug Court: $225,000 Veteran’s Court: Unknown Drug Court - 120 Veteran’s Court - 6 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th Claiborne Jackson Bienville Union Lincoln Morehouse Ouachita Franklin Richland West Carroll Madison East Carroll Tensas Catahoula Concordia Winn 9th Rapides 10th 11th 12th 13th Natchitoches Sabine Avoyelles Evangeline 14 th Calcasieu No Problem-Solving or Specialty Court Drug Court $265,000 Not reported Drug Court DWI Court Drug Court: $450,000 DWI Court: Unknown Specialty Courts - 108 Drug Court $280,000 Not reported No Problem-Solving or Specialty Court No Problem-Solving or Specialty Court No Problem-Solving or Specialty Court Drug Court Adult Mental Health Court Domestic Violence Court Veteran’s Court Drug Court Drug Court Drug Court Adult Mental Health Court Family Court DWI Court Teen Court Veteran’s Court Not reported Unknown $190,000 No Problem-Solving or Specialty Court $155,000 No Problem-Solving or Specialty Court Drug Court - $170,000 Adult Mental Health Court $180,000 DWI Court - $75,000 F.1 Not reported Not reported Drug Court - 40 Adult Mental Health Court - 30 DWI Court - 20 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix F 2014 Specialty Courts Budgets and Participants, by Judicial District (JDC) JDC Parishes Acadia Lafayette 15th Vermilion 16 th 17th 18th 19th 20th 21st Iberia St. Martin St. Mary Lafourche Iberville West Baton Rouge Pointe Coupee East Baton Rouge East Feliciana West Feliciana Livingston Tangipahoa St. Helena St. Tammany 22nd Washington 23rd 24 th 25th Stated Budget Stated Number of Participants for 2014 Drug Court Family Court DWI Court Re-entry Court Compliance Court for Probation Drug Court - $526,754 Family Court - $186,326 DWI Court - $85,032 Drug Court - 1,027 Not reported for others Drug Court $2,030,000 Not reported Drug Court $506,000 Not reported Domestic Violence Court $15,000 Domestic Violence Court - 30 Drug Court Re-entry Court Drug Court - $420,000 Re-entry - No Budget Drug Court - 85 Re-entry - 3 No Problem-Solving or Specialty Court Drug Court $635,000 Not reported Drug Court Family Court Adult Mental Health Court DWI Court Re-entry Court Drug Court - $1,357,910 Family Court - $66,448 Adult Mental Health $125,312 Re-entry Court - $120,025 DWI Court - $270,486 Drug Court - 471 Family Court - 14 Adult Mental Health Court - 49 Re-entry Court - 40+ DWI Court - 141 Assumption Ascension St. James Jefferson 27th 28th 29th Plaquemines Bossier Webster St. Landry LaSalle St. Charles 30th Vernon 26th Types of Courts Operated No Problem-Solving or Specialty Court Drug Court DWI Court Re-entry Court Veteran’s Court Compliance Court Drug Court - $1,100,000 DWI Court - $225,000 Veteran’s Court - $93,000 Drug Court - 150 DWI Court - 43 Veteran’s Court - 1 Compliance Court - 800 Drug Court $130,000 Not reported Drug Court $295,000 Not reported Drug Court Drug Court Drug Court Truancy Court $280,853 No Problem-Solving or Specialty Court $225,000 $90,000 F.2 Not reported Not reported Drug Court - 14 Truancy Court - 100 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix F 2014 Specialty Courts Budgets and Participants, by Judicial District (JDC) JDC Parishes Types of Courts Operated Stated Budget Stated Number of Participants for 2014 31st Jefferson Davis Truancy Court Not reported Truancy Court - 20 32nd Terrebonne Drug Court DWI Court Compliance Court Drug Court - $600,000 DWI Court - $200,000 Compliance Court Not reported (Part of District Attorney’s Office) Drug Court - 51 new, 80 average DWI Court - 13 new, 27 average Compliance Court - 250 33rd 34th 35th 36th 37th 38th 39th Allen St. Bernard Grant Beauregard Caldwell Cameron Red River St. John the Baptist 40th 41st Orleans Criminal 42nd DeSoto Drug Court Drug Court Drug Court No Problem-Solving or Specialty Court $110,000 No Problem-Solving or Specialty Court $115,000 $105,000 No Problem-Solving or Specialty Court No Problem-Solving or Specialty Court Drug Court Drug Court Mental Health Court Domestic Violence Court Re-entry Court Veteran’s Court $275,000 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Drug Court and Mental Health Court $2,200,000 Drug Court - 380 Domestic Violence Court Mental Health Court - 45 $341,891 Domestic Violence Court - 256 Re-entry Court Re-entry Court - 135 Not reported Veteran’s Court - Not reported Veteran’s Court Not reported No Problem-Solving or Specialty Court Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using JDCs’ self-reported data. F.3 APPENDIX G: FELONY CONVICTION OFFENSES WITH SENTENCE INFORMATION Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 40:967(C)(2) R.S. 14:62 R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b) R.S. 14:67 Statute Title Prohibited Acts Schedule II Drug; penalties, Possession, Other Schedule II Simple burglary Prohibited Acts Schedule II Drug; penalties, Manufacture; Distribution: cocaine, oxycodone, or methadone Theft (including Amended Amounts) Total Number of Offenders 23,947 15,095 10,207 9,515 Percentage of Total Offenders 13.62% 8.59% 5.81% 5.41% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Theft – (Amended Amounts) Habitual Offender Habitual Offender (Amended Amounts) Other* G.1 Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 22,114 3.0 No 0.0 5.0 1,093 5.0 No 0.0 12.0 Yes 2.0 30.0 740 13,728 5.0 347 8.0 1,020 8,849 5.0 276 15.0 1,082 5,383 3.0 No 0.0 20.0 3,728 3.0 No 0.0 20.0 154 5.0 38 10.0 212 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 14:98 Statute Title Operating a vehicle while intoxicated Total Number of Offenders 8,248 Penalty for drugs listed in Schedule I; Manufacture; Distribution, Schedule I (marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinols (or chemical derivatives), synthetic canaboids) 7,662 R.S. 40:966(E)(2)(a) Penalty for drugs listed in Schedule I; Possession of marijuana or synthetic cannabinoids, Second Conviction 5,056 R.S. 14:95.1 Possession of firearm or carry concealed weapon by person convicted of certain felonies R.S. 40:966(B)(3) R.S. 14:62.2 R.S. 40:969(C)(2) Simple burglary of an inhabited dwelling Prohibited Acts Schedule IV Drug; penalties, Possession Percentage of Total Offenders 4.69% 4.36% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* 4,799 4,699 4,183 2.88% 2.73% 2.67% 2.38% Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* G.2 Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 8,236 3.0 Maybe 0.0 30.0 8 6.0 No 5.0 30.0 4 6,722 5.0 79 15.0 861 5,056 3.0 No 0.0 5.0 2,433 10.0 Yes 10.0 20.0 155 12.0 Yes 1.0 12.0 No 0.0 5.0 2,211 4,256 5.0 180 10.0 263 4,065 3.0 56 4.0 62 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 14:69 Statute Title Illegal possession of stolen things (including Amended Amounts) Total Number of Offenders 3,536 Percentage of Total Offenders 2.01% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Amended Amounts Habitual Offender Habitual Offender (Amended Amounts) Other* R.S. 14:34.1(C)(2) Second-degree battery 2,750 1.56% Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* R.S. 14:72 Forgery 2,764 1.57% Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* R.S. 14:64 R.S. 40:966(C)(1) Armed robbery Penalty for narcotic drugs listed in Schedule I; Possession 2,561 2,414 1.46% 1.37% Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* G.3 Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 2,629 3.0 No 0.0 10.0 801 3.0 68 5.0 20 5.0 Maybe 1.5 8.0 No 0.0 10.0 Yes 10.0 99.0 No 4.0 10.0 18 2,669 3.0 78 5.0 3 2,654 3.6 28 5.0 82 1,670 15.0 96 66.0 795 2,025 5.0 257 7.0 132 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 14:62.3 Statute Title Unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling Total Number of Offenders 2,346 Percentage of Total Offenders 1.33% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* R.S. 14:65 Simple robbery 2,296 1.31% Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* R.S. 14:402 R.S. 14:68.4 Contraband defined; certain activities regarding contraband in penal institutions prohibited; penalty Unauthorized use of a motor vehicle 2,291 1.30% Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* 2,243 1.28% Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* R.S. 14:34(B)(2) Aggravated battery 2,097 1.19% Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* R.S. 15:542.1.4 Registration of sex offenders and child predators 1,967 1.12% Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* G.4 Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 2,072 3.0 No 0.0 6.0 71 5.0 No 0.0 7.0 No 0.0 5.0 No 0.0 10.0 Maybe 1.0 10.0 Maybe 2.0 20.0 203 1,940 5.0 82 7.0 274 2,135 1.0 50 3.3 106 2,143 3.0 71 6.0 29 1,947 4.0 103 7.0 47 1,652 2.0 30 5.0 285 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 14:67.10 Statute Title Theft of goods (including Amended Amounts) Total Number of Offenders 1,800 Percentage of Total Offenders 1.02% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Changed Amounts Habitual Offender Habitual Offender Other* R.S. 14:81(H)(2) Indecent behavior with juveniles 1,678 0.95% Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* R.S. 14:108.1 Flight from an officer; aggravated flight from an officer 1,631 0.93% Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* R.S. 40:966(E)(1) R.S. 14:56 Penalty for drugs listed in Schedule I; Possession of marijuana or synthetic cannabinoids, First Conviction Simple criminal damage to property 1,616 0.92% Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* 1,524 0.87% Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* G.5 Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 974 2.0 No 0.0 10.0 633 2.0 136 2.5 34 4.0 Maybe 2.0 25.0 No 0.0 0.5 No 0.0 0.5 No 0.0 10.0 23 1,611 5.0 14 11.3 53 1,521 2.0 102 2.5 8 1,497 2.0 62 5.0 57 1,487 2.0 34 4.0 3 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 40:983(C) R.S. 40:967(B)(5) R.S. 14:31(B)(2) Statute Title Creation or operation of a clandestine laboratory for the unlawful manufacture of a controlled dangerous substance; definition; penalties Prohibited Acts Schedule II Drug; penalties, Manufacture; Distribution: Other Schedule II Manslaughter R.S. 14:30.1 Second-degree murder R.S. 40:967(B)(1) Prohibited Acts Schedule II Drug; penalties Manufacture; Distribution: amphetamine, methamphetamine, or narcotic drug, except cocaine R.S. 14:71 Issuing worthless checks (including Amended Amounts) Total Number of Offenders 1,491 Percentage of Total Offenders 0.85% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* 1,339 1,292 1,253 1,219 0.76% 0.74% 0.71% 0.69% Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* 1,080 0.61% Unmodified statute Amended Amounts Habitual Offender Other* G.6 Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 1,311 5.0 No 5.0 15.0 20 13.5 No 0.0 10.0 Maybe 10.0 40.0 Yes Life Life No 2.0 30.0 No 0.0 10.0 160 1,212 5.0 15 15.0 112 1,009 20.0 57 40.0 226 566 Life 1 Life 686 1,060 5.0 11 35.0 148 1,021 2.5 46 2.0 11 5.0 2 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 14:80 R.S. 40:968(C) Statute Title Felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile Prohibited Acts Schedule III Drug; penalties, Possession R.S. 14:110 Simple escape; aggravated escape R.S. 40:1238.1 Sale, distribution, or possession of legend drug without prescription or order prohibited; exceptions; penalties R.S. 40:966(C)(3) R.S. 14:94(C) R.S. 40:969(B)(2) Penalty for non-narcotic drugs listed in Schedule I; Possession Illegal use of weapons or dangerous instrumentalities Prohibited Acts Schedule IV Drug; penalties, Manufacture; Distribution Total Number of Offenders 1,059 1,027 1,006 989 987 986 954 Percentage of Total Offenders 0.60% 0.58% 0.57% 0.56% 0.56% 0.56% 0.54% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* G.7 Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 1,041 5.0 Maybe 0.0 10.0 8 8.0 No 0.0 5.0 No 0.5 10.0 No 0.0 5.0 No 0.0 10.0 Maybe 5.0 7.0 No 0.0 10.0 10 1,001 3.0 16 4.8 10 821 2.0 36 3.2 149 951 3.0 23 3.0 15 924 4.0 17 6.3 46 926 2.0 13 4.0 47 853 5.0 18 10.0 83 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 14:35.3(C) R.S. 40:966(B)(4)(a) R.S. 14:106(G)(1-3) R.S. 14:34.7(C)(2) R.S. 14:72.2 R.S. 14:108.2 R.S. 14:71.1 Statute Title Domestic abuse battery Penalty for heroin drugs listed in Schedule I; Manufacture; Distribution Obscenity Aggravated seconddegree battery Monetary instrument abuse Resisting a police officer with force or violence Bank fraud Total Number of Offenders 951 949 839 758 742 737 722 Percentage of Total Offenders 0.54% 0.54% 0.48% 0.43% 0.42% 0.42% 0.41% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* G.8 Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 926 2.0 Yes 2 days 0.5 25 3.0 813 10.0 Yes 10.0 50.0 32 25.0 No 0.5 5.0 Maybe 1.0 15.0 No 0.5 10.0 No 1.0 3.0 No 0.0 10.0 104 798 2.0 35 4.0 6 717 5.0 13 19.0 28 700 3.0 18 5.0 24 705 2.0 29 3.0 3 682 4.0 15 5.0 25 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 14:67.3 RS 14:93 R.S. 14:43.1(C)(1) R.S. 14:60 R.S. 14:95(E)(1) R.S. 14:69.1 R.S. 14:64.1 Statute Title Unauthorized use of “access card” as theft; definitions Cruelty to juveniles Sexual battery Aggravated burglary Illegal carrying of weapons Illegal possession of stolen firearms First-degree robbery Total Number of Offenders 710 707 692 674 665 658 653 Percentage of Total Offenders 0.40% 0.40% 0.39% 0.38% 0.38% 0.37% 0.37% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* G.9 Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 689 3.0 No 0.0 20.0 9 5.0 No 0.0 10.0 Maybe 0.0 10.0 No 1.0 30.0 Yes 5.0 10.0 No 1.0 10.0 Yes 3.0 40.0 12 685 4.0 9 8.0 13 612 8.0 29 15.0 51 591 8.0 30 24.5 53 496 5.0 10 8.3 159 631 3.0 16 5.0 11 546 7.0 20 40.0 87 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 14:42.1 R.S. 14:95(D) R.S. 14:130.1 R.S. 14:37.4 R.S. 40:971(B)(2) R.S. 40:966(B)(2) R.S. 14:64.3 Statute Title Forcible rape Illegal carrying of weapons Obstruction of justice Aggravated assault with a firearm Prohibited acts; all drug schedules Penalty for distribution or possession with intent to distribute non-narcotic drugs listed in Schedule I; Manufacture; Distribution Armed robbery; attempted armed robbery; use of firearm Total Number of Offenders 636 615 598 595 563 558 517 Percentage of Total Offenders 0.36% 0.35% 0.34% 0.34% 0.32% 0.32% 0.29% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* G.10 Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 549 20.0 Yes 2.0 40.0 28 40.0 Maybe 0.0 10.0 No 0.0 40.0 No 0.0 10.0 No 0.0 5.0 Yes 5.0 30.0 Yes 5.0 0.0 59 484 5.0 10 8.5 121 550 5.0 17 10.0 31 570 4.0 12 7.5 13 431 3.0 3 5.0 129 450 5.0 9 30.0 99 377 10.0 13 60.0 127 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 14:81.1(E)(1)(b) R.S. 14:81.2(B)(1-2) R.S. 40:971.1(C) R.S. 14:62.4 R.S. 14:68 R.S. 14:65.1 R.S. 14:67.26 Statute Title Pornography involving juveniles Molestation of a juvenile or a person with a physical or mental disability Prohibited acts; false representation Unauthorized entry of a place of business Unauthorized use of a movable Purse snatching Theft of a motor vehicle Total Number of Offenders 508 486 476 465 452 446 442 Percentage of Total Offenders 0.29% 0.28% 0.27% 0.26% 0.26% 0.25% 0.25% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* G.11 Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 464 5.0 Maybe 0.0 40.0 5 20.0 Maybe 5.0 10.0 No 0.0 5.0 No 0.0 6.0 No 0.0 5.0 No 2.0 20.0 No 0.0 10.0 39 461 10.0 10 22.5 15 379 5.0 54 5.0 43 395 3.0 32 5.0 38 441 3.0 6 4.6 5 371 5.0 28 10.0 47 425 4.0 12 5.0 5 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 40:981.3(D) R.S. 14:52 R.S. 40:971 R.S. 14:55 R.S. 14:30 R.S. 14:89.1(B) R.S. 14:32.1(B)(1) Statute Title Violation of Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law; drugfree zone Simple arson Prohibited acts; all drug schedules Aggravated criminal damage to property First-degree murder Aggravated crime against nature Vehicular homicide Total Number of Offenders 412 411 400 400 392 381 364 Percentage of Total Offenders 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 0.22% 0.22% 0.21% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* G.12 Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 397 6.0 Maybe 0.0 0.0 11 15.0 No 0.0 15.0 No 0.0 5.0 No 1.0 15.0 Life Yes Life Life 343 15.0 Maybe 3.0 15.0 19 35.0 Yes 3.0 30.0 4 375 5.0 3 10.0 33 344 3.0 5 3.0 51 380 4.0 6 15.0 14 158 234 19 360 10.0 2 38.8 2 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 40:967(B)(3)(a) R.S. 14:42 R.S. 14:34.2(B)(1) R.S. 14:32(C)(2) R.S. 40:968(B) R.S. 14:34.5(B)(1) R.S. 14:67.15(C)(1) Statute Title Total Number of Offenders Prohibited Acts Schedule II Drug; penalties, Manufacture; Distribution: amphetamine or methamphetamine 359 Aggravated rape 359 Battery of a police officer Negligent homicide Prohibited Acts Schedule III Drug; penalties, Manufacture; Distribution Battery of a correctional facility employee Theft of a firearm Percentage of Total Offenders 0.20% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* 341 314 308 289 280 0.20% 0.19% 0.18% 0.18% 0.16% 0.16% Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* G.13 Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 192 10.0 Yes 10.0 30.0 2 31.5 Life Yes Life Life 321 1.0 Yes 15 days 0.5 15 5.0 Maybe 2.0 5.0 No 0.0 10.0 Yes 15 days 0.5 Yes 2.0 10.0 165 262 97 5 305 5.0 7 10.0 2 274 5.0 9 15.0 25 274 1.0 7 25.0 8 257 3.0 3 15.0 20 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 14:44.1 R.S. 14:67:16 R.S. 14:64.4 R.S. 14:39.2 R.S. 14:70.4 R.S. 14:62.8(B)(3) R.S. 14:108 Statute Title Second-degree kidnapping Identity theft Second-degree robbery First-degree vehicular negligent injuring Access device fraud Home invasion Resisting an officer Total Number of Offenders 261 252 249 230 224 223 210 Percentage of Total Offenders 0.15% 0.14% 0.14% 0.13% 0.13% 0.13% 0.12% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender G.14 Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 223 12.0 Yes 2.0 40.0 12 44.8 No 0.0 10.0 No 3.0 40.0 No 0.0 5.0 No 0.0 10.0 Maybe 10.0 25.0 No 0.0 0.5 26 237 3.0 5 6.7 10 214 7.8 3 Life 32 222 5.0 8 6.1 204 3.0 14 5.0 6 182 6.0 16 15.0 25 205 1.0 5 8.0 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 14:35.3(L) R.S. 14:110.1 Statute Title Domestic abuse battery Jumping bail Total Number of Offenders 209 203 Percentage of Total Offenders 0.12% 0.12% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* R.S. 40:966(C)(2) Penalty for drugs listed in Schedule I; Possession phencyclidine 195 0.11% Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* R.S. 14:45 Simple kidnapping 190 0.11% Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* R.S. 40:1021 Drug paraphernalia R.S. 14:81.3(B)(1)(c) Computer-aided solicitation of a minor R.S. 14:62.1 Simple burglary of a pharmacy 185 182 169 0.11% 0.10% 0.10% Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* G.15 Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 205 3.0 No 0.0 3.0 4 3.0 181 2.0 No 0.0 2.0 21 4.0 No 5.0 20.0 No 0.0 5.0 1 183 4.0 1 20.0 11 166 3.8 9 7.0 15 185 1.0 No 0.0 5.00 150 2.0 Maybe 2.0 10.0 2 7.5 Yes 1.0 10.0 30 135 5.0 3 8.0 31 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute Statute Title R.S. 14:93.2.3 Second-degree cruelty to juveniles R.S. 14:100.13 Operating a vehicle without lawful presence in the United States R.S. 14:64.2 R.S. 14:122 R.S. 14:100 R.S. 14:62.6 R.S. 14:40.2(B)(2)(a) Carjacking Public intimidation and retaliation Hit-and-run driving Simple burglary of a religious building Stalking Total Number of Offenders 154 150 144 140 138 137 127 Percentage of Total Offenders 0.09% 0.09% 0.08% 0.08% 0.08% 0.08% 0.07% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* G.16 Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 144 7.0 No 0.0 40.0 6 22.5 4 150 0.5 No 0.0 1.0 113 5.0 Yes 2.0 20.0 9 20.0 No 0.0 5.0 No 0.0 10.0 Yes 2.0 12.0 Maybe 1.0 5.0 22 131 2.0 6 7.5 3 134 5.0 3 10.0 1 128 5.0 3 10.0 6 122 1.5 4 2.8 1 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 14:35 R.S. 14:37.2 R.S. 14:92(C) R.S. 14:43.3(C)(1) R.S. 14:51 R.S. 14:82 R.S. 14:43 Statute Title Simple battery Aggravated assault upon peace officer with a firearm Contributing to the delinquency of juveniles Oral sexual battery Aggravated arson Prostitution; definition; penalties; enhancement Simple rape Total Number of Offenders 125 123 122 119 114 112 110 Percentage of Total Offenders 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.06% 0.06% 0.06% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* G.17 Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 124 0.5 No 0.0 0.5 115 5.0 No 1.0 10.0 6 8.5 No 0.0 0.5 Maybe 0.0 10.0 Yes 2.0 20.0 No 0.0 50.0 Maybe 0.0 25.0 1 2 118 2.0 1 6.0 3 106 10.0 2 16.6 11 76 6.0 8 17.5 30 110 2.0 2 4.0 92 10.0 1 Life 17 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 14:37.1 R.S. 14:62.5(B) R.S. 14:129.1 R.S. 15:1354 R.S. 14:93.4 R.S. 40:1023 R.S. 40:1041 R.S. 14:96 Statute Title Assault by drive-by shooting Looting Total Number of Offenders 107 107 Intimidating, impeding, or injuring witnesses; injuring officers; penalties 105 LA Racketeering Act 104 Exploitation of persons with infirmities Drug paraphernalia Transactions involving proceeds from drug offenses Aggravated obstruction of a highway of commerce 97 95 95 91 Percentage of Total Offenders 0.06% 0.06% 0.06% 0.06% 0.06% 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* G.18 Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 99 2.0 Yes 1.0 5.0 1 Life No 0.0 15.0 No 0.0 40.0 7 92 3.0 5 10.0 10 103 3.5 2 Over 100 years 102 8.5 Maybe 5.0 50.0 92 5.0 No 0.0 10.0 3 20.0 No 0.0 5.0 2 2 92 1.0 3 2.5 93 5.0 No 0.0 10.0 83 5.0 No 0.0 15.0 6 28.5 2 2 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 14:46.1 R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(a) R.S. 14:25 R.S. 14:402.1 R.S. 14:93.3(E)(1)(b) R.S. 14:34.6 R.S. 14:37(C) Statute Title False imprisonment; offender armed with dangerous weapon Prohibited Acts Schedule II Drug; penalties, Manufacture; Distribution: cocaine, oxycodone, or methadone Accessories after the fact Taking of contraband to state-owned hospitals unlawful; penalty Cruelty to persons with infirmities Disarming a peace officer Aggravated assault Total Number of Offenders 91 90 87 87 87 81 69 Percentage of Total Offenders 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% 0.04% Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) Unmodified statute 86 5.0 No 0.0 10.0 Other* 5 76 6.0 Yes 10.0 30.0 3 5.0 No 0.0 5.0 No 0.0 3.0 Maybe 1.0 10.0 No 0.0 5.0 Maybe 0.3 0.5 Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Other* G.19 11 83 2.5 1 4.0 3 81 1.0 2 4.0 4 82 5.0 2 11.5 3 17 4.0 2 14.5 62 67 2 1.0 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 14:67.21 R.S. 14:133 Statute Title Theft of the assets of a person who is aged or person with a disability Filing or maintaining false public records Total Number of Offenders 68 64 Percentage of Total Offenders 0.04% 0.04% R.S. 14:92(D) Contributing to the delinquency of juveniles 63 0.04% R.S. 14:37.6 Aggravated assault with a motor vehicle upon a peace officer 62 0.04% R.S. 14:220.1 R.S. 14:89 Leased movables; obtaining by false representation; failure to return or surrender; penalties; restitution Crimes against nature R.S. 14:95.7 Possession of or dealing in firearms with obliterated numbers or marks R.S. 14:37.7(C) Domestic abuse aggravated assault 61 61 59 56 0.03% 0.03% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* 0.03% Unmodified statute 0.03% Unmodified statute Other* G.20 Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 66 4.0 No 0.0 10.0 1 5.0 No 0.0 5.0 1 60 2.0 1 2.5 3 63 2.0 No 0.0 2.0 59 3.0 No 1.0 10.0 3 6.7 60 2.0 No 0.0 2.0 1 3.0 55 3.0 No 0.0 50.0 4 3.8 2 59 3.0 No 1.0 10.0 55 3.0 No 1.0 5.0 1 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 40:970(C) R.S. 14:66 R.S. 14:40.1 R.S. 14:67.9 R.S. 14:132 R.S. 14:126.1 R.S. 22:1924 R.S. 40:967(F)(1)(a) Statute Title Prohibited Acts Schedule V Drug; penalties, Possession Extortion Terrorizing Theft of oil and gas equipment; penalties (including Amended Amounts) Injuring public records Total Number of Offenders 56 56 55 53 of Total Offenders 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute Other* 51 False swearing for the purpose of violating public health or safety 50 Insurance fraud 49 Prohibited Acts Schedule II Drug; penalties, Other penalties for possession cocaine (base, mixture, or substance) 28g - < 200g Percentage 47 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* G.21 Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 54 4.0 No 0.0 5.0 51 5.0 No 1.0 15.0 1 12.0 4.0 No 0.0 15.0 5.0 No 0.0 30.0 49 2.0 No 0.0 5.0 2 5.3 43 2.0 No 1.0 5.0 7 3.0 46 3.0 No 0.0 5.0 40 9.0 Yes 5.0 30.0 3 20.0 2 4 52 3 49 4 3 4 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 14:95.2 R.S. 14:102.1 R.S. 14:44 Statute Title Total Number of Offenders Carrying a firearm or dangerous weapon by a student or nonstudent on school property, at school-sponsored functions, or in a firearmfree zone 46 Cruelty to animals; simple Aggravated kidnapping 43 43 Percentage of Total Offenders 0.03% 0.02% 0.02% Violation of protective orders 42 R.S. 14:202.1 Residential contractor fraud; penalties 41 0.02% R.S. 14:283(B)(2) Video voyeurism 41 0.02% R.S. 14:79(B)(2) R.S. 14:54.1 Communicating false information of planned arson R.S. 14:95.3 Unlawful use or possession of body armor 38 Criminal damage to coinoperated devices 38 R.S. 14:56.1 41 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Unmodified statute Habitual Offender G.22 Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 46 3.0 No 0.0 5.0 40 2.2 No 0.0 10.0 1 5.0 Life Yes Life Life 41 0.5 Yes/Maybe 2 days 0.5 1 4.0 41 5.0 No 0.0 10.0 40 2.0 Maybe 0.5 3.0 41 3.0 No 0.0 20.0 37 2.0 No 0.0 2.0 1 1.0 37 2.0 No 0.0 2.0 1 1.5 2 32 11 1 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute Statute Title Total Number of Offenders Percentage of Total Offenders Possession of unidentifiable firearm; particular penalties; identification of source of firearm 37 R.S. 14:67.24 Theft of utility property 36 0.02% R.S. 14:134 Malfeasance in office 36 0.02% C.C.P. 884 Sentences of fine with imprisonment for default 35 0.02% R.S. 14:102.1(B) Cruelty to animals; aggravated R.S. 40:1792 R.S. 14:39.1 R.S. 14:202 R.S. 40:1785 Vehicular negligent injuring Contractors; misapplication of payments prohibited; penalty Possession or dealing in unregistered or illegallytransferred weapons 35 Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) Unmodified statute 31 5.0 Maybe 5.0 0.0 Other* 6 36 5.0 No 2.0 10.0 36 3.0 No 0.0 5.0 35 1.0 No 0.0 1.0 33 3.0 0.02% 0.02% 34 0.02% 34 0.02% 34 0.02% False personation of a peace officer or firefighter 33 R.S. 14:40.3 Cyberstalking 33 0.02% R.S. 14:28 Inciting a felony 32 0.02% R.S. 14:43.5 Intentional exposure to AIDS virus 31 0.02% R.S. 14:112.1 Number of Offenders Sentence Modifier 0.02% Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute 2 34 2.0 No 0.0 0.5 Unmodified statute 34 4.5 No 0.2 0.5 Unmodified statute 34 2.8 No 1.0 10.0 30 2.0 No 0.0 2.0 3 Life 33 1.0 No 0.0 5.0 32 2.0 No 0.0 2.0 30 4.5 No 0.0 11.0 Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Other* G.23 1 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 40:1788 R.S. 40:1238.3 R.S. 15:1403 R.S. 14:118 R.S. 14:53 Statute Title Identification with number or other mark; obliteration or alteration of number or mark Obtaining legend drugs by misrepresentation or fraud; penalties Criminal street gangs and patterns of criminal street gang activity; prohibitions and criminal penalties Public bribery Arson with intent to defraud Total Number of Offenders 31 30 29 28 26 Percentage of Total Offenders 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.01% Unlawful use of a social networking website 26 R.S. 14:123 Perjury 26 0.01% R.S. 14:38 Simple assault 25 0.01% R.S. 14:63 Criminal trespass 25 0.01% R.S. 40:1025 Drug paraphernalia 24 0.01% R.S. 14:91.5(C)(1) 0.01% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute G.24 Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 31 5.0 No 1.0 10.0 25 3.0 No 0.0 5.0 1 5.0 No 1.0 0.0 No 0.0 5.0 No 0.0 5.0 1.0 Maybe 0.0 10.0 26 5.0 No 5.0 40.0 25 1.0 No 0.0 0.2 25 0.5 No 0.0 0.5 24 2.0 No 0.0 5.0 4 28 5.0 1 80.0 22 3.5 1 5.0 5 22 4.5 1 10.0 3 25 1 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute Statute Title Total Number of Offenders of Total Offenders R.S. 14:26 Criminal conspiracy R.S. 14:285 Telephone communications; improper language; harassment 24 0.01% R.S. 14:111 Assisting escape 24 0.01% R.S. 14:93.5 R.S. 14:220 R.S. 14:102.5 R.S. 14:84 R.S. 40:970(B) R.S. 14:94(E) RS 14:230 Sexual battery of persons with infirmities Rented or leased motor vehicles; obtaining false representation; failure to return; defenses Dogfighting; training and possession of dogs for fighting Pandering Prohibited Acts Schedule V Drug; penalties, Manufacture; Distribution Illegal use of weapons or dangerous instrumentalities Money laundering; transactions involving proceeds of criminal activity 24 Percentage 0.01% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 21 4.0 Maybe 0.0 0.0 1 5.0 2 24 1.0 No 0.0 2.0 23 2.0 No 0.0 5.0 23 6.0 No 0.0 10.0 1 23 0.01% 21 0.01% Unmodified statute 21 2.0 No 0.0 5.0 21 0.01% Unmodified statute 21 5.0 No 1.0 10.0 21 0.01% 21 3.0 No 0.0 50.0 18 5.0 No 0.0 5.0 21 0.01% 5.0 Yes 5.0 10.0 6.5 No 0.0 99.0 Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Other* 20 20 0.01% 0.01% Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute G.25 3 17 3 20 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 14:54.3 R.S. 14:70.7 R.S. 22:1925 R.S. 14:75 R.S. 14:404 R.S. 14:94(F)(1) R.S. 14:46 R.S. 14:43.2(C)(1) R.S. 40:962.1 Statute Title Manufacture and possession of a bomb Unlawful production, manufacturing, distribution or possession of fraudulent documents for identification purposes Automobile insurance policies Failure to pay child support obligation Self-mutilation by a prisoner Illegal use of weapons or dangerous instrumentalities False imprisonment Total Number of Offenders 20 20 Percentage of Total Offenders 0.01% 0.01% 19 0.01% 18 0.01% 18 0.01% 18 17 Second-degree sexual battery 17 Ephedrine products 16 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% R.S. 14:103 Disturbing the peace 16 0.01% R.S. 14:91.2 Unlawful presence of a sex offender 16 0.01% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute Unmodified statute G.26 Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 18 4.0 No 0.0 20.0 19 1.0 No 0.0 3.0 1 10.0 19 3.0 No 0.0 5.0 18 2.0 No 0.0 2.0 18 1.0 No 0.0 2.0 12 10.0 Maybe 10.0 Life 1 10.0 1.5 No 0.0 0.5 15 12.0 Maybe 0.0 15.0 2 Over 100 years 14 2.0 No 0.0 0.5 16 0.5 No 0.0 0.5 16 1.0 No 0.0 1.0 2 5 16 1 2 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute Statute Title Total Number of Offenders Percentage of Total Offenders Unauthorized entry of critical infrastructure 15 R.S. 14:39 Negligent injuring 15 0.01% R.S. 14:28.1 Solicitation of murder 15 0.01% R.S. 14:61 R.S. 32:415 R.S. 40:981(C) R.S. 14:67.28 R.S. 14:56.4 R.S. 15:561.7 R.S. 14:52.1 Operating vehicle while license is suspended; offenses in other states; record of offenses given other states Distribution to persons under age 18 Theft of copper or other metals; determination of value of copper or other metals taken Criminal damage to property by defacing with graffiti Failure to comply with provisions of supervised release Simple arson of a religious building 0.01% 15 0.01% 14 0.01% 14 0.01% 14 0.01% 14 0.01% 13 0.01% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute G.27 Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 13 3.0 No 0.0 6.0 15 1.5 No 0.0 0.5 13 10.0 No 5.0 20.0 15 0.5 Maybe 7 days 0.5 14 3.0 Maybe 0.0 0.0 11 5.0 No 0.0 10.0 2 5.5 2 2 1 14 2.0 No 0.0 10.0 13 2.0 Yes 2.0 20.0 3.0 Yes 2.0 15.0 1 13 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 40:962.1.1 R.S. 14:207 R.S. 14:68.2 R.S. 40:967(F)(1)(b) R.S. 14:67.22 R.S. 40:1041(E) R.S. 14:223.6 Statute Title Possession of twelve grams or more of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine or their salts, optical isomers, and salts of optical isomers Motor vehicles, alteration or removal of identifying numbers prohibited, sale, etc. Unauthorized use of supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits or supplemental nutrition assistance program benefit access devices Prohibited Acts Schedule II Drug; penalties, other penalties for possession cocaine (base, mixture, or substance) 200g - < 400g Fraudulent acquisition of a credit card Total Number of Offenders Percentage of Total Offenders Sentence Modifier Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 13 0.01% Unmodified statute 13 2.0 No 0.0 2.0 13 0.01% Unmodified statute 13 2.0 No 0.0 5.0 12 0.01% Unmodified statute 12 4.0 No 0.5 10.0 12 0.01% Unmodified statute 12 10.0 Yes 10.0 30.0 12 0.01% 12 4.0 No 0.0 10.0 Transactions involving proceeds from drug offenses 10 5.0 No 0.0 10.0 11 0.01% 1 Life No Rental or sale of improperly labeled articles prohibited 11 11 2.5 No 0.0 5.0 0.01% Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Unmodified statute G.28 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 14:46.2(B)(3) Statute Title Human trafficking Total Number of Offenders 10 Percentage of Total Offenders 0.01% R.S. 14:70.1 Medicaid fraud 10 0.01% R.S. 22:44 False or fraudulent material information 10 0.01% R.S. 14:70 False accounting 10 0.01% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 9 5.0 Yes 5.0 25.0 10 1.5 No 0.0 5.0 10 5.0 No 0.0 5.0 8 3.0 No 0.0 0.5 2 10.0 No 0.0 0.5 10 2.5 Yes 8.0 50.0 10 0.5 No 0.0 0.5 1 R.S. 40:979(B) Attempt and conspiracy 10 0.01% R.S. 14:59 Criminal mischief 10 0.01% 9 0.01% Unmodified statute 9 5.0 No 0.0 20.0 9 0.01% Unmodified statute 9 1.0 No 0.0 2.0 Unmodified statute 7 8.0 Yes 15.0 30.0 Other* 2 Unmodified statute 9 3.0 No 1.0 10.0 R.S. 14:54.6 R.S. 30:2076.2(3) R.S. 40:967(F)(1)(C) R.S. 40:1781 Communicating false information of a planned bombing on school property, at a schoolsponsored function, or in a firearm-free zone Criminal penalties for violation of the Louisiana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Prohibited Acts Schedule II Drug; penalties other penalties for possession cocaine (base, mixture, or substance) = 400g Definitions (Weapons Registration) 9 9 0.01% 0.01% G.29 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute Statute Title Total Number of Offenders Percentage of Total Offenders Illegal use of controlled dangerous substance in the presence of persons under seventeen 9 R.S. 14:62.5(C) Looting 9 R.S. 14:80.1 Misdemeanor carnal knowledge of a juvenile 9 0.01% R.S. 14:102.8 Injuring or killing of police animal 8 0.00% R.S. 14:68.3 Unauthorized removal of motor vehicle; penalties 8 0.00% R.S. 14:329.2 Inciting a riot 8 0.00% R.S. 14:107.2 Hate crimes 8 0.00% R.S. 14:91.13 R.S. 14:82.1(D)(3)(a) Prostitution; persons under eighteen; additional offenses R.S. 46:114.2 Attempting or aiding to obtain assistance fraudulently; penalties Fraud in obtaining assistance; withholding information concerning property, income or beneficiary, or personal circumstances 8 0.01% 0.01% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 8 1.7 No 0.0 0.5 1 8.0 8 3.5 Yes 3.0 15.0 9 0.5 No 0.0 0.5 4 3.0 No 1.0 7.0 8 3.0 No 0.0 0.5 8 4.0 No 0.0 21.0 6 1.5 No 0.0 5.0 2 3.8 1 4 0.00% Unmodified statute 8 0.5 Maybe 5.0 0.0 0.00% Unmodified statute 1 3.0 No 0.0 20.0 0.00% Unmodified statute 7 2.0 No 0.0 20.0 8 G.30 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 14:110.2(B)(2) R.S. 14:83.2 R.S. 14:223.7 R.S. 14:57 Statute Title Total Number of Offenders Tampering with electronic monitoring 8 Promoting prostitution 7 Counterfeiting or possessing counterfeit labels prohibited Damage to property with intent to defraud 7 7 R.S. 14:129(B)(2)(b) Jury tampering R.S. 14:67.11 Credit card fraud by persons authorized to provide goods and services 7 R.S. 14:329.1 Riot 7 R.S. 14:211 Sale of forest products; failure to remit payment to owner R.S. 14:44.2 R.S. 14:56.5 7 Percentage of Total Offenders 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Other* Unmodified statute Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 7 1.0 Maybe 3 days 1.0 1 1.0 6 2.0 No 0.0 50.0 1 1.0 6 2.3 No 0.0 5.0 7 3.0 No 0.0 4.0 4 5.0 Maybe 0.0 0.0 2 9.5 3.0 No 0.0 15.0 1 1 6 Other* 1 0.00% Unmodified statute 7 3.0 No 0.0 21.0 6 0.00% Unmodified statute 6 4.5 No 0.0 10.0 Aggravated kidnapping of a child 6 0.00% Unmodified statute Other* 5 25.0 Yes Life Life Criminal damage to historic buildings or landmarks by defacing with graffiti 6 1.1 No 0.0 2.0 0.00% Unmodified statute G.31 1 6 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 14:32.6 R.S. 14:229 Statute Title First-degree feticide Illegal use of counterfeit trademark; penalties Total Number of Offenders 6 6 Dangerous chemical substances; butyl nitrite, nitrous oxide, and amyl nitrite; use and transference; penalties 6 R.S. 32:58 Careless operations 6 R.S. 14:63.3 Entry or remaining in places or on land after being forbidden R.S. 14:73.5 R.S. 40:989(C) Percentage of Total Offenders 0.00% 0.00% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Unmodified statute Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 2 15.0 No 0.0 15.0 5 2.0 No 0.0 5.0 1 2.5 5 5.0 No 0.0 0.5 4 0.00% Other* 1 0.00% Unmodified statute 6 0.5 No 0.0 0.0 6 0.00% Unmodified statute 6 0.5 No 0.0 0.5 Computer fraud 6 0.00% Unmodified statute 6 4.0 No 0.0 5.0 R.S. 14:223.8 Possessing of tools and equipment used for manufacturing unauthorized sound recording prohibited 5 0.00% Unmodified statute 5 2.0 No 0.0 5.0 R.S. 14:130 Jury misconduct 5 0.00% 4 2.3 No 0.0 0.5 5 0.3 No 0.0 0.5 R.S. 14:99 R.S. 14:50.2 R.S. 14:130.1(B)(1) Reckless operation of a vehicle Perpetration or attempted perpetration of certain crimes of violence against victim 65+ Obstruction of justice; Life or Death Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute 1 5 0.00% 5 0.00% Unmodified statute 5 3.0 No 0.0 0.0 5 0.00% Unmodified statute 5 10.0 No 0.0 40.0 G.32 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 32:1310 Statute Title Proper equipment required on vehicles; display of plate Obstruction of justice, other Total Number of Offenders Percentage of Total Offenders 5 0.00% 5 0.00% Child desertion 5 0.00% R.S. 14:112 False personation 5 0.00% R.S. 32:732 Transfer and possession of stolen vehicles 5 0.00% Obscenity 5 R.S. 14:130.1(B)(3) R.S. 14:93.2.1(B)(2) R.S. 14:106(G)(4) R.S. 14:131 R.S. 32:61 R.S. 14:67.6 R.S. 47:9071 R.S. 14:95.6 Compounding a felony Maximum speed limit Theft of utility service; inference of commission of theft; penalties False or altered lottery tickets Firearm-free zone; notice; signs; crime; penalties 5 0.00% 0.00% 4 0.00% 4 0.00% 4 0.00% 4 0.00% R.S. 14:67.25 Organized retail theft 4 0.00% R.S. 14:67.4 Anti-skimming Act 4 0.00% Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Unmodified statute Habitual Offender Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Habitual Offender G.33 Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 5 0.1 No 0.0 0.5 5 5.0 No 0.0 5.0 5 0.5 Maybe 30 days 0.5 5 1.0 No 0.0 0.2 4 2.0 No 1.0 5.0 1 5.0 4 3.0 Yes 2.0 5.0 1 9.0 4 2.0 No 0.0 2.0 4 0.1 No 0.0 0.0 4 2.5 No 0.0 2.0 4 5.0 Yes 5.0 20.0 4 2.5 No 0.0 0.5 4 3.0 No 0.0 10.0 3 1.8 No 0.0 10.0 1 4.0 1 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 14:204 R.S. 18:1461.2 R.S. 14:67.18 R.S. 14:133.2 R.S. 14:100.1 R.S. 14:40.6 R.S. 40:982 R.S. 14:32.7 R.S. 14:32.8 R.S. 51:723 Statute Title Fire-raising on land of another by criminal negligence; penalty Election offenses affecting registration and election fraud or forgery; penalties Cheating and swindling Misrepresentation during booking Obstructing public passages Unlawful disruption of the operation of a school Second or subsequent Offense Second-degree feticide Third-degree feticide Registration of dealers, salesmen, and investment advisers and investment adviser representatives; surety bonds; records Registration of securities; when and how required; delivery of prospectus Total Number of Offenders Percentage of Total Offenders Prohibited sexual conduct between educator and student Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 4 0.00% Unmodified statute 4 2.5 No 0.0 0.1 4 0.00% Unmodified statute 4 1.0 No 0.0 5.0 4 0.00% 4 3.0 No 0.0 10.0 4 0.00% 4 0.5 No 0.0 0.5 4 0.00% 4 0.5 No 0.0 0.5 4 0.00% 4 1.3 No 1.0 5.0 4 0.00% 4 7.5 Maybe 0.0 0.0 4 0.00% 2 7.5 No 0.0 10.0 4 5.0 No 0.0 5.0 Unmodified statute 1 8.0 No 0.0 5.0 Unmodified statute 1 8.0 No 0.0 5.0 Unmodified statute 2 6.5 No 0.0 5.0 Unmodified statute 3 5.0 No 0.0 5.0 4 4 0.00% 3 Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute 2 0.00% Unlawful practices R.S. 14:81.4 Sentence Modifier 0.00% G.34 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 14:51.1 R.S. 14:74 R.S. 14:134.1 R.S. 32:79 R.S. 14:92.1 R.S. 23:1172.1 R.S. 32:300 R.S. 14:54.2 R.S. 14:70.8 R.S. 21:21 Statute Title Injury by arson Criminal neglect of family Malfeasance in office; sexual conduct prohibited with persons in the custody and supervision of the Dept. of Public Safety and Corrections Driving on roadway laned for traffic Encouraging or contributing to child delinquency, dependency or neglect; penalty; suspension of sentence; definitions Willful misrepresentation by employer; aid or abet; criminal penalties; civil immunity Possession of alcoholic beverages in motor vehicles Manufacture and possession of delayed action incendiary devices; penalty Illegal transmission of monetary funds Fraud in obtaining accommodations; worthless checks and other fraudulent acts Total Number of Offenders Percentage of Total Offenders Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 3 10.0 Yes 2.0 20.0 3 4.0 No 0.0 0.5 3 0.00% 3 0.00% 3 0.00% Unmodified statute 3 4.0 No 0.0 10.0 3 0.00% Unmodified statute 3 3.0 No 0.0 0.0 3 0.00% Unmodified statute 3 0.5 No 0.0 0.5 3 0.00% Unmodified statute 3 2.0 No 1.0 10.0 3 0.00% Unmodified statute 3 0.5 No 0.0 0.0 3 0.00% Unmodified statute 3 8.0 No 0.0 20.0 3 0.00% Unmodified statute 3 5.0 No 0.0 10.0 3 0.00% Unmodified statute 3 1.0 No 0.0 2.0 G.35 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute Statute Title Total Number of Offenders Percentage of Total Offenders Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 3 5.0 No 0.0 2.0 3 2.0 No 0.0 0.5 R.S. 14:138 Public payroll fraud 3 0.00% R.S. 14:40 Intimidation by officers 3 0.00% 3 0.00% Unmodified statute 3 5.0 Yes 10.0 30.0 3 0.00% Unmodified statute 3 1.0 No 0.0 1.0 3 0.00% Unmodified statute 3 2.0 No 2.0 50.0 3 0.00% Unmodified statute 3 0.5 Maybe 7 days 0.5 3 0.00% Unmodified statute 3 3.0 Yes 3 days 1.0 3 0.00% Unmodified statute 3 5.0 No 0.0 20.0 3 0.00% 3 1.0 0.0 0.0 2 1.0 0.0 2.0 3 0.00% 1 1.0 R.S. 40:981.2(C) R.S. 14:62.7 R.S. 14:86 R.S. 32:402 R.S. 14:34.3 R.S. 14:62.9 R.S. 27:99 R.S. 14:110.3 Soliciting minors to produce, manufacture, distribute or dispense controlled dangerous substances, cocaine, oxycodone, heroin, methamphetamine, or methadone Unauthorized entry of a dwelling during an emergency or disaster Enticing persons into prostitution All drivers must secure license; exception; emergency vehicle exception; military personnel exceptions; emergency command post vehicle exception; violations Battery of a school teacher Simple burglary of a law enforcement or emergency vehicle Prohibited act and gaming offenses Tampering with surveillance accounting Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Habitual Offender G.36 No Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute Statute Title Total Number of Offenders Percentage of Total Offenders Sentence Modifier Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) R.S. 14:125 False swearing 2 0.00% Unmodified statute 2 1.0 No 0.0 1.0 R.S. 47:337.82 Criminal penalty for failing to account for local tax monies 2 0.00% Unmodified statute 2 3.5 No 0.0 5.0 R.S. 14:43.1(C)(3) Sexual battery 2 0.00% Unmodified statute 2 9.0 Yes 25.0 99.0 2 0.00% Unmodified statute 2 5.5 No 0.0 10.0 2 0.00% Unmodified statute 2 1.3 No 0.0 0.5 2 0.00% 2 2.0 Yes 3 days 0.5 2 0.00% 2 6.0 No 0.0 0.5 2 0.00% 2 0.3 No 0.0 0.0 2 0.00% 1 1.0 Maybe 10.0 50.0 2 4.0 Yes 14 days 0.5 2 15.0 No 0.0 0.5 1 8.0 Maybe 5.0 10.0 2 1.5 No 30 days 0.5 2 5.0 No 0.0 10.0 R.S. 23:1208(C)(1) R.S. 14:93.12 R.S. 14:35.1 R.S. 14:97 RS 32:232 Misrepresentations concerning benefit payments; penalty Purchase and public possession of alcoholic beverages; penalties Battery of a child welfare or APS worker Simple obstruction of a highway of commerce Traffic-control signals Attempt; penalties; attempt on peace officer; enhanced penalties Violation of protective orders Possession of firearm on premises of alcoholic beverage outlet 2 0.00% 2 0.00% R.S. 14:46.3(D)(2) Trafficking of children for sexual purposes 2 0.00% R.S. 14:38.2 Assault of a school teacher 2 0.00% R.S. 14:120 Corrupt influencing 2 0.00% R.S. 14:27(D)(1)(a) R.S. 14:79(C)(1) R.S. 14:95.5 Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Other* Unmodified statute Unmodified statute G.37 1 1 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute Statute Title Total Number of Offenders R.S. 40:966(B)(1) Penalty for narcotic drugs listed in Schedule I; Manufacture; Distribution 2 0.00% R.S. 14:286 Sale of minor children 2 0.00% R.S. 14:128.1(B)(1) Terrorism 2 0.00% R.S. 14:67.20 Theft of a business record 2 0.00% 2 0.00% Unmodified statute 2 2.5 Yes 2.0 10.0 2 0.00% Unmodified statute 2 3.0 No 0.0 10.0 2 0.00% Unmodified statute 2 1.0 No 0.0 5.0 2 0.00% Unmodified statute 2 3.5 No 0.0 5.0 2 0.00% Unmodified statute 2 2.5 No 0.0 0.5 2 0.00% 2 5.0 Yes 2.0 5.0 2 0.00% 2 7.0 No 1.0 10.0 1 0.00% 1 2.0 No 0.0 0.5 1 0.00% Unmodified statute 1 0.5 No 0.0 2.0 1 0.00% Unmodified statute 1 2.0 No 0.0 21.0 R.S. 14:73.8(C) R.S. 14:70.2 R.S. 47:2607 R.S. 14:223 R.S. 14:68.1 R.S. 14:37.7(D) R.S. 40:1752 R.S. 14:47 R.S. 51:651.1 R.S. 14:329.7 Unauthorized use of a wireless router system; pornography involving juveniles; penalty Refund or access device application fraud Penalties: Marijuana and Controlled Dangerous Substances Tax Act Sound reproductions without consent prohibited Unauthorized removal of a shopping cart, basket or dairy case Domestic abuse aggravated assault Handling of machine guns, unlawful Defamation Possession, sale or use of certain fireworks prohibited Punishment: Participation in a riot, inciting a riot, or failing to disperse Percentage of Total Offenders Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute G.38 Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 2 4.0 Yes 10.0 50.0 2 1.6 No 0.0 10.0 2 1.5 Maybe 4.0 Life 2 6.0 No 0.0 2.0 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 14:134.2 R.S. 14:126.2 R.S. 14:134.3 R.S. 15:560.4 R.S. 14:104 R.S. 14:35.2 R.S. 40:981.1 R.S. 14:95.2.1 R.S. 14:225(B)(2-3) R.S. 14:130.1(B)(2) R.S. 14:67.19 R.S. 14:63.4 R.S. 14:513 R.S. 14:95.1.1 Statute Title Malfeasance in office; tampering with evidence False statements concerning denial of constitutional rights Abuse of office Electronic monitoring of sexually violent predators or child sexual predators Keeping a disorderly place Simple battery of persons with infirmities Distribution to a student Illegal carrying of a firearm at a parade with any firearm used in the commission of a crime of violence Institutional vandalism; greater than $500 Obstruction of justice; Hard labor Theft of anhydrous ammonia Aiding and abetting others to enter or remain on premises where forbidden Possession of loan shark records Attempt or conspiracy Total Number of Offenders Percentage of Total Offenders Sentence Modifier Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 1 0.00% Unmodified statute 1 2.0 No 0.0 3.0 1 0.00% Unmodified statute 1 5.0 No 1.0 5.0 1 0.00% Unmodified statute 1 3.0 No 1.0 5.0 1 0.00% Unmodified statute 1 2.0 Yes 2.0 20.0 1 0.00% 1 2.0 No 0.0 50.0 1 0.00% 1 0.5 No 30 days 0.5 1 0.00% 1 1.0 Maybe 0.0 0.0 1 0.00% 1 5.0 No 1.0 5.0 1 0.00% 1 1.0 No 0.0 10.0 1 0.00% 1 8.0 No 0.0 20.0 1 0.00% 1 2.0 No 0.0 2.0 1 0.00% 1 2.3 No 0.0 0.5 1 0.00% 1 4.0 No 0.0 1.0 1 0.00% 1 1.0 Yes 1.0 2.5 Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute G.39 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute R.S. 14:38.1 R.S. 14:222 R.S. 14:91.1 R.S. 14:91 R.S. 14:334 R.S. 56:33 R.S. 14:108.1(C) R.S. 14:97.1 R.S. 14:67.8 R.S. 14:73.3 R.S. 14:122.1 R.S. 14:218 Statute Title Mingling harmful substances Possession, manufacture, sale or transfer of devices for avoidance of payment for telecommunications services or related offenses Unlawful presence of a sexually violent predator Unlawful sale of weapons to minors Ignition interlock device offenses License; license books; returns; transfer of license prohibited Flight from an officer; aggravated flight from an officer Solicitation on an interstate highway Theft of oilfield geological survey, seismograph, and production maps; penalties Offenses against computer equipment or supplies Intimidation and interference in the operation of schools Seafood sales and purchases; commercial license required for seller Total Number of Offenders Percentage of Total Offenders Sentence Modifier Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 1 0.00% Unmodified statute 1 2.0 No 0.0 2.0 1 0.00% Unmodified statute 1 2.0 No 0.0 1.0 1 0.00% 1 7.0 No 0.0 0.5 1 0.00% 1 0.5 No 0.0 0.5 1 0.00% 1 0.5 No 0.0 0.5 1 0.00% Unmodified statute 1 10.0 No 0.0 0.3 1 0.00% Unmodified statute 1 2.0 No 0.0 10.0 1 0.00% Unmodified statute 1 0.5 No 0.0 0.5 1 0.00% Unmodified statute 1 1.0 No 1.0 10.0 1 0.00% Unmodified statute 1 1.5 No 0.0 5.0 1 0.00% Unmodified statute 1 3.0 No 0.0 1.0 1 0.00% Unmodified statute 1 0.5 No 0.0 2.0 Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute G.40 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute Statute Title Total Number of Offenders Percentage of Total Offenders Sentence Modifier Number of Offenders Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 1 1.0 No 0.0 1.0 1 1.5 No 0.5 3.0 1 1.0 No 0.0 50.0 1 3.0 No 0.0 3.0 R.S. 14:91.11 Sale, exhibition, or distribution of material harmful to minors 1 0.00% R.S. 14:106.1 Habitual Offender 1 0.00% R.S. 14:83.1 Inciting prostitution 1 0.00% 1 0.00% 1 0.00% Unmodified statute 1 2.0 No 0.5 3.0 1 0.00% Unmodified statute 1 0.5 No 0.0 0.5 1 2.0 No 0.0 0.5 1 3.0 No 1.0 10.0 1 0.5 No 0.0 5.0 1 2.0 No 0.0 50.0 1 3.0 No 0.0 3.0 1 2.0 No 0.0 0.5 1 1.0 No 0.0 10.0 R.S. 8:654 R.S. 14:313 R.S. 14:122.2 Mutilating, disinterring human remains; penalty Masks or hoods, wearing in public places prohibited; penalty Threatening a public official; penalties; definitions Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute R.S. 14:107 Vagrancy 1 0.00% R.S. 40:1791 Penalty: Weapons Registration 1 0.00% R.S. 14:76 Bigamy 1 0.00% R.S. 14:105 Letting a disorderly place 1 0.00% R.S. 22:1562 Prohibited Acts (Qualifications and Licensing) 1 0.00% R.S. 14:101 Desecration of graves 1 0.00% 1 0.00% 1 0.00% Unmodified statute 1 1.0 No 0.0 1.0 1 0.00% Unmodified statute 1 2.0 No 1.0 10.0 R.S. 30:2025 R.S. 14:72.4 R.S. 14:67.7 Enforcement: Environmental Quality Disposal of property with fraudulent or malicious intent Theft of petroleum products; penalties Unmodified statute Unmodified statute Unmodified statute G.41 Evaluation of Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Appendix G Number of Felony Convictions by Offense during Fiscal Years 2009 - May 2015 Statute Statute Title Total Number of Offenders Percentage of Total Offenders Sentence Modifier Unmodified statute Abuse and neglect of Unmodified R.S. 14:403.2 1 0.00% adults statute Unmodified R.S. 14:140 Public contract fraud 1 0.00% statute Unlawful disposal of Unmodified R.S. 8:652 1 0.00% remains statute R.S. Crime against nature by Unmodified 1 0.00% 14:89.2(B)(3)(b) solicitation statute Unmodified R.S. 14:327 Obstructing a fireman 1 0.00% statute Hazardous Waste Control Unmodified R.S. 30:2183 1 0.00% Law statute Unmodified R.S. 14:54.5 Fake explosive devices 1 0.00% statute *Other includes accessory, attempt, and conspiracy, all which may reduce the overall sentence given. Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using data from the CAJUN database. R.S. 30:2418 Waste Tires 1 0.00% G.42 Median Sentence (Years) Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Years) Minimum Sentence in Law (Years) Maximum Sentence in Law (Years) 1 2.0 No 0.0 10.0 1 3.0 No 0.0 0.5 1 2.0 No 0.0 2.0 1 3.0 No 0.0 3.0 1 5.0 Maybe 25.0 50.0 1 2.0 No 0.5 35.0 1 5.0 No 0.0 15.0 1 3.0 No 0.0 5.0 Number of Offenders APPENDIX H: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRADITIONAL PAROLE AND GOOD TIME PAROLE Comparison of Good Time and Traditional Parole Good Time Parole Traditional Parole Eligibility Any person convicted of a sex crime, second-conviction violent crime, or as a habitual offender for a sex or violent crime is automatically ineligible. Offenders sentenced to life imprisonment may earn good time that can be applied at such time as the offender’s sentence is commuted to a specific number of years. For the reduced percentages associated with 1st and 2nd nonviolent convictions the individual must also not be convicted of a sex crime or as a habitual offender. Release Determinations Good time parole is accrued and subtracted from the sentence length. No parole hearings are required for release. An offender is deemed eligible for parole at a certain percentage of the sentence served. Release determinations made through parole hearings. Type of Conviction Good Time Accrual in State Prison Good Time Accrual in Parish Prison Traditional Parole 1st Conviction Nonviolent 1.5 day for 1 day served 30 days for 30 days served 25% sentence served 2nd Conviction Nonviolent 1.5 day for 1 day served 30 days for 30 days served 33.3% sentence served 1st Conviction Violent 3 days for 17 days served 3 days for 17 days served 33.3% sentence served 2nd Conviction Violent Not eligible Not eligible 50% sentenced served 3rd Conviction Not eligible Not eligible Not eligible Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using information from Louisiana Revised Statute (R.S.) 15.571.3. Potential Amount of Time Served for Good time and Traditional Parole Releases for First-time Nonviolent Offenders Based on Louisiana Statutes Effective as of the 2012 Legislative Session Sentence Length State Facilities Good Time Release Good Time with Maximum Release Program Credits Local Facilities Good Time Release Good Time with Maximum Release Program Credits All Facilities Traditional Parole Release 3 years 1.2 years 9.5 months 1.5 years 1 year 9 months 5 years 2 years 1.6 years 2.5 years 2 years 1.25 years 10 years 4 years 3.6 years 5 years 4.6 years 2.5 years Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using information from R.S. 15.571.3. H.1