Justice reinvestment in public safety

Justice Reinvestment
in Public Safety
Georgia Department of Corrections Brian Owens, Commissioner

Executive Summary
"Keeping our citizens safe...is one of state government's primary responsibilities. The challenge is great..."
Governor Nathan Deal State of Georgia
Inaugural Address January 10, 2011
The State of Georgia and its criminal justice system are at a pivotal point. The "Get Tough on Crime" policies and "Truth in Sentencing" movement of the 80's and 90's have combined to contribute to overcrowding in the Georgia prison system and exploding probation populations.
According to a recent PEW study, 1 in 13 Georgians is under some form of correctional supervision and correctional spending is at an all time high. (The PEW Center on the States, 2009) In fact, nationwide, correctional spending has quadrupled in the last twenty years, making it the second fasting growing area of state budgets, directly behind Medicaid. (The PEW Center on the States, 2011)
Georgia, like so many other states, is in the midst of an unprecedented budget crisis and is implementing cost cutting measures at all levels of state government. Corrections and public safety agencies are not immune to these cuts. The challenge Georgia faces is dealing with growing correctional populations while making the best use of its resources and continuing to enhance public safety?
Justice Reinvestment is a data driven approach to reduce spending and reinvest savings in cost effective, evidence based programming. (Justice Center - The Council of State Governments, 2010) The process is driven by continual analysis and assessment to improve those criminal justice practices, policies and procedures that are working and discontinue those that are not. Often, it includes changing the culture of an organization and the way it has historically responded to the factors driving these areas.
The Georgia Department of Corrections has chosen to focus its Justice Reinvestment efforts in the following areas Admissions to Prison, Length of Stay in Jail, Length of Stay in Diagnostics and Length of Stay in State Prison. A very simple formula is being used in the process. Reducing Admissions and/or Length of Stay (LOS) = Savings. The savings generated when this formula is applied can be significant not only in monetary resources but in the resources of our people, processes and infrastructure.
There are numerous opportunities for reinvestment in this process. Many can be accomplished within the Department while others must include buy-in from many of Georgia's criminal justice stakeholders such as the judiciary, prosecutors, public defenders, law enforcement as well as members of the community.
Page i

The newly established Criminal Justice Reform Council will review Georgia's correctional system, criminal justice structure, as well as sentencing laws during the upcoming 2012 legislative session. It is expected that many deliberate legislative decisions, as well as policy decisions, will emerge from the Council's recommendations. The Department stands ready to assist the members of the Council as they examine the inner workings of the Georgia criminal justice system and is prepared to implement any findings that may arise from its research. This report is intended to provide information to the Council and other stakeholders within the criminal justice system and apprise them of the direction the Department has already taken in its Justice Reinvestment efforts and reform. Georgia has been afforded a rare opportunity to look internally at its criminal justice system. It must address sentencing policy in the areas of sentencing caps, parole eligibility and recidivist statutes. Also funding for community resources such as substance abuse and mental health treatment and accountability courts is needed. These programs are proven effective both in rehabilitating offenders and reducing recidivism. Georgia must "think outside the box" and decide how the criminal justice system of tomorrow and the next decade will look and function. The Department of Corrections views this as an opportunity to self-analyze our policies and procedures, and as an agency, is committed to criminal justice reform through the process of Justice Reinvestment. It is further committed to public safety for the citizens of the great State of Georgia and to continual improvement as an organization.
"...Policy makers need updated information about the public safety return on corrections spending in their states. Specifically, they need knowledge about what is working and what is not - to slow down the
revolving door..."
(The PEW Center on the States, 2011)
Page ii

Table of Contents
Executive Summary Justice Reinvestment Model Justice Reinvestment Defined Historical Background and Trends
Case Studies - Sentencing Range/Disparity in Sentencing Justice Reinvestment: The Main Goal
1. Influencing Admissions a. 10 Step Framework i. Sort Offenders by Risk ii. CIP iii. Evidence Based Programming iv. GDC Sentencing Model/Specialty Courts v. Utilize Technology vi. Impose Swift, Certain, and Proportionate Sanctions vii. Awards/Incentives for Officers/Offenders viii. Seamless transition from incarceration to probation ix. Probation Accountability Report/COMPSTAT x. Probation Legislation b. Probation Substance Abuse Treatment Centers c. Day Reporting Centers d. Probation Officer Sentencing Specialist e. Revocation Policy and Practice
2. Influencing Length of Stay in Jail a. Improving Current Court Practices i. Standardized Sentencing ii. E-Packet Submission b. Proactive Offender Assessment
3. Influencing Length of Stay at Diagnostics a. Logistics b. Paperwork/Communication c. Shortened Intake Process d. Transportation Hubs
4. Influencing Length of Stay in State Prisons a. Sentencing in Months b. Coastal State Prison Category II Project i. Strategic Intervention Program
Page iii

Page i 1 2 5 11 23 27 35 35 36 36 36 40 41 43 43 44 45 46 46 47 48 49 52 52 52 52 55 55 55 56 56 57 57 58 58

ii. Intensive Re-Entry Program

59

iii. Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Center

59

iv. Parole Boot Camp

59

c. Other Target Areas

60

i. Aging Offender Population

60

ii. Mental Health Population

61

iii. Faith Based Dorms

63

iv. Private Providers

63

1. Grace Village

63

2. Holly Tree

63

v. Parole Collaboration

64

1. Tentative Parole Month

64

2. Enhanced Performance Incentive Credit

64

3. Commuting Certain Sentences to Probation

65

5. Justice Reinvestment Goals

67

a. Facility Closures and Realignments

67

b. Fast Track Prison Units

67

c. Private Prisons

68

d. Probation and Parole Interoperability

68

Opportunities

71

Notes Pages

75

Appendix A: State Correctional Populations

77

Appendix B: State Recidivism Numbers

78

Appendix C: PEW Report State #s

79

Appendix D: Criminal Justice Reform Bill HB 265

81

Appendix E: OCGA 42-5-101

85

Appendix F: Criminal Justice System Flow

86

Appendix G: Georgia Judicial Circuit

87

Appendix H: Glossary of Terms

88

Appendix I: Corrections Division Directory

95

Works Cited

106

For additional copies of this booklet or more information contact: Georgia Department of Corrections, PO Box 1529, Forsyth, GA 31029 Or visit us on the web at: http://www.dcor.state.ga.us

Page iv

Justice Reinvestment Model

1. Analyze criminal
justice trends to understand factors driving jail, prison and probation populations

5. Assess impact of
reinvestment strategies and enhance the accountability of criminal justice system
actors and policies

Interagency Strategic Planning

2. Develop and
implement policy options to generate savings and increase public safety

4. Reinvest in select, high-
risk communities and other prevention-oriented strategies

3. Quantify costs and
potential savings

Figure 1: Justice Reinvestment Model (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2010) (Urban Institute - Justice Policy Center, 2011)

Page 1

Justice Reinvestment Defined
o discussion about Justice Reinvestment can be held until all stakeholders have a
Nclear understanding of the processes involved. As previously seen Figure 1 is a representation of the processes typically seen as a state agency embarks on its journey of Justice Reinvestment. These processes are representative in nature and can be adjusted by each stakeholder as they immerse themselves and their agency into the strategies of Justice Reinvestment.
Justice reinvestment is a data driven approach designed to enhance public safety by reducing correctional spending and redirecting the savings into effective alternatives. Its primary goals are to decrease crime and reduce the recidivism rate. Data is collected from corrections, courts, crime statistics, etc. The data analysis is used to pinpoint specific factors driving the correctional system costs. A strategic plan to modify or control the factors and ensuing costs is developed based on policies and evidence-based practices. Generated savings are then reinvested into effective alternatives, programs and/or supervision strategies. Justice reinvestment is a continual process that seeks to refine its practices and policies using ongoing strategic planning involving all of the criminal justice stakeholders. (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2010) (Urban Institute - Justice Policy Center, 2011)
Figure 2 (page3) shows the FY 2012 budget for the State of Georgia excluding the General Obligation Debt Sinking Fund. Only one of every 11 dollars appropriated or 9% goes to public safety which includes the Departments of Corrections, Defense, Juvenile Justice and Public Safety, the State Board of Pardons and Parole and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (Figure 3 page 3). (Georgia Office of Planning and Budget, 2011)
While Georgia manages the fifth largest prison system in the United States and has 1 in every 13 adults under correctional supervision, its leadership has managed the State's resources so effectively it ranks 14th in total costs spent and 30th in the percentage of general funds appropriated. (See Appendix C)
Fact:
During FY 2008 nine of every ten correctional dollars was spent on prisons.
(The PEW Center on the States, 2009)
Page 2

Other $1,551,166,810
9%

State of Georgia FY 2012 State Funds Total: $17,079,250,805
Education $9,897,610,800
58%
Healthcare $4,088,346,276
24%

Public Safety $1,542,126,919
9%
Figure 2: GA FY 2012 Budget by Category (General Obligation Debt Sinking Fund of $1,083,263,065 not Included)
Public Safety Portion of FY 2012 Budget $1,542,126,919

Dept of Public Safety $107,183,641
7%

Dept of Corrections $1,036,535,215 67%

Board of Pardons & Parole
$50,517,461 3%

Dept of Juvenile Justice
$279,710,620 18%
Figure 3: GA Public Safety Budget - FY 2012

Dept of Defense $8,438,339 1%
Georgia Bureau of Investigations $59,741,643 4%

Page 3

Page 4

In March of 2009 the PEW Center on the States released a comprehensive study entitled One in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections. This study chronicled the meteoric rise of correctional populations in the United States and its associated cost by looking at each state in detail. The correctional population in the United States had reached 2.3 million with 1 in every 100 adults in prison or jail. Just as the prison populations had risen, so had the numbers of those under community supervision to an average of 1 in 45. Combined, these two areas total 1 in 31. A disturbing 3.2 percent of the population of the United States was under correctional supervision. (The PEW Center on the States, 2009) Figure 4.
In Georgia, those numbers were even more troubling. In 1982, 1 in 37 Georgians was under correctional supervision. (The PEW Center on the States, 2009) Upon the release of the PEW report in 2009, 1 in 13 Georgians was under correctional control and the state correctional budget was over $1.1 billion. (See Figure 5-7 on page 6 for national numbers and rankings.)
Georgia was not alone. Many of the states that had taken a traditional, Get Tough on Crime approach also had soaring correctional populations and costs. The totals shown in Figure 4 are for total correctional population including all forms of probation, parole and incarceration at the city, county, state and federal level. (The PEW Center on the States, 2009)

Offenders per 100,000 population
(1982 & 2008)
1982 2008

Mississippi Arkansas Alabama
South Carolina Kentucky Louisiana
Tennessee Georgia
North Carolina Virginia Florida Texas

952 2,632
746 3,448
1,111 3,125
1,429 2,632
962 2,857
1,266 3,846
806 2,500 2,703 7,692
1,667 2,632
926 2,174
1,351 3,226
2,381 4,545

Figure 4: Offenders per 100K in population - SE States (Source Carr)

"Make no mistake. While this effort should ultimately uncover strategies that will save taxpayer dollars, first and foremost we are attacking the human cost of a society with too much crime, too many people behind bars, too many children growing up without a much needed parent and too many wasted lives."
Honorable Nathan Deal Governor State of Georgia
(Watchdog.org, 2011)
Page 5

% of General Fund Spent MI OR FL AZ VT CA C O MT MD AR WI NV VA ID OH SD OK MO NH TX PA SC LA MS WA NC DE IL IA GA

Corrections Costs (Billions)

Top 15 States - Cost Spent on Corrections
CY 2008 (in billions)
10
5
0 CA TX NY FL MI PA OH NJ IL MA NC VA MD GA WI Top 15 States in Correctional Spending
Figure 5: Top 15 Remaining states spent less than $1 billion - Full list in appendix C
Percentage of General Fund
CY 2008
30 20 10
0

Top 30 States in % of General Fund Used for Corrections

Figure 6: Georgia was 30th out of 50 states spending 5.9% of its general fund on corrections in CY 2008. Full list in appendix C

Top 10 States - Total # of Offenders
CY 2008

Total # of Offenders

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

0

TX

CA

GA

FL

OH

PA

NY

MI

IL

MA

Top 10 States - Total # of Offenders

Figure 7: Top 10 States - Total # of Offenders CY 2008 Full list in appendix C

Page 6

Many factors led to this current state of affairs. The "War on Drugs" began in the 1970s after a great influx of cocaine and heroin and then later "crack" cocaine of the 80s. Numerous federal agencies were created to combat the spread of illegal drugs and the after-effects of them.

"Our state can no longer afford to spend more than $1 billion a year to maintain the nation's fourth highest incarceration rate."
Chief Justice Carol Hunstein Georgia Supreme Court
State of the Judiciary Address 2-16-11
(Administrative Office of the Courts, 2011)

In 1974, after extensive study of criminal rehabilitation programs from 1945 to 1967, New York Criminologist Robert Martinson and several other researchers came to the conclusion that "nothing works." Specifically they stated, "With few and isolated exceptions, the rehabilitative efforts that have been reported so far have had no appreciable effect on recidivism." (Sarre, 1999)

In response, the school of thought pendulum swung from the "Treatment" approach that was being taken in many instances to the "Get Tough" approach that became predominant in the 80s and into the 90s. Martinson's report effectively ended programs and efforts to rehabilitate offenders in many states. In 1978 Martinson submitted an amended report citing errors in his initial research and pointing out that programming in conjunction with effective supervision and swift and certain sanctions was effective. However, by this time the pendulum had already moved to the opposite end of the spectrum. (Sociologyindex.com, 2011)

The Get Tough on Crime approach was also big business politically and financially during the tough economic times of the 80s and 90s. Monies devoted to the construction and eventual staffing of prisons meant jobs jobs that were very beneficial to communities hardest hit by economic recessions. Politically, taking a hard stance against crime was looked upon favorably by the constituency as well. Prison growth both in Georgia and nationwide continued to increase.

The Get Tough on Crime movement of the 1980s led to the Truth in Sentencing movement that lasted through much of the late 80s and 90s. Truth in Sentencing was made up of a number of initiatives at both the state and national levels mandatory minimum sentences, abolition or curtailment of parole, "Three Strikes" laws, recidivist statutes and sentencing, among others. (Carr, 2008) In 1984, the Georgia legislature repealed the earned time statute, effectively meaning an offender would serve day for day unless paroled. The Truth in Sentencing goal was to make it clear at sentencing how long an offender would spend in prison or at least guarantee they would spend a "long time" in prison. (Georgia Budget and Policy Insitute, 2008)

Page 7

By the 1980s and 1990s prison overcrowding had become a nationwide problem. At that time offenders might only serve one-third of the sentence imposed by the Court due to the fact that there simply was not enough prison bed space available. Compare the numbers in the Figure 8 below. In the late 80s and early 90s, the average Georgia offender would serve approximately 30-35 percent of the sentence handed down by the Judge. For example, in 1990 the average length of a prison sentence ordered by the Judge was 4.59 years (4 years and 7 months). Conversely, an offender averaged serving only 1.3 years (1 year and 4 months). These types of sentence serve times led to harsher and longer sentences being handed down, further exacerbating the problem and creating a vicious cycle. Compare those numbers to 2010 where the average sentence length is 4.55 years and the average serve time is 2.87 years. While the sentence lengths are almost the same, the serve time doubled. (Carr, 2011)

4.45 5.02 4.82 4.89 4.82 5.15
4.58 3.2
3.48 4.02 3.88 4.13 4.83 4.59 5.42 5.43 5.89 4.88 4.8 4.91 4.37 3.91 4.4 4.35 4.69 4.66 4.58 4.89 5.04 4.87 4.85 4.91 4.67 4.55

Years

Avg Sentence Time vs. Avg Serve Time (Yrs)
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

1.96 2.14 1.95 1.97 1.84
2 1.66
1.7 1.62 1.68 1.48 1.4 1.41 1.3 1.45 1.62
1.95 1.78 1.94 1.88 1.89 1.81
2.28 2.35
2.61 2.69 2.74 2.87
3.14 3.17 3.19 3.25
3 2.87

1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Avg Sentence Length

Actual Time Served

Figure 8: Average Sentence Time vs. Average Serve Time

Truth in Sentencing trends sought to address the discrepancy between the sentences handed down by the Courts and the actual amount of time being served. Georgia's responded by passing its "Two Strike" law in 1994 creating one of the toughest "Seven Deadly Sin" law in the nation.

That law, OCGA 17-10-6.1, stated that persons convicted of one of the "Seven Deadly Sins" murder, rape, armed robbery, aggravated child molestation, aggravated sodomy, aggravated sexual battery and voluntary manslaughter were to serve a mandatory minimum of 10 years of their sentence or the maximum allowed by law without the possibility of parole. This law also raised the possibility of parole to a minimum of 14 years on anyone serving a life sentence

Page 8

for a first strike and anyone convicted of a second strike serves Life without the Possibility of Parole. This law took the ability to parole individuals out of the Parole Board's hands and caused the numbers in prison to begin a sharp rise. (Georgia Board of Pardons and Parole, 1998)
In 1998, the Georgia Parole Board came up with an expanded list of twenty other crimes that were violent or sexual in nature, for which an offender would have to serve at least 90 percent of their sentence before being considered for parole. This law was struck down twice in court; but in 2006, the Board implemented the Board Designated Violent Offender Policy which required offenders convicted of certain crimes to serve 65, 75 or 90 percent of their sentence before being eligible for parole. (Welsh, 2008)
Another law passed in 2006 was HB 1059 which further lengthened the stay in prison for some under a life sentence. HB 1059 amended OCGA 42-9-39 by mandating that anyone previously sentenced to a life sentence and subsequently convicted of the crime of murder must serve 30 years before being pardoned or eligible for parole. It further required that anyone convicted of consecutive life sentences, one of which is for murder, must serve consecutive 30 year sentences up to a maximum of 60 years before becoming eligible for pardon or parole. Figure 9 shows how the average time served on a life sentence has almost doubled in the last seven years due to many of the new tougher laws that have been passed. (GDC, 2011) Sentences of these lengths have contributed, in part, to the growth and subsequent overcrowding seen in the prison system. This is not to say that these offenders should not be incarcerated for the offenses they have committed, but that their sentence length is a factor to be considered when looking at the Georgia prison population.
Average Time Served on a Life Sentnce
since 1977
23
18
13
8
Calendar Year
Figure 9: Average Time Served on a Life Sentence
In 1995 the federal government began the Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth in Sentencing Program (VOITIS). VOITIS awarded funds to states to encourage the passage of tough new sentencing laws and to help offset the costs of building and operating additional prisons to
Page 9

10.41 10.52 10.17 9.31 10.16 10.58 10.99 11.22 10.75
11.57 11.81 11.51 11.8 12.02
12.96 12.62 12.47 12.25 12.45
14.54 12.51 11.84 11.92
13.47 12.78 13.44 12.28
16.72 18.81 20.47 21.82 21.37 22.18 22.18 21.04

Avg Serve Time in Yrs

1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

accommodate the new, longer sentenced offenders. VOITIS was in effect from FY 1996 through FY 2001 with Georgia qualifying for and receiving funds each of these years. Of the $2.7 billion nationwide funding, Georgia received more than $82 million (only eight states received more funds than Georgia). (Carr, 2008)
Figure 10 is a timeline outlining the construction of Georgia prisons. Each dot represents a prison being opened with the larger dots representing more than one prison opening in a year. Georgia currently operates only two prisons opened before 1965; Georgia State Prison and Lee Arrendale State Prison were opened in 1937 and 1951 respectively. As you can see there was a large increase beginning in the late 70s and ending in the mid 90s. VOITIS was a major factor in this expansion.
GA Prison Construction Timeline

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

Larger Dots Represent Years in Which More than One Prison was Opened

2000

Figure 10: GA Prison Construction Timeline

The "Two Strikes and You're Out" laws impacted the State considerably and continue to have lasting effects today. By the middle of 1998, there were over 2000 offenders in the prison system for the Seven Deadly Sins. Almost 700 of these were first-strike, life-sentenced offenders, totaling six percent of Georgia's total prison population at that time. The categories of 1st Strike, 2nd Strike - Life Without Parole (LWOP) and Life comprised over 6,600 offenders or 17 percent of Georgia's prison population. By early 1999, another 600 had entered the system for an increase to 22 percent in about 6 months. (Georgia State Board of Pardons and Parole, 2011)

Overcrowding continued to be a problem with growth in the prison population every year from 1979 until 2003 with the exception of one year. The effects of the Two Strike laws were cumulative in nature and continue to have a snowball effect even today. A recent study estimated that offenders classified under the "Seven Deadly Sins" could cost Georgia taxpayers between $5 and $8 billion over a 10-31 year time period depending on whether the judges sentence them to the minimum (10 years) or the maximum. (Welsh, 2008)

Page 10

Case Studies - Disparity in Sentencing and Sentencing Ranges
Five Most Frequently Sentenced Offenses since 2000
There are forty-nine Judicial Circuits in the State of Georgia. The charts and graphs shown in this report are actual representations of each circuit's sentencing patterns from January 2000 to March 2011. To emphasize the information in this report and not an individual judicial circuit's trends or practices, each circuit has been assigned a random number of 1 through 49. Each circuit's assigned random numbers remain constant in the subsequent charts.
Broad sentencing ranges, disparity in sentencing from circuit to circuit and long probated sentences are among the factors that have led to increased growth and prison overcrowding. Georgia's criminal codes have a broad range of possible sentences for most offenses, allowing great liberty in recommendation and sentencing. Sentencing patterns emerge based on public perception of the offense or historical precedence in the circuit. (Carr, 2011) A recent study of the top five felony offenses (Possession of Cocaine, Forgery 1st Degree, Burglary, Theft by Taking and Aggravated Assault) received by the Department from January of 2000 to March of 2011 showed some marked trends. Table 1 outlines the five offenses, the corresponding OCGA reference, the sentencing range for that offense and the number of total sentences (prison and probation) for each offense. The five case studies follow in the order of most frequently sentenced Possession of Cocaine to the least sentenced of the five offenses Aggravated Assault. (Carr, 2011)

Offense name

OCGA Reference

Sentencing range

Prison Probation Total sentences sentences sentences

Possession of cocaine 16-13 -030e 1st conviction 2-15 yrs, or probation
2nd+ conviction 5-30 yrs, or probation

18,244

42,003

60,247

Forgery 1st degree 16-09 -001 1-10 yrs, or probation

10,824 32,335 43,159

Burglary Theft by taking Aggravated Assault

16-07 -001

1st conviction, 2-15 yrs, or probation 2nd conviction, 2-20 yrs, NO probation 3rd+conviction, 5-20 yrs, NO probation

19,043

16-08 -002

Less than $500 is a misdemeanor More than $500 is a felony 1-10 yrs, or probation

8,406

1-20 yrs
16-05 -021a 3-20 yrs, victim is family or over age 65
5-20 yrs, victim is officer or teacher

13,079

Table 1: Five Most Frequently Sentenced Offenses since 2000

20,645 29,260 17,090

39,688 37,666 30,169

Page 11

Number of Offenders Sentenced

Possession of Cocaine
Possession of Cocaine showed interesting trends. It is the most frequently sentenced offense in the state and since 2000 there have been over 60,000 sentences given for this offense. Approximately 18,000 of these sentences were to prison and 42,000 were to probation Figure 11 shows the sentencing trends for common sentence lengths on those cases that are prison bound and depicts the noticeable trends for 2, 3, 5, 10 and 15 year sentences.
Common Sentence Lengths for Possession of Cocaine
4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000
500 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Sentence Length in Years
Figure 11: Common Sentence Lengths - Possession of Cocaine
Figure 12 (page 13) shows the average length of a prison sentence given for Possession of Cocaine within the last 10 years. Circuit 45 was highest at a little over 14 years for the average prison sentence, while Circuit 2's average sentence was only 2.7 years. The average statewide sentence levied on prison cases was 6.46 years for the offense of Possession of Cocaine.
Figure 13 (page 13) shows the average percentage of cases that were sent to prison from the judicial circuits for this offense. The statewide average was 29 percent with Circuit 14 having the highest at 67 percent and Circuit 19 having the lowest at 10 percent a substantial difference considering these cases were prosecuted under the same statute.
Page 12

49 Judicial Circuits 49 Judicial Circuits

Possession of Cocaine Avg. Prison Sentence

Possession of Cocaine % to Prison

1

5.31

1

14%

2

2.70

2

26%

3

4.84

3

21%

4

5.12

4

35%

5

4.30

5

46%

6

5.33

6

38%

7

6.20

7

23%

8

6.53

8

30%

9

8.20

9

23%

10

6.11

10

29%

11

5.68

11

24%

12

6.32

12

26%

13

6.27

13

15%

14

8.11

14

67%

15

3.77

15

39%

16

6.64

16

23%

17

5.37

17

22%

18

5.75

18

20%

19

5.97

19

10%

20

5.26

20

20%

21

5.01

21

56%

22

8.93

22

11%

23

9.66

23

22%

24

5.84

24

21%

25

8.16

25

26%

26

8.73

26

43%

27

4.53

27

51%

28

7.66

28

31%

29

5.72

29

50%

30

6.53

30

32%

31

5.66

31

35%

32

5.98

32

24%

33

8.36

33

33%

34

5.69

34

21%

35

8.67

35

16%

36

9.30

36

14%

37

7.07

37

30%

38

6.90

38

27%

39

5.82

39

35%

40

4.90

40

30%

41

6.16

41

13%

42

5.12

42

17%

43

7.10

43

31%

44

6.60

44

37%

45

14.07

45

29%

46

3.57

46

57%

47

10.10

47

17%

48

5.56

48

27%

49

5.44

49

23%

0

5

10

15

Sentence Length in Years

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

% to Prison

Figure 12: Possession of Cocaine Avg. Prison Sentence

Figure 13: Possession of Cocaine - % to Prison

Page 13

Forgery 1st Degree

The offense of Forgery 1st Degree was the second most commonly sentenced offense from January 2000 until March of 2011. There were over 43,000 sentences handed down for this offense with almost 11,000 of them being prison sentences and about 32,000 being probated sentences.

Of the almost 11,000 offenders sentenced to prison for Forgery, Figure 14 demonstrates the most common sentence lengths. Once again the propensity of the Courts to sentence at intervals of 2, 3, 5, and 10 years is shown in addition to some sentencing occurring at the 15 year mark.

2500

Common Sentence Lengths for Forgery - 1st Degree

Number of Offenders Sentenced

2000

1500

1000

500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Sentence Length in Years
Figure 14: Common Sentence Lengths for Forgery
Figure 15 (page 15) delineates the average prison sentence for Forgery for the reporting period with a high in Circuit 35 of 8.77 years and a low in Circuit 46 of 3.01 years. The statewide average prison sentence was 5.96 years for the offense of Forgery.

Figure 16 (page 15) shows the average percentage of offenders sentenced to prison for the offense of Forgery 1st Degree. The circuit with the highest average was Circuit 27 at 44 percent of its offenders going to prison for Forgery; while in Circuit 41, only 8 percent of the offenders went to prison.

Page 14

49 Judicial Circuits 49 Judicial Circuit

Forgery - 1st Degree

Avg. Prison Sentence

1

5.88

2

3.75

3

6.12

4

5.43

5

4.82

6

4.99

7

6.34

8

5.51

9

6.48

10

5.94

11

5.45

12

5.35

13

6.64

14

8.40

15

4.32

16

5.70

17

5.44

18

5.44

19

6.81

20

5.83

21

4.37

22

8.25

23

5.76

24

6.80

25

7.13

26

4.57

27

4.42

28

6.22

29

5.88

30

7.11

31

4.86

32

5.40

33

7.38

34

5.38

35

8.77

36

8.16

37

6.05

38

5.86

39

5.16

40

5.87

41

6.63

42

5.72

43

6.61

44

7.41

45

7.01

46

3.01

47

5.39

48

5.63

49

6.78

0

5

10

Sentence Length in Years

Figure 15: Forgery 1st Degree Avg. Prison Sentence

Forgery - 1st Degree

% to Prison

1

14%

2

18%

3

35%

4

28%

5

29%

6

26%

7

26%

8

21%

9

14%

10

27%

11

17%

12

22%

13

15%

14

25%

15

23%

16

27%

17

18%

18

16%

19

17%

20

16%

21

43%

22

15%

23

18%

24

16%

25

26%

26

33%

27

44%

28

17%

29

41%

30

26%

31

34%

32

17%

33

26%

34

20%

35

12%

36

14%

37

28%

38

29%

39

35%

40

23%

41

8%

42

22%

43

28%

44

36%

45

23%

46

40%

47

13%

48

27%

49

21%

0%

20%

40%

60%

% of Cases to Prison

Figure 16: Forgery 1st Degree - % to Prison

Page 15

Burglary

The offense of Burglary was the third most sentenced offense since January 2000. There were almost 40,000 offenders sentenced for this offense with 47 percent of those sentenced receiving a prison sentence. In Georgia, Burglary has a wide sentencing range depending on how many prior convictions an individual has for this offense.

Figure 17 once again shows the Courts inclination to sentences in specific intervals with obvious spikes at the 5, 10, 15 and 20 year marks for the offense of Burglary.
Common Sentence Lengths for Burglary

Number of Offenders Sentenced

4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000
500 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Sentence Length in Years

Figure 17: Common Sentence Lengths for Burglary
The statewide average prison sentence length on a Burglary charge since January 2000 was 8.14 years. Circuit 35 has the highest average with 11.24 years to prison on a Burglary sentence while Circuit 46 has the lowest at 4.37 years per sentence. Figure 18 (page 17)

Circuit 26 averaged sending 93 percent of its cases to prison on Burglary charges while in Circuits 19 and 22 only 22 percent of the cases are prison bound. The statewide prison case average for this category was 47 percent. Figure 19 (page 17)

Page 16

49 Judcial Circuits 49 Judicial Circuits

Burglary

Avg. Prison Sentence

1

8.35

2

5.35

3

7.55

4

6.88

5

6.56

6

6.64

7

7.52

8

6.64

9

8.95

10

8.27

11

8.38

12

7.63

13

8.74

14

9.45

15

5.65

16

8.28

17

8.68

18

7.92

19

9.21

20

7.86

21

7.37

22

10.87

23

7.93

24

7.05

25

11.01

26

5.82

27

5.93

28

8.83

29

8.46

30

9.81

31

7.17

32

7.24

33

10.21

34

7.76

35

11.24

36

11.03

37

9.50

38

8.46

39

6.49

40

8.09

41

7.97

42

7.32

43

9.06

44

9.83

45

10.12

46

4.37

47

8.39

48

7.46

49

9.38

0

5

10

15

Sentence Length in Years

Figure 18: Burglary Avg. Prison Sentence

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
0%

Burglary
% to Prison
30% 46% 43% 64% 55% 54%
41% 38% 40%
62% 48% 49% 44%
54% 51% 52%
57% 71%
22% 37% 78%
22% 38%
33% 33%
93% 64% 39% 65% 47% 37% 42% 52% 34% 42% 42% 58% 35% 42% 48% 41% 40% 44% 66% 42% 64% 28% 52% 44%

50%

100%

% of Cases to Prison

Figure 19: Burglary - % to Prison

Page 17

Number of Offenders Sentenced

Theft By Taking
Theft by Taking was the fourth most frequently sentenced offense over the past 10 years with a total of over 37,000 cases being sentenced. Of the 37,000, a little over 8,000 were sentenced to prison and approximately 29,000 were placed on probation. Common prison sentence lengths for the offense of Theft By Taking are shown in Figure 20. As with the other most frequently sentenced offenses, there are spikes at 3, 5 and 10 years with a small bump at 15 years
Common Sentence Lengths for Theft By Taking
2000 1500 1000
500 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Sentence Length in Years Figure 20: Common Sentence Lengths - Theft By Taking
The statewide average prison sentence for Theft by Taking is 6 years. Circuit 46 is below that average with an average of 3.71 years for offenders from that circuit while Circuit 25 is above the average at 8.27 years. Figure 21 (page 18) Circuit 21 leads the state with 38 percent of its offenders sentenced for Theft By Taking sent to prison; while in Circuit 41, only 6 percent of offenders committing this offense are incarcerated. The statewide average for the percentage of offenders incarcerated for this offense is 22 percent. Figure 22 (page 18)
Page 18

49 Judicial Circuits 49 Judicial Circuits

Theft By Taking

Avg. Prison Sentence

1

6.25

2

3.93

3

5.50

4

5.59

5

5.40

6

5.12

7

5.61

8

4.56

9

5.94

10

6.21

11

6.09

12

5.65

13

6.94

14

7.50

15

5.40

16

6.33

17

6.21

18

4.85

19

6.19

20

5.86

21

5.08

22

7.33

23

6.86

24

5.51

25

8.27

26

4.67

27

4.71

28

5.88

29

5.95

30

7.59

31

6.21

32

5.50

33

6.98

34

5.59

35

7.67

36

7.17

37

6.69

38

5.90

39

4.67

40

6.02

41

6.62

42

6.45

43

6.79

44

6.99

45

6.60

46

3.71

47

5.85

48

5.21

49

6.55

0

5

10

Sentence Length in Years

Figure 21: Theft By Taking - Avg. Prison Sentence

Theft by Taking

% to Prison

1

14%

2

20%

3

23%

4

31%

5

24%

6

27%

7

21%

8

20%

9

16%

10

24%

11

22%

12

24%

13

19%

14

29%

15

19%

16

22%

17

23%

18

24%

19

13%

20

14%

21

38%

22

11%

23

17%

24

14%

25

23%

26

29%

27

35%

28

20%

29

33%

30

25%

31

22%

32

16%

33

28%

34

17%

35

15%

36

15%

37

27%

38

25%

39

26%

40

21%

41

6%

42

16%

43

26%

44

32%

45

20%

46

36%

47

11%

48

24%

49

24%

0%

20%

40%

% of Cases to Prison

Figure 22: Theft By Taking - % to Prison

Page 19

Number of Offenders Sentenced

Aggravated Assault
The offense of Aggravated Assault, the fifth most frequently sentenced offense, demonstrated very interesting trends in a couple of areas. The study showed over 30,000 sentences received since January 2000. Of those sentences approximately 13,000 had some form of incarceration and 17,000 were straight probation.
The chart in Figure 23 clearly shows upturns at the 5, 10, 15 and 20 year marks on cases sentenced to prison - showing a propensity of the Courts to sentence in specific patterns for this offense.
Most Common Sentence Lengths - Aggravated Assault
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Figure 23: Common Sentence Lengths - Aggravated Assault
In Figure 24 (page 21) the average prison sentence varied from 12.92 years in Circuit 37 to less than half that in Circuit 46 with 6.38 years.
The next area is the percentage of cases sent to prison for the offense of Aggravated Assault. These numbers shown in Figure 25 (page 21) vary from 66% in Circuits 21 and 29 to 22% in Circuit 22.
The information represented by these case studies show the tremendous disparity in sentence length as well as the percentage of those sent to prison from one end of the state to the other. These offenses are prosecuted under the same statutes; but as shown, the disposition of each case can be very different. The factors controlling and driving these types of practices must be considered for true criminal justice reform and subsequent justice reinvestment to take place.
Page 20

49 Judicial Circuits 49 Judicial Circuit

Aggravated Assault

Avg Prison Sentence (Yrs)

since 2000

1

9.58

2

7.17

3

9.48

4

7.97

5

7.41

6

7.38

7

7.88

8

8.22

9

8.73

10

8.67

11

9.36

12

8.88

13

9.94

14

9.55

15

9.01

16

8.97

17

7.83

18

8.15

19

8.38

20

8.77

21

7.88

22

11.67

23

8.94

24

8.85

25

10.19

26

6.70

27

7.11

28

10.61

29

8.87

30

10.70

31

7.55

32

7.03

33

10.30

34

8.85

35

11.24

36

12.07

37

12.92

38

9.64

39

6.89

40

7.96

41

9.05

42

8.14

43

9.56

44

8.87

45

9.72

46

6.38

47

8.60

48

9.40

49

9.27

0

5

10

15

Length of Sentence

Figure 24: Aggravated Assault Avg. Prison Sentence

Aggravated Assault

% Incarcerated by Circuit

since 2000

1

28%

2

40%

3

36%

4

55%

5

44%

6

45%

7

43%

8

40%

9

30%

10

51%

11

42%

12

38%

13

35%

14

51%

15

57%

16

40%

17

51%

18

44%

19

29%

20

26%

21

66%

22

22%

23

33%

24

34%

25

38%

26

43%

27

58%

28

38%

29

66%

30

56%

31

54%

32

41%

33

55%

34

46%

35

35%

36

31%

37

47%

38

26%

39

46%

40

46%

41

37%

42

43%

43

52%

44

55%

45

38%

46

51%

47

31%

48

64%

49

37%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

% to Prison Figure 25: Aggravated Assault % to Prison

Page 21

Page 22

Justice Reinvestment The Main Goal

The Department, as every state agency, has faced repeated cutbacks and there is no "new" money on the horizon. Consequently each agency's goal is to do more with less. To do this the

Operating Cost of Adult Offender Sanctions (FY 09)

Cost per day

Prison Avg

$45.21

Probation Detention Center (PDC)

$48.54

Department had to fundamentally rethink the Transition Center

$36.08

traditional approach to corrections and reengineer the processes by which offenders are supervised. The goal of this reengineering

Probation Substance Abuse Tx Center Day Reporting Center

$48.54 $16.39

is to reinvest through cost-saving and cost- Community Supervision (Intensive)

$3.93

cutting measures in the Georgia justice

system. The resources saved by these Community Supervision

$1.22

measures are being re-invested into more cost

effective supervision and incarceration alternatives. What will be discussed in the pages to

come is the correctional philosophy and as well as much of the policy that has been adopted by

the Department of Corrections.

Reducing recidivism should always be a goal of any justice reinvestment process as it is a key indicator of the effectiveness of supervision and programming techniques. A 1% reduction in recidivism can generate millions of dollars of savings within a corrections system as large as Georgia's.

A recent report by the PEW Center on the States entitled State of Recidivism studied recidivism and found a drop in recidivism nationwide (for those states reporting) from 45.4 % in 1999 to 43.3% in 2004 - a drop of 2.1% in 5 years. Georgia was above the national average and showed a decrease in the numbers it posted. In the study of the years 1999 and 2004, 16,951 and 18,972 offenders were released, respectively. Of these releases, there was a 38% recidivism rate during the 1999 to 2002 reporting period and a 34.8% recidivism rate in the 2004 to 2007 period a reduction of 3.2%. (The PEW Center on the States, 2011)

Figure 26 (page 24) shows, by percentage, the reason those offenders were returned to prison. There were three categories used - those committing a new crime, those committing a technical violation and those that did not return at all during the three year reporting period. As shown fewer offenders were returned to prison for the 2004 reporting period for both new criminal violations (1%) and technical violations (2%) with almost two-thirds of the offenders not returning at all. (The PEW Center on the States, 2011)

Page 23

Georgia Recidivism Reduction
1999 vs 2004

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1999 8%

30%

62%

2004 7%

28%

65%

New Crime Technical Violation No Return
Figure 24: PEW Report - Recidivism Rates
What factors affect recidivism rates and how can Georgia work to have a greater reduction in these numbers? Sentencing policy past, present and future - and community corrections policy are two main factors addressed in this report. Already shown is the effect that past sentencing policy and legislation has had. The Department has taken a long hard look at its policy for community supervision as well as for facility operations and is seeing positive change in many areas. This change, the impact it has had and will continue to have will be discussed in detail throughout this report.

"By reducing the rate of offenders who return to prison, we keep our communities safer, our families
more intact, and we're able to begin reinvesting incarceration costs to other critical services."
Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear(D) January 4, 2011
(The PEW Center on the States, 2011)
Page 24

Admissions
x 10 Step Framework x Community Alternatives x Specialty/
Accountability Courts
Length of Stay JAIL
x Standardized Sentence x E-Packets x Proactive Assessment
Length of Stay DIAGNOSTICS
x Logistics/ Infrastructure
x Paperwork/ Communication
x Shortened Intake Process
x Transportation Hubs
Length of Stay STATE PRISON
x Sentencing Practices x Coastal Cat II x Other Target Areas
Aging/MH Population Faith Based Dorms
Private Providers Parole
Collaboration
Goals
x Reduce Avg Daily Population & Operating
Costs

Reducing Admissions and/or Length of Stay (LOS) = Savings
Much of the opportunity for savings lies in reducing prison population. In past years prison admissions have been as high as 21,000 per year with releases of only 18,000 - a net gain of 3,000 offenders per year - a rate neither the prison system nor the taxpayers could sustain. These same numbers from calendar year 2010 show a marked improvement with admissions being 20,059 and releases 21,290, a net decrease of over 1,200 offenders. This is a trend in the right direction that must continue for the Department to accomplish the reinvestment goals it has set for itself. (GDC, 2010)
Currently prison population and backlog (those cases held in county jails) fluctuate between 55,000 and 60,000. With the departmental budget at almost $1.1 billion, reducing the average daily population in prison can produce tremendous savings.
By looking at the flowchart to the left you can see there are four areas in which the Department is working toward the ultimate goal of reducing the prison population and creating cost saving measures. These areas are:
x Admissions (Pre-Admission) x Length of Stay (LOS) in County Jails x LOS in Diagnostic Facilities x LOS in Prisons
The first area is Admissions--more properly termed Pre-Admission. This is any case that has not yet been sentenced to serve time in the prison system. The second area of influence is the length of stay at the county jails--shortening the length of time sentenced offenders are spending in the county jails before they enter the state prison system to begin service of their sentence. The third area of influence would be the
Page 25

length of stay at diagnostics--more quickly determining an offender's needs and risks and getting them into the proper institution and programming. The last area is length of stay in the state prisons--reducing the time offenders are remaining in custody without compromising the Department's core value of public safety.
Page 26

5,378 5,395 5,115 4,361 4,426 4,974
5,536 5,831 6,351 6,965 6,625 6,241 6,114 5,861
5,587 5,785 6,030
5,436 5,192 5,031 4,047 4,363 4,168 4,379 4,082 4,370 4,014 4,189 4,363

Georgia crime rates have steadily decreased yet prison and probation populations continue to steadily rise. Figure 27 shows the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) for the State of Georgia since 1980 (Georgia Bureau of Investigation, 2011). The UCR is a measuring stick of violent and property crimes committed per 100,000 in population. The graphic below represents the total of all violent and property crimes in Georgia since 1980.
Total Crimes per 100K population
(State of Georgia only) 7500 7000 6500 6000 5500 5000 4500 4000

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 25: Total Crimes Per 100K Population
As shown there has been a steady decrease in overall crime rates since the late 80s and early 90s. Factors affecting these trends include but are not limited to the following:

x Population density and degree of urbanization Fact: with size of locality and its surrounding area

x Variations in composition of the population,

"During the past 10 years, all 19

particularly youth concentration

states that cut their imprisonment

x Stability of population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and

rates also experienced a decline in their crime rates."

transient factors x Modes of transportation and highway system

(The PEW Center on the States, 2011)

x Economic conditions, including median

income, poverty level, and job availability

x Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics

x Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness

x Climate

x Effective strength of law enforcement agencies

x Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement

Page 27

x Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial and correctional)
x Citizens' attitudes toward crime x Crime reporting practices of the citizenry (North Carolina Department of Justice, 2011)

However, as shown in Figure 28 and 29, the prison and probation populations continue to grow. There are many factors that contribute to this and they will be discussed in the coming pages.

53,825

54,645

54,215

56,068

54,188

60,000

Georgia Prison Population Growth
since 1971

50,402

49,210

48,113

48,229

47,136

45,119

42,807

40,151

37,463

36,099

50,000

35,174

34,304

28,967

26,136

24,590

23,270

21,998

19,921

19,750

18,956

17,649

16,950

16,500

15,781

Population

40,000

30,000

13,856

13,638

13,606

12,854

13,376

13,010

12,641

11,230

10,351

9,520

9,216

20,000

10,000

0

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

1987

1986

1985

1984

1983

1982

1981

1980

1979

1978

1977

1976

1975

1974

1973

1972

1971

Population 133,654
122,763 121,522
125,743 128,168 128,057 137,423 142,501 154,130 154,218

Figure 26: Georgia Prison Population Growth

160,000

Georgia Probation Population Growth Since 2000

155,000 150,000 145,000

13.3 % increase since 2000

140,000

135,000

130,000

125,000

120,000

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Figure 27: Georgia Probation Population Growth

Page 28

73%

2010

Percentage of Split Prison

Sentences bPyeJrucdeincitaalgCeirocfuSitpsliitnPceris2o0n00
Sentences

by Judicial Circuit since 2000

1

62.3%

2

51.1%

13

62.36%7.4%

24

51.1%

78.4%

35

53.7% 67.4%

46

62.0% 78.4%

57

53.7%61.8%

68

62.0%69.4%

79

6612.8.9%%

180

35.8%

69.4%

191

6612..59%%

1102

35.84%1.8%

1113

61.5% 81.6%

1124

41.8% 58.2%

1135

54.7%

81.6%

1146

58.2% 68.7%

1157

54.7% 67.6%

1168

656.85.%7%

1179

676.96.%9%

1280

54.3%65.5%

1291

697.93%.6%

2202

54.3%63.5%

2213

50.9%

73.6%

2224

55.0%63.5%

2235

50.9% 63.0%

2246

35.3% 55.0%

2257

42.3% 63.0%

2268

35.3%

77.9%

2279

42.3% 56.0%

2380

70.97%7.9%

2391

565.09%.0%

3302

34.4%

70.9%

3313

59.0%

83.7%

3324

34.44%0.1%

3335

55.2%

83.7%

3346

40.1%

66.7%

3357

55.529%.8%

3368

66.7% 84.6%

3379

16.5%

59.8%

3480

8845.6.3%%

3491

16.5%

58.3%

4402

80.805%.3%

4413

58.3% 78.3%

4424

80.803%.9%

4435

60.5% 78.3%

4446

31.6%

83.9%

4457

6600..51%%

4468

31.6% 51.8%

4479

60.1%68.2%

48

51.8%

Figure4299: % of Split Prison Sentences by Judicial6C8i.r2c%uit since 2000

Figure 29: % of Split Prison Sentences by Judicial Circuit since 2000

1989

57%

1990

55%

1991

51%

1992

48%

1993

47%

1994

46%

1995

44%

1996

43%

1997

46%

1998

47%

The split sentences and long probated sentences have contributed to the steady increase of prison and probation populations.
Percent of prison departures with probation to follow (split sentences)
1989 - 2010
Figure 28: Percent of Prison Departures with Probation to Follow (1989-2010)
Figure 30 demonstrates how the use of split sentences declined during the early 90's. But as the "Get Tough on Crime" and "Truth in Sentencing" came into play, the use of split sentences increased.
Figure 31 illustrates the percentage of split prison sentences by judicial circuit since 2000. As noted there are some judicial circuits utilizing split sentences as little as 16.5% of time while other circuits use split sentences over 80% of the time.

1999

48%

2000

49%

2001

50%

2002

51%

2003

50%

2004

48%

2005

50%

2006

51%

2007

53%

2008

55%

2009

65%

Page 29

Percentage of Sentences with Probation to Follow (Split Sentences) CY 2010

Figure 32 shows the average percentage of cases per circuit that were ordered to serve a split sentences during the calendar year 2010. The statewide average for 2010 was 71.4 % of

all cases were ordered to serve some portion

1

67.9%

of their sentence in prison.

2

85.5%

3

77.8%

Not only is the use of split sentences at an all

4

88.6%

5

69.5%

time high, but many times the offenders also

6

77.3%

have lengthy probated sentences awaiting

7 8

60.8% 77.5%

them upon their release. Long probated

9

74.9%

sentences can become counter-productive.

10

58.5%

According to the PEW report State of

11

74.4%

12

41.7%

Recidivism, "States that have shorter periods

13

87.4% of post-prison supervision may have lower

14 15

61.2% 69.5%

rates of revocation to prison, because their

16

80.9%

offenders must comply with probation

17

74.5%

supervision rules for shorter periods." (The

18

63.4%

19

70.3%

PEW Center on the States, 2011)

20

51.4%

21

81.1%

22

70.3%

In Georgia many offenders complete the

23

64.8%

terms of their sentence within a few years

24 25

58.1% 70.3%

and are placed in unsupervised (also known

26

36.3%

as administrative) status. The offender is

27

59.7%

then in a holding pattern until their probation

28

83.0%

29

70.6%

expires in 10, 15, or 20 years. Many times the

30

80.2%

offender may commit a new crime and their

31 32

45.8%

69.3%

probation is reactivated and they then face

33

91.3% the new charges as well as probation violation

34

59.1%

charges.

35

70.3%

36

85.8%

37

76.5%

38

89.2%

39

20.3%

40

89.8%

41

76.5%

42

83.7%

43

88.0%

44

90.6%

45

72.4%

46

49.8%

47

69.8%

48

71.8%

49

66.1%

Figure 30: Percentage of Sentences with Probation to Follow (Split Sentences) CY 2010

Page 30

Number of Sentences

50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000
5,000 -

29,215 0 - 4.9

Probation Portions of Split Sentences since 2000
44,519

23,481

5 - 9.9

11,499

9,914

3,394

1,292

1,157

10 - 14.9 15 - 19.9 20 - 29.9 30 - 39.9 40 - 49.9 50 and up

Years to Serve (Probation)

Figure 31: Probation Portions of Split Sentences Since 2000

Figure 33 indicates the number of offenders sentenced since 2000 and the length of the probated sentences they must serve upon release. As shown, the majority of offenders have between five and fifteen years probation with some having probated sentences as long as fifty years. Long probated sentences after offenders have served a significant prison sentence can be counter-productive to future success.

Figure 34 (page 32) shows the average probation portion of a split sentence in years for calendar year 2010. As shown the lowest probated portion of a split sentence was 6.90 years in circuit 46 while circuit 25's average was 17.74 years - almost two and one half times the amount of time to serve.

Figure 35 (page 32) represents the average straight probation sentence in years since January of 2000. This is for a probated sentence only at the time of sentence. The statewide average for this time frame was 5.29 years on probated sentences. Circuit 46 was on the low end with an average of 3.66 years and circuit 22 was on the high end with 8.58 years.

Page 31

Avg Probation Portion of

Split Sentence (Yrs)

CY 2010 - Avg 11.1 years

1

11.51

2

13.73

3

13.14

4

11.28

5

8.44

6

10.13

7

14.03

8

10.10

9

12.85

10

9.78

11

12.41

12

8.64

13

14.71

14

9.43

15

8.90

16

7.92

17

11.20

18

9.67

19

12.89

20

8.75

21

9.79

22

16.21

23

11.43

24

9.45

25

17.74

26

8.05

27

9.15

28

16.22

29

8.20

30

15.32

31

13.06

32

10.04

33

13.89

34

8.80

35

14.54

36

17.44

37

11.00

38

15.14

39

7.05

40

11.01

41

8.89

42

10.76

43

12.43

44

12.83

45

12.15

46

6.90

47

9.58

48

7.80

49

12.28

Figure 32: Avg Probation Portion of Split Sentence CY 2010

Avg Straight Probation Sentence (Yrs)
since Jan 2000 - Avg 5.29 years

1

6.80

2

4.29

3

5.26

4

5.04

5

4.69

6

4.71

7

6.32

8

5.25

9

6.62

10

5.27

11

6.04

12

4.82

13

6.10

14

7.73

15

3.83

16

5.54

17

4.03

18

5.50

19

6.32

20

5.67

21

4.53

22

8.58

23

5.25

24

4.88

25

7.60

26

5.27

27

4.57

28

7.22

29

5.00

30

7.07

31

5.97

32

5.84

33

6.34

34

5.66

35

8.13

36

6.36

37

5.37

38

5.29

39

5.75

40

4.85

41

6.29

42

4.47

43

7.46

44

5.78

45

6.89

46

3.66

47

5.34

48

4.99

49

5.96

Figure 33: Avg Straight Probation Sentence Since Jan 2000

Page 32

To determine if prison-overcrowding could be influenced early in the process, the Department examined cases being admitted to prison each year. Prison admissions are comprised of four types of cases: probation revocations, parole revocations, court ordered to serve more than 2 years, and court ordered to serve less than 2 years. The numbers shown in Figure 36 are approximate yearly admission numbers for each of the categories shown.

Approximate Yearly Prison Admissions Total Admissions by Type, Number and Percentage

Court 2- years 4,000/19%

Probation Revocations 5,000/24%

Court 2+ years 8,000/38%

Parole Revocations 4,000/19%

Figure 34: Approximate Yearly Admissions by Category

Table 2 is a graphic representation showing anticipated cost savings by affecting prison admission and length of stay.

Admissions

Length of Stay

Population

A

1000 X

1 year =

1000 =

B

900 X

1 year =

900 =

C

1000 X

9 months =

750 =

Budget Impact $18,250,000 $16,425,000 $10,125,000

* Budget Impact based on $50 per day (actual cost is $49.35 per day in State Prison) Table 2: Anticipated Savings by Reducing Admissions and/or Length of Stay

In Line A, the example is given of 1,000 offenders entering the system for a one year LOS. At $18,250 per year per offender the total cost is $18,250,000. Leaving LOS at one year and reducing admissions by 10% or 100 offenders (Line B) can reduce the budget impact from $18,250,000 to $16,425,000 a savings of $1,825,000. In Line C the example is given of 1,000 offenders entering the system for only nine months rather than one year. This effectively reduces the population by one quarter for a savings of $8,125,000 from the original budget impact of over $18 million in Line A.

Page 33

Taking the principles used in the previous equations and applying them to the actual number of offenders received each year and the average serve time can show a tremendous cost savings as shown in Table 3.

Admissions

Length of Stay

Population

Budget Impact

D

21,000 X

3 years =

63,000 = $1,149,750,000

E

18,900 X

3 years =

56,700 = $1,035,770,000

F

21,000 X 30 months =

52,500 = $945,000,000

* Budget Impact based on $50 per day (actual cost is $49.35 per day in State Prison) Table 3: Anticipated Savings by Reducing Admissions and/or Length of Stay

In Line D, taking admissions of 21,000 and multiplying by a three year serve time, the average daily population is 63,000 with a total budget impact of $1,149,750,000. In Line E, using the three year serve time but reducing the population by ten percent brings admissions down to 18,900. This produces an average daily population of 56,700 and a budget impact of $1,035,770,000 with savings of over $113 million. Line F shows a reduction in serve time of 6 months (from 3 years to 30 months) and the population at 21,000. By reducing serve time by 6 months, the average daily population is reduced to 52,500 for a total budget impact of $945,000,000. A savings of over $200 million can be realized by something as small as a six month reduction. (GDC, 2011)

Page 34

Influencing Admissions:
The 10 Step Framework (GDC, 2010) A population that has shown steady growth is the probation population. In an effort to invest in community supervision and thus reducing the number of cases revoked to prison by probation and parole each year, the Department established a 10 Step Framework in March of 2009 with the stated goal of reducing recidivism while maximizing public safety and practicing sound public stewardship principles. The framework was based on a number of strategies recommended in studies by the PEW Center on the States and the Urban Institute. Below is a brief synopsis of each step of the framework.
1. Sort Offenders by Risk The Department partnered with the Justice Mapping Center to physically map both the probation and the prison populations. From this mapping, "hotspots" were identified in each judicial circuit as areas that held high concentrations of probationers and also historically contributed to prison admissions in higher than average numbers. (See Figure 37-38)
Each probation circuit has field supervision teams outfitted and trained to work independently in these hotspots while providing community based supervision in a "wego-to-them" model. These teams are outfitted with updated equipment such as cars with cages, radios, 3-G notebook computers, and standardized uniforms, promoting a more efficient manner for supervising the growing probation population. These officers are to be in the field supervising offenders rather than sitting behind a desk in the local probation office. (Click on maps below to go to Justice Mapping Center website.)

Figure 35: Prison Admissions by County (2008)

Figure 36: Fulton County Prison Admissions by Zip Code (2008)

Page 35

2. Community Impact Programs (CIP)

CIP Sites:

CIP programs are a collaborative effort between local law enforcement, Albany

probation, parole, juvenile justice as well as community providers of substance abuse, mental health, educational and employment based programs. The CIP Atlanta

model provides wrap-around services to probationers and parolees as well as Augusta those who may have maxed out in prison and are not under any form of supervision. The CIP programs have proven to be a cost-effective alternative Columbus

while providing much needed services to offenders as well as reducing Dalton recidivism in probation populations.

Gainesville

3. Evidence Based Programming Evidence Based Programming is programming that has been proven through Macon

research to be effective. In a commitment to the offender and the community, Rome the Department assessed each program that was being delivered throughout

the state either at a probation office or a facility. Any program that did not

have research to support its effectiveness was discontinued and replaced with a

program that did.

A key part of this process was to assign counselors to each judicial circuit and Day Reporting Center (DRC). This ensures the offender is enrolled in the program or programs most suited to their needs. Since many of the facilities that have been closed had staff already trained in general/mental health counseling, the Department has transferred many of these counselors to DRC and probation offices. This is another example of redirecting resources in an effort to combat a problem on the front end (probation) rather than on the back end (prison).

4. GDC Sentencing Model/Specialty Courts The Department has developed a sentencing model that demonstrates the sentencing spectrum on which a case can move up or down based on their risk and needs. The model encompasses the alternatives and programs offered by the Department as well as the specialty courts. This model is used to guide officers to the appropriate sanction based on the offenders needs and offer a more cost effective continuum of sanctions to the judiciary.

Page 36

Each offender is assessed using the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) instrument. The COMPAS is a statistical and actuarial based tool used to assess and prioritize the overall risk the offender presents to the community. The COMPAS does this by assessing criminogenic factors such as criminal history, associates and attitude. It also looks at needs in areas such as vocation and education when preparing its overall assessment of an individual. This assessment allows an officer to accurately identify areas of need for an individual and tailor a supervision plan to those needs providing effective and individualized supervision of that offender. The data gathered by COMPAS could also be used in the future to populate and generate a Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI) for the Courts. The information gathered in the PSI is used by the Courts to make the best decision as to the disposition of a case
Page 37

Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) Risk Assessment
To complement this supervision model, the Department has partnered with Applied Research Services (ARS) and is developing an automated risk assessment. This risk assessment when fully functional will assess each offender based on their risks, needs and progress while under supervision and will update itself as these factors change. Those changes will be based on input into the Statewide Correctional Repository and Information System (SCRIBE) generated from a number of different sources. This risk assessment will foster efficiencies in field supervision and promote effective case management. Specialty Courts are another area that Department supports in an effort to effectively supervise offenders. There are currently over 30 Felony Drug Courts and 11 Family Dependency Treatment Courts operating through the Superior Court systems in Georgia in either a pre- or post-adjudication model (Figure 39 page 40). At one time these were simply called drug courts. They have expanded to other areas besides substance abuse and are more often being called accountability courts. Mental Health, Family Violence, and Veterans Courts are just a few of the newer genres of courts beginning to emerge. These courts are a coordinated effort between the local judiciary, prosecution,
Page 38

defense bars, probation, law enforcement and community providers of social services, behavioral health and substance abuse treatment. Accountability courts seek to hold an individual accountable for their actions and behavior by going through intensive treatment, frequent drugs screens and regular appearances before the Judges to give updates on their progress. (Georgia Accountability Courts, 2011)
Figure 37: Georgia Accountability Courts Click on map to go to website
Page 39

The Department is actively promoting involvement with the Accountability Courts. Departmental representatives are regular presenters at the Georgia Drug, DUI and Mental Health Conference and seek to be an active participant in the ongoing efforts of these courts. Accountability Courts have proven effective in terms of services provided and cost savings to the community. A recent study on the recidivism rates of Georgia drug court graduates from 2005 showed a recidivism rate of 7% for drug court graduates, compared to 15% for probation and 29% for state prisons. (Georgia Accountability Courts, 2011)
Accountability courts are much more cost effective than the incarceration alternative. According to the National Drug Court Institute, for every $1 spent on drug court, $2.14 is saved in criminal justice cost. In Georgia, it costs almost three and a half times more to house someone in a close security prison ($14,476) than it does for them to participate in a drug court ($5,275). (Judicial Council Standing Committee on Drug Courts, 2008) The Department benefits both fiscally and as a community partner by utilizing these courts and being an active participant in their processes.
5. Utilize Technology to Improve Efficiencies and Enhance Supervision Technology can be used to assist officers as they supervise offenders in the community. The Department maintains the best available technology so officers will be better equipped to perform their jobs both in the office and the field.
Over 400 3G Mini Notebooks are deployed in several areas of probation. The field supervision teams use them to enter case information in the field as supervision occurs and also to look up offenders when working with local law enforcement. As an added benefit several teams utilize field fingerprint identification systems that allow offender identification in the field thus promoting officer safety. The Mini Notebooks are also used by Probation Officer Sentencing Specialists and court teams to provide real time case information to the Courts and prosecutors. Over 500 Blackberry phones allow for better communication in the field, thus promoting officer safety. The Department has also partnered with Google Earth to map caseloads so that officers can more effectively supervise their probationers. Creating a virtual office in a vehicle and only coming to the probation office when necessary. (Figure 40 page 42 - Zip Code 31705 East Albany.)
Page 40

Example of Mapping Offenders using Google Earth
Figure 38: Mapping of Offenders Using Google Maps
The Probation Reporting Contact Center (PRCC) is an example of technology benefiting the officer and the offender while reducing costs. Began in early 2010, the PRCC allows low-risk offenders to report via telephone to call handlers. The system is completely automated with Interactive Voice Response (IVR) technology allowing the majority of the calls to be answered by computer and the appropriate case notes to be automatically made directly into the SCRIBE computer system. The cases assigned to PRCC will be supervised and monitored by designated officers, who will be able to handle more cases with the use of technology. This system is designed to take up to 40,000 of the low-risk offenders and completely automate their supervision. As PRCC officers assume larger caseloads, more officer positions can be reassigned to field supervision teams. 6. Impose Swift, Certain and Proportionate Sanctions The Probation Options Management Act (POM) of 2004 created an innovative pilot program allowing the Department of Corrections to administratively sanction
Page 41

misdemeanor and technical probation violators. In April of 2009, SB 24 instituted POM as a permanent state-wide sentencing alternative. POM has five overarching goals:
x Enhance public safety via the application of swift, certain and proportionate sanctions to violations.
x Reduce the amount of jail time between arrests and application of sanctions. x Reduce the amount of time spent in court on technical probation violation
hearings. x Expand alternatives to make use of non-custodial options for technical violations. x Reduce recidivism by ensuring swift and certain response to all violations.
To utilize POM, Judges sentence a probationer to a period of probation under POM, setting a sanctioning ceiling for any future misdemeanor or technical violations. The sanction ceiling or limit is typically the Probation Detention Center or the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Center.

If a probationer violates the conditions of probation, the Department can impose administrative sanctions as an alternative to judicial revocation. Violations are either disposed of via a waiver or a hearing with a POM Hearing Officer within 15 days of arrest. Hearings may be held in either a custodial or non-custodial setting.

POM allows sanctions for probation violations to be applied more swiftly, significantly shortening the amount of time probationers spend in a local jail awaiting a revocation hearing. The backlog of technical violations pending before the courts is reduced as well as the amount of time judges and officers spend in court handling revocations.

The overall goal of POM is to promptly correct the behavior of troublesome probationers, thereby reducing recidivism and protecting the public. There are currently over 16,500 cases sentenced under POM, and since its inception over 4,400 sanctions have been handled through POM. That is 4,400 cases that would have otherwise ended up on a court docket.

Sanctions per Year

POM Sanctions Imposed

1500 1000
500 0

86 2005

341 2006

708 2007

1072 2008

818 2009

1198 2010

Figure 39: POM Sanctions Imposed Since 2005

Page 42

In 2007, Applied Research Services (ARS) studied POM to see if it was meeting the legislative goals. ARS found that POM was meeting the goals as stated and Figures 42 and 43 demonstrate savings in the particular areas of time spent in jail and the jail cost associated with those stays in jail.

Comparison of Days in Jail POM vs Non-POM case

Days in Jail with POM

Days in Jail on non-POM case

34

28

30

31

6

8

8

10

Number of Days in Jail

Macon Clayton Rome

Tifton

Judicial Circuits participating in POM Pilot

Figure 40: Median Days in Jail Between Arrest and POM Disposition

Figure 41: County Jail Costs - POM vs. Non-POM Cases

7. Awards/Incentives for Probation Officers/Offenders One recommendation of the PEW report was to incentivize staff and offenders. In response to that recommendation, there are awards which recognize probation staff that have excelled in their job performance. Also POST certified Field Training Officer (FTO) positions facilitate the positive growth and development of new probation staff as they begin their career.
For the offender, a number of incentives were developed from recommendations by a panel of Superior Court Judges. These incentives can be used by probation staff as well as the Courts. It can be as simple as a certificate of achievement or as rewarding as returning back in front of the Court for positive praise and possible early terminations. The goal is to incentivize offenders to adhere to the conditions of their probation.
8. Seamless transition from incarceration to probation (Re-Entry) Several different things facilitate a smooth transition from prison back to probation and/or parole. A re-entry checklist is associated with each prison case so that prison staff can assess the needs of the offender upon their pending release and begin addressing them prior to the actual release. Release notification procedures between prisons, probation, and parole push the offender information to the field prior to the actual release. Each office knows who is being released, where they are being released,

Page 43

and what their supervision requirements

will be. Points of contact in each office, prison and within any area that affects the successful re-entry of these cases facilitate the smooth progression towards release

"Although the roots of MPRI were clearly in a budget crisis, it was never only about saving money it was a belief

into society. Also when released, an that doing corrections `right' would

offender is supervised at higher levels of result in a smaller prison system and

supervision for at least the first 90 days to large savings. We had to change our

ensure a smooth and effective transition of entire culture to focus on success."

the offender back into society.

Patricia L. Caruso

Former Director

The State of Michigan has taken a new approach to re-entry with its prison

Michigan Department of Corrections (The PEW Center on the States, 2011)

population. Their effort is called the

Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative (MPRI).

As in Georgia the key premise is that

reentry begins at intake. Offender's needs

are assessed and they are enrolled in

programming to address these needs. This reentry process follows them through a

reentry facility and onto community supervision. By following this program Michigan

has seen a drop in its recidivism rates of 18 percent between 1999 and 2004 and overall

MPRI graduates are returning to prison 33 percent less frequently than similar

offenders. Due to the success of this program the Parole and Commutation Board has

been able to release more offenders to the program in an effort to build on the

improvement already seen. (The PEW Center on the States, 2011)

9. Probation Accountability Report/COMPSTAT The Probation Accountability Report (PAR) is a reporting mechanism within The Department's SCRIBE computer system that shows a snapshot of the progress of each case toward its supervision goals on a day-to-day basis. The report allows anyone-- management and officers alike--to drill down in the report and see what actions have been taken with a particular case for the month. It is broken into a number of different levels (circuit, office, officer and individual case) to accomplish this. This report is continually being tweaked to improve its efficiencies and the information it delivers to the field. It has become a vital part of an officer's supervision tools. Figure 44 shows a mock up example of the Probation Accountability Reports. Note the color coding for quick visual assessment of case standing for the month.

Page 44

GDC ID

Name

432231 Adams, John 5551212 Anderson, Jason 800987 Bacon, Steve
321123 Brown, Bill 10008876 Canady, Michelle
675178 Daniels, Edna 891314 Folsom, Trent 123098 Grimsley, Sam 9911345 Hall, Susie

PROBATION ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT SCREENSHOT

Supv. Level/Type

Custody Status

Probation End Empl
Date

Last Case Note

Last COMPAS Assessment
TCUDS COMPAS Dates VR F0

Last TCUDS

Last Drug Screen

Programs

Court Financials

Total Due Paid This Ed RR Total Owing
this Month Month

Standard / Warrant Tolled /

Not in Custody / Not in Custody /

4/24/2019 4/23/2013

TCUDS -

RELATIVELY

05/21/08

FO 4/20/11 5 8 3 6

SEVERE DRUG 02/14/11

COMPAS

PROBLEM SCORE 5

05/22/08

CT 12/12/10

01/17/06

$225.00

$100.00 $100.00

$0.00

$0.00

Warrant Tolled /

Not in Custody /

CA 5/25/10

$895.00

$0.00

$0.00

Standard / Standard / Medium / Warrant Untolled / Standard / Warrant Untolled /

Not in Custody /

9/1/2020

TCUDS

RELATIVELY

FO

06/17/08

5 5 5 10

SEVERE DRUG 02/02/11

03/02/11

COMPAS

PROBLEM SCORE 6

06/17/08

Not in Custody /

2/28/2013

FO 3/10/11

03/02/11

Muscogee County CI / Bed: Assigned

10/19/2024

Not in Custody / Not in Custody / Not in Custody /

5/24/2017 7/1/2015 11/2/2011

TCUDS

08/03/10

FF 3/11/11 6 5 7 9

NONE

COMPAS

08/03/10

CA

08/13/09

TC

03/02/11

CA

02/23/11

Figure 42: Probation Accountability Report Screenshot

SCORE 0
02/04/11 01/03/11

$175.00

$45.00

$30.00

$4,220.00 $100.00 $50.00

3 $8,478.42 $65.00

$0.00

$0.00 $1,807.00 $5,675.00

$0.00 $82.00 $75.00

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00

The PAR report is a large part of the COMPSTAT process. COMPSTAT stands for "comparative statistics" and is a law enforcement strategy adopted by the New York Police Department in 1994. (WordIQ.com, 2010) It involves the mapping of crimes, identifying "hotspots" and problems, and ultimately devising solutions. This strategy has been replicated by the Department, resulting in regular meetings where management and field supervisors take an in-depth look at all facets of probation supervision through statistical analysis. Regional COMPSTATs are held quarterly with Executive leadership; each Field Operations Manager hold monthly COMPSTATs with the Probation Chiefs. The Probation Chiefs in turn hold weekly COMPSTATS with their offices. These reviews have led to improved efficiencies in many areas including probationers' employment, payments and drug screening.

10. Probation Legislation The goal of this initiative is to research existing legislation in other states that could possibly be adopted or adapted within Georgia to meet the needs of Probation Operations. On April 22, 2011, HB 265 was signed into law establishing the Criminal Justice Reform Council. In deference to the work expected from the Council, no legislative initiatives were pursued in 2011. The Council is expected to recommend significant legislative changes to the 2012 General Assembly defining how the Georgia criminal justice system should operate. The Department is whole-heartedly committed to the Criminal Justice Reform effort and is making every effort to lead the way with the changes that will occur.

Page 45

Influencing Admissions:

Probation Substance Abuse Treatment Centers (PSATC) (Residential In-Patient Treatment)

The Probation Substance Abuse Treatment Center (PSATC) program is an innovative way

PSATC Locations

to divert chronic drug users from hard prison

1. Bainbridge (Male)

beds to soft community treatment beds. The

2. Northwest (Male) Walker SP

PSATC is a six-month residential substance

3. Arrendale (Female) Lee Arrendale SP

abuse treatment program which targets

high-risk, high-need offenders with a history of substance abuse. This program is based on the

Therapeutic Community Model, which has proven to be an effective form of treatment for

substance abusers. The design is specific to the needs and risk factors commonly associated

with substance abusers. The primary goal is for the program participants to learn real-life ways

to help them live a pro-social, productive life free of alcohol and other drugs and crime. (GDC,

2010) There are currently almost 800 offenders receiving services in the PSATCs.

Day Reporting Centers (DRCs)

Day Reporting Centers provide

DRC Locations

intensive substance abuse treatment

for offenders that are sentenced by the 1. Athens DRC/Western Judicial Circuit

Courts. These offenders typically have 2. Atlanta Metro DRC/Atlanta Judicial Circuit

not responded to more traditional 3. Augusta DRC/Augusta Judicial Circuit

supervision and treatment efforts. The 4. Clayton DRC/Clayton Judicial Circuit

program includes components such as 5. Columbus DRC/Chattahoochee Judicial Circuit

substance abuse counseling, cognitive 6. Gainesville DRC/Northeastern Judicial Circuit

restructuring, adult basic education, 7. Griffin DRC/Griffin Judicial Circuit

employment, enhancement, intensive 8. Macon DRC/Macon Judicial Circuit

supervision, and community service. 9. Northwest DRC/Conasauga Judicial Circuit

Substance Abuse Aftercare Services 10. Rome DRC/Rome Judicial Circuit

(SAAS) follows the programming 11. Rouse DRC/Waycross Judicial Circuit

delivered at the DRC, thereby helping 12. Thomasville DRC/Southern Judicial Circuit

offenders transition back into the 13. Tifton/Tifton Judicial Circuit

community and successfully complete

their probation supervision. While the

DRCs are more costly than regular field supervision, they operate at only a fraction of the cost

of a residential alternative. An initial study of DRCs completed in July 2010 suggests that

participants in DRCs are less likely to reoffend than those not in DRCs. Additional DRCs will be

located strategically throughout the state as funding is available. At 100 offenders per center,

up to 1300 offenders are working daily toward their goals of staying clean and becoming

productive citizens.

Page 46

Figure 45 shows the treatment effect for DRCs for a 30 month period. Treatment effect is defined as the effect a program has on reducing recidivism. In this case, the offenders receiving treatment at the DRC have shown a positive result by not failing supervision in the months and years after their completion of the DRC. The percentage of offenders failing probation supervision after completion is significantly lower in each category.
Treatment Effect for DRCs
Probationers Completing in 2007-2008

% of Probationers Failing Supervision

60%

40%

20%

31%

0% 6 months

DRC Probationers Non-DRC Probationers

45%

41%

43%

45%

24% 12 months

19% 18 months

18% 24 months

43% 19% 30 months

Figure 43: Treatment Effect for DRCs

Probation Officer Sentencing Specialist (POSS) The Probation Officer Sentencing Specialist (POSS) officer serves as a liaison with the Courts. In March of 2008, the Superior Court Judges were surveyed (1) to gauge their satisfaction with their knowledge of the Department of Corrections and (2) to ascertain if a single point of contact would benefit them. The overwhelming majority of Judges said they were not happy with their knowledge of the Department and a point of contact would be of great benefit. The POSS officer designated in each judicial circuit is that point of contact. The POSS officers are to be knowledgeable about all facets of the Department including programming, counseling, and alternative wait times, etc. They share this information with the local shareholders such as the Court, District Attorney's office, Public Defenders, local law enforcement and community resource providers. The POSS officer makes this information available to the Court in an effort to assist them in making the most informed decision possible, thus influencing sentencing in a positive way. The POSS officers are trained quarterly to make sure they have the most up-todate and accurate information possible to present to the Courts.

Page 47

Revocation Policy and Practice Another area that the Department has taken a closer look at is its policy on revocations. They seek to adhere to the adage, "It has been said we have to make sure we are incarcerating those we are scared of and not those we are mad at." The Department does not seek revocation to prison on those cases that have violated their probation in a technical manner. Every effort is made to keep a case out of prison and supervised in the community. To ensure that consistent proportionate sanctioning is used with offenders, the Department developed the Consistent Sanctions Response Matrix (Matrix). The Matrix is a grid spreadsheet that takes into account the violations committed by the probationers and available sanctions. The Matrix ensures that all officers throughout the state are consistently applying the same sanctions for the same types of violations. The Matrix is designed to give the offender every available opportunity to successfully complete the terms and conditions of their probation successfully.
Page 48

Offenders sentenced by the Courts to prison are held in the local county jail until they can enter the prison system. Offenders not yet sentenced comprise about sixty percent of Georgia's jail population. Growth in the number of pre-trial offenders since the mid 1990's has been steep due to mandatory sentencing mentioned earlier and historically severe Parole polices. Offenders are willing to sit in jail longer awaiting trial rather than risk the uncertainty of a plea bargain and the possible associated prison sentence. Figure 46 compares those offenders awaiting trial (pre-trial) and those already sentenced to a state facility and awaiting pickup since 1993. (Carr T. S., 2011)

30,000

Jailer's Count Pre-Trial vs. State Inmates

25,000

State Offenders in County Custody

20,000 15,000 10,000

Offenders Awaiting Trial (Pre-Trial)
State inmates Awaiting Entry to the System

5,000

0

Jan-93 Jan-94 Jan-95 Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-11

Figure 44: Georgia Jail Population - Pre-Trial Offenders vs. State Offenders

Page 49

In an effort to save money and be more efficient in its processes, the Department is also attempting to influence the processes associated with the length of stay in jail. The length of stay is the amount of time a person spends in jail prior to entering the state prison system. There are numerous ways to calculate the number of state offenders in county jails depending on the purposes and parameters of the count. Figure 47 shows the difference between the county jail count and GDC count. An explanation for the difference follows.

7,000

County Jail Count vs. GDC count

6,000

1993 to Present

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

Jan-11 Jan-10 Jan-09 Jan-08 Jan-07 Jan-06 Jan-05 Jan-04 Jan-03 Jan-02 Jan-01 Jan-00 Jan-99 Jan-98 Jan-97 Jan-96 Jan-95 Jan-94 Jan-93

Jailer Count of 'State' Inmates

GDC Count of 'State' Inmates (Jail Backlog)

Figure 45: Two Different Views of "Jail Backlog"

Dr. Tim Carr, GDC Senior Researcher, puts it succinctly when describing Figure 47.

"The larger of the two counts, by the jailers, includes anybody who is serving any kind of state sentence who is in jail for any reason. The smaller count, GDC's, includes only those who have been committed to the state prison system and whose sentences or revocation orders have been received and certified by analysts in GDC's central office.

The two counts are different, but not discrepant. This is a matter of two governmental entities producing two different counts, each for its own legitimate purposes - GDC to count the number of offenders queued up to

Page 50

enter the state prison system, and the jailers to tally their populations into broad categories."

For more information on jail trends visit the Department of Community Affairs Jail Report archives by clicking on this link.

Table 4 shows why the jailers' count will always be larger than the Department's count.

Why the jailers' count is higher than GDC's
Type of jail offender Offenders sentenced to prison; sentence documents received and OK'd by GDC Offenders sentenced to prison whose documents are still with the Clerk of Court Parolees whose revocation orders have been received and OK'd by GDC Arrested parolees have not yet been revoked to prison Probationers whose revocation orders have been received and OK'd by GDC Probationers sentenced to jail-plus-street-time split sentences Probationers awaiting entry to GDC boot camps & detention centers Arrested probationers who have not yet been revoked
Table 4: Why the jailers' count is higher than GDC's

In jailers' count of
state offenders
Y E S Y E S Y E S Y E S Y E S Y E S Y E S Y E S

In GDC's Offender Jail
Backlog
Y E S No Y E S No Y E S No No No

The Department currently pays the counties a jail subsidy of $22 per day to house an offender that is awaiting pickup for a state facility. This subsidy begins 15 days after the Department receives the sentencing packet from the local clerk of court. (Neville, 2011) Based on the number of yearly prison admissions shown earlier in Figure 24, Figure 48 graphically represents the approximate cost of annual jail subsidy.

Annual Jail Subsidy Costs (in millions)
$5.6

$3.6

$3.9

$2.9

Probation Revocations

Parole Revocations Court 2+ years

Court 2- years

Figure 46: Approximate Annual Jail Subsidy Costs

From May of 2009 until September of 2010, the Department had on average 2,773 offenders in jail awaiting pickup. (GDC, 2010) This equates to $61,000 per day being paid out to the counties to house offenders until the Department can assume custody of them. Typically, an offender is housed in a county jail approximately 30-35 days before they are accepted and

Page 51

transported to Georgia Diagnostics and Classification Prison. (Neville, 2011) Offender population originates either from probation/parole revocations or direct sentences from court.
There are several ways the Department is seeking to actively influence how long prison bound cases stay in jail prior to entry into the system and to reduce the jail backlog by as many as 1500 cases. Two of these merge with current Clerk of Court practices, the other takes a proactive role in assessing the needs of offenders bound for prison.
Improving Current Court Practices
x Standardized Sentencing Court sentences are submitted from the 159 counties to the Department. The Department must then take these sentences and determine--or decipher--what the sentence was in each case. This can be difficult because of numerous types of sentences, illegible writing, and circuit specific terminology. Currently there is no statewide standardized sentence form. Many circuits, in fact many judges, use sentences of their own design that are specific to their circuit and their particular needs. The Department is currently working with the Georgia Council of Superior Court Judges to develop a statewide standardized sentencing form that would be used by all Superior Court Judges. This form has been reviewed by the Council and is in the process of being approved for use. Standardized sentencing would streamline the process for the Department as they receive new sentencing packets. (Neville, 2011)
x E-Packet Submission Another proposed change closely associated with the creation of a statewide sentencing document is the ability to submit the sentencing packets electronically. Currently the packets are prepared at the local level and mailed to the Department. The goal is for the Clerks or even the POSS officer to be able to submit the necessary information directly from the courtroom at the time of sentencing thus making receipt by the Department almost instantaneous.
Once the Standardized Sentencing and E-Packet system is approved, it will have to be implemented by each judicial circuit and county clerk. The results would be quicker processing of sentences by the Department, thus reducing the lag time in county jails between sentencing and pick-up by the DOC.
Proactive Offender Assessment The Department is also attempting to influence LOS in county jails by having a probation officer assess each offender to see what type of person they are dealing with and what their needs might be. On each case that is sentenced to prison, probation staff will go to the county jail and complete an assessment called the Corrections Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) and a Texas Christian University Drug Screen (TCUDS) on the
Page 52

offender within 15 days of sentencing. The information from these two assessments is then entered into SCRIBE. This allows anyone who takes part in the admission of this case into the system to see the specific risks and needs of that offender and adequately determine how to best meet these needs.
Page 53

Page 54

Admissions
x 10 Step Framework x Community
Alternatives x Specialty/
Accountability
Courts
Length of Stay JAIL
x Standardized Sentence
x E-Packets x Proactive
Assessment
Length of Stay DIAGNOSTICS
x Logistics/ Infrastructure
x Paperwork/ Communication
x Shortened Intake Process
x Transportation Hubs
Length of Stay STATE PRISON
x Sentencing Practices x Coastal Cat II x Other Target Areas
Aging/MH Population Faith Based Dorms
Private Providers Parole
Collaboration
Goals
x Reduce Avg Daily Population &
Operating Costs

4 Chapter
Influencing Length of stay at diagnostics

Each offender that enters the Georgia Prison System must complete the diagnostics program to be classified and receive a security level. They are assessed based on the type and nature of their offense, their past criminal history, and propensity for violence. They are further assessed for any substance abuse or medical needs. Much of this information has already been gathered at the local level by probation staff completing the COMPAS and the TCUDS on the offender. Based on the information gained during assessment, each offender is classified as close, medium or minimum security and transferred to the appropriate facility. Since time is money, reducing the LOS in the diagnostic process results in saved revenue.
At one time there were five facilities that conducted diagnostics. To streamline the process and to reduce duplication of effort, this has been reduced to one male classification facility at Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison (GDCP) and one female classification facility at Lee Arrendale State Prison.
Historically classification was a bottle neck within the admissions process that delayed persons being assigned to a facility. For a variety of reasons, the classification process was taking over 30 days to be completed and as few as 100 offenders per week were being classified. Backlog became more of an issue as more cases entered the system. A process action team (PAT) was formed to review the diagnostic/classification process and to make recommendations for improving the process. Once this team was established, they visited GDCP to review their diagnostic processes and determine how to shorten them. The team came away from their visits with numerous recommendations for Executive management which resulted in the following changes:
x Logistics/Infrastructure It was found that various parts of the diagnostic process were taking place at different sites within the prison, necessitating a great deal of movement of offenders. As with any movement of offenders, security was an issue. The recommendation was made and later implemented that as many parts of the diagnostics process as possible be co-located together, thus increasing the efficiency and creating a time and money savings.
x Paperwork/Communication The PAT found that a great deal of time was (1) spent filling out paperwork which had to follow the offender throughout the diagnostic and classification process and (2) that it was hard to keep all parties involved aware of an offender's diagnostic progression. One suggestion was to combine the Parole History Statement (PHS) with the COMPAS report to give a better picture of the individual being assessed--reasoning that the more information available, the more accurate the assessment and subsequent programming would be. The team's recommendation:
Page 55

(1) computerize as much of the information and forms as possible, and (2) create check-off forms to replace questionnaire forms that had to be answered in long-hand. These recommendations have been followed and much of the time-consuming paperwork and voluminous information is entered into SCRIBE where anyone with a need to know has access to it from anywhere in the state.
x Shortened Intake Process If an offender has been out of the system less than a year or is not going to be in the system long due to the length of sentence, they can be taken through a shortened intake process at Coastal State Prison. This is based on the premise that much of the information collected on them during their previous stay is still valid and does not need to be revisited. There are certain criteria an offender must meet to be eligible for referral to Coastal. A more detailed account of these qualifications is covered on page 58.
x Transportation Hubs Another part of the diagnostic process that caused problems was the actual transporting of the offenders from the county jails to a diagnostic facility. Transportation routes and trends were studied and adjusted so that Monday through Thursday became intake days for the diagnostic units. Regional hubs were also established so that local sheriff's offices could transport those offenders entering the system to a central location, and then GDC would transport them the remainder of the way to GDCP.
The implementation of these suggestions resulted in a decrease in the time it takes for an offender to complete diagnostics from over 30 days to 10 days, and in certain cases it can be completed in as little as 4 days. It also streamlined the process so that an average 100 offenders per day are being received for a total of 400 per week--quadrupling the previous rate. (Neville, 2011)
The goal in shortening length of stay at diagnostics has both monetary as well as tangible results. A streamlined diagnostics process allows offenders to be assessed and transported to the appropriate facility quickly reducing the jail backlog and associated costs.
Page 56

Admissions
x 10 Step Framework x Community
Alternatives x Specialty/
Accountability
Courts
Length of Stay JAIL
x Standardized Sentence
x E-Packets x Proactive
Assessment
Length of Stay DIAGNOSTICS
x Logistics/ Infrastructure
x Paperwork/ Communication
x Shortened Intake Process
x Transportation Hubs
Length of Stay STATE PRISON
x Sentencing Practices x Coastal Cat II x Other Target Areas
Aging/MH Population Faith Based Dorms
Private Providers Parole
Collaboration
Goals
x Reduce Avg Daily Population &
Operating Costs

5 Chapter
Influencing Length of
Stay in State Prison

There are a number of measures being taken to influence how long an offender stays in the prison system. While prisons serve many purposes there must be a careful balance between sufficient time served, cost-saving initiatives and the Department's

core mission of protecting the public. On one

hand, because of the "Get Tough on Crime" and the mandatory minimum sentences, offenders are now serving more of their prison time than ever before. Gone are the days when an offender served about a third of their sentence. They are now serving two-thirds or more of their court

Cost per day to house (Avg) Number of Days in Month (Avg) Cost per month to house 4 month sentence reduction Savings for one offender

$50 30
$1,500 4
$6,000

imposed sentences. Public perception says this is Table 5: Savings per offender for 4 month sentence reduction
a good thing, yet on the other hand, ways must

still to be found to reduce the staggering costs of

incarceration.

The Department began looking at ways to save money by influencing the length of stay in prison while still accomplishing the overarching goal of public safety while confining offenders. Several ideas were generated and are currently in various stages of implementation.

Sentencing in Months Rather than Years Sentencing in months rather than years was shown in Tables 2 and 3 to be an extremely costeffective practice. The Courts are creatures of habit and have settled into sentencing patterns, especially on split sentences. As seen earlier some very common prison sentence length patterns are evident at 5, 10, 15 and 20 years respectively when charted over a period of time.

Here is how sentencing in months rather than years could be beneficial. Take the example of 10 serve 2. This means the offender will serve the first two years in prison and the remaining eight years on probation. If they are released early by parole they will be supervised on parole for the remaining portion of that two year prison sentence, or their sentence may be commuted or reduced directly to probation. Once they complete parole, they will report to probation for at least two of the eight years and complete any court ordered conditions. If they complete all court ordered terms and conditions, they can be placed in unsupervised status at the end of two years or considered for early termination.

What if the Courts were to sentence this same person in months rather than years? Rather than 120 months serve 24 months, the Courts could sentence this same offender to 100 months serve 20. If this were to occur, the overall sentence has been reduced by 20 months-- almost two years--and the prison portion of this sentence has been reduced by only four months without compromising security. Though this sounds like a very short time with no great savings associated, the numbers tell a different story when multiplied out over thousands of sentenced offenders.

Page 57

Number of Offenders
Savings for a 4 month sentence reduction

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

$6,000 $6,000 $6,000

$6,000

$6,000

$6,000 $60,000 $600,000 $6,000,000 $60,000,000

Table 6: Savings for 4 Month Sentence Reduction Expanded
However slight it may seem, something as small as a four month reduction in a prison sentence can be a huge cost-saving measure. These types of reductions could apply not only to direct sentences from court but also to probation and parole revocations. As Department numbers show, prisons receive 9,000 commitments per year from probation and parole revocations. If a Court or the Parole Board traditionally ordered two years revoked, they could instead order 16 or 18 months revoked. Shaving a few months off each of the cases that are entering the prison system each year can equal big savings yet still meet the Department's core mission of protecting the public.

The usage of months in sentencing rather than years will take a while to implement due to the culture change associated with it. The local probation staff, specifically the Chief Probation Officers, Probation Officers III and the POSS officers will have to actively educate their judiciary as well as the prosecutors and public defenders for this to become a reality.

Coastal State Prison Category II Strategic Intervention Program (SIP) Another alternative to long stays in prison is the Coastal State Prison Category II Project (Coastal Cat II). (GDC, 2011) As previously stated, Coastal State Prison has been designated as a short term facility that has an abbreviated intake process for its SIP program. The programs offered at Coastal are designed to work with those offenders who will be in the system less than two years and have very specific needs such as substance abuse. Offenders sentenced to Coastal may be assigned to one of these programs to meet their specific needs. Should an offender be found to be ineligible for the programs offered at Coastal, they are transferred to an appropriate facility based on their needs and security classification. There are plans currently in place to develop a 100 bed Cat II program at Lee Arrendale dedicated to the treatment and programming of female offenders.

Coastal SP Strategic Intervention Program
Total Beds
SIP Total 972
IRP 500
RSAT 336
Boot Camp 146

The Strategic Intervention Program (SIP) is comprised of a six-month Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program, a 90-day Intensive Re-entry Program (IRP), and a two-year Faith and Character Based Program. The RSAT program lasts six-months and consists of four six-week phases.

Page 58

The Intensive Re-Entry Program (IRP) as part of the SIP program is a 90 day program that targets non-violent offenders with a history of substance abuse. The goal of IRP is to reduce recidivism by giving the offenders the tools they need to abstain from alcohol, drugs and criminal behavior once they are released. The SIP program currently houses 380 offenders.
The Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Center at Coastal State Prison has similar goals as the Probation Substance Abuse Treatment programs (page 46) and is a 6 month program targeting their substance abuse needs. To be eligible for Coastal, the offender must meet some very specific requirements: they must have a serve time of 24 months or less, a TCUDS score of 2 or more, no more than two prior felony incarcerations, no offenses of a sexual or violent nature, no drug manufacturing or trafficking offense, and no major health issues. (GDC, 2011) There are currently 336 offenders in the RSAT program.

"If two-thirds of public school students dropped out, or two-
thirds of all bridges built collapsed within three years, would citizens tolerate it? The
people of Georgia would never stand for that kind of failure. But that is exactly what is happening all across the United States in our prison
systems."
Newt Gingrich Former Speaker U.S. House of Representatives (Newt.org, 2010)

Parole Boot Camp Program is also located at Coastal State Prison. It is structured after a military boot camp regimen where the offenders work during the day doing public service work and attend rehabilitative programming during the evening. The program is ninety days in length and houses up to 146 offenders. The offender must be less than 35 years of age at sentencing and had no previous incarcerations in an adult institution, no known physical limitations, and no medical or mental conditions. Parole determines who is eligible for this program, and once they complete the program the offender is eligible to be released on parole regardless of their initial sentence length.

Figure 49 (page 60) shows the treatment effect of programs in the prison setting and the subsequent reduction in recidivism gained from these programs. Treatment effect is defined as the effect a program has on reducing recidivism. In this case the general population is the control group and received no treatment compared to those offenders receiving treatment in the given areas. As shown several of these programs have show a marked improvement in recidivism for offenders completing them while in prison. A trend the Department is capitalizing on as more treatment programs are offered to more offenders.

Page 59

Offender Recidivism

Treatment Effect from Programs
3 Year Felony Reconviction Rates for Program Completers vs. General Population

30%

26.6%

24.7%

25%

21.9%

20%

18.9%

17.6%

14.8%

15%

10%

5%

0%

General Population

Cognitive Behavioral

Residential Substance
Abuse Treatment

General

Georgia Vocational

Equivalency Correctional Programming

Diploma Industries

Programming Offered

Figure 47: Treatment Effect from Programs (Prison)

Other Target Areas: Several other aspects of the prison population are being targeted for improvement and cost savings. These facets are being studied and ways devised to better utilize prison space or various programs that will facilitate the release of offenders from the prisons.
Georgia Aging Offender Population A consequence now being seen from the Get Tough on Crime movement is the aging prison population. The National Institute of Corrections defines older offenders as those 50 years of age or older. The main factors contributing to the aging trend are more offenders are entering the system; they have longer sentences on average to serve; and less chance of an early release. Also as the general population of the Unites States ages, so does the prison population. With the large influx of Baby Boomers growing older, it is expected that the average age of the offender population will continue to grow. In 2002, one in ten offenders was above the age of 50; now that ratio is approximately one in eight or about 13% of the prison population (see Figure 50 page 61). (GDC, 2010)

Page 60

Georgia's Aging Inmate Population Age Group and % of Total Population

30-39 30%

40-49 24%

Other 14%

50-59 11%

20-29 31%

Under 20 2%

Figure 48: Georgia's Aging Prison Population

60-69 2%

70 + 0%
Not reported 0%

As the average age of an offender increases so do the challenges associated with managing this older offender. Older offenders are twenty times more likely to be assigned a medical bed and to need medical attention. There are a number of facilities, such as the former Bostic State Prison, currently being studied for the possibility of re-missioning them into assisted living facilities for these offenders. Placing offenders in need of medical care in a facility together will produce cost savings in terms of care, treatment and staffing.

Mental Health Population

The population of mental health offenders in the state prison system as well as on probation

rolls has steadily increased. As with all state agencies the Department of Human Resources has

experienced cutbacks and as a cost saving measure closed numerous mental health facilities.

Many persons who would or should be housed in a

mental health facility are living in our communities. Fact:

Unfortunately many of them self-medicate with street drugs rather than prescribed medications or turn to criminal methods to support themselves or their addiction. As these persons enter the prison system or are placed on probation, the Department becomes the

54 % of female offenders and 21% of male offenders in Day Reporting Centers are receiving Mental Health treatment.

de facto mental health care provider.

(DeGroot, 2010)

Page 61

Figure 51 is a chart showing the growth the Department has experienced in the prison settings. In a ten year period while the general population only grew by 14% the mental health population grew by 100%.
Mental Health Growth - Prison Population

Population in Thousands

60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000
0

40,797 4,500

56,499 9,000

1999 General Population(GP)

2010 Mental Health(MH)

Figure 49: Mental Health Growth in Prisons GP grew by 14% while MH grew by 100%
As the mental health populations have increased in the prison population they have similarly increased in the probation population. Figure 52 (page 63) shows the growth of the mental health population on the probation rolls since 2006. These numbers represent those mental health offenders released from prison with probation to follow. These numbers do not include any offenders placed on straight probation having never entered the prison system. While the mental health populations have been tracked for years in the prisons they have only recently been tracked in probation. A recent survey of Day Reporting Centers indicated 54% of female offenders and 21% of male offenders are receiving mental health services. Better reporting methods, as well as the placement of mental health counselors in Day Reporting Centers, have led to improvement in identifying and treating mental health issues. (DeGroot, 2010)

Page 62

# of MH Offenders released to probation each year

17,000 16,000 15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 10,000
9,000 8,000

Probation Mental Health Population
MH Offenders Released from Prison with Probation to Follow 2006-2010

9,425

10,272

11,287

13,573

2006

2007

2008

2009

Figure 50: Probation Mental Health Population

16,019 2010

Faith Based Dorms The Department has eleven dorms located at various prisons throughout the state that are designated as faith based. These dorms are non-denominational dorms that promote personal accountability and responsibility as well as programming to assist offenders in their rehabilitation. Assignment to these dorms is voluntary and must be requested by the offender. Offenders housed in these dorms are typically lower-risk, free of disciplinary problems and present fewer management problems to staff. This provides a more secure environment for the offender living in these dorms and the staff working them. Many times the Department will offer to transition an offender through a faith based dorm prior to release to help prepare them for their re-entry into society. The goal is to reduce recidivism while successfully promoting re-entry of the offender into society.
Private Providers The Department is currently making strides to involve private providers in community based efforts to supervise offenders. A good example of this is Grace Village, located in Perry, Georgia. Grace Village is a faith based partnership between Perry Volunteer Outreach, the City of Perry, the Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Program and the Department. It is a small group home where male and female offenders can be housed as they transition back into society. One added benefit to Grace Village is that the outreach is designed to house mothers and their small children thus reuniting families. (His Voice, 2006)
Another example of the Department's collaboration with private providers is the venture with Holly Tree Services. Holly Tree, located in Riverdale, Georgia, is a collaborative effort between

Page 63

many private and public sector providers. It provides alternative housing for those recently released from prison or being supervised on probation or parole. Holly Tree is designed to treat persons with addiction and substance abuse issues as well as those with mental health and also those with co-occurring disorders. Holly Tree also provides links to many other needed services such as education and community based supportive services. (Holly Tree, 2011) Many times when an offender is having difficulty establishing the required residence plan, they can utilize the services of Grace Village or Holly Tree.
Parole Collaboration Since many of the functions of parole and probation overlap, collaboration between the two departments allows both to accomplish complementary goals.
Tentative Parole Month There are currently over 4,500 offenders being held in prison past their Tentative Parole Month (TPM). TPM is the approximate date the offender can expect to be released. TPM can be affected by several things such as the offender's progress while incarcerated or an unacceptable residence plan.
An unacceptable residence plan or "problem residence" is when the offender does not have an approved place to stay upon their release. (The Parole Board, in order to provide the offender with the best chance for success upon release, does not release an offender from custody unless they have an approved place to stay.) Sometimes the offender's family has moved and cannot be located, or the offender has been convicted of a sex crime and is subject to the proximity laws. Many times the proximity laws prevent a convicted sex offender from living with family members and make it very difficult to locate a place to live.
The Chief Probation Officers in conjunction with the Chief Parole Officers work to find approved residences for many of these offenders. If they cannot be located with a family member, probation and parole staff attempt to locate places within the community where they can live and be in compliance with the proximity laws. Reducing the number of offenders being housed past their TPM due to unacceptable housing and other reasons is a top priority within the Department at this time.
Enhance Performance Incentive Credit Program (PIC) PIC or Work Incentive Program (OCGA 42-5-101)(for full version of the statute see Appendix E) is an offender performance incentive program. It was created in 1992 by the Georgia Legislature and can be used by the Parole Board to grant an early release. It is based on a grid system that takes into account the offense for which the offender is incarcerated and the offender's progress while incarcerated.
Page 64

By statute the PIC program allows day for day credit for an offender as they work off their sentence. Currently there is only the possibility of an offender being released four months early thus hampering the effectiveness of this program. Efforts are under way to enhance the PIC process so that an offender is incentivized to comply with supervision and treatment while in the facility. The goal is to enhance this program so that an offender can gain credit at the rate of day for day past the currently allowed four month maximum. The statute also allows the Board to take into consideration those offenders who have refused to participate in the program when considering their parole and not granting them an early release. (Georgia State Board of Pardons and Parole, 2011)
Commuting Certain Sentences to Probation Another consideration in collaboration with Parole is the possibility of commuting certain types of sentences straight to probation. As a general rule when an offender is released from prison they will have some period of parole supervision. This is essentially serving the remainder of their prison sentence in the community. The only cases that will not have parole supervision to follow are those cases that max out. Maxing out is when an offender serves their entire prison sentence and will have no parole supervision and may not have any probation supervision depending on their initial sentence.
The Department and Parole are working together regarding cases that have a short period of parole supervision by asking the Parole Board to commute the remainder of their sentence directly to probation. This would effectively end the prison portion of their sentence and send them to probation to be supervised. While not all cases would be appropriate for this option certain types of cases could be used to gain efficiency in this process. The offender is currently having to transition from prison to parole and later ultimately to probation. This proposal would basically eliminate a step; and since these transitions are difficult times for the offender, any effort to shorten, reduce or eliminate an unnecessary transition will benefit both the supervising agency and the offender.
Page 65

Page 66

Admissions
x 10 Step Framework x Community
Alternatives x Specialty/
Accountability
Courts
Length of Stay JAIL
x Standardized Sentence
x E-Packets x Proactive
Assessment
Length of Stay DIAGNOSTICS
x Logistics/ Infrastructure
x Paperwork/ Communication
x Shortened Intake Process
x Transportation Hubs
Length of Stay STATE PRISON
x Sentencing Practices x Coastal Cat II x Other Target Areas
Aging/MH Population Faith Based Dorms
Private Providers Parole
Collaboration
Goals
x Reduce Avg Daily Population &
Operating Costs

6 Chapter
Justice Reinvestment
Goals
"At the heart of this new strategy, is a simple, but critical question: What is the most effective way to spend limited
resources in order to protect and improve public safety?"
Rep. Jerry Madden, Vice Chair, Corrections Committee, Texas State House of Representatives (Justice Center -
Council on State Courts, 2011

These changes, programs, initiatives and collaborations are to accomplish one goal-- reducing the overall prison population and reinvesting those resources into more cost efficient best practices while maintaining public safety. Other measures have been taken as well changing the infrastructure of the Department itself and more wisely using available funds. By accomplishing this, the Department can reinvest current monies back into the system in more cost effective programs.
Facility Closures and Realignments (Prisons & PRCs) Since 2008, the Department has closed or re-missioned over 30 facilities including diversion centers, detention centers, pre-release centers, state prisons and a boot camp. These closures were not made without extensive study and planning. Many of the facilities that were closed were determined to be "non-enduring" and were for the most part smaller, older, inefficient and expensive to operate. Many of them had been converted into correctional facilities from various available structures such as old mental hospitals or even World War II era military barracks. The closure of these facilities served to free up resources and staff that are being used in the reinvestment effort. Several of the closed diversion centers were reopened as Day Reporting Centers with the local probation office co-locating in the same building. Many displaced staff members from these facilities have gone to work in probation operations in jobs such as counselors, secretaries and probation and surveillance officers. The closing of these prisons and pre-release centers will account for a reduction in daily population of over 2,500 offenders. The savings realized from these closures can be reinvested in facility and community based programs that are more fiscally responsible and financially sustainable, such as Day Reporting Centers and prison and probation RSAT programs.

Fast Track Prison Units

An example of using resources more wisely is the Fast Track prison units.

Fast Track Locations

A Fast Track unit is designed to hold 256 offenders but to be more cost effective to run and staff than similar sized prison units. This is accomplished by the efficiencies gained in the layout of the unit. A traditional similarly sized unit would take up to 40 staff to run, while a

1. Augusta State Medical Prison 2. Central State Prison 3. Coastal State Prison 4. Georgia Diagnostics & Classification Prison 5. Hays State Prison 6. Valdosta State Prison 7. Ware State Prison

Fast Track can be manned with

around 25 staff members. These

Fast Track Units are being located on the grounds and within the security measures of

existing prisons, thus taking advantage of an already existing infrastructure. As many of

the non-enduring prisons were closed, their offenders were moved to these Fast Track

Page 67

units, which lower the cost of housing each offender. The Department currently has four Fast Track units in operation with three more slated to come online by fall of 2011 for a total of 1800 Fast Track beds.

Private Prisons The Department has over 3,000 offenders located in private prisons such as Coffee and Wheeler Correctional Facilities. There are currently two more private facilities slated for opening during 2012. The prison in Baldwin County will open in January and the one in Jenkins County will be open by March of 2012. These facilities will add an additional 2,650 beds to the Departments prison capacity. The cost savings side of using private providers is that the employees are not state employees and do not end up on state health care or retirement rolls. Also the cost of building the prisons is absorbed by the private provider so the state does not end up paying interest on the bonds often used to fund prison construction. The Department simply pays the private corporations a daily per offender cost allowing the corporations to absorb all the operating costs.

So how are facility closures and other cost saving measures going to add up? This chart shows how the closure of several facilities and the reduction of jail backlog will give the Department a reduction of up to 5,000 offenders in the average daily prison population. It is anticipated that the closure of these facilities and the reductions in other areas will result in a savings of over $50 million.

Anticipated Reduction of Offenders

Metro SP Closure

775

PRC (6) Closures

1,200

Mens SP Closure

670

Jail Backlog Reduction

1,500

Isolation Segregation Reduction 855

Total Reductions

5,000

Probation and Parole Interoperability Probation and Parole are very similar in their supervisory functions even though each agency supervises for a different entity. Probation upholds the sentences of the Courts while Parole follows the directives of the Parole Board. Yet Probation and Parole supervise many of the same offenders in the same neighborhoods. In fact many times officers pass each other while conducting field supervision. Why not harness the best practices of each into a collective synergy with Justice Reinvestment as the ultimate goal? That is exactly what began in August of 2010 when Probation and Parole Executive Management, Chief Probation Officers and Chief Parole Officers met together to begin interoperability measures. Eight areas were identified as being similar enough to combine all or most processes. Those areas were training, field supervision, business processes, re-entry, faith based, sex offender supervision and problem residences. Process action teams have studied each of these areas and made

Page 68

recommendations to Executive Management on how to best combine resources. This process is a top priority within each agency and significant strides have been made to bring the two together for the greater good. As stated earlier, the 10 Step Framework is a vital part of the process for reinvesting in the supervision of offenders in Georgia. The goal is to reduce the numbers of those entering the prison system by effectively supervising them in the community. As more offenders are kept out of the prison system this will free up more resources to be devoted to the Department's community based efforts.
"Although we can all agree that incarceration is sometimes necessary for public safety, in our work to protect the American people, we must recognize that incarceration alone does not provide the entire solution. Simply building more prisons and jails will not solve all of our problems. Any effective and economically sustainable public safety strategy must include investments that will help to reduce recidivism and to address the root causes of crime."
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder (Justice Center - The Council of State
Governments, 2011)
Page 69

Page 70

Admissions
x 10 Step Framework x Community
Alternatives x Specialty/
Accountability Courts
Length of Stay JAIL
x Standardized Sentence
x E-Packets x Proactive Assessment
Length of Stay
DIAGNOSTICS
x Logistics/ Infrastructure
x Paperwork/ Communication
x Shortened Intake Process
x Transportation Hubs
Length of Stay STATE PRISONS
x Sentencing Practices x Coastal Cat II x Other Target Areas
Aging/MH Population Faith Based Dorms Private Providers Parole
Collaboration
Goals
x Reduce Avg. Daily Population and Operating Costs

7 Chapter
Opportunities
"We have proven that we can be tough on crime and that we can spend $1.2 billion a year doing it... But I think it might be time
to transition to being smart on crime."
Brian Owens, Commissioner Georgia Department of Corrections (The Atlanta Journal Constitution, 2010)

What is the way forward from here? Georgia has one of the highest incarceration rates in the nation. In 2009 that number was 1 in 13 under some form of correctional supervision. Nationwide the "Get Tough on Crime" and mandatory sentencing played a large part in the prison expansion of the 80s and 90s and the corresponding prison population explosion. Georgia was not immune to this phenomenon and took in offenders and probationers in record numbers.

"From time to time we need to step back and ask ourselves `Is
it working?' "
David Ralston Georgia Speaker of the House
(Marietta Daily Journal, 2011)

Measures are being taken both short term and long term to change these numbers while staying committed to the core value of public safety. Some of these measures are cost saving in nature while others are achieved by the use of best practices. The Department has identified four areas to influence (Admissions, Length of Stay at Jail, Length of Stay at Diagnostics and Length of State in State Prisons) and has redefined the business processes in each of these areas to achieve effective reductions in spending. The refinements already made and those to come should reduce average daily prison population by an estimated 5,000 offenders, while producing a projected cost savings to the taxpayers of over $50 million-- money that can be reinvested in more cost efficient and proven techniques for supervising offenders.

What are some other areas that can be addressed to help reduce burgeoning prison, probation and parole populations? The Department would ask for assistance from its stakeholders in looking at changing current practices in some of the following areas:

x Narrower Sentence Ranges/Reduce Mandatory Sentences Length of sentences can more than double depending on where the crime was committed and mandatory sentences have contributed to an increase in the length of time an offender serves as well as the overall aging of our prison population. More equal distribution of sentence ranges as well as the reduction of some mandatory sentences could have a significant impact on correctional populations.

x Cap Probated Sentences As previously shown lengthy probated sentences can and do contribute to the increase of those on prison and probation roles. A concerted effort to cap the length of probated sentences so there is statewide standardization would greatly assist in the Department's efforts to control this growth.

Page 71

x Early Termination - OCGA 17-10-1 specifically states "Probation supervision shall terminate in all cases no later than two years from the commencement of probation supervision unless specially extended or reinstated by the sentencing court upon notice and hearing and for good cause shown; provided, however, that in those cases involving the collection of fines, restitution, or other funds, the period of supervision shall remain in effect for so long as any such obligation is outstanding, or until termination of the sentence, whichever first occurs..." This statute further states "Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the court may shorten the period of probation on motion of the defendant or on its own motion, if the court determines that probation is no longer necessary or appropriate for the ends of justice, the protection of society, and the rehabilitation of the defendant." Early termination of select offenders would help reduce the number of offenders that are being supervised by probation officers.
x Parole Eligibility Many offenders, especially those committing crimes under the Seven Deadly Sins, are not eligible for parole. Amending the statute to consider the facts of the crime and to request the sentencing Court's recommendation as to whether a portion of the sentence may be served under parole would reduce prison populations while still effectively supervising and rehabilitating the offender.
x Performance Incentive Credit (PIC) The expansion of this program would allow many offenders the opportunity to work off portions of their sentence possibly even as much as day for day rather than the current four month cap that is in place. Offenders contribute back to communities every day by work details performed both inside and outside the prison walls. Construction crews, firefighters and equine rescue are just a few examples of offenders contributing back to society in a pro-social way
x PDC Sentence Length Cap The detention centers were never designed for long term incarceration. They were designed for short term stays for Habitual Violator offenders and property crime offenders. Their use has evolved into long term incarceration as many judges know an offender will serve every day to which they are sentenced while at a PDC. Capping the length of time an offender can be sentenced to the PDC will shorten the wait time for other offenders to enter the centers, returning them to their originally intended use.
x Drug Treatment Funds/Specialty Courts - Specialty Courts and associated drug treatment facilities are much more cost effective and beneficial than housing an offender in prison. Resourcing these Courts and programs will most certainly reduce recidivism and ultimately the correctional populations in Georgia.
Page 72

x Recidivist Statutes In some instances the recidivist statutes have been used for purposes other than their original intent. Revisiting this statute and reviewing the manner in which it is applied could help reduce prison and probation populations without affecting the safety of the public.
x Electronic Sentence Reporting Technology can be very helpful in reporting to the Department when an offender has been sentenced to a prison term or even probation. If all Clerks were able to submit this information electronically if would streamline many of the processes that take place before an offender can enter the system. Electronic submission of documents on prison and probation cases would also lend itself to better tracking of our populations as well as the statistical data associated with those populations.
x Mental Health Resources As the number of offenders with diagnosed mental illness continues to increase so does the Department's need for resources to supervise these offenders. Facilities to stabilize the mentally ill are necessary to manage this growing segment of our population. These facilities would house offenders for short term stays of 7-10 days until stabilized and returned to the community. Community based treatment programs are also necessary to assist these offenders function in society once stabilized.
These are just a few areas that could be addressed to help reduce the growth of the correctional population in Georgia.
The Department of Corrections mission statement commits to "protect and serve the public...by effectively managing offenders while helping to provide a safe and secure environment for the citizens of Georgia." This mission is non-negotiable and is being accomplished 24 hours a day 7 days a week by the faithful employees of the Department. The citizenry of Georgia can be assured that every effort is being made to be as fiscally responsible with state revenue and resources while accomplishing the core mission. The Department is entering partnerships with its stakeholders to reduce incarceration rates and bring them in line with other states. This time of crisis has allowed the Department to look internally and rethink how Georgia Corrections operates from the ground up. Governor Deal's recent creation of a Criminal Justice Reform Council to address these issues will serve as an impetus and a conduit for all stakeholders to partner together to improve the state of Georgia. The Department stands on the brink of a new era and is poised to lead the field of corrections and the Great State of Georgia forward in the Justice Reinvestment movement.
Page 73

Page 74

N O T E S
_____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________
Page 75

_____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________
Page 76

Admissions
x 10 Step Framework x Community
Alternatives x Specialty/
Accountability Courts
Length of Stay
JAIL
x Standardized Sentence
x E-Packets x Proactive
Assessment
Length of Stay
DIAGNOSTICS
x Logistics/ Infrastructure
x Paperwork/ Communication
x Shortened Intake Process
x Transportation Hubs
Length of Stay STATE PRISONS
x Sentencing Practices
x Coastal Cat II x Other Target Areas
Aging/MH Population Faith Based Dorms Private Providers Parole
Goals
x Reduce Avg. Daily Population and Operating Costs

Appendices

Appendix A
(Stateline.org, 2009)
Page 77

Appendix B (The PEW Center on the States, 2011)
Page 78

Page 79

Appendix C
Cost Spent on Corrections (in millions) CY 2008
(The PEW Center on the States, 2009)
% of General Fund CY 2008
(The PEW Center on the States, 2009)

In Millions $10,000
$9,000 $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000
$0
%
25 20 15 10
5 0

MI

22

OR

10.6

FL

10

AZ

9.5

VT

9.4

CA

9.3

CO

8.6

MT

8.6

MD

8.2

AR

8

WI

8

NV

7.9

VA

7.6

ID

7.3

OH

7.3

SD

7.1

OK

7

MO

6.8

NH

6.8

TX

6.8

PA

6.7

SC

6.6

LA

6.4

MS

6.4

WA

6.3

NC

6.2

DE

6.1

IL

6.1

IA

6

GA

5.9

UT

5.7

WY

5.7

KS

5.6

KY

5.5

RI

5.5

TN

5.5

NY

5.4

ND

5.4

IN

5.3

NE

5.1

ME

4.9

NJ

4.8

AK

4.7

WV

4.7

MA

4.6

NM

4.6

CT

4.3

HA

4.3

MN

2.6

AL

2.5

CA

TX

$2,960

NY

$2,870

FL

$2,820

MI

$2,180

PA

$1,840

OH

$1,790

NJ

$1,580

IL

$1,360

MA

$1,250

NC

$1,250

VA

$1,250

MD

$1,190

GA

$1,100

WI

$1,080

AZ

$951

WA

$917

OR

$763

CT

$699

TN

$675

IN

$669

CO

$625

LA

$625

MO

$575

KY

$521

OK

$491

SC

$487

MN

$460

AK

$420

IA

$353

AR

$348

KS

$341

UT

$330

NM

$277

MS

$266

NV

$253

AK

$240

HA

$228

ID

$207

DE

$200

RI

$185

WV

$181

NE

$179

MT

$169

ME

$153

VT

$116

WY

$103

NH

$101

SD $81

ND $65

$9,660

Total # of Offenders

800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000
0

Appendix C (continued)
Total # of Offenders CY 2008
(The PEW Center on the States, 2009)

Page 80

TX

CA

GA

562,763

FL

462,435

OH

351,879

PA

346,268

NY

282,215

MI

278,805

IL

252,776

MA

206,241

NJ

191,473

IN

181,459

NC

181,435

WA

165,725

MD

156,776

MN

152,319

AZ

144,221

VA

129,681

CO

128,186

MO

125,613

LA

122,207

TN

117,428

WI

110,642

AL

108,843

KY

91,993

OR

89,589

SC

88,352

CT

82,655

AR

73,193

OK

65,270

ID

63,231

MS

56,208

IA

42,294

NM

42,197

NV

40,172

KS

39,275

HA

31,620

RI

31,250

NE

30,195

UT

29,023

DE

25,082

WV

21,065

MT

16,997

SD

15,211

AK

14,005

ME

12,852

NH

11,628

VT

10,662

WY

10,631

ND

7,885

797,254 755,256

11 HB265/SCSFA/2

Appendix D Justice Reform Act HB 265 (as passed)

SENATE SUBSTITUTE to HB 265

AS PASSED SENATE

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT

To amend Title 28 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to the Georgia General Assembly, so as to create the 2011 Special Council on Criminal Justice Reform for Georgians and the Special Joint Committee on Georgia Criminal Justice Reform; to provide for related matters; to provide for legislative intent; to provide for an automatic repeal; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:
SECTION 1. Title 28 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to the General Assembly, is amended by adding a new chapter to read as follows:
"CHAPTER 13
28-13-1. The General Assembly finds and determines that:

Page 81

Appendix D (continued) (1) It has been many years since there has been a systematic study of the State of Georgia's correctional system and criminal justice structure and there exists a need for such study today; (2) A study of Georgia's criminal justice and correctional system is necessary to enhance public safety, reduce victimization, hold offenders more accountable, enhance probation and parole supervision, and better manage a growing prison population through increasing public safety, improving rehabilitation, and lowering state expense; (3) Such a study and the formulation of recommendations for criminal justice structural changes can best be carried out through an established council; and (4) Enactment of council recommendations, if deemed appropriate at the 2012 session of the General Assembly, is best carried out through a deliberative and specific legislative process. 28-13-2. (a) There is created the 2011 Special Council on Criminal Justice Reform for Georgians (hereinafter 'council') which shall consist of 13 members as follows: (1) The Governor or his or her designee; (2) Three members appointed by the Governor; (3) Three members appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, all of whom shall be members of the House of Representatives and one of whom shall be a member of the minority party; (4) Three members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor, all of whom shall be members of the Senate and one of whom shall be a member of the minority party; (5) The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia or his or her designee; and (6) Two members of the judicial branch, to be appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (b) A chairperson shall be selected by a majority vote of the members of the council. A quorum of the council shall consist of seven members. Any member of the council unable to serve shall be replaced in the same manner in which the original appointment was made.
Page 82

Appendix D (continued) (c) All departments and agencies of the state, including the Department of Corrections and State Board of Pardons and Paroles, shall, upon request of the council or the Governor, provide requested services, information, and technical support, notwithstanding any other law to the contrary. (d) Members of the council shall receive no compensation for their services, except that any member may be reimbursed for actual expenses incurred in the performance of their duties by the agency or department in which they serve as an official or employee. (e) The council shall conduct a thorough study of the state's current criminal justice structure and make a report of its findings and recommendations for legislation to the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court no later than November 1, 2011.
28-13-3. (a) There is created the Special Joint Committee on Georgia Criminal Justice Reform (hereinafter 'joint committee') which shall consist of 18 members as follows: (1) The President Pro Tempore of the Senate and Speaker Pro Tempore of the House of Representatives; (2) The majority leader of the Senate and the majority leader of the House of Representatives; (3) The minority leader of the Senate and the minority leader of the House of Representatives; (4) The chairpersons of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Senate Public Safety Committee, the House Committee on Judiciary, and the House Committee on Judiciary, Non-civil; (5) The chairpersons of the Senate State Institutions and Property Committee and the House Committee on State Institutions and Property; (6) Three members of the Senate to be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor, someone of whom shall be a member of the minority party; and
Page 83

Appendix D (continued) (7) Three members of the House of Representatives to be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, someone of whom shall be a member of the minority party. (b)(1) The chairpersons of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Committee on Judiciary, Non-civil shall serve as co-chairpersons of the joint committee. A quorum of the joint committee shall consist of nine members. (2) During the 2012 session of the General Assembly, the chairperson of the joint committee who is a member of the House of Representatives may cause to be introduced in the House of Representatives one or more bills or resolutions incorporating the recommendations of the council, and such legislation shall, after its introduction, be referred by the Speaker of the House of Representatives only to the joint committee and no other committee of the House of Representatives. (3) If one or more bills or resolutions referred by the joint committee are passed by the House of Representatives, the measure or measures shall then be in order for consideration by the Senate and may be voted upon by the Senate. (4) The rules of the Senate and the House of Representatives for the 2012 legislative session shall contain provisions necessary or appropriate to comply with the legislative process specified by this Code section.
28-13-4. This chapter shall stand repealed by operation of law on July 1, 2012."
SECTION 2. This Act shall become effective upon its approval by the Governor or upon its becoming law without such approval.
SECTION 3. All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.
Page 84

Appendix E
OCGA 42-5-101. (a) The Department of Corrections is authorized to devise and to provide by agency rule a system of work incentive credits which may be awarded by the department to persons committed to its custody for any felony prison term other than life imprisonment. (b) Work incentive credits may be awarded by the department to recognize inmates institutional attainments in academic or vocational education, satisfactory performance of work assignments made by the penal institution, and compliance with satisfactory behavior standards established by the department. (c) The department may award up to one day of work incentive credits for each day during which the subject inmate has participated in approved educational or other counseling programs, has satisfactorily performed work tasks assigned by the penal institution, and has complied with satisfactory behavior standards established by the department. (d) Any work incentive credits awarded an inmate by the department shall be reported by the department to the State Board of Pardons and Paroles which shall consider such credits when making a final parole release decision regarding the subject inmate. The department is authorized to recommend the board apply the work incentive credits to advance any tentative parole release date already established for the subject inmate. (e) The department also shall report to the State Board of Pardons and Paroles the cases of inmates who decline or refuse to participate in work, educational, or counseling programs, who fail to comply with satisfactory behavior standards, and who therefore refuse to earn work incentive credits.
Page 85

Appendix F

(Carr, 2011)

Page 86

Appendix G
(Adminstrative Office Of the Courts of Georgia, 2002)
Page 87

Appendix H

GDC Acronyms, Terms and Definitions Glossary

Acronym Appropriation
Appropriations Act ASMP
BC
CBO

Full Term Appropriation
Appropriations Act
Augusta State Medical Prison
Boot Camp
Community Based Organizations

Definition An authorization by the General Assembly to a state agency to spend, from public funds, a sum of money for a specific purpose. Legislation that has been passed by the General Assembly to authorize the expenditure of state, federal and other funds during a given fiscal year. Provides centralized acute and specialized medical services and Level IV Mental Health services for male and female offenders primarily as transients or outpatients and houses severe medical cases. Focus on military regimens combined with a full day's work and includes comprehensive programming in the evening hours. Emphasis is placed on substance abuse programming. Community service organization that assists anyone with needs that lack financial means. EX: Lighthouse Ministries

CIP
COMPAS
CPD CSU DRC

Community Impact Program
Correctional Offender Management Profiling for
Alternative Sanctions
Cost per Day Crisis Stabilization Unit
Day Reporting Center

A program that promotes offender's successful re-entry into the community by partnering with local law enforcement, state and community agencies and organizations (Local PD, parole, probation, DJJ, DOL, DFACS, DHR, housing). Applies a "one-stop shop" concept. COMPAS: The Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) is an automated, statistically based assessment instrument designed to assess key risk and criminogenic need factors for correctional populations. COMPAS is used for developing case plans for placement, supervision and case-management of offenders. The daily cost to incarcerate and feed an offender A designated infirmary area expressly set-up and operated for the purpose of treating mental health offenders/probationers who are in crisis and need 24 hour health care presence while being in a safe environment Day Reporting Centers and Community Impact Programs

Page 88

EBP
Fast Track (FT) FCBD
Federal Funds FTO FY GDCP GP

Evidence Based Practices
Fast Track Faith and Character Based
Dorms
Federal Funds Field Training Officer
Fiscal Year
Georgia Diagnostics and Classification Prison General Population

provide intensive substance abuse treatment for offenders sentenced by the Courts or who have not responded to more traditional supervision and treatment efforts. Although the cost is slightly more than field probation, a DRC and Community Impact Program is only a fraction of the cost compared to providing a residential alternative. These communitybased alternatives operate based on the Principles of Effective Intervention and utilize Evidence-Based Programs that have shown to have a positive effect on reducing recidivism. Methodology for implementing and maintaining business practices and staff skills intended to increase public safety by reducing recidivism. Involves the study, implementation, monitoring and specification of practices, programs and skills that have been researched or have been modeled after research on similar subjects. Prefabricated prison housing units quickly assembled onsite to create additional bed space at current prisons. Prison-housed program in which a multi-faith curriculum is taught and a host of reentry issues are focused on with the offenders who volunteer for the program. Housing, career/employment, family, education, are some of the areas addressed in the program. Funding from the federal government utilized to pay for all or portions of specific programs. Often, federal funds require a state fund "match" in order to receive the federal allocation. An officer that provides mentorship and leadership to new Probation Officers and to prepare them for success as officer. Any 12 month period in which financial accounts are balanced. The state of Georgia's fiscal year begins on July 1 and ends June 30. The federal fiscal year begins October 1 and ends September 30. Conducts diagnostic processing for offenders and maintains a Special Management Program. GDCP also houses offenders under death sentence (UDS) and carries out state ordered executions. Term for all offenders under GDC supervision not on the mental health caseload.

Page 89

IBC IPS IRP
ISO/SEG LASP
Max Out MH
MH

Inmate Boot Camp
Intensive Probation Supervision
Intensive Re-Entry Program

A secure facility that houses offenders, identified to participate by the Board of Pardons and Parole, for a six (6) month program. Hard work and discipline characterize this program and upon successful completion, offenders are released back to community under parole supervision. Supervision of probationers that the court has identified as requiring intensive supervision. An IPS Probation Officer is identified to provide intensive supervision to these probationers. IRP is a 90-day Intensive Re-Entry Program, which targets non-violent offenders with a history of substance abuse as a causative factor leading to correctional supervision. The goal of the IRP is to give offenders tools they can use to abstain from drugs, alcohol and criminal behaviors once released, thereby reducing recidivism.

Isolation/Segregation Unit

An area within a prison which segregates offenders who may be behaviorally disruptive, pending a disciplinary report or serving isolation time for an infraction of the rules.

Lee Arrendale State Prison (Alto)

Ensure public safety and effectively house offenders while operating a safe and secure facility. Also, provide housing for adult/juvenile female felons in addition to probationers sentenced to a Residential Substance Abuse Program (RSAT). Provide MH/MR, academic, vocational, and other basic program services for this population.

Maximum Release Date Mental Health
Mental Health

Released at the conclusion on an offender's sentence. A substantial disorder of thought or mood that significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality or cope with the ordinary demands of life within the correctional environment and is manifested by substantial pain or disability. Serious mental illness requires a mental health diagnosis and treatment in accordance with an individualized treatment plan. Status of an offender that assigns him/her to having issues involving mental illness as defined by the DSM IV.

Page 90

MRD NIC OCGA
PAR PBC
PDC
PEW PHS
PIC

Maximum Release Date Term for end of offender's incarcerated sentence.

National Institute of Corrections
Official Code of Georgia Annotated
Probation Accountability Report

Provides learning, innovation and leadership that shapes and advances effective correctional practice and public policy. The laws of the state of Georgia. This acronym is typically used with the code section of the law. For example, OCGA 45-20-6 refers to Chapter 45 (Public Officers and Employees), Chapter 20 (Personnel Administration), Section 6 (Composition of the classified and unclassified service). A data collection tool that tracks information at the circuit level as well as at the Office level. Information such as financial, case count, employment and drug testing results, etc., is collected on each offender.

Probation Boot Camp

A secure facility to which an offender assigned to probation, either a direct sentence or as a probation revocation sentence (modified sentence) for 60 - 120 day. Hard work and discipline characterize this intermediate sanction and upon successful completion, offenders are released back to community probation supervision.

Probation Detention Center
PEW Center on the States Personal History Statement
Performance Incentive Credit

Provides a sanctioning option for probationers who require more security or supervision than that provided by regular community supervision or a diversion center but may not qualify for a boot camp. Short term alternative to incarceration. Used primarily for probation violations. An offender may serve 60-120 days in a detention center. Offender's probation continues to run while confined.
Personal History Statement (PHS) entered into the Pardons and Parole Board database by Parole Board staff and transmitted to the GDC's SCRIBE database. An interface between the two different databases was created a couple of years ago to permit GDC to receive any offender PHS records transmitted to us. Time for which an offender is given credit towards release on parole. Such behaviors are noted as contributing to the successful completion and/or progress regarding a treatment plan that is designed to

Page 91

POM
POSS
PRCC PRI RPH RSAT

Probation Options Management
Probation Officer Sentencing Specialist

enhance their re-entry into the community A sanctions hearing is required by law whenever a probationer originally sentenced or modified/revoked under the provisions of the Probation Management Act (POM) is arrested for alleged violations of the conditions of probation. The hearing may also be utilized without an arrest when there is evidence of a violation in the occurrence of a new criminal offense or when the probationer has violated technical conditions of probation. This hearing is conducted by a GDC hearing officer. The information conduit between DOC and the Courts keeping all parties abreast of matters pertaining to the corrections system and any changes in policy/procedures. The Officer must be confident and proficient in developing rapport and trust with the Judges, District Attorneys, Private Attorneys, Public Defenders and all other stakeholders in an effective and efficient manner as well as providing exceptional customer service.

Probation Reporting Contact Center

An effective and efficient "as directed" reporting alternative for use by compliant, low risk, non-violent probationers.

Problem Residence Inmate
Reentry Housing Partnership

A problem resident offender includes those with special needs: Sex Offender, Nursing home, assisted living, mental health, personal care homes, electronic monitoring, aging, and offenders that have passed their Tentative Parole Month (TPM) without a resident plan. Reentry Partnership Housing (RPH) is a means to provide housing to convicted felons who remain in prison after the Parole Board has authorized their release due solely to having no residential options, these offenders are known as Problem Residence Offenders.

Residential Substance Abuse Treatment

An RSAT is a six-month residential substance abuse treatment program which targets high risk, high needs offenders with a history of substance abuse. This program is based on the Therapeutic Community Model. The Therapeutic Community Model has proven to be an effective form of treatment for substance

Page 92

SASS
SCRIBE SIP SP SPS
TCUDS THOR

abusers. The design is specific to the needs and dynamic risk factors commonly associated with substance abusers. The primary goal is for program participants to learn real-life ways to help them live a pro-social, productive life free of alcohol and other drugs and crime. Communities are formed when individuals and family groups join for mutual advantage, to protect against common enemies, and to organize to reach common goals. Individuals believe that their purpose can be achieved more effectively as a group than separately. In substance abuse TCs, the common enemy is the addiction, addictive thinking, and the criminal addictive lifestyle. The common goal is pro-social change."Offenders who are referred to RSAT are parole mandated and have a Texas Christian University Drug Screen (TCUDS) score of three (3) or higher.

Substance Abuse Aftercare Services

The Substance Abuse Aftercare Services (SAAS) Program is a six-month program which targets high risk, high needs offenders who have completed an intensive substance abuse services program. These programs include Day Reporting Centers, Residential Substance Abuse Treatment, and/or approved community programs lasting a minimum of 17 weeks of length.

Statewide Correctional Repository and
Information System

Scribe is the computer system for the Department of Corrections that is used for various offender information. Scribe has replaced the OTIS system.

Strategic Intervention Program
State Prison Specialized Probation
Supervision
Texas Christian University Drug Screen
Transitional Housing for

Treatment program for substance abusers
A secure facility that houses incarcerated offenders. Supervision of probationers who have committed sex crimes, crimes against children, violent crimes, and/or crimes of family violence and have been designated as high risk probationers by the court. An SPS Probation Officer is identified to provide specialized supervision to these mandated high-risk probationers. The Texas Christian University Drug Screen (TCUDS) is a 15 question substance abuse screening device. It is a self-assessment of an offender's need and readiness for substance abuse treatment. Term for the manual maintained by GDC and Parole that

Page 93

Offender Reentry

is a compendium of possible housing options for offenders releasing back into the community.

TPM

Tentative Parole Month A Tentative Parole Month (TPM) is the month during

which an offender release is projected to occur. The

Parole Board may change or cancel the tentative release

for any reason up to the time that the offender is

actually released. Some of the more common reasons

that an offender is not released during the tentative

Parole Month include: 1) invalid post-release residence

or employment plans, 2) detainers filed by authorities

requiring resolution prior to the offender's release, 3)

outstanding warrants requiring resolution prior to the

offender's release, 4) disciplinary infractions by the

offender, 5) community or judicial opposition to the

release

Page 94

Appendix I: Corrections Division Directory

Division Offices
Probation Operations Division Office PO Box 1529 300 Patrol Road Gibson Hall, 1st Floor Forsyth, GA 31092 478-992-5102
Facilities Operations Division Office PO Box 1529 300 Patrol Road Gibson Hall, 1st Floor Forsyth, GA 31029 478-992-5104
PROBATION OFFICES and DAY REPORTING CENTERS
Adel Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Alapaha 107 North Parrish Avenue Adel, GA 31620 Counties Served: Cook 229-896-7525
Albany Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Dougherty 1303 Evelyn Avenue Albany, GA 31705 Counties Served: Dougherty 229-430-4182

Americus Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Southwestern 128 E. Forsyth St., Rm 224 P.O. Box 226 Americus, GA 31709 Counties Served: Lee, Macon, Schley, Stewart, Sumter, Webster 229-931-2537
Athens Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Western 171 Old Epps Bridge Road P.O. Box 1146 Athens, GA 30603 Counties Served: Clarke, Oconee 706-369-6000
Athens Day Reporting Center Judicial Circuit: Western 171 Old Epps Bridge Road P.O. Box 1146 Athens, GA 30603 Counties Served: Clarke, Oconee 706-369-5688
Atlanta Central Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Atlanta 1100 Sylvan Road Atlanta, GA 30310 Counties Served: Fulton 404-756-3707
Atlanta Court Services Judicial Circuit: Atlanta 160 Pryor St., Room JG-54 Atlanta, GA 30303 Counties Served: Fulton 404-656-4600

Atlanta Southwest Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Atlanta 1102 Sylvan Road Atlanta, GA 30310 Counties Served: Fulton 404-756-3800
Atlanta Specialized Supervision Unit (SSU) Judicial Circuit: Atlanta 1100 Sylvan Road Atlanta, GA 30310 Counties Served: Fulton 404-756-3707
Atlanta Metro Day Reporting Center Judicial Circuit: Atlanta 1100 Sylvan Road Atlanta, GA 30331 Counties Served: Fulton 404-756-3706
Augusta Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Augusta 901 Greene Street Augusta, GA 30901 Counties Served: Burke, Columbia, Richmond 706-721-1122
Augusta Day Reporting Center Judicial Circuit: Augusta 3439 Mike Padgett Hwy Augusta, GA 30603 Counties Served: Burke, Columbia, Richmond 706-771-4155

Page 95

Bainbridge Probation Office Judicial Circuit: South Georgia 205 West Water Street Bainbridge, GA 39817 Counties Served: Decatur 229-248-2671
Baxley Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Brunswick 69 Tippins Street, Suite 104 Baxley, GA 31513 Counties Served: Appling 912-366-1064
Blairsville Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Enotah 395 Cleveland Street, Suite 3 Blairsville, GA 30512 Counties Served: Union, Towns 706-781-2360
Blakely Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Pataula 148 Court Square P.O. Box 772 Blakely, GA 30823 Counties Served: Early 229-723-4277
Blue Ridge Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Appalachian 990 East Main Street, Suite 9 Blue Ridge, GA 30513 Counties Served: Fannin 706-632-2149
Brunswick Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Brunswick 1729 Norwich Street Brunswick, GA 31521 Counties Served: Appling, Camden, Glynn, Jeff Davis, Wayne 912-262-3065

Buchanan Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Tallapoosa 24 Magnolia Street P.O. Box 156 Buchanan, GA 30113 Counties Served: Haralson 770-646-3810
Cairo Probation Office Judicial Circuit: South Georgia 24 Third Avenue, NE Cairo, GA 39828 Counties Served: Grady 229-377-5347
Calhoun Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Cherokee 210 A South King Street Calhoun, GA 30701 Counties Served: Gordon 706-624-1414
Camilla Probation Office Judicial Circuit: South Georgia 16 N. Court Street Camilla, GA 31730 Counties Served: Baker, Calhoun, Mitchell 229-522-3572
Canton Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Blue Ridge 130 E. Main Street, Suite G-101 Canton, GA 30114 Counties Served: Cherokee 770-479-2602
Carrollton Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Coweta 497 Rome Street Carrollton, GA 30117 Counties Served: Carroll, Heard 770-836-6704
Page 96

Cartersville Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Cherokee 123 West Main Street Cartersville, GA 30120 Counties Served: Bartow 770-387-3780
Cedartown Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Tallapoosa 100 A County Loop Road P.O. Box 1771 Cedartown, GA 30125 Counties Served: Polk 770-749-2206
Clarkesville Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Mountain 201 Monroe Street Clarkesville, GA 30523 Counties Served: Habersham, Rabun 706-754-9315
Claxton Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Atlantic 105 Daniel Street Claxton, GA 30417 Counties Served: Evans, Tattnall, Bryan 912-739-9612
Clayton Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Mountain 25 Courthouse Square, Suite 217 Clayton, GA 30525 Counties Served: Rabun 706-782-4727
Clayton Day Reporting Center Judicial Circuit: Clayton 1331 Citizens Pkwy Morrow, GA 30260 Counties Served: Clayton 770-960-2005

Columbus PO Judicial Circuit: Chattahoochee 1328 Second Avenue Columbus, GA 31901 Counties Served: Chattahoochee, Harris, Marion, Muscogee, Talbot, Taylor 706-649-7484
Columbus Day Reporting Center Judicial Circuit: Chattahoochee 1334 Second Avenue Columbus, GA 31901 Counties Served: Chattahoochee, Harris, Marion, Muscogee, Talbot, Taylor 706-649-0584
Conyers Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Rockdale 365 Salem Gate Drive, Suite 1 Conyers, GA 30013 Counties Served: Rockdale 770-388-5011
Cordele Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Cordele 1304 South Seventh Street Cordele, GA 31015 Counties Served: Crisp, Dooly 229-276-2346
Covington Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Alcovy 4186 Baker Street P.O. Box 348 Covington, GA 30015 Counties Served: Newton 770-784-2700
Cumming Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Bell Forsyth 310 Tribble Gap Road Cumming, GA 30040 Counties Served: Forsyth 770-781-2170

Cuthbert Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Pataula 76 West Pearl Street Cuthbert, GA 39840 Counties Served: Randolph, Quitman, Clay 229-732-2123
Dahlonega Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Enotah 163 Tipton Drive Dahlonega, GA 30533 Counties Served: Lumpkin, White 706-867-2929
Dallas Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Paulding 250 Butler Industrial Drive P.O. Box 82 Dallas, GA 30132 Counties Served: Paulding 770-443-7861
Dalton Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Conasauga 307 South Hamilton Street, Suite 102 Dalton, GA 30722 Counties Served: Murray, Whitfield 706-272-2306
Danielsville Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Northern 97 Sunset Drive, Suite A P.O. Box 392 Danielsville, GA 30633 Counties Served: Madison 706-795-3845
Darien Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Atlantic 213 Walton Street P.O. Box 1238 Darien, GA 31305 Counties Served: McIntosh 912-437-5583

Page 97

Dawson Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Pataula 513 South Main Street Dawson, GA 39842 Counties Served: Terrell 229-995-6459
Dekalb Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Stone Mountain 547 Church Street, 1st Floor Decatur, GA 30030 Counties Served: Dekalb 404-370-5113
Donalsonville Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Pataula 223 South Wiley Avenue Donalsonville, GA 39845 Counties Served: Seminole, Miller 229-524-2836
Douglas Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Waycross 319 East Ward Street Douglas, GA 31533 Counties Served: Coffee, Bacon 912-389-4431
Douglasville Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Douglas 8473 Durelee Lane, Suite 400 Douglasville, GA 30134 Counties Served: Douglas 770-489-3070
Dublin Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Dublin 105 East Jackson Street P.O. Box 2012 Court Square Station Dublin, GA 31040 Counties Served: Johnson, Laurens, Twiggs, Treutlen 478-275-6637

Eastman Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Oconee 5505 Anson Avenue Eastman, GA 31023 Counties Served: Dodge, Bleckley, Pulaski 478-374-6501
Eatonton Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Ocmulgee 105 S. Jefferson St. Eatonton, GA 31024 Counties Served: Putnam & Jasper 706-484-2970
Elberton Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Northern 233 North Oliver Street P.O. Box 725 Elberton, GA 30635 Counties Served: Elbert, Oglethorpe 706-213-2032
Ellijay Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Appalachian 1 Board Street, Suite 002 Ellijay, GA 30540 Counties Served: Gilmer 706-635-5125
Fayetteville Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Griffin 135 A Bradford Square Fayetteville, GA 30215 Counties Served: Fayette 770-460-2730 Fitzgerald Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Cordele 162 Ocilla Highway, Suite 11 Fitzgerald, GA 31750 Counties Served: Ben Hill, Wilcox 229-426-5234

Forsyth Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Towaliga 145 L. Cary Bittick Dr. Forsyth, GA 31029 Counties Served: Monroe 478-994-7002 Mailing Address: 163 Ernest Biles Drive Jackson, GA 30233
Fort Valley Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Macon 205 West Church St., Ste 226 Fort Valley, GA 31030 Counties Served: Peach, Crawford 478-825-3136
Gainesville Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Northeastern 1002 Aviation Blvd Gainesville, GA 30501 Counties Served: Dawson, Hall 770-535-5710
Gainesville Day Reporting Center Judicial Circuit: Northeastern 1002 Aviation Blvd Gainesville, GA 30501 Counties Served: Dawson, Hall 770-535-5723
Gray Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Ocmulgee 161 James Street P.O. Box 753 Gray, GA 31032 Counties Served: Jones 478-986-6611
Page 98

Greensboro Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Ocmulgee 113 North Main Street, Suite 306 Greensboro, GA 30642 Counties Served: Greene, Morgan 706-453-7131
Greenville Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Coweta North Court Square, Health Bldg P.O. Box 582 Greenville, GA 30222 Counties Served: Meriwether 706-672-4971
Griffin Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Griffin 1498 D.F. Fuller Drive Griffin, GA 30224 Counties Served: Pike, Spalding 770-229-3132
Griffin Day Reporting Center Judicial Circuit: Griffin 1498 D.F. Fuller Drive Griffin, GA 30224 Counties Served: Pike, Spalding, Upson, Fayette 770-229-3345
Hartwell Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Northern 68 Maret Street P.O. Box 715 Hartwell, GA 30643 Counties Served: Hart, Franklin 706-856-2711
Hazlehurst Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Brunswick 15 Jeff Davis Street, Suite #3 P.O. Box 1060 Hazlehurst, GA 31539 Counties Served: Jeff Davis 912-375-4441

Hinesville Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Atlantic 104 A Commerce Street P.O. Box 94 Hinesville, GA 31313 Counties Served: Bryan, Evans, Liberty, Long, McIntosh, Tattnall 912-370-2571
Jackson Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Towaliga 163 Ernest Biles Drive Jackson, GA 30233 Counties Served: Butts, Lamar, Monroe 770-504-2370
Jasper Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Appalachian 37 Court Street Jasper, GA 30143 Counties Served: Pickens 706-692-4805
Jesup Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Brunswick 243 North Brunswick Street Jesup, GA 31546 Counties Served: Wayne 912-427-5894
LaFayette Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Lookout Mtn 109 Main Street LaFayette, GA 30728 Counties Served: Catoosa, Chattooga, Dade, Walker 706-638-5531
LaGrange Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Coweta 206 Rear Ridley Avenue LaGrange, GA 30240 Counties Served: Troup 706-845-4125

Lakeland Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Alapaha 6 Brantley Street Lakeland, GA 31635 Counties Served: Lanier, Atkinson, Cook, Clinch, Berrien 229-482-3303
Lawrenceville Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Gwinnett 410 Oak Street P.O. Box 1305 Lawrenceville, GA 30046 Counties Served: Gwinnett 770-339-2222
Leesburg Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Southwestern 104 Leslie Highway P.O. Box 510 Leesburg, GA 31763 Counties Served: Lee 229-759-3034
Louisville Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Middle 142 East Broad Street Louisville, GA 30434 Counties Served: Jefferson 478-625-3648
Lyons Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Middle 113 Moody Circle Lyons, GA 30436 Counties Served: Candler, Toombs 912-526-8311
Macon Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Macon 543 Second Street, Suite 102 Macon, GA 31201 Counties Served: Bibb 478-751-6092

Macon Day Reporting Center Judicial Circuit: Macon 543 Second Street, Suite 101 Macon, GA 31201 Counties Served: Bibb 478-751-4191
Marietta North Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Cobb 590 Commerce Park Drive, Suite 102 P.O. Box 910 Marietta, GA 30061 Counties Served: Cobb 770-528-4923
Marietta South Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Cobb 2275 Northwest Pkwy, Suite 170 P.O. Box 910 Marietta, GA 30061 Counties Served: Cobb 770-916-2115
McDonough Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Flint 165 McDonough Pkwy McDonough, GA 30253 Counties Served: Henry 770-954-2004
McRae Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Oconee 37 South Second Avenue McRae, GA 31055 Counties Served: Montgomery, Telfair, Wheeler 229-868-3200

Page 99

Milledgeville Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Ocmulgee 2271 Vinson Hwy Arnall Bldg 1st Floor Hardwick, GA 31034 Counties Served: Baldwin, Hancock, Wilkinson 478-445-4468 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1808 Milledgeville, GA 31059
Millen Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Ogeechee Jenkins County Courthouse P.O. Box 486 Millen, GA 30442 Counties Served: Jenkins 478-982-2050
Monroe Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Alcovy 226 Alcovy Place, Suite C-7 P.O. Box 129 Monroe, GA 30655 Counties Served: Walton 770-267-1347
Morrow Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Clayton 1331 Citizens Pkwy, Suite 201 Morrow, GA 30260 Counties Served: Clayton 770-960-4100
Moultrie Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Southern 18 South Main Street Moultrie, GA 31768 Counties Served: Colquitt 229-891-7270
Nashville Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Alapaha 495 County Farm Road Nashville, GA 31639 Counties Served: Berrien 229-686-9329

Newnan Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Coweta 51 B Perry Street Newnan, GA 30263 Counties Served: Carroll, Coweta, Meriwether, Troup 770-254-7204
Northwest Day Reporting Center Judicial Circuit: Conasauga 307 South Hamilton Street Dalton, GA 30720 Counties Served: Murray, Whitfield 706-272-2111
Perry Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Houston 201 Perry Pkwy Perry, GA 31069 Counties Served: Houston 478-988-6898
Reidsville Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Atlantic 108 Brazell Street, Second Floor P.O. Box 636 Reidsville, GA 30456 Counties Served: Tattnall 912-557-1166
Rome Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Rome 100 Marable Way, NW, Suite A Rome, GA 30165 Counties Served: Floyd 706-295-6323
Rome Day Reporting Center Judicial Circuit: Rome 100 Marable Way, NW, Suite B Rome, GA 30165 Counties Served: Floyd 706-368-7800

Rouse Day Reporting Center Judicial Circuit: Waycross 3019 Memorial Drive Waycross, GA 31502 Counties Served: Brantley, Charlton, Pierce, Ware 912-285-6028
Sandersville Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Middle 111 Brookins Street Sandersville, GA 31082 Counties Served: Washington 478-553-2450
Savannah Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Eastern 8 Southern Oaks Court, 1st Floor Savannah, GA 31405 Counties Served: Chatham 912-651-2204
Soperton Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Dublin 202 MLK Street, South Soperton, GA 30457 Counties Served: Treutlen 912-529-6670 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2012 Dublin, GA 31040
Springfield Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Ogeechee 103 South Laurel Street Springfield, GA 31329 Counties Served: Effingham 912-564-7382
Statesboro Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Ogeechee 15 North Main Street Statesboro, GA 30458 Counties Served: Bulloch, Effingham, Jenkins, Screven 912-871-1119

Page 100

Swainsboro Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Middle 101 North Main Street Swainsboro, GA 30401 Counties Served: Emanuel 478-289-2602
Sylvania Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Ogeechee 216 Mims Road, Screven County Courthouse Sylvania, GA 30467 Counties Served: Screven 912-564-7382
Sylvester Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Tifton 105 East Liberty Avenue Sylvester, GA 31791 Counties Served: Worth, Turner 229-777-2183
Thomaston Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Griffin 113 B East County Road Thomaston, GA 30286 Counties Served: Upson 706-646-6000
Thomasville Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Southern 800 West Jackson Street Thomasville, GA 31792 Counties Served: Thomas 229-225-4021
Thomasville Day Reporting Center Judicial Circuit: Southern 800 West Jackson Street Thomasville, GA 31792 Counties Served: Thomas 229-227-2447

Thomson Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Toombs 1025 Warrenton Highway P.O. Box 337 Thomson, GA 30824 Counties Served: Glascock, McDuffie, Thomson 706-595-7404
Tifton Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Tifton 541 South Main Street, Suite D Tifton, GA 31794 Counties Served: Irwin, Tift 229-386-3503
Tifton Day Reporting Center Judicial Circuit: Tifton 115 South Davis Ave Tifton, GA 31794 Counties Served: Irwin, Tift, Worth, Turner, Ben Hill, Berrien, Cook 229-391-6937
Toccoa Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Mountain 27 Doyle Street Toccoa, GA 30577 Counties Served: Stephens 706-282-4570
Valdosta Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Southern 209 North Ashley Street Valdosta, GA 31601 Counties Served: Lowndes, Echols, Brooks 229-333-5274
Warner Robins Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Houston 281 D. Carl Vinson Pkwy Warner Robins, GA 31088 Counties Served: Houston 478-929-6832

Washington Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Toombs 23 East Court Street, Room 401 Washington, GA 30673 Counties Served: Wilkes, Lincoln, Taliaferro 706-678-2373
Watkinsville Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Western 203 North Main Street Watkinsville, GA 30644 Counties Served: Oconee 706-769-3959 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 92 Watkinsville, GA 30677
Waycross Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Waycross 3019 Memorial Drive Waycross, GA 31503 Counties Served: Brantley, Charlton, Pierce, Ware 912-285-6028
Waynesboro Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Augusta 105 Liberty Street P.O. Box 89 Waynesboro, GA 30830 Counties Served: Burke 706-437-6849
Winder Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Piedmont 22 Lee Street Winder, GA 30680 Counties Served: Barrow, Banks, Jackson 678-963-7020

Page 101

Woodbine Probation Office Judicial Circuit: Brunswick 207 East Second Street P.O. Box 400 Woodbine, GA 31569 Counties Served: Camden 912-576-5998
PRISONS
Arrendale State Prison 2023 Gainesville Highway, S PO Box 709 Alto, GA 30510-0709 (706) 776-4700
Augusta State Medical Prison 3001 Gordon Hwy Grovetown, GA 30813 (706) 855-4700
Autry State Prison 3178 Mount Zion Church Rd PO Box 648 Pelham, GA 31779 (229) 294-2940
Baldwin State Prison Laying Farm Road PO Box 218 Hardwick, GA 31034 (478) 445-5218
Burruss Correctional Training Center and Boot Camp GPSTC Complex 1000 Indian Springs Dr. PO Box 5849 Forsyth, GA 31029 (478) 994-7511
Calhoun State Prison PO Box 249 Morgan, GA 39866 (229) 849-5000

Central State Prison 4600 Fulton Mill Road Macon, GA 31208 (478) 471-2908
Coastal State Prison 200 Gulfstream Road PO Box 7150 Garden City, GA 31418 (912) 965-6330
Coffee Correctional Facilty (Private) 1153 North Liberty St. PO Box 650 Nicholls, GA 31554 912-345-5058
Dodge State Prison 2971 Old Bethel Road PO Box 276 Chester, GA 31012-0276 (478) 358-7200
Dooly State Prison 1412 Plunkett Road PO Box 750 Unadilla, GA 31091 (478) 627-2000
Emanuel Women's Facility 714 Gumlog Rd Swainsboro, GA 478-289-2748
GA Diagnostic and Classification State Prison Hwy 36, West PO Box 3877 Jackson, GA 30233 (770) 504-2000
Georgia State Prison 300 1st Ave. South Reidsville, GA 30453 912-557-7301

Hancock State Prison 701 Prison Blvd. PO Box 339 Sparta, GA 31087 706-444-1000
Hays State Prison 777 Underwood Rd. PO Box 668 Trion, GA 30753 706-857-0400
Helm's Facility 1275 Constitution Road Atlanta, GA 30316 (404) 624-2413
Johnson State Prison 290 Donovan-Harrison Rd. PO Box 344 Wrightsville, GA 31096 478-864-4100
Lee State Prison 153 Pinewood Dr. Leesburg, GA 31763 229-759-6453
Long State Prison 1434 US 84 East PO Box 70 Ludowici, GA 31316 912-545-3779
Macon State Prison 2728 Hwy 49 South PO Box 426 Oglethorpe, GA 31068 478-472-3400
Montgomery State Prison 650 Mt. Vernon/Alston Rd. PO Box 256 Mt. Vernon, GA 30445 912-583-3600

Page 102

Phillips State Prison 2989 West Rock Quarry Rd. Buford, GA 30519 770-932-4500
Pulaski State Prison Rt. 2, Upper River Rd PO Box 839 Hawkinsville, GA 31036 478-753-6000
Rogers State Prison 1978 GA Hwy 147 Reidsville, GA 30453 912-557-7771
Rutledge State Prison 7175 Manor Rd. Columbus, GA 31907 706-568-2340
Smith State Prison 9676 Hwy 301 North PO Box 726 Glennville, GA 30427 912-654-5000
Telfair State Prison 210 Longbridge Rd. PO Box 549 Helena, GA 31037 229-868-7721
Valdosta State Prison 3259 Valtech Rd. PO Box 310 Valdosta, GA 31603 229-333-7900
Walker State Prison 97 Kevin Lane PO Box 98 Rock Springs, GA 30739 706-764-3600

Ware State Prison 3620 North Harris Rd. Waycross, GA 31503 912-285-6400
Washington State Prison 13262 Hwy 24 East PO Box 206 Davisboro, GA 31018 478-348-5814
Wheeler Correctional Facility (Private) 195 N. Broad St. Alamo, GA 30411 912-568-1731
Wilcox State Prison 470 South Broad St. PO Box 397 Abbeville, GA 31001 229-467-3000
COUNTY PRISONS
Athens/Clarke County Prison 2825 County Farm Road Athens, GA 30605 (706) 613-3400
Bulloch County Prison 17301 U.S. 301 North Statesboro, GA 30458 (912) 764-6217
Carroll County Prison 96 Horsley Mill Road Carrollton, GA 30117 (770) 830-5905
Clayton County Prison 11420 S.L. R. Boulevard PO Box 309 Lovejoy, GA 30250 (770) 473-5777

Colquitt County Prison PO Box 339 Moultrie, GA 31776 (229) 616-7490
Coweta County Prison 101 Selt Road Newnan, GA 30263 (770) 254-3723
Decatur County Prison 1153 Airport Road Bainbridge, GA 39817 (229) 248-3035
Effingham County Prison PO Box 235 Springfield, GA 31329 (912) 754-2108
Floyd County Prison 329 Blacks Bluff Road Rome, GA 30161 (706) 236-2490
Gwinnett County Prison 750 High Hope Road Lawrenceville, GA 30043 (678) 407-6000
Hall County Prison 1694 Barber Road Gainesville, GA 30507 (770) 536-3672
Harris County Prison 9982 Hwy 116 Hamilton, GA 31811 (706) 628-4959
Jackson County Prison 255 Curtis Spence Drive Jefferson, GA 30549 (706) 387-6450

Page 103

Jefferson County Prison 1159 Clarks Mill Road Louisville, GA 30434 (478) 625-7230
Mitchell County Prison 4838 Hwy 37, East Camilla, GA 31730 (229) 336-2045
Muscogee County Prison 7175 Sacerdote Lane PO Box 84041 Columbus, GA 31908 (706) 561-3220
Richmond County Prison 2314 Tobacco Road Augusta, GA 30906 (706) 798-5572
Screven County Prison 859 Rockyford Road PO Box 377 Sylvania, GA 30467 (912) 863-4555
Spalding County Prison 295 Justice Boulevard Griffin, GA 30224 (770) 467-4760
Sumter County Prison 346 McMath Mill Road PO Box 484 Americus, GA 31709 (229) 928-4582
Terrell County Prison 3110 Albany Hwy Dawson, GA 31742 (229) 995-5381
Thomas County Prison 324 County Farm Road Thomasville, GA 31757 (229) 226-4394

Troup County Prison 2508 Hamilton Road LaGrange, GA 30240 (706) 883-1720
TRANSITIONAL CENTERS
Albany Transitional Center 304 North Washington St. Albany, GA 31701 (229) 430-3888
Arrendale Transitional Center 2023 Gainesville Hwy S PO Box 186 Alto, GA 30510 (706) 776-0845
Atlanta Transitional Center 332 Ponce de Leon Ave. NE Atlanta, GA 30308 (404) 206-5103
Augusta Transitional Center 601 Taylor Street Augusta, GA 30901 (706) 721-1650
Clayton Transitional Center 242 Falcon Drive, Forest Park PO Box 16158 Atlanta, GA 30321 (404) 675-1500
Coastal Transitional Center 309 Stiles Avenue Savannah, GA 31415 (912) 651-0900
Columbus Transitional Center 3900 Schatulga Road PO Box 218 Columbus, GA 31907 (706) 568-2167
Page 104

LaGrange Transitional Center 100 Jim Hester Road LaGrange, GA 30241 (706) 845-4018
Macon Transitional Center 200 Henry Street Macon, GA 31206 (478) 751-6090
Phillips Transitional Center 2989 West Rock Quarry Rd Buford, GA 30519 (770) 932-4646
Smith Transitional Center 8631 U.S. Highway 301 Claxton, GA 30417 (912) 739-1018
Valdosta Transitional Center 363 Gil Harbin Blvd. Valdosta, GA 31601 (229) 293-6280
PROBATION DETENTION CENTERS
Bacon Probation Detention Center PO Box 904 165 E. Eastside Industrial Blvd. Alma, GA 31501 912-632-8157
Bleckley Probation Detention Center PO Box 519 179 Jac Arts Rd. Cochran, GA 31014 478-934-3303
Colwell Probation Detention Center 189 Beasley Street Blairsville, GA 30512 706-745-3610

Emanuel Probation Detention Center PO Box 1430 121 Casa Dr. Twin City, GA 30471 478-763-2400
McEver Probation Detention Center PO Box 1430 2100 Kings Chapel Rd. Perry, GA 31069 478-988-7024

Patten Probation Detention Center PO Box 278 1009 North 10th Street Lakeland, GA 31635 229-482-8241
Paulding Probation Detention Center 1295 Industrial Blvd. Dallas, GA 30132 770-443-7807

Treutlen Probation Detention Center PO Box 707 401 Cascade Circle Soperton, GA 30457 912-529-6760
Women's Probation Detention Center PO Box 920 8662 US Hwy 301 North Claxton, GA 30417 912-739-0716

Page 105

Works Cited
Bureau of Justice Assistance. (2010). Improving Criminal Justice and Reducing Recidivism Through Justice Reinvestment. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance.
Carr, T. S. (2008, May 14th). "Truth in Sentencing" in Georgia. Retrieved February 28th, 2011, from Georgia Department of Corrections: http://www.dcor.state.ga.us/Research/Standing/Truth_in_sentencing.pdf
Carr, T. S. (2011). Five Most Frequently Sentenced Offenses since January of 2000. Atlanta: Georgia Department of Corrections.
Carr, T. S. (2011, February 1). Georgia Department of Corrections. Retrieved February 28, 2011, from Georgia Department of Corrections: http://www.dcor.state.ga.us/Research/Standing/Length_of_stay_by_calender_year.pdf
GDC. (2010). 10 Step Framework IPR. Forsyth: None.
GDC. (2010). Aging Inmate Population. Atlanta: Georgia Department of Corrections.
GDC. (2010). Corrections Division Quarterly Population Report - CY 2010 3rd Qtr. Atlanta: GDC.
GDC. (2010). Corrections Division Quarterly Report - 4th Qtr CY2010. Atlanta: GDC.
GDC. (2010). FY 2009 - Cost of Adult Offender Sanctions. Atlanta: GDC.
GDC. (2011). Justice Reinvestment. Atlanta: GDC.
GDC. (2011, March 10). Substance Abuse Services. Retrieved March 10, 2011, from Georgia Department of Corrections: http://www.dcor.state.ga.us/Divisions/OPT/Reentry/RiskReduction/SubstanceAbuse.html
Georgia Accountability Courts. (2011, February 1). The Time is Now. Retrieved March 10, 2011, from Georgia Accountability Courts: http://w2.georgiacourts.org/gac/files/Time%20is%20Now%202011(1).pdf
Georgia Bureau of Investigation. (2011, April 5). GBI Crime Statistics Database. Retrieved April 5, 2011, from Georgia Bureau of Investigation: http://gbi.georgia.gov/vgn/images/portal/cit_1210/21/62/90032275Statewide%20Crime%20Rates%20per%201 00,000%20Population%201980%20-%202009.pdf
Georgia State Board of Pardons and Parole. (2011, February 28). Georgia State Board of Pardons and Parole. Retrieved February 28, 2011, from Georgia State Board of Pardons and Parole: http://www.pap.state.ga.us/opencms/export/sites/default/clemency/parole_decision_guidelines.html
His Voice. (2006, April 1). His Voice. Retrieved February 28, 2011, from His Voice: http://www.hisvoiceonline.com/archives/200604/HV_Article_GraceVillage.htm
Holly Tree. (2011, February 28). Holly Tree. Retrieved February 2011, 2011, from Holly Tree Services: http://hollytreeservices.org/Media/Holly-Tree-brochure05.pdf
Page 106

Judicial Council Standing Committee on Drug Courts. (2008). Georgia Drug Courts: Creating Accountability, Saving Families, Saving Costs. Atlanta: Georgia Judicial Council.
Justice Mapping Center. (2010). Justice Mapping. Retrieved February 28, 2011, from Justice Mapping: http://www.justiceatlas.org/
Neville, B. (2011, February 15). Manager, Offender Administration. (J. Sanders, Interviewer)
Newt.org. (2010, March 24). Out for Life: Cutting Recidivism Saves Money and Lives. Retrieved April 12, 2011, from Newt.org: http://www.newt.org/newt-direct/out4life-cutting-recidivism-saves-money-and-lives-0#
NIC. (2011, February 28). Corrections Statistics for the State of Georgia. Retrieved February 28, 2011, from National Institute of Corrections: http://www.nicic.gov/Features/StateStats/?State=GA#1
North Carolina Department of Justice. (2011, April 4). Crime in North Carolina. Retrieved April 4, 2011, from North Carolina Department of Justice: http://crimereporting.ncdoj.gov/Introduction.aspx
PEW Center on the States. (2009). One in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections. Washington: The PEW Center on the States.
Sarre, R. (1999). Beyond "What Works?": A 25 Year Jubilee Retrospective of Robert Martinson. Adelaide, Australia: University of South Australia.
Sociologyindex.com. (2011, February 28th). Sociologyindex.com. Retrieved February 28th, 2011, from Sociologyindex.com: http://www.sociologyindex.com/nothing_works.htm
Stateline.org. (2009, March 2). Study Finds Disparity in Corrections Spending. Retrieved April 13, 2011, from Stateline.org: http://www.stateline.org/live/printable/story?contentId=380542
Urban Institute - Justice Policy Center. (2011, April 7). Justice Reinvestment at the Local Level - Planning and Implementation Guide. Retrieved April 7, 2011, from Urban Institute: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CCQQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.urban.org% 2Fuploadedpdf%2F412233-JusticeReinvestment.pdf&ei=brOfTZzOM4jltgfciOGSAw&usg=AFQjCNF0PeARdhkIGSm18ghmPt8YSFwE5A
Watchdog.org. (2011, February 17). Georgia Prison System Reform Will Focus on Sentencing Alternatives. Retrieved April 8, 2011, from www.watchdog.org: http://watchdog.org/8331/georgia-prison-system-reformwill-focus-onsentencing-
Welsh, R. Z. (2008). Tough on Crime and the Budget: The Difficult Balancing Act of Public Safety and Skyrocketing Prison Costs. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Budget and Policy Institute.
WordIQ.com. (2010). WordIQ.com. Retrieved February 28, 2011, from WordIQ.com: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/COMPSTAT
Page 107

Special thanks to Timothy S. Carr, Ph.D, Senior Researcher, Office of Planning and Strategic Management, Georgia Department of Corrections. Without his insight and research information this project would be incomplete. Prepared by Sr. Hearing Officer Jay Sanders with research and proofing assistance by Hearing Officer Lindy Clark, Corrections Division/Probation Operations, Georgia Department of Corrections
For additional copies of this booklet or more information contact: Georgia Department of Corrections, PO Box 1529, Forsyth, GA 31029 Or visit us on the web at: http://www.dcor.state.ga.us
Page 108