february 29, 2016 prison population control task force ... · our prison growth is the result of...

February 29, 2016

Prison Population Control Task Force Members,

I appreciate the opportunity to have participated in this task force. A great deal of information

has been brought forth, and there have been excellent discussions about the drivers of

Minnesota’s prison population. But one thing we have learned is that there are no easy answers,

and that no single solution is likely to stop the growth of our prison population. Our prison

growth is the result of many individual policy decisions that each made sense at the time but that

cumulatively led to this result. In order to reverse the flow, we will have to similarly look at

multiple aspects of our criminal justice system and make adjustments.

Senator Latz has proposed a full menu of policy options. I agree with the majority of them, and

hope they will be pursued in this and the coming legislative sessions. Below are three additional

options that I offer for consideration.

1. Institute an earned time program for prison sentences.

Shortly after Minnesota enacted the sentencing guidelines, the state also enacted a “truth

in sentencing” provision, which eliminated good time, and required that all offenders

serve a standard two-thirds of the pronounced sentence in prison and one-third on

supervised release. This provision brought certainty to sentencing. It gave victims

assurance that offenders would serve a specified period in prison, and it allowed

Minnesota to predict prison capacity with a high degree of accuracy. However, it also

eliminated a means of providing an incentive for offenders to participate in programming

and to refrain from behavior that could result in disciplinary sanctions while in prison.

An earned time program would restore that incentive model by allowing offenders to earn

a reduction in their prison sentences by engaging in their case plan and maintaining good

behavior in prison. It would also serve public safety because any reductions in the prison

term would be based on a demonstrated record of program participation and good

behavior. Because this approach is more formulaic, it would also be less costly to

implement than a parole-type second look provision such as the one recently presented to

the task force. The major components of an earned-time program might be as follows.

Earned time should be based on both program compliance and good behavior

(half for each) while in prison.

The amount of time that could be earned would be capped. For example, if an

offender were permitted to earn 3 days of earned time per month, this would

result in a maximum 10% reduction in the offender’s sentence. The Minnesota

2 | P a g e

Sentencing Guidelines Commission reports that the average prison sentence is just

over 45 months, so a 10% reduction would only reduce the average prison

sentence by 4-1/2 months.

This earned time program could be designed to fit within the current two-

thirds/one-third split. Offenders who participate could earn a reduction in their

prison sentence, but offenders who do not participate would still serve a minimum

of two-thirds of the pronounced sentence in prison.

The most serious crimes, such as murder and certain sex offenses, could be

excluded from the earned time program.

Earned time would be forfeited if the offender escapes from prison or supervised

release, commits a new crime, or commits a serious disciplinary infraction.

Earned time would not be permitted for time spent in prison on a supervised

release return.

2. Establish a new cap on the length of felony probation.

Minn. Stat. § 609.135 currently provides that probation for most felony offenses must be

“not more than four years or the maximum period for which the sentence of

imprisonment might have been imposed.” Data produced by the Sentencing Guidelines

Commission indicate that the average terms actually imposed range from 4 to 13 years

depending on the offense type (see attached report on probation lengths). The Robina

Institute is currently engaged in a project to measure whether probationers are serving out

the full length of their terms or if they are being discharged early. We are also attempting

to measure when within that term recidivism occurs. Preliminary results from a small

sample of counties show that revocations tend to occur within the first 3 years of

probation, and that individuals who are not revoked are serving between 80 and 100% of

their pronounced probation terms before discharge. The revocation data is consistent with

annual reporting done by the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission. It

demonstrates that lengthy probation terms are not necessary from a public safety

standpoint because behavior that tends to result in failure on probation occurs within the

first few years of probation. Instead, lengthy probation terms may actually harm public

safety because it may act as a disincentive for probationers to engage in rehabilitative

programming, and because it may prolong the period of difficulty for individuals

attempting to obtain housing or employment, which are both critical factors to offender

success. Attached is a document detailing statutory probation terms in 21 other states.

Of the states reviewed, 12 states cap felony probation at 5 years or less. Based on the

above information, I would propose a cap of 5 years for felony probation. As an

alternative, some offenses, such as certain sex offenses, could be carved out for lengthier

probation terms, but this carve out should be utilized sparingly.

3. Mandate regular reporting on probation revocations and supervised release returns.

Testimony at the earliest meetings of the Prison Population Control Task Force indicated

that probation revocations and supervised release returns make up a large proportion of

annual prison admissions (though these two groups may have shorter prison stays than

3 | P a g e

those admitted for new convictions). Because Minnesota has a strong commitment to

community supervision, a large proportion of the felony population is initially sentenced

to probation rather than prison. But we do not have a clear picture as to how many

probationers are being revoked to prison or why (e.g., treatment failure, failing to

maintain contact with the probation officer, etc.). Nor do we have a clear picture as to

why supervised releasees are being returned to prison. With better information about the

numbers and reasons for both types of revocation, we will be better positioned to make

decisions about what is and is not working about community supervision and to target our

resources more effectively. Because our community supervision populations are so large,

it is inevitable that unless we get revocations under control, they will continue to

contribute to an ever increasing prison population. The DOC and county probation

offices have just recently modified their systems to enable tracking of revocation

information. Mandated reporting would ensure implementation of data collection and

reporting practices.

The Robina Institute would be pleased to offer assistance to the Legislature to further research

and/or develop these or any other proposals stemming from the work of this task force.

Sincerely,

Kelly Lyn Mitchell

Executive Director

Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice

that will reduce revocations and achieve better outcomes for probationers.

Probation Revocation Project Advisory BoardThe Probation Revocation Advisory Board (PAB) is comprised of a diverse group of criminal justice professionals, including judges, practitioners, scholars, and other stakeholders in community supervision, who provide guidance, insight, and feedback on the direction of the project. For more information on the Probation Revocation Project and the Advisory Board, visit www.robinainstitute.org/probation-revocation-project/.

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL x 229 19TH AVE SOUTH x N160 MONDALE HALL x MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55455 x [email protected] x WWW.ROBINAINSTITUTE.ORG



Factors Determining Length of Probation The period of time that an individual will serve on probation is initially established by the court when the individual is sentenced. There are few constitutional restrictions on the length of probation, other than the requirement that the sentence conform to local laws. In many jurisdictions there are statutory limitations as to the length of the original probation sentence as well as whether and under what circumstances probation can be extended. Probation terms may typically be extended for probation violations or failure to meet certain conditions (e.g., not paying restitution). On the other hand, probationers may be incentivized by statutes that allow the court to shorten or terminate probation and release them from supervision, thus fulfilling their criminal sentence.

Maximum Probation Terms for Felony and Misdemeanor Sentences Felonies are more serious offenses, and at this level, conviction may result in a prison sentence. For some dangerous offenses, state statutes may authorize a lifetime term of probation.5 Setting lifetime probation aside, Table 1 focuses on the maximum terms of probation that may be imposed for other felony offenses in each jurisdiction. The most common length of felony probation is five years, with laws in 8 of the 21 states examined setting this as the maximum term.6 In three states, the maximum probation period is unclear or discretionary. In three others, the maximum term of felony probation is tied to the maximum incarceration term for the crime. For example, in Minnesota,

the maximum felony incarceration term for a very serious crime is 40 years; this would also be the maximum possible length of probation for such an offense.7

Misdemeanors are typically less serious offenses where the term of incarceration, if any, is shorter and is likely to be served in a county jail rather than a prison. However, states define “misdemeanor” differently; for example, in Pennsylvania, a misdemeanor sentence may extend for up to five years and may include a prison term whereas in Minnesota, a misdemeanor is punishable by a maximum of 90 days.8 Most states researched set an absolute maximum number of years for which misdemeanor

by Alexis Lee Watts

In 2014, the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice published a report entitled Profiles in Probation Revocation: Examining the Legal Framework in 21 States,1 the purpose of which was to gain understanding of the laws and processes governing probation revocation in a cross-section of states. Building from that report, this informational brief pulls together the statutes that govern the length of probation sentences in each of the twenty-one jurisdictions studied,2 as well as the legal framework for early termination or extension of the probation term.

Max. Length of Felony Probation

States

1 year WA

2 years FL3

3 years UT

4 years ME

5 yearsAL, IA, MO, MS, NY,

NC, OH, OR

7 years AZ

10 years TX

Discretionary CO, MA

Maximum term CA, MN, PA, WI

Unclear IN4

Table 1. Felony Probation Lengths

PROBATION IN-DEPTH THE LENGTH OF PROBATION SENTENCES



probation could be imposed, often capped at two years or five years. Only Massachusetts allows full judicial discretion in the probation term.9 (See chart above).

Early Termination of Probation Early termination of probation is generally a reward for good conduct. In some jurisdictions offenders are not eligible until they meet certain probation conditions, which can sometimes include full payment of all fines, fees, and restitution.10 Two states in our sample, Texas and Wisconsin, allow consideration for early termination only after a certain percentage of the sentence is served.11 Two states, North Carolina and Texas, also have an automatic review of probation at a certain number of years to see if the probationer would qualify for early termination.12 In contrast, some states studied have no explicit mechanism

for early termination of probation and either don’t allow it (Washington, Indiana) or allow it through common law (Minnesota, Massachusetts).13

Probation ExtensionExtension of probation allows the court to add time to the probationary term that must be served, usually up to the maximum term possible for a given crime. In about a third of the states studied, probation could only be extended after a probation violation. However, in many other states, the extension of probation can occur upon failure to com-plete specific conditions, often related to financial obliga-tions.14 In a few states, extension is at the discretion of the court (frequently with some due process limitations). Two jurisdictions, Maine and Washington, have no provisions to extend the probation term.15

Nu

mb

er

of S

tate

s

Discretionary 6 months 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years Max0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

MA FL

IN, ME, MN, WA

AL, IA, MO, NC, TX, WA

AZ, NY, UT

CA, CO, MS, OH, OR

PA

Table 2. Misdemeanor Probation Lengths

n No early termination

n Early termination without specific statute

n Early termination at discretion of court

n Early termination for cause (i.e. in the interest of justice, for good behavior, meeting certain terms)

n Can be terminated only after a certain % of time is served

10%

52%

10%

19%

9%

Chart 1. Early Termination of Probation

n No extension for most people

n No extension without violation

n Can be extended for cause or to ensure completion of certain conditions (i.e. restitution)

n Can be extended at discretion of court

19%

38%

33%

10%

Chart 2. Extension of Probation



Why Does the Length of Probation Matter? Probation length prompts consideration of many compet-ing interests. The probation term must be long enough to ensure community safety, to provide rehabilitative services, and to adequately punish offenders. Effective probation terms can both prevent future crime and foster individual growth for probationers. However, unnecessarily lengthy terms of probation may not benefit any of the stakehold-ers involved. State and local governments, for example, must determine whether the benefits to public safety of long supervision terms are outweighed by the rising costs over time of maintaining supervision over steadily growing caseloads.16

Therefore, it is important to strike a balance in probation length. In a 2014 study by the Center for Effective Public Policy prepared for the National Institute of Corrections, recommendations included systematically matching pro-bation length to offender risk level and concluding the probation term after important rehabilitative goals and program successes were accomplished, rather than at a specific time.17 Carl Wicklund, former director of the American Probation and Parole Association, believes that lengthy initial probation sentences may be justified, but that in appropriate cases probationers should be released from their term when they have “accomplished all that was expected of them.” For higher-risk offenders, he notes that “the length of the probation term depends on what an of-ficer wants to accomplish and what resources the agency has in place to assist the offender in working toward his/her goals. Community tolerance and public safety factors also have to be considered […].”18 The results in this brief may provide context for this ongoing discussion. “[T]he length of the probation term

depends on what an officer wants to accomplish and what resources the agency has in place to assist the offender in working toward his/her goals. Community tolerance and public safety factors also have to be considered […].”

–Carl Wicklund, Former Director, American Probation and Parole Association

1 Robina Inst. of Crim. Law & Crim. Justice, Profiles in Probation Revocation: Examining the Legal Framework in 21 States (2014), http://www.robinainstitute.org/ publications/profiles-probation-revocation-examining-legal-framework-21-states/ [hearinafter Profiles in Probation Revocation].

2 The states we examined were: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.

3 The maximum in Florida may be less for those placed on community control where the entire sentence was under 2 years. Fla. Stat. § 948.01(4)(2015).

4 Indiana recently repealed the statute that set the maximum term of probation for a felony. Ind. Code § 35.50-2-2 (repealed eff. July 1, 2014).

5 See, e.g. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-902(2015). 6 Profiles in Probation Revocation, supra note 1. 7 Minn. Stat. Ann. § 609.135, subd. 2 (2015). 8 18 Pa. C. S. § 106 (2015); Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 3 (2015). 9 Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 297, § 1A (2015); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, § 87 (2015). 10 See Fla. Stat. § 948.04(3) (2015); Iowa Code §§ 907.7(3), 907.9(1) (2015). 11 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 § 20(a) (2015); Wis. Stat. § 973.09(2)(c)(3)

(2015).

12 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 § 20(a) (2015); N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 15A-1342(d) (2015).

13 Profiles in Probation Revocation, supra note 1, at 30, 46, 86; Commonwealth v. Hunt, 900 N.E. 2d. 121, 124 (Mass. App. 2009).

14 See, e.g. Minn. Stat. Ann. § 609.135, subd. 2(g)-(h) (205) (extension can occur if probationer fails to pay restitution or complete treatment).

15 Profiles in Probation Revocation, supra note 1, at 88; Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A §§ 1202, 1203-C (2015).

16 See e.g., Minn. Sentencing Guidelines Comm’n, Probation Revocations at 7 (Jan. 2015) (detailing the increase in volume of felony cases sentenced to probation from 2001 to 2012); Mariel Alper et al., American Exceptionalism in Probation Supervision (Robina Inst.of Crim.Law & Crim. Justice 2016), http://www.robinainstitute.org/news/new-data-brief-american-exceptionalism-probation-supervision/(demonstrating that the U.S. probation supervision rate in 2013 was more than five times greater than the rate for European countries).

17 Ctr. for Effective Pub. Policy, Dosage Probation: Rethinking the Structure of Probation Sentences (2014), https://www.fppoa.org/sites/default/files/dosage.pdf.

18 Am. Prob. And Parole Ass’n, Probation and Parole FAQs Qs. 8-9, citing communication from Carl Wicklund, https://www.appa-net.org/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?WebCode=VB_FAQ#8.

REFERENCES

Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission

Length of Stayed Sentences: Sentenced 2008-2012

_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Source: MSGC Monitoring Data 5/15/2014 Page 1 of 10

Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission (MSGC) monitoring data are offender-based, meaning cases represent offenders rather than individual charges. Offenders sentenced within the same county in a one-month period are generally counted only once, based on their most serious offense. Information Requested: Information on the average pronounced probation length by judicial district and/or county. Also, if there are some counties who might keep offenders on probation for over 10 years or so.

Analysis: Figure 1 displays the average pronounced length of probation from 2008-2012, by offense type, for offenders sentenced for felony offenses. MSGC has no information on how long offenders actually serve on probation before they are discharged. Probation terms for felony offenses that received misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor sentences are included. 6% of the offenders placed on probation for felony offenses received a M/GM sentence during this period. Criminal sexual conduct offenses received significantly longer probation terms when compared to other offense types.

Figure 1: Avg. Pronounced Probation Length by Offense Type: Felonies Sentenced 2008-2012

Table 1: Pronounced Probation Terms of 120 Months or More: Criminal Sexual Conduct Offenses vs. Other Offenses

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Person Property Drug Other DWI Crim Sex Total

Probation 54 61 84 48 77 156 68

Mo

nth

s

Avg. Pronounced Probation

≥120

Total No Yes

Criminal Sexual

Conduct Offense?

No Cases 46,525 6,785 53,310

% w/in CSC 87.3% 12.7% 100.0%

Yes Cases 447 1,331 1,778

% w/in CSC 25.1% 74.9% 100.0%

Total Cases 46,972 8,116 55,088

% w/in CSC 85.3% 14.7% 100.0%


The following set of graphs display the average pronounced probation terms by offense type and judicial district. For example, from 2008-2012, the average pronounced probation term in District 1 was 54 months. While sex offenses have the longest average pronounced probation term, drug offenses have the greatest range, from an average low of 36 months to an average high of 131 months.

Figure 2: Avg. Pronounced Probation Term by District for Each Offense Type

54 64 63

38

57

38

65 59 63 62 54

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total

Person Offenses

56 65

75

38

68

37

78 69 74 71

61

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total

Property Offenses

67 92

105

38

104

36

131

89 99 102 84

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total

Drug Offenses

80 83 82 60

80

52

84 87 83 84 77

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total

DWI Offenses

157 198 175

81

153

83

186 172 166 194

156

0

50

100

150

200

250

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total

Sex Offenses

45 51 56

38 52

34

54 51 61

52 48

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total

Other Offenses


Table 2 displays the average pronounced length of probation from 2008-2012, by county and offense type, for offenders sentenced for felony offenses. For example, in Aitkin County, 33 offenders received a stayed sentence for a person offense. The average pronounced probation length for these 33 offenders was 57 months.

Table 2: Avg. Pronounced Probation Term by Offense Type and County: Sentenced 2008-2012

County Offense

Type Avg. Length of Stay (months) Cases

Aitkin

person 57 33

property 82 71

drug 85 31

other 51 26

DWI 84 12

Crim Sex 173 15

Total 81 188

Anoka

person 67 603

property 67 1,087

drug 111 789

other 53 218

DWI 83 130

Crim Sex 183 86

Total 82 2,913

Becker

person 69 109

property 99 112

drug 144 105

other 66 42

DWI 84 37

Crim Sex 150 6

Total 99 411

Beltrami

person 62 123

property 73 180

drug 112 165

other 56 87

DWI 83 41

Crim Sex 163 20

Total 83 616

Benton

person 60 129

property 72 163

drug 139 156

other 55 42

DWI 84 20

County Offense


Crim Sex 180 22

Total 92 532

Big Stone

person 68 3

property 77 16

drug 88 12

other 48 5

DWI 76 3

Crim Sex 210 4

Total 88 43

Blue Earth

person 62 182

property 66 176

drug 104 183

other 56 72

DWI 84 51

Crim Sex 140 24

Total 78 688

Brown

person 52 20

property 95 45

drug 187 48

other 56 15

DWI 76 6

Crim Sex 170 6

Total 119 140

Carlton

person 38 99

property 36 152

drug 35 226

other 33 33

DWI 48 29

Crim Sex 57 11

Total 37 550

Carver

person 56 113

property 61 164

drug 99 112


County Offense


other 51 51

DWI 79 18

Crim Sex 164 23

Total 73 481

Cass

person 64 137

property 72 146

drug 100 73

other 68 50

DWI 84 41

Crim Sex 188 24

Total 81 471

Chippewa

person 62 24

property 68 39

drug 69 30

other 49 9

DWI 84 4

Crim Sex 90 6

Total 67 112

Chisago

person 59 108

property 82 189

drug 100 131

other 53 49

DWI 84 25

Crim Sex 176 15

Total 82 517

Clay

person 60 204

property 86 161

drug 121 194

other 39 78

DWI 83 66

Crim Sex 210 4

Total 83 707

Clearwater

person 69 21

property 97 47

drug 79 25

other 63 12

DWI 84 6

Crim Sex 120 5

Total 85 116

Cook person 50 7

County Offense


property 40 9

drug 39 7

other 33 4

DWI 62 6

Crim Sex 96 5

Total 52 38

Cottonwood

person 46 36

property 46 39

drug 71 26

other 45 17

DWI 60 4

Crim Sex 72 9

Total 53 131

Crow Wing

person 63 88

property 71 191

drug 102 267

other 59 65

DWI 84 46

Crim Sex 176 34

Total 87 691

Dakota

person 54 1,030

property 54 1,699

drug 60 673

other 46 260

DWI 81 169

Crim Sex 158 111

Total 59 3,942

Dodge

person 50 21

property 77 51

drug 122 37

other 77 12

DWI 83 17

Crim Sex 177 11

Total 92 149

Douglas

person 53 69

property 69 142

drug 97 89

other 39 14

DWI 84 18

Crim Sex 156 15


County Offense


Total 76 347

Faribault

person 65 37

property 72 46

drug 120 23

other 52 27

DWI 84 10

Crim Sex 197 14

Total 86 157

Fillmore

person 53 26

property 84 49

drug 92 20

other 39 13

DWI 84 7

Crim Sex 180 10

Total 82 125

Freeborn

person 68 59

property 78 67

drug 110 164

other 54 22

DWI 81 14

Crim Sex 153 11

Total 93 337

Goodhue

person 64 77

property 60 122

drug 62 151

other 44 32

DWI 81 32

Crim Sex 189 23

Total 68 437

Grant

person 46 5

property 82 12

drug 89 9

other 60 2

DWI 84 2

Crim Sex 240 2

Total 87 32

Hennepin

person 38 3,115

property 38 3,512

drug 37 2,329

other 38 1,137

County Offense


DWI 60 411

Crim Sex 81 244

Total 39 10,748

Houston

person 57 59

property 81 66

drug 134 41

other 45 18

DWI 84 13

Crim Sex 231 7

Total 87 204

Hubbard

person 61 27

property 72 81

drug 115 97

other 46 23

DWI 84 24

Crim Sex 223 7

Total 90 259

Isanti

person 58 64

property 77 116

drug 101 175

other 53 34

DWI 84 11

Crim Sex 185 13

Total 86 413

Itasca

person 62 126

property 62 157

drug 70 151

other 59 59

DWI 83 26

Crim Sex 117 39

Total 69 558

Jackson

person 78 18

property 72 34

drug 156 35

other 88 3

DWI 84 11

Crim Sex 225 8

Total 113 109

Kanabec person 59 87

property 86 81


County Offense


drug 87 64

other 81 33

DWI 76 3

Crim Sex 198 13

Total 82 281

Kandiyohi

person 60 106

property 70 227

drug 106 147

other 48 64

DWI 83 18

Crim Sex 204 25

Total 81 587

Kittson

person 180 2

property 75 25

drug 60 3

other 36 1

DWI 84 1

Crim Sex 144 5

Total 88 37

Koochiching

person 50 16

property 53 34

drug 49 22

other 29 3

DWI 66 4

Crim Sex 132 3

Total 54 82

Lac Qui Parle

person 63 4

property 59 24

drug 52 3

DWI 84 2

Crim Sex 120 3

Total 65 36

Lake

person 45 22

property 53 42

drug 57 16

other 29 7

DWI 57 7

Crim Sex 110 7

Total 55 101

Lake of the person 60 8

County Offense


Woods property 54 6

drug 60 8

other 120 1

DWI 84 8

Crim Sex 210 4

Total 83 35

LeSueur

person 61 33

property 86 66

drug 77 28

other 45 22

DWI 81 15

Crim Sex 177 23

Total 86 187

Lincoln

person 52 3

property 57 14

drug 46 6

other 46 6

DWI 52 3

Crim Sex 90 4

Total 56 36

Lyon

person 58 85

property 61 150

drug 66 75

other 55 29

DWI 78 13

Crim Sex 99 11

Total 63 363

McLeod

person 41 123

property 37 136

drug 46 69

other 39 51

DWI 66 15

Crim Sex 114 24

Total 45 418

Mahnomen

person 59 51

property 72 54

drug 125 30

other 53 24

DWI 80 19

Crim Sex 150 2


County Offense


Total 76 180

Marshall

person 46 14

property 82 29

drug 108 15

other 56 6

DWI 84 6

Crim Sex 214 7

Total 91 77

Martin

person 63 50

property 76 81

drug 109 116

other 45 16

DWI 84 11

Crim Sex 204 15

Total 92 289

Meeker

person 56 44

property 68 52

drug 90 43

other 60 12

DWI 84 7

Crim Sex 154 7

Total 74 165

Mille Lacs

person 62 143

property 73 87

drug 82 116

other 63 39

DWI 83 23

Crim Sex 148 15

Total 74 423

Morrison

person 63 74

property 78 103

Drug 109 107

other 37 21

DWI 84 11

Crim Sex 162 17

Total 86 333

Mower

person 59 134

property 70 316

drug 101 168

other 53 44

County Offense


DWI 84 16

Crim Sex 165 20

Total 77 698

Murray

person 44 6

property 59 14

drug 58 22

other 60 2

DWI 84 1

Crim Sex 80 3

Total 58 48

Nicollet

person 59 41

property 83 64

drug 155 52

other 45 16

DWI 84 10

Crim Sex 217 12

Total 102 195

Nobles

person 53 52

property 63 86

drug 72 70

other 56 17

DWI 77 18

Crim Sex 114 10

Total 66 253

Norman

person 64 17

property 65 27

drug 99 4

other 132 5

DWI 68 3

Crim Sex 192 5

Total 83 61

Olmsted

person 65 496

property 83 454

drug 125 332

other 54 109

DWI 83 91

Crim Sex 214 50

Total 89 1,532

Otter Tail person 68 80

property 87 186


County Offense


drug 170 106

other 61 53

DWI 84 21

Crim Sex 184 21104

Total 104 466

Pennington

person 68 36

property 76 99

drug 99 51

other 74 16

DWI 82 15

Crim Sex 153 11

Total 84 228

Pine

person 78 55

property 70 125

drug 99 126

other 47 34

DWI 84 29

Crim Sex 240 8

Total 84 377

Pipestone

person 57 13

property 59 21

drug 73 19

other 40 3

DWI 70 5

Crim Sex 80 3

Total 64 64

Polk

person 67 146

property 84 182

drug 111 187

other 72 68

DWI 83 28

Crim Sex 203 16

Total 90 627

Pope

person 50 6

property 85 19

drug 72 28

other 33 4

DWI 72 6

Crim Sex 210 6

Total 83 69

County Offense


Ramsey

person 64 2,188

property 65 2,335

drug 92 1,567

other 51 567

DWI 83 192

Crim Sex 198 104

Total 72 6,953

Red Lake

person 53 5

property 66 16

drug 62 14

other 76 6

DWI 82 5

Crim Sex 195 4

Total 77 50

Redwood

person 43 67

property 49 60

drug 59 74

other 47 18

DWI 79 9

Crim Sex 103 9

Total 53 237

Renville

person 62 25

property 61 39

drug 65 36

other 62 10

DWI 72 6

Crim Sex 180 3

Total 66 119

Rice

person 65 143

property 62 130

drug 67 182

other 52 44

DWI 73 25

Crim Sex 104 19

Total 66 543

Rock

person 48 2

property 53 18

drug 55 10

other 36 4

DWI 68 3


County Offense


Crim Sex 133 9

Total 68 46

Roseau

person 60 26

property 81 76

drug 80 23

other 54 16

DWI 83 17

Crim Sex 158 5

Total 77 163

St. Louis

person 37 923

property 36 804

drug 36 670

other 34 214

DWI 52 135

Crim Sex 84 84

Total 38 2,830

Scott

person 51 286

property 62 333

drug 74 403

other 45 99

DWI 81 48

Crim Sex 148 48

Total 67 1,217

Sherburne

person 58 193

property 74 270

drug 124 214

other 54 78

DWI 83 35

Crim Sex 199 33

Total 87 823

Sibley

person 62 37

property 62 38

drug 64 15

other 43 18

DWI 84 5

Crim Sex 156 5

Total 64 118

Stearns

person 70 528

property 73 581

drug 155 331

County Offense


other 55 136

DWI 85 61

Crim Sex 206 47

Total 91 1,684

Steele

person 59 93

property 66 109

drug 65 81

other 47 51

DWI 85 20

Crim Sex 155 9

Total 64 363

Stevens

person 60 8

property 80 12

drug 109 11

other 52 3

DWI 84 3

Crim Sex 240 2

Total 90 39

Swift

person 59 11

property 71 22

drug 65 18

other 120 2

DWI 84 2

Crim Sex 84 5

Total 70 60

Todd

person 70 33

property 84 75

drug 89 44

other 55 17

DWI 84 9

Crim Sex 246 10

Total 89 188

Traverse

person 54 13

property 81 9

drug 120 2

other 27 4

DWI 84 1

Crim Sex -- 0

Total 65 29

Wabasha person 54 30


County Offense


property 83 57

drug 100 73

other 96 5

DWI 87 13

Crim Sex 147 11

Total 89 189

Wadena

person 70 80

property 81 72

drug 136 38

other 67 21

DWI 98 6

Crim Sex 201 14

Total 93 231

Waseca

person 61 56

property 56 50

drug 76 26

other 62 30

DWI 81 9

Crim Sex 300 2

Total 66 173

Washington

person 57 403

property 66 684

drug 90 448

other 46 217

DWI 85 72

Crim Sex 187 48

Total 71 1,872

Watonwan

person 52 35

property 85 64

drug 191 22

other 44 14

DWI 84 3

Crim Sex 177 20

Total 101 158

Wilkin person 80 6

property 81 20

County Offense


drug 109 14

other 30 4

DWI 136 6

Total 91 50

Winona

person 69 135

property 78 134

drug 125 152

other 71 49

DWI 81 35

Crim Sex 162 29

Total 93 534

Wright

person 58 261

property 80 282

drug 86 200

other 50 67

DWI 83 32

Crim Sex 210 71

Total 83 913

Yellow

Medicine

person 54 17

property 54 33

drug 57 25

other 56 13

DWI 94 5

Crim Sex 92 3

Total 59 96

Total

person 54 14,323

property 61 18,268

drug 84 13,300

other 48 4,944

DWI 77 2,475

Crim Sex 156 1,778

Total 67 55,088

february 29, 2016 prison population control task force ... · our prison growth is the result of...

Documents