January 2013

Justice Reinvestment
in West Virginia
Analyses & Policy Options to
Reduce Spending on Corrections &
Reinvest in Strategies to Increase
Public Safety

Background

I

N JUNE 2012, GOVERNOR EARL RAY TOMBLIN,
Chief Justice Menis Ketchum, legislative leaders
from all four caucuses, and other state policymakers requested technical assistance from the Council of
State Governments Justice Center (CSG Justice Center) to employ a data-driven “justice reinvestment”
approach to develop a statewide policy framework that
would reduce spending on corrections and would reinvest savings in strategies to increase public safety and
reduce recidivism. Assistance provided by the CSG
Justice Center was made possible through a partnership with and funding support provided by the Pew
Center on the States Public Safety Performance Project and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, a division of
the U.S. Department of Justice.
To guide the effort, these state leaders established
a bipartisan, inter-branch Justice Reinvestment Working Group comprising state lawmakers, corrections
between June 2012 and January 2013 to review analyses that the CSG Justice Center conducted and to discuss policy options that would increase public safety
and slow the growth in the prison population.
In preparing its analyses, the CSG Justice Center
reviewed vast amounts of data, drawing on information systems maintained by West Virginia’s Division

of Corrections (WVDOC), Division of Justice and
of Technology, Regional Jail and Correctional Facility
Courts (AOC), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In total, the CSG Justice Center analyzed over
650,000 individual records across these information
systems.
In addition to these quantitative analyses, the CSG
Justice Center convened focus groups and meetings
with prosecutors, defense attorneys, behavioral health
and substance use treatment providers, community
leaders, victim advocates and survivors, judges, prolaw enforcement executives, and others. Between
June 2012 and January 2013, the CSG Justice Center conducted 84 in-person meetings with nearly 200
individuals.
This report summarizes the CSG Justice Center’s
work to address key issues that emerged from the
quantitative and qualitative analyses. Policy options
are organized around three objectives: 1) strengthening community supervision; 2) improving accountability; and 3) reducing substance use.

Justice Reinvestment in West Virginia

1

Summary of Challenges
1. The number of people whose community-based
supervision1 was revoked, as well as the length of
time they spend in prison once incarcerated, have

3. Failure to complete the terms of probation or
parole often stems from an individual’s substance
use. Few of these people receive treatment in their
communities.

trend is the single biggest driver of the state’s growing prison population.
2. An increasing number of people are released from
prison without any community-based supervision.

Justice Reinvestment Policy Framework
Objectives
Policies

1. Strengthen Community
Supervision

2. Improve
Accountability

3. Reduce Substance
Use

1 (A): Adopt a statewide
risk/need assessment
instrument to
determine an
individual’s likelihood of
reoffending and to focus
supervision resources
on people who are most
likely to reoffend.

2 (A): Ensure that all people
released from prison
to the community are
supervised.

3 (A): Invest in communitybased treatment
for people on
supervision with
substance use needs.

1 (B): Maximize potential of
Day Report Centers to
reduce recidivism.
1 (C): Ensure effective
implementation
of evidence-based
practices.

1. Community-based supervision includes probation, parole, home

2

Justice Reinvestment in West Virginia

2 (B): Respond to
violations with
swift, certain,
and cost-effective
sanctions.
2 (C): Streamline
correctional system
processes to reduce
delays in parole
eligibility and other

3 (B): Establish effective
partnerships and
resources across
systems.
3 (C): Ensure effective
substance use
treatment for people
incarcerated in state
prisons.

report, community corrections and Day Report Centers are used
interchangeably. Additional information can be found on page 7.

Projected Impact of Policy Framework
Savings

Reinvestment

As a package, the policies described in this report could
ginia. Adopting the policy framework would slow the
growth in the state prison population between 2014
and 2018 and help the state avoid at least $200 million in construction costs and more than $140 million

To achieve these outcomes, a portion of the expected
savings must be reinvested in substance use treatment
services that are focused on high-risk, moderate- to
high-need people on probation and parole supervision,
and in training assistance and quality assurance measures. Expanding access to substance use treatment

accommodate the current prison population forecast.
factor to recidivism rates.

Figure 1: Summary of Impact, Savings & Reinvestment

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

ToTal

$13.6M

$28.2M

$32.3M

$32.7M

$34.9M

$141.8M

Reinvestment
(%)

$3.5M
(26%)

$5.5M
(20%)

$5.5M
(17%)

$5.5M
(17%)

$5.5M
(16%)

$25.5M
(18%)

Housing Plan
Assistance

$100,000

$100,000

$100,000

$100,000

$100,000

$0.5M

Training &
Sustainability

$400,000

$400,000

$400,000

$400,000

$400,000

$2.0M

Gross Operational
Savings (Rounded)

Community-Based
Substance Use
Treatment

$3,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000

Net Savings

$10.1M

$22.7M

$26.8M

$27.2M

$29.4M

$23M
$116.3M

years for budgeting

Justice Reinvestment in West Virginia

3

Assumptions
The following analysis projects the impact of the policy framework on the West Virginia prison population
mentation begins in January 2014, with most policies
being phased in by the end of 2015. The West Virginia
casted that, absent any changes to current policies and
practices, the prison population will increase 24 per7,146 people in 2012 to 8,893 people in 2018.2 Using
this prison population forecast as well as recent growth
staff has projected the impact of each proposed policy
option on the relevant prison subpopulation. Impact
calculations utilize either month-to-month population

tion under a proposed policy change versus the status
quo. Considerations for improved outcomes through
expanded risk assessment, more effective supervision,
better access to treatment, and reduced recidivism were
factored into the estimates. In addition, the analysis
took into account the possible effects that each of the
policies in this proposal might have upon each other.
Cost savings and proposed levels of reinvestment are
based on projected impacts to the prison population
as calculated by the CSG Justice Center in comparison
to the West Virginia correctional population forecast,
in consultation with the West Virginia Department of
Military Affairs and Public Safety.

Figure 2. Policy Framework Estimated to Slow Growth of the Prison Population3
West Virginia Correctional Population Forecast
January 2013

2013−2018 Status Quo Forecast
+1,362 (+18%)
10,000
8,893

9,000
2007−2012 Actual Growth:
+1,201 (+20%)

8,000

7,531

7,418

7,000
6,000
5,000

5,869

2013−2018 Projected Change
with Policy Options
‐113 (‐2%)

4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2.

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018

Planning, Division of Justice and Community Services, Department of
Military Affairs and Public Safety, January 2013).
3. Ibid.

4

2014

Justice Reinvestment in West Virginia

Goal 1: Strengthen Community-based Supervision
CHALLENGE: The number of people whose community-based supervision is revoked, as well as the length
trend is the single biggest driver of the state’s growing prison population.
West Virginia’s recidivism rate—the
percentage of people who are reincarcerated
within three years after release from prison—
is relatively low, but it has increased 45
percent in the past seven years.

The number of people incarcerated for
committing a new crime has increased
over the past seven years.
West Virginia’s violent crime rate increased 13
percent between 2001 and 2010, from 280 to 315
reported crimes per 100,000 state residents. During this same period, national violent crime rates
declined 20 percent, from 505 to 404 reported crimes
per 100,000 residents.7

Nationally, 43 percent of people are reincarcerated
within three years of release from prison.4
In West Virginia, 28.5 percent of people released
from prison in 2008 returned to prison within three
years (727 returned out of 2,546 released). In 2001,
19.6 percent of people released from prison returned
within three years (190 returned out of 968).5

Between 2001 and 2010, West Virginia’s property
crime rate declined 2 percent from 2,281 to 2,240
reported crimes per 100,000 state residents. During
this same period, the national property crime rate
declined 20 percent from 3,658 to 2,942.8

Among new commitments to prison, the number of
people with a prior incarceration increased 23 percent, from 678 people in 2007 to 835 in 2011.6

New Commitments
1,704 (51%)

Property (32%)
Drug (22%)

2011
Commitments
3,324

Other (21%)
Probation &
Other Revocationsi
762 (23%)
Parole Revocations
490 (15%)
Other 368ii (11%)

Technical (58%)
New Crime (42%)
Technical (51%)

Assault Forc.
Sexiii
(35%) (24%)

Other
(17%)

Violent (24%)

Robbery
(24%)

Figure 3. More than Half of New Prison Commitments are for Nonviolent Convictions9

Burglary Larceny Other
(39%)
(29%) (32%)

Manufacture/
Deliver (92%)
DUI
(25%)

Poss.iv
(8%)

Other (75%)

Over half of
revocations
are listed as
technical
violations

New Crime (49%)
ACC (69%)

Diag.
(30%)

iv. Possession (Poss.)
4.
negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
Division of Corrections, August 2012).
6.
Crime in the United States,” United States Department of Justice,
http://www.fbi.
gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010. The

8. Ibid
burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft.
9.

Justice Reinvestment in West Virginia

5

Despite the increase in reported violent crime and
decrease in reported property crime, the proportion
of people convicted of nonviolent offenses in prison
is growing. Between 2007 and 2011, the number
of people in prison for property and drug offenses
increased 42 percent and 32 percent respectively, and
together composed 42 percent of the prison population in 2011.10
Regular commitments to prison increased 20 percent between 2005 and 2011. In 2011, over half of
new commitments were convicted of nonviolent
offenses.11

Whereas admissions to prison for people
committing new crimes has increased by 20
percent between 2005 and 2011, admissions
to prison for people whose community
supervision was revoked increased by 47
percent.
Revocations to prison from all types of community
supervision increased 47 percent between 2005 and
2011. Approximately half of people revoked from
probation and parole supervision were in prison for
violating conditions of supervision, not for committing a new crime.12
Between 2007 and 2011, revocations to prison from
munity corrections cost the state more than $150
million.13

Figure 4. Growth in Revocations Outpaces Growth in New Commitments14
Prison Commitments by Type,
2005 and 2011
3,500

3,324

2,605
2,500
2,000
1,500

597

Other +12%
Community Corrections / Home
Confinement Revocations +117%
Probation Revocations +53%

490

Parole Revocations +27%

368

3,000
329
76
389

165

Total increase
among all
revocation
types from
2005 to 2011
47%

386

1,000
1,425

1,704

New Regular Commitments +20%

2011

Total Commitments
+28%

500
0
2005

10.
Data.
11.
Data. Regular commitments are direct commitments to prison for a
new crime.
12.
Data.

6

Justice Reinvestment in West Virginia

13.
Data. Revocations to prison are for committing new crimes and
violating conditions of supervision. The cost of these revocations is not
intended to suggest that all of these costs could be avoided.
14.

The number of people whose probation is
revoked is increasing at a faster rate than
that of the probation population itself.
Between 2006 and 2011, the total adult probation
population increased 11 percent, from 7,472 to 8,306
people. In the same period, revocations to prison
increased 16 percent, from 534 to 621 people.15
People released in 2011 after being incarcerated as
a result of a probation revocation spent nearly two
years in prison on average. People failing on probation cost more than $80 million between 2007 and
2011.16

Longer sentence lengths for parole
revocations contribute to prison population
growth. Most revocations are for low-severity
violations.
The number of people in prison as a result of parole
revocations has increased 86 percent from 465 peothese revocations cost the state $53 million.17
The length of stay for people in prison as a result
of parole revocation is increasing. Between 2007 and
2011, the average length of stay increased 13 percent,
from 1.5 to 1.7 years.18

Types of Community-based Supervision in West Virginia
Unsupervised Probation: Magistrates may place a person convicted of a misdemeanor on unsupervised probation
for up to two years.
As a condition of probation, bail, or an alternative to incarceration, someone charged with a
program is paid for through court fees and is administered by the county sheriff.
Drug Court:
offers nonviolent, misdemeanor or felony offenders an alternative to incarceration. People enter the program

Day Report Centers: Day Report Centers (DRC) are designed to provide counties with an alternative to

Probation:

the state’s 31 circuits.
Parole:
Parole Board is a full-time, nine-member body charged with making parole release and revocation decisions.
Supervision.

15.

17.

16.
Data.

18.
Data.

Justice Reinvestment in West Virginia

7

In 2011, half of the people returned to prison for a
parole revocation had their community supervision
revoked for violating the conditions of their supervision, commonly referred to as “technical violations.”19
Most decisions made about whether to
incarcerate someone or place them under
community supervision are not informed by
risk assessment tools.
Circuit judges in West Virginia do not receive the
results of a risk assessment to inform sentencing
decisions.
jail system on any given day are awaiting trial. At the
jails, 1,895 people were held pre-trial. Magistrates
make decisions about pre-trial release without infor20

Judges regularly order people to probation, home
of reoffending or criminogenic needs.21

Risk assessment tools do not inform most
supervision practices.
ments to inform supervision intensity or programming needs. Approximately one out of three
about half of those trained used this information to
guide supervision practices.22
risk of reoffending and identify which services to provide their clients. However, an assessment of practices at DRCs by the WVDJCS indicates that DRCs
are not tailoring services based on risk or need, but
provide the same level of services and supervision to
most people. Furthermore, court orders often contradict assessment results or limit a program’s ability to
provide services.23
ment, along with other diagnostic instruments and a
psychological evaluation, to determine placement in
prison-based programs.

Understanding Risk Assessment24
Risk assessment tools help users sort individuals into low-, medium-, and high-risk groups. They are designed
a new arrest and conviction or reincarceration for violating the terms of supervision. They usually consist of 10
and life circumstances. Risk assessments can be administered at any time during a person’s contact with the
correctional facility, the period prior to release, and post-release supervision. They are similar to tools used by an

19.
20.
21. Criminogenic needs are the characteristics or circumstances (such
as antisocial attitudes, beliefs, thinking patterns, and friends) that
research has shown are associated with criminal behavior, but which a
person can change (i.e., they are dynamic).

of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) is an assessment
that measures the risk and need factors of late adolescent and adult
offenders. The LS/CMI is also a case management tool.
23.
2012).

22.

24.

surveyed, 117 responded to at least a portion of the survey. The Level

CSG Justice Center, January 2011).

8

Justice Reinvestment in West Virginia

The Parole Board currently scores and uses a
10-question risk assessment as part of its decisionmaking and the Board considers the results of the
able.25 The Board also relies on commentary in a
psychological evaluation, including results from
the Minnesota Muliphasic Personality Inventory 2
Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF), which provides a

Policy Options:
1 (A): Adopt a statewide risk/need
assessment instrument to determine an
individual’s likelihood of reoffending and to
focus supervision resources on people who
are most likely to reoffend.
Require the Division of Probation, Parole Supervi-

of reoffending.26
management assessment when a person is placed on
parole. However, information from that assessment
is not used to guide supervision. Rather, the intensity
of supervision is based on the length of time people are under supervision as well as their behavior.
27

inform supervision practices, focusing resources on
those who pose the greatest risk of reoffending as
Establish supervision standards for people who are
behavior.
Require the use of a pretrial screening instrument

Community supervision systems do not
share data or information about supervision
practices.
A person may be placed on multiple forms of community supervision for a single offense, but superinformation or data about the people they supervise.28
Focus group meetings with probation and parole
jurisdictions share information, while others had no
established method of communication.29

that must be utilized within three days of placement
in a regional jail to inform judicial decisionmaking.
rationale: Revocations from community supervision are driving prison population growth, yet most
decisions about supervision practices are not informed
need assessment to inform supervision practices is
fundamental to reducing recidivism of people under
community supervision.
Studies show supervision intensity that is based on
risk, need, and responsivity can reduce recidivism by
as much as 30 percent.30 Research also demonstrates
that applying the same level of supervision resources
to high- and low-risk offenders can actually increase
recidivism rates for low-risk offenders.31

25. West Virginia Division of Corrections Case Management Manual,

29. CSG Justice Center focus group meetings with probation and parole

with Parole Board members.

DRC personnel, October 2012.

26.
and Use,” Criminal Justice and Behavior

30. Stephanie Lee, Steve Aos, Elizabeth Drake, Annie Pennucci, Marna

27.
on August 8, 2012.

Institute for Public Policy, April 2012).

28.

31.
and Risk.” Criminal Justice and Behavior

supervision.
delivered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on September 14, 2011.

Justice Reinvestment in West Virginia

9

Requiring the use of a screening instrument to
inform pretrial detention decisions would ensure that
decisionmakers have information about a person’s risk
vidual’s charge and criminal history could lead to better
decisionmaking. For example, the Ohio Risk Assess6 times less likely than high-risk people either to fail to
appear for future court proceedings or to be re-arrested
(5 percent compared to 29 percent).32
1 (B): Maximize potential of Day Report
Centers to reduce recidivism.
assessment to focus supervision and treatment
to high risk of reoffending and criminogenic need.
Permit people convicted of felony offenses to be eligible for placement in a program determined by a
DRC for up to 12 months.
Permit people convicted of a misdemeanor subsequent to a prior offense to be placed in a program
determined by a DRC for up to six months.
rationale:
is used to inform decisions about what services and
supervision a person will receive at a DRC will improve
the impact these centers have on reducing recidivism.

1 (C): Ensure effective implementation of
evidence-based practices.
Require an inter-agency committee to oversee implementation of evidence-based practices, conduct regular assessments for quality assurance, and report to
Require the Division of Probation to establish a committee for the purposes of designing and deploying
a method for probation, parole, and DJCS to share
information and coordinate across agencies carrying
out community supervision. Require the committee
to develop a strategy to collect and share information about assessed and collected restitution among
supervision agencies.
Require DJCS to assess regularly the quality of DRC
programs.
rationale: As supervision agencies change their
practices to assess individuals’ risk of reoffense and
focus supervision resources on those who are most
likely to reoffend, it is important for agency adminisin practice yields and to hold accountable organizations that do not generate the anticipated outcomes. An
established inter-agency committee, such as the Community Corrections Subcommittee of the Governor’s
Committee on Crime, Delinquency, and Correction,
may be best positioned to report on such measures.
To minimize redundancy of services and supervision
provided to people in DRCs who are on probation and
parole, these community supervision agencies should
share information or use the same case management
system.
As the administrator of the Community Corrections
cers, and community organizations on evidence-based
practices. In addition to such training, DJCS should
audit program quality regularly to determine the extent
to which services and supervision delivered adhere to
evidence-based practices.

32. Edward Latessa, Paula Smith, Richard Lemke, Matthew

Cincinnati, 2009).

10

Justice Reinvestment in West Virginia

Goal 2: Improve Accountability
CHALLENGE: An increasing number of people are released from prison without any community-based
supervision.

The number of people who complete
their sentence in prison and return to
the community without any post-release
The number of people leaving prison without parole
period, from 676 people in 2007 to 896 in 2011. More
than one-quarter of people leaving prison in 2011
returned to the community without supervision.33
Nearly three-quarters of the people who completed
or “maxed out” their sentences in prison were never
granted parole. Just 16 percent of people maxing out
their sentences were convicted of violent offenses
and 19 percent were convicted of sex offenses. The
remaining two-thirds of the people who max out were
convicted of property, drug, and other offenses.34
For some people, there is very little time between the
date they become eligible for parole and the date they
complete their sentence. The Parole Board, therefore,
may have a very short window to decide whether to
release a person to parole supervision before the
individual completes his or her sentence in prison.
Missing paperwork, particularly home plans,
frequently delays parole hearings, which also
contributes to the growing number of people
completing their sentences in prison.35
When interviewing someone for parole, the Parole
Board reviews a person’s home plan, psychological evaluation, criminal history, and post-sentence
investigation reports. If any of these documents are
missing, the person is placed under “further consideration” status. The hearing is postponed until these

documents are completed and submitted. The number of people under further consideration nearly
doubled in 5 years from 730 people in 2007 to 1,432
people in 2011.36
State prison system crowding has resulted in more
than 1,700 individuals sentenced to prison to be conin intake processes and program delivery for people
in regional jails awaiting transfer to prison. These
delays include obtaining the paperwork required by
the Parole Board. WVDOC prioritizes movement
between the regional jails and WVDOC based on
parole eligibility dates, but delays continue.
In 2011, 57 percent of people placed under “further
consideration” received this designation because
they lacked a home plan. Another 17 percent were
awaiting a psychological evaluation only. In 2010,
402 people under further consideration were ultimately granted parole; however, the delay caused by
this incomplete paperwork cost $2.2 million.37
When calculating the parole grant rate, the Parole
Board takes into account only the number of people who were granted or denied parole. Using this
approach to calculating the parole grant rate, 48 percent of people interviewed were granted parole in
people who were eligible for parole, but were unable
to receive an interview. Modifying the parole grant
rate calculation to include all people who were eligible for parole consideration (i.e., including those
placed under further consideration) reduces the
Board’s actual approval rate in 2011 to 33 percent.38

33.

36.

34. Ibid.

37.

35.

a recommendation to the parole board about their habitability. The
Parole Board decides whether or not to approve a home plan.

granting parole was 112 days. The total cost is $2.2 million (112 days
multiplied by $48.80 minimum cost per day).
38.
the number of people granted parole divided by the number of people
eligible for parole.

Justice Reinvestment in West Virginia

11

Figure 5. Majority of Further Considerations Involve the
Home Plan and Psychological Evaluation39
Further Considerations with Known Reasons,
2011
100%

7%

All Other Reasons

90%
80%
70%
60%

17%
7%
12%

Psych Eval Only
Home Plan and Other
Home Plan and
Psych Eval

50%
40%
30%

57%

‘Other’ reasons include
post‐sentence
investigations, criminal
history checks and
victim notifications

Home Plan Only

76% of cases
under further
consideration
in 2011 involved
a missing
home plan

20%
10%
0%
2011

People convicted of property and drug

convicted of property and drug offenses. For people

are more likely to be granted parole than

as low risk were granted parole while only 24 percent
of high-risk people were paroled. For people convicted of drug offenses, 53 percent of low-risk people and 43 percent of high-risk people were granted
parole.

moderate or high risk are more likely to be
granted parole.
The West Virginia Parole Board uses a 10-question
risk assessment instrument when assessing a candidate for parole. To its credit, the Parole Board is the
only entity in the West Virginia correctional system
to use a validated risk assessment.40
Using risk assessment to guide decision-making

Conversely, for the most serious offenses, (i.e., violent or sex offenses) the Parole Board is more likely
high risk of reoffending. In 2011, of people convicted
moderate risk were granted parole; 21 percent of lowrisk and 13 percent of high-risk people were granted
parole. For people convicted of sex offenses, 11 per-

would be more likely to be granted parole than those
indeed, apply to the parole grant rate for people

39.

41.

40.

12

parole, while 8 percent of moderate-risk and 5 percent of low-risk people were granted parole.41

Justice Reinvestment in West Virginia

Figure 6. Mandatory Supervision for Violent and Nonviolent Offenses42
Parole
Eligibility
1st Deg. Robbery
w/o firearm
(10 Years)

2.5

1st Deg. Robbery
w/ firearm
(10 Years)
Example:
Violent Offense
(10 Years)

2.5

Example:
Non-Violent Offense
(10 Years)

2.5

Maximum
Sentence

Earliest Discharge
for those with 100% Good Time

5

10

5

10

5

4.5

6

10

5

Once a lengthy psychological evaluation is

mental health needs.
WVDOC does not use a mental health screening
a potential mental health problem that should be
further assessed. Instead, every person who enters
WVDOC undergoes a full psychological examination, which consists of a face-to-face interview with
a psychologist, a review of mental health records and
collateral information, and a series of tests such as
the Revised Beta Examination 3 and the MMPI-2-RF.
Results from this intensive process indicate that 78
percent of people entering prison in 2011 had minimal or no mental health treatment needs.43

Policy Options
2 (A): Ensure that all people released from
prison to the community are supervised.
Adjust prison “day-for–day good time” policies for
people who would otherwise be released to the community unmonitored to effectively create periods of

10

Challenge:
The window between
parole eligibility and
max out with good time
can be very narrow or
even nonexistent

Policy option:
Additional window of
mandatory supervision

mandatory supervision for people convicted of violent or nonviolent felony offenses.
Require that, following enactment of this policy, people sentenced to prison for a violent felony offense
undergo one year of mandatory supervision upon
reaching their discharge dates, by deducting from
Require that people sentenced to prison for nonviolent felony offenses, including those sentenced
prior to enactment of this policy, undergo at least six
months of mandatory supervision. For people not
already paroled six months prior to their discharge
date, then they shall spend the remainder of their
sentence under parole supervision.
rationale: This policy addresses the growing number of people who complete their sentences in prison
and are released to the community with no one watching them. Studies show that people are most likely to
months.44 A period of mandatory supervision would
hold people accountable for their behavior and assist
them in their transition into the community. Currently,
day good time, which can reduce sentences by half.
Deducting from “good time” creates an opportunity

42. Email correspondence with Philip Morrison, Executive Director of

44.

43.

Justice,Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002).

Justice Reinvestment in West Virginia

13

for people convicted of the most serious violent felony
offenses to serve a period of community supervision
without modifying the length of their time in prison.
This policy would also create a mandatory period of
supervision for people convicted of nonviolent felony
offenses. Focus group meetings with victims and their
advocates indicated support for requiring everyone
with a felony conviction to leave prison with a period of
mandatory supervision if not already paroled.
2 (B): Respond to violations with swift,
certain, and cost-effective sanctions.
ditions of supervision by people convicted of felony
parole, or community corrections, with a sanction of

more intensive programming in the community provides a less costly and much more effective method of
holding offenders accountable for their behavior.
2 (C): Streamline correctional system
processes to reduce delays in parole eligibility
Restrict the current option of sending a person to a
WVDOC facility prior to sentencing to people convicted of child abuse and sex offenses.
Require WVDOC to screen people for mental health
treatment needs. A full psychological assessment
should be conducted only when the results of the
preliminary screening indicate that the individual
may need further assessment.

not apply to individuals who abscond from supervision or commit a new crime.

Require the Parole Board to interview people whose
paperwork is missing a home plan.

cation as an initial sanction and up to 120 days for
a second sanction as part of a graduated sanction
framework. For people on parole supervision, if the
WVDOC determines a person will stay beyond 60

Require WVDOC to prioritize developing alternatives for people who do not have approved home
plans, through methods such as hiring or contracting personnel responsible for connecting people in
prison with reentry community resources, and providing short-term loans for housing costs such as
rent or security deposits.

shall provide the Parole Board an opportunity to
ment, a person may be revoked for the remainder of
ment. To encourage program compliance, violators
will be eligible for day-for-day good time credit durEnsure that when a person’s sanction involves a
brief incarceration in a regional jail, the WVDOC
reimburses the Regional Jail and Correctional Facilrequired under current policy for a person whose
probation or parole has been revoked.
Require continuation of remaining supervision term
rationale: About half of people in prison for revocations from community-based supervision were
revoked because they violated the conditions of supervision, such as breaking curfews or testing positive for
drug use. These people spend long periods in prison.
Sanctioning the individual with two to three months of

14

Justice Reinvestment in West Virginia

Require the Regional Jail and Correctional Facility
Authority to provide cognitive behavioral interventions to people bound for WVDOC, which have been
shown to be effective at reducing recidivism.
rationale: WVDOC, the Parole Board, and the
Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority must
work together to prepare people for parole eligibility
by providing interventions to reduce recidivism and
preparing people for release. Due to the large number
of people waiting to be transferred from the regional
jails to WVDOC, many people are unable to participate
in the programs offered by WVDOC to prepare them
for release. Focus group meetings with Parole Board
members and jail administrators indicated a need for
jails to provide programs to people bound for WVDOC
to reduce delays in achieving readiness for parole. Providing assistance to people who are eligible for parole
home plan while in prison would help reduce delays.
Furthermore, expensive prison resources are often

There are many assessments conducted during the
prison intake process. The psychological evaluation is
percentage of people with mental health treatment

may be a potential mental health problem that should
be further assessed. The mental health screen serves as
a form of triage. Modifying the current process with a
mental health screen is a cost-effective use of resources
and is a best practice used in other states.45

Goal 3: Reduce Substance Use
CHALLENGE: Failure to complete the terms of their probation or parole often stems from an individual’s
substance use. Few of these people receive treatment in their communities.

Substance use is a chronic problem in West
Virginia.
West Virginians are more likely than residents of any
other state to die from a drug overdose. The number
of overdose deaths in West Virginia increased 550
percent (the largest increase of any state) between
1999 and 2004. Prescription drug overdose deaths
counties of West Virginia. Across West Virginia,
there were 26 overdose deaths per 100,000 people
between 2006 and 2010. In Mingo, Logan, Wyoming,
McDowell, and Mercer Counties there were 46 to 90
overdose deaths per 100,000 people.46
To combat substance use in the state, Governor Tomblin issued an Executive Order in 2011 creating the
Governor’s Advisory Council on Substance Abuse
(GACSA) and six Regional Task Forces. Since then,
GACSA has issued reports that include recommendations to develop funding sources for substance use
treatment and to monitor purchases of prescription
drugs.47

45.

In 2012, legislation restricting prescription drug purchases was enacted and Governor Tomblin dedicated
$7.5 million to establish new and expand existing
regionally based substance use services.48
Drug offenses and substance use contribute
to the growing prison population.
Arrests for drug offenses increased 6 percent between
2007 and 2011. During this same time period, the
percentage of people in prison who were convicted
of a drug offense increased 32 percent.49
Drug and alcohol use contributes to the growing
number of probation and parole revocations, which
are one of the main drivers of prison growth. Sixtytwo percent of probation revocations to prison in
sion or use of alcohol or drugs was cited in 78 percent of technical parole revocations and 65 percent of
revocations for new crimes in 2011.50

47.
on Substance Abuse, April 2012).
48.

accessed January 2013, http://www.dhhr.wv.gov/bhhf/sections/programs/
ProgramsPartnerships/AlcoholismandDrugAbuse/Pages/SBIRT.aspx
Health and Human Resources, Bureau for Behavioral Health and Health

January 2013, http://www.governor.wv.gov/media/pressreleases/2012/
Pages/GovernorTomblinUnveilsPlantoFightSubstanceAbuseEpidemic.aspx.
49.
50.

Justice Reinvestment in West Virginia

15

While most people entering prison who
needed substance use treatment received
services while in prison, many without a need
were also assigned to treatment programs.

Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program. Research shows
that substance use treatment in the community can
have a greater impact on reducing recidivism than
treatment in prison. No dedicated funds, however,
are appropriated to provide substance use treatment
to people on probation or parole supervision.

In 2011, 66 percent of people entering prison were

Of the 7,500 adult probationers in the community at
any given time, an estimated 1,450 have a moderate
to high likelihood of reoffending and a high need for
targeted substance use services. The full continuum
of outpatient, intensive outpatient, and residential
substance use treatment services, including cognitive behavioral interventions that address “criminal
thinking,” are required. An additional 492 people
on parole are estimated to need this same range of
services.53

96 percent of those people were assigned to at least
one substance use-related program.51
At the same time, 34 percent of people entering
their need for treatment was unknown. Two-thirds
of this population was also assigned to at least one
substance use-related program.52
Resources to treat people with substance
use disorders are focused on people in prison
instead of during community supervision,
where treatment can have the greatest
impact.

Surveys of probation, parole, and DRC personnel
indicate that people are more likely to receive lowintensity services, such as self-help, or outpatient
services than to access intensive outpatient or residential treatment. Staff indicated that people with all
levels of need for treatment could wait more than a
month to receive services.54

WVDOC provides different degrees of substance
use treatment for its population through its threetiered non-residential substance use program
(ALADRUE) and through its Residential Substance

Figure 7. Few Substance Use Services are Provided for Those on Community Supervision55
DRC

PRobaTion

DRug CouRT

DoC

PaRole

Funding for services

$986,088

$0

$1,137,838

$872,000

$0

Capacity to
provide services

Unknown

Estimated demand for
services*† – Total

430

108

1,449

263

2,431

492

Outpatient

43

580

105

973

197

Intensive Outpatient

43

580

105

973

197

Residential with
step-down

22

290

53

486

98

* Demand for services are based on estimates of the proportion of the population under supervision or incarcerated who have treatment needs and a
moderate to high criminogenic risk level.

51.

The Level of Service Inventory - Revised: U.S.
Norms,

Christian University Drug Screen (TCUDS). Program placement
determined by TCUDS results and additional evaluations.

54. CSG Justice Center survey of 275 Community Corrections,
Probation, and Parole Personnel.

52.
Assignment Data.

55.
The Level of Service Inventory - Revised: U.S. Norms,

53. Stephanie Lee, Steve Aos, Elizabeth Drake, Annie Pennucci, Marna
Inmates.” Drug and Alcohol Dependence

16

Justice Reinvestment in West Virginia

People under community supervision face multiple
barriers to receiving treatment, including the inability to pay for services, the inability to reach the services, and the lack of availability of these services
generally.56
Treatment resources in the community and in
prison could be improved.
The Correctional Program Checklist (CPC) assesses
a program’s ability to deliver effective programming
consistently and to adhere to the principles of effecindividually (leadership and development, staff,
offender assessment, treatment characteristics, and
quality assurance) and assesses the overall effectiveness of the program. A CPC assessment of a prisonbased RSAT program concluded that the program is
of high quality overall. However, treatment in the program and quality assurance measures received the
weakest individual scores and needed improvement.
A similar assessment of a DRC showed the program
also needed to improve the quality of treatment provided and its quality assurance process.57

Policy Options:
3 (A): Invest in community-based treatment
for people under supervision with substance
use needs.
Create a treatment supervision sentencing option
for judges to impose supervised probation with dedicated state treatment resources to people convicted
of felony offenses who have a high likelihood of reoffending and who have moderate to high substance
use treatment needs.
Reinvest funding for people serving on probation
and parole, who have a moderate to high likelihood
of reoffending and a moderate to high need for substance use treatment in the community. Require

56. CSG Justice Center survey of 275 community corrections,
probation, and parole personnel.

these entities to partner with behavioral health providers to provide services to this population.
Support training, data collection, and other investments in the state treatment infrastructure to ensure
treatment is delivered according to research-based
approaches for providing substance use treatment to
people under community-based supervision.
rationale: Focus group meetings with most stakeholders emphasized the need to expand substance use
treatment across the criminal justice system. Research
shows that substance use treatment in the community
can have a greater impact on reducing recidivism than
treatment in prison. However, neither probation nor
parole funds any substance use treatment in the community, despite supervising 1,900 people who could
portion of the savings generated by other policy options
in this framework into substance use treatment would
address a critical gap in services.58
3 (B): Establish effective partnerships and
resources across systems.
Require behavioral health providers to participate in
community corrections boards.
Require DJCS to review the membership of all community corrections committees to close gaps in the
network of service providers. In addition, require
DJCS to review the range of available services, sanctions, and programs that address criminogenic needs
and develop programming beyond DRCs.
rationale: Establishing new and strengthening
existing partnerships among community supervision
agencies and behavioral health providers will improve
access to treatment and identify gaps in services for
people under community supervision. Currently, community criminal corrections boards are not required
to include behavioral health providers despite the
large number of people on supervision who require
behavioral health treatment services. Every jurisdiction receiving Community Corrections Grant funding

58. Stephanie Lee, Steve Aos, Elizabeth Drake, Annie Pennucci, Marna

57. CSG Justice Center assessment of an RSAT program and a DRC using
Correctional Program Checklist, conducted in October 2012. The CPC is
designed to measure whether a correctional program has the capability
to deliver evidence-based interventions and services for offenders, and
the content area measures the extent to which the program meets the
principles of risk, need, responsivity, and treatment.

The Level of Service Inventory - Revised: U.S.
Norms,

Justice Reinvestment in West Virginia

17

chose to establish DRCs despite having the option to
develop many types of services. While DRCs provide
a variety of services to their clients, other types of services may be needed in these communities. Identifying current gaps in services around the state would
assist communities in ensuring appropriate programs
and services are made available and would reduce
recidivism.
3 (C): Ensure effective substance use
treatment for people incarcerated in state
prisons.
Prioritize substance use treatment resources based
on the results of a risk and needs assessment.

18

Justice Reinvestment in West Virginia

Require the Division of Corrections and the Parole
Board to agree to a treatment matrix that uses a risk
and needs assessment instrument to focus resources
on high risk people with moderate to high substance
use treatment needs, and does not inappropriately
treat low-risk people.
rationale: Requiring WVDOC and the Parole
Board to agree to a treatment matrix would assist
placement of people into appropriate services and
limit delays in parole eligibility caused by disagreement between WVDOC and the Parole Board about
needed programs. Focusing treatment resources on
people who are more likely to reoffend and have sigthe impact of treatment in prison.

Justice Reinvestment in West Virginia

19

To learn more about the justice reinvestment strategy
in West Virginia and other states, please visit:
www.justicereinvestment.org

and federal levels from all branches of government. The Justice Center provides practical, nonpartisan advice and consensus-driven
strategies, informed by available evidence, to increase public safety and strengthen communities.

public safety, hold offenders accountable, and control corrections costs.

State Governments Justice Center, or the Council of State Governments’ members.
Justice Reinvestment in West Virginia: Analyses & Policy Options to Reduce
Spending on Corrections & Reinvest in Strategies to Increase Public Safety

Council of State Governments
Justice Center
Bethesda, MD
Austin, TX

project contact:
Megan Grasso
Policy Analyst
mgrasso@csg.org

www.justicecenter.csg.org