Reentry Programs for Felons Should Be Improved
and Outcome Measures Should Be Developed
October 9, 2008

Program Review and Investigations Committee
Greg Hager, Ph.D.
Committee Staff Administrator
Project Staff
Cindy Upton
Jim Guinn
Tara Rose

Legislative Research Commission
Frankfort, Kentucky
lrc.ky.gov

Reports Adopted by the Program Review
and Investigations Committee, 1997 to 2008
The Costs of College and High School Textbooks in
Kentucky, Report 356, 2008
Investment Rates of Return, Governance, and Policies
of the Kentucky Retirement Systems and the Kentucky
Teachers’ Retirement System, Report 352, 2008
Medicaid Prescription Drug Benefit Fraud, Abuse, and
Cost Management, 2007
Kentucky Housing Corporation, 2007
Siting of Electric Transmission Lines, Report 348, 2007
School Insurance, Report 347, 2007
Drug Courts, Report 346, 2007
Pollution Cap and Trade Programs in Kentucky,
Report 343, 2007
Kentucky’s Foster Care Program Is Improving, but
Challenges Remain, Report 342, 2006
Planning for School Facilities Can Be Improved To Better
Serve the Needs of All Students, Report 341, 2006
Kentucky’s Community Mental Health System Is
Expanding and Would Benefit From Better Planning and
Reporting, Report 340, 2006
Highly Skilled Educator Program, Report 339, 2006
School Size and Student Outcomes in Kentucky's Public
Schools, Report 334, 2006
Information Systems Can Help Prevent, but Not Eliminate,
Health Care Fraud and Abuse, Report 333, 2006
Implications of the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo Decision
for the Use of Eminent Domain in Kentucky, Report 330,
2005
Planning for Water Projects in Kentucky: Implementation
of Senate Bill 409, Report 329, 2005
Kentucky Can Improve the Coordination of Protective
Services for Elderly and Other Vulnerable Adults,
Report 327, 2005
Improved Coordination and Information Could Reduce
the Backlog of Unserved Warrants, Report 326, 2005.
Offshore Outsourcing of Kentucky State Government
Services: Direct Contracting Is Limited but the Amount
of Subcontracting Is Unknown, Report 325, 2005
Appropriate Management and Technology Can Reduce
Costs and Risks of Computer Use by State Employees,
Report 324, 2004
Uncollected Revenues and Improper Payments Cost
Kentucky Millions of Dollars a Year, Report 322, 2004

Improving Fiscal Accountability and Effectiveness of
Services in the Kentucky Transitional Assistance
Program, Report 321, 2004
Human Service Transportation Delivery, Report 319,
2004
The Commonwealth Accountability Testing System,
Report 312, 2003
Postsecondary Education in Kentucky: Systemwide
Improvement but Accountability Is Insufficient,
Report 311, 2003
The SEEK Formula for Funding Kentucky's School
Districts: An Evaluation of Data, Procedures, and
Budgeting, Report 310, 2002
East and West Kentucky Corporations, Report 308, 2002
An Analysis of Kentucky’s Prevailing Wage Laws and
Procedures, Report 304, 2001
Executive Branch Contracting for Services: Inconsistent
Procedures Limit Accountability and Efficiency,
Report 303, 2001
Performance-based Budgeting: Concepts and
Examples, Report 302, 2001
Impact Plus, Report 300, 2001
Kentucky Housing Corporation Allocation of Federal
Homeless Grant Money, Report 291, 2000
Progress Report on Coordinated Human Service
Transportation System, Report 298, 1999
Personnel Pilot Projects: Design Weakness Limits
Effectiveness, Report 295, 1999
Kentucky Early Intervention System - First Steps,
Report 293, 1999
Health Insurance Market for Employees and Retirees of
Kentucky State Government, Report 286, 1999
State Agency Service Contract Administration,
Report 285, 1999
Review of the Kentucky Children’s Health Insurance
Program, Report 283, 1999
Motor Vehicle Registration Abuse, Report 282, 1999
Kentucky Medicaid Drug File and Prior Authorization
System, Report 281, 1999
Division of Licensing and Regulation, Cabinet for Health
Services, Office of Inspector General, Report 279, 1997
State Park Marinas, Report 278, 1997

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments
In completing this report, numerous individuals provided valuable assistance. Program Review
staff want to thank officials of the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet’s Department of
Corrections, especially Commissioner LaDonna Thompson, Ruth Thompson, Lee VanHoose,
Todd Woodward, Tammy Morgan, Craig Thatcher, Martha Slemp, Gwen Holder, Liz McKune,
Lisa Howard, and Mavis McCowan. Within the correctional facility community, Program
Review staff want to express appreciation to all Kentucky state prison wardens, especially Tom
Simpson, Larry Chandler, and Becky Pancake.
The Program Review staff want to acknowledge all Parole Board members, especially former
board chair Bridget Skaggs Brown and Verman Winburn, and Executive Director Charles
Wilkerson. Staff want to thank prison staff Laura Cox of Luther Luckett Correctional Complex,
Alan Brown and Skyla Grief of Kentucky State Penitentiary, Duane Hall of Roederer
Correctional Complex, Brandy Harm of Bell County Forestry Camp, Kelly Nichols of Eastern
Correctional Complex, Cheryl Million and Jesse Stack of Kentucky State Reformatory, Michael
O’Donnell of Northpoint Training Center, Jeff Oliver of Blackburn Correctional Complex,
Suzanne Minnick of Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women. Program Review staff want
to thank Patricia Combs of the Louisville Probation and Parole Office, Cyndi Heddleston of the
Lexington Probation and Parole Office, Linda Dewitt and Jennifer Partin of Prodigal Ministries,
Inc., in Louisville, and Kim Moore of Change Transitional Recovery House for Women in
Louisville for their assistance.
Program Review staff want to thank officials of the Kentucky State Police, the Kentucky
Housing Corporation, the Department for Community Based Services, and the Department for
Mental Health, Development Disabilities, and Addiction Services for providing valuable
information. Staff also want to thank officials of the Kentucky Jailers Association, the Kentucky
Association of Regional Mental Health and Mental Retardation Programs, and the University of
Kentucky Center on Drug and Alcohol Research.
For assistance in providing data and answering questions related to the process of reentry,
Program Review staff want to thank the inmates and ex-inmates who participated in interviews,
the pre-release coordinators at each prison, and staff of the member states of the National
Institute of Justice, Institutional Corrections Research Network: Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Virginia, Delaware, North Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, and Kansas.
Among Legislative Research Commission colleagues, Program Review staff want to thank the
staff of the Interim Joint Committee on Judiciary, the Office of Constituent Services, and the
LRC Library for their assistance.

i

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Contents

Contents
Summary...................................................................................................................................vii
Chapter 1: Overview and Background ......................................................................................... 1
Objectives and Overview of the Report ...................................................................... 1
Focus of This Report ...................................................................................... 1
Recent Federal Initiatives ............................................................................... 3
The Kentucky Offender Management System................................................. 3
Persons Admitted to and Released From Incarceration ................................... 4
Recidivism Rates............................................................................................ 6
How This Study Was Conducted................................................................................ 7
Organization of the Report ......................................................................................... 8
Major Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 8
Chapter 2: Persons Incarcerated for Felony Offenses ................................................................... 9
Types of Felonies ....................................................................................................... 9
Length of Sentence ......................................................................................... 9
Examples of Class A, B, C, and D Felonies .................................................. 10
Presentence Investigation ............................................................................. 12
Admissions by Type of Felony................................................................................. 12
Admissions by Category .......................................................................................... 13
Felony Admissions by Gender, Race, Age, Marital Status, and
Educational Status ........................................................................................ 14
Gender ........................................................................................................ 14
Race ............................................................................................................. 15
Age .............................................................................................................. 16
Marital Status ............................................................................................... 17
Educational Status ........................................................................................ 18
Chapter 3: Programs and Services for Incarcerated Felons......................................................... 19
Where State Felons Are Incarcerated ....................................................................... 19
Credit on Sentence for Conduct While Incarcerated ................................................. 20
Felons Incarcerated in Prisons .................................................................................. 21
Work Programs ............................................................................................ 22
Recommendation 3.1 ................................................................... 23
Academic and Vocational Programs ............................................................. 24
Recommendation 3.2 ................................................................... 25
Substance Abuse Program ............................................................................ 26
Recommendation 3.3 ................................................................... 29
Sexual Offender Treatment Program ........................................................... 29
Recommendation 3.4 ................................................................... 31
Psychiatric Programs .................................................................................... 32
Pre-release Programs .................................................................................... 33
Recommendation 3.5 ................................................................... 35
State Felons Incarcerated in County Jails ................................................................. 35

iii

Contents

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

The Cost of Housing State Prisoners ........................................................................ 37
Alternatives to Incarceration .................................................................................... 37
Chapter 4: Felony Offenders Released From Incarceration ........................................................ 39
Releases by Felony Type ......................................................................................... 39
Releases by Offense Committed .............................................................................. 40
Releases by Category ............................................................................................... 41
Releases by Gender, Race, and Age ......................................................................... 43
Releases by Educational Level ................................................................................. 44
The Parole Process ................................................................................................... 45
Inmate Eligibility for Parole ......................................................................... 45
Parole Hearings ............................................................................................ 46
Conditions of Parole ..................................................................................... 48
Results of Parole Board Hearings ................................................................. 49
Community Supervision .......................................................................................... 49
Probation and Parole Supervision Levels ...................................................... 49
Sexual Offender Community Supervision..................................................... 55
Kentucky Sex Offender Registry.............................................................................. 55
Home Incarceration.................................................................................................. 57
Conditions of Release ................................................................................... 58
Conditions of Home Incarceration ................................................................ 58
Halfway Houses and Community Centers ................................................................ 59
Cost of Community Supervision .............................................................................. 59
Challenges of Reentry .............................................................................................. 60
Community Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services ........................... 60
Higher Education Financial Aid ................................................................... 61
Housing ........................................................................................................ 62
Tenant-based Rental Assistance ........................................................... 62
Recovery Kentucky ............................................................................. 62
Safe Havens ......................................................................................... 62
Additional Housing Barriers for Sex Offenders.................................... 63
Employment ................................................................................................. 63
Transportation .............................................................................................. 65
Revocation of Parole or Probation ................................................................ 67
Voting .......................................................................................................... 69
Some Challenges Could Be Lessened ........................................................... 69
Recommendation 4.1 ................................................................... 70
Recommendation 4.2 ................................................................... 70
Chapter 5: Offender Reentry Programs and Practices ................................................................ 71
Promising Programs Based on Research .................................................................. 71
Washington State Institute for Public Policy ................................................. 71
Goldsmith and Eimicke ................................................................................ 73
Enhanced Supervision ......................................................................... 74
Adding Employment to Support and Supervision................................. 74
Starting Programs Before Release ........................................................ 74
Encourage Community Support ........................................................... 73
iv

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Contents

Statewide Programs in Offender Reentry ................................................................. 75
Arizona ........................................................................................................ 75
Georgia ........................................................................................................ 76
Illinois .......................................................................................................... 76
Indiana ......................................................................................................... 77
Michigan ...................................................................................................... 77
Ohio ............................................................................................................. 78
Rhode Island ................................................................................................ 78
Washington .................................................................................................. 79
Examples From the Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council ...................................... 79
Physical Health Care .................................................................................... 79
Example .............................................................................................. 79
Mental Health Care ...................................................................................... 80
Example .............................................................................................. 80
Creation of Employment Opportunities ........................................................ 80
Example .............................................................................................. 80
Identification and Benefits ............................................................................ 81
Example .............................................................................................. 81
Design of Supervision Strategy .................................................................... 81
Example .............................................................................................. 81
Implementation of Supervision Strategy ....................................................... 81
Example .............................................................................................. 82
Job Development and Supportive Employment ............................................ 82
Example .............................................................................................. 82
Graduated Responses ................................................................................... 82
Example 1 ........................................................................................... 82
Example 2 .......................................................................................... 83
Pre-release Programs in Kentucky and Other States ................................................. 83
Pre-release Programming for State Felons in Local Jails ............................... 84
Pre-release Programming for State Felons in Prisons .................................... 84
Timing of Pre-release Programming .................................................... 85
Staffing for Pre-release Programming .................................................. 85
Working with Community Agencies .................................................... 85
Transitional Detention ......................................................................... 85
How Programming Could Be Improved........................................................ 85
Works Cited ............................................................................................................................. 87
Appendix A............................................................................................................................... 89

v

Contents

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

List of Tables
1.1
2.1
2.2
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
5.1
5.2

Recidivism Rate, Calendar Year 1998 to Calendar Year 2005.......................................... 6
Admissions by Type of Felony, Fiscal Year 1998 to Fiscal Year 2008 ........................... 12
Felony Admissions by Marital Status, Fiscal Year 2008 ................................................ 17
Availability of Vocational and Technical Education by Institution as of
September 2008 ............................................................................................................. 26
Institutions Offering the Substance Abuse Program as of August 2008 .......................... 28
Persons Who Completed the Sexual Offender Treatment Plan,
Fiscal Year 2004 to Fiscal Year 2008 ............................................................................ 30
Sex Crimes by Types, Fiscal Year 1998 to Fiscal Year 2008.......................................... 31
Pre-release Programs in Kentucky Prisons, Fiscal Year 2008 ......................................... 34
Jails Offering Substance Abuse Programs to State Inmates as of September 2008 .......... 36
Releases by Felony Type, Fiscal Year 1998 to Fiscal Year 2008 .................................... 39
Convictions of Released Felons by KRS Chapter, Fiscal Year 2008 .............................. 40
Locations From Which Felons Were Released in Accordance With the
Provisions of HB 406 as of September 11, 2008 ............................................................ 43
Releases by Age Group, Fiscal Year 2008 ..................................................................... 44
Probation and Parole Cases by Supervision Level,
Monthly Average for Fiscal Year 2008 .......................................................................... 51
Parole Cases by Supervision District on August 28, 2008 .............................................. 54
Sexual Offenders by Registration Period and Status as of September 17, 2008............... 57
Restoration of Civil Rights, Calendar Year 2003 to October 6, 2008.............................. 68
Programs Shown To Reduce Recidivism Based on Multiple Evaluations ....................... 72
Pre-release Programs in Kentucky and 10 Other States .................................................. 84
List of Figures

1.A
2.A
2.B
2.C
2.D
3.A
3.B
3.C
4.A
4.B
4.C
4.D

Admissions and Releases, Fiscal Year 1998 to Fiscal Year 2008 ..................................... 5
Felony Admissions by Category, Fiscal Year 1998 to Fiscal Year 2008 ......................... 14
Felony Admissions by Race, Fiscal Year 1998 to Fiscal Year 2008 ............................... 15
Felony Admissions by Age Group, Fiscal Years 1998, 2003, and 2008 .......................... 16
Felony Admissions by Educational Level, Fiscal Year 2008 .......................................... 18
State Inmates Housed in Prisons and Jails, Fiscal Year 1998 to Fiscal Year 2008 .......... 20
Vocational and Technical Certificates and Diplomas Earned,
Fiscal Year 2004 to Fiscal Year 2007 ............................................................................ 25
Sex Offenders Incarcerated as of June 30 of Fiscal Years 1998 to 2008 ......................... 30
Releases by Category, Fiscal Year 1998 to Fiscal Year 2008 ......................................... 42
Educational Level of Felons at Time of Release, Fiscal Year 2008 ................................ 45
Regular Cases and Number of Officers, Fiscal Year 2008 .............................................. 52
Minimum, Maximum, and Average Regular Caseloads by District,
August 2008 .................................................................................................................. 53

vi

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Summary

Summary
In November 2007, the Program Review and Investigations Committee directed that staff study
the process of reintegrating incarcerated felons into Kentucky communities after their release
from prison and the problems these persons encounter during the reentry process.
Much of the information in this report was provided by the Department of Corrections
(department) from its Kentucky Offender Management System (KOMS) and its previous
database systems. KOMS has been operational since May 2007. KOMS is designed to store
information on an individual, focusing on public safety and security. The system has potential for
routine reporting of information on a systemwide basis, such as that included in this report. With
additional resources to develop the required programming, and with increased emphasis to staff
to fill out all relevant database fields, the department could provide useful and timely
information to policy makers on the characteristics of the inmate population, the crimes for
which they were convicted, the efficacy of in-prison programming, and recidivism rates of
subpopulations, such as sexual offenders and persons convicted of violating controlled
substances statutes.
This report recommends several ways in which the department could better use KOMS to
provide information on persons admitted to and released from prison. In its 2008-2010 capital
budget request, the department asked for $6 million for the KOMS project. The request was not
approved. The requested funds would have allowed the department to transfer all functions that
remain in the previous databases, to change some manual functions into electronic functions, and
to collect electronic data from local jails that house state prisoners.
In FY 2008, Kentucky had more than 21,000 convicted felons under incarceration,
approximately 14,000 in prisons and 7,000 in county jails. The proportion of state inmates in
county jails increased from about one-fourth in FY 1998 to one-third in FY 2008. Where an
inmate is incarcerated determines the programs and services that potentially are available.
Felons Admitted to Correctional Institutions, Fiscal Year 1998 to Fiscal Year 2008
Annual admissions to the department’s custody increased 86 percent to more than 15,000 felons.
Over this period, admissions for Class C and D felonies doubled. Of the total admissions, 71
percent had committed new felonies, and 27 percent violated conditions of probation or parole.
The number of Caucasians being incarcerated each year more than doubled; the number of
African Americans increased at a much lower rate. Nearly half of the persons incarcerated were
single, and approximately 70 percent were 21 to 40 years old.
Of total admissions over the past 11 years, 19 percent were high school graduates and 41 percent
were not high school graduates. The educational status was unknown for one-third of the felons.

vii

Summary

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Programs and Services
Qualifying inmates receive credit on their sentences for good conduct, completing educational
programs, and work or program participation. The Parole Board considers an inmate’s good
conduct and participation in programs and services in considering whether to grant parole.
However, the department’s lack of resources results in waiting lists and some people not having
access to programs and services.
Within the prisons, inmates are encouraged to participate in work activities and/or other types of
program assignments, such as academic and vocational education. Opportunities for work and
education are sometimes available for state inmates in local jails. Program Review staff asked for
the number of state inmates in prisons and jails who had job and program assignments to get an
idea of the proportion of inmates who were working or attending classes. The department was
unable to provide the information because it is not routinely entered in KOMS.
Recommendation 3.1
The Department of Corrections should enter each inmate’s job and program assignment in the
Kentucky Offender Management System and update the information when an inmate’s work or
program status changes. This information will enable the department to report and analyze
systemwide successes in job and program activities and identify improvements that should be
made.
A vocational-technical postsecondary education program is offered in the 13 state-operated
prisons. These programs are provided by the Kentucky Community and Technical College
System (KCTCS). Inmates may earn certificates of completion and diplomas. In the three private
prisons, programs are provided by the National Center for Construction Education and Research,
and inmates earn certificates only. The department learns from KCTCS and the National Center
for Construction Education and Research the number of certificates and diplomas awarded.
However, the department was not able to identify the number of inmates who had earned the
certificates and diplomas because the information is not routinely entered in KOMS.
Recommendation 3.2
The Department of Corrections should enter each inmate’s educational achievements in the
Kentucky Offender Management System and update the information when an inmate’s
educational status changes. This information will enable the department to report and analyze
systemwide successes in its educational programs and identify improvements that should be
made.
The Substance Abuse Treatment Program is offered in six prisons to inmates who have been
determined to have an addiction to drugs and/or alcohol. To participate in the six-month
program, inmates must demonstrate a willingness and ability to change their behavior and to
actively participate in assignments. The department was unable to identify the number of inmates
who had completed the Substance Abuse Program because the information is not routinely
entered in KOMS. Instead, the department relies on the University of Kentucky’s Center on Drug
and Alcohol Research to measure the number of completions when it conducts its annual

viii

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Summary

Criminal Justice Kentucky Treatment Outcome Study. That study encompasses all the prisons
but only a sample of the jails.
Recommendation 3.3
The Department of Corrections should enter each inmate’s acceptance into the Substance Abuse
Program in the Kentucky Offender Management System and update the information when the
inmate completes or exits the program, including the reason for exiting the program. This
information will enable the department to report and analyze systemwide successes in the
Substance Abuse Program and identify improvements that should be made.
All persons convicted of sex crimes are required to be incarcerated in prisons rather than jails.
KRS 197.400 requires the department to provide a specialized Sexual Offender Treatment
Program. It is provided in four men’s prisons, one women’s prison, and in the community.
Although the department was able to provide the number of persons who had completed the
Sexual Offender Treatment Program, the information was provided by staff of the Mental Health
Division because it is not routinely entered in KOMS. The department was unable to provide the
recidivism rate for sexual offenders, as required by KRS 197.420(6).
Recommendation 3.4
The Department of Corrections should enter each inmate’s acceptance into the Sexual Offender
Treatment Program in the Kentucky Offender Management System and update the information
when the inmate completes or exits the program, including the reason for exiting the program.
This information will enable the department to report and analyze systemwide successes in the
Sexual Offender Treatment Program, identify improvements that should be made, and calculate
the recidivism rate required by KRS 197.420(6).
Between 30 and 180 days of potential release from prison, an inmate will have an opportunity to
attend a pre-release program, commonly referred to as “Prison to the Streets.” The components
of the program vary widely among prisons, and the program is not available to state inmates in
local jails. Typical topics could include preparing for job interviews, how to fill out employment
applications, resume writing, housing options, where to find medical care, budgeting, and
utilizing community resources. The time spent on the program varies from 16 to 20 hours in
some prisons to only 1 to 5 hours in others. Some persons have been incarcerated for years and
could use help in developing their community skills. Persons without such skills can be
particularly challenging to the probation and parole officers who supervise them.
Recommendation 3.5
The Department of Corrections should require the use of a standardized reentry program that
focuses on a person’s community knowledge and skills to enable released felons to reenter
society as smoothly as possible. The program should be of sufficient duration to ensure adequate
coverage of required topics and should be offered in all prisons and jails that house state inmates.

ix

Summary

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Felons Released From Correctional Institutions
From FY 1998 to FY 2008, almost 116,000 felons were released from incarceration. The number
released per year increased 146 percent over the period. Most had been convicted of Class C and
D felonies. The nearly 17,000 felons released in FY 2008 had been convicted of 39,000 felonies.
Nearly one-third of the convictions were for violations of Kentucky’s controlled substances
statute. About one-fourth were for theft and burglary.
From FY 1998 to FY 2008, 54 percent of persons released were placed under parole or probation
supervision, 41 percent were discharged without supervision, and 5 percent were released to
home incarceration and for other reasons. In a one-year period, from FY 2007 to FY 2008,
releases increased by 21 percent. On an average day in FY 2008, 46 felons were released and 42
were admitted. Seventy percent of all persons exiting the system are 21 to 40 years old.
Most felons become eligible for parole consideration after serving a specified portion of their
sentences, depending on the class and type of felony. In FY 2007, the Parole Board conducted
more than 13,000 hearings and file reviews. Forty-nine percent of inmates were released to
parole, 32 percent had their parole deferred, and 19 percent were ordered to serve out their
sentences.
The Division of Probation and Parole supervises adult offenders released to community
supervision. Offenders are assessed and supervised according to the type of crime they
committed and their probability of committing additional crimes. “Regular” officers supervise
most persons released to community supervision. In FY 2008, the average caseload of an officer
was 94 persons.
“Sex offender” officers supervise only convicted sex offenders released to probation and parole
supervision. Each registered sex offender is required to periodically verify the offender’s address
with the Kentucky State Police to be considered compliant. Offenders who do not comply with
the address verification procedure are subject to reincarceration.
In FY 2008, 1,093 offenders were released to home incarceration. These persons remain in the
custody of the department but are monitored by private companies through the use of monitoring
devices.
Challenges of Reentry
Persons being released from incarceration face a number of challenges, such as finding a job and
paying for basic living expenses. Convicted felons often face additional challenges related to the
availability of community substance abuse and mental health treatment, finding a place to live,
and paying child support arrearages and court-ordered restitution, fees, and fines.
The reentry process itself may be difficult for persons who have been incarcerated for a number
of years and may be estranged from their families and friends. Some challenges relate
specifically to the type of felony conviction. Compounding the problems, the department has no
statewide system for easing the transition from prison to the community. A probation and parole

x

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Summary

officer may help individuals, but with an average caseload of 94 persons, the amount and quality
of that help varies.
A person may not be able to obtain substance abuse and mental health treatment in the
community. The community mental health system’s capacity to expand services or serve larger
populations is questionable.
A person who has been convicted of any federal or state law involving the possession or sale of a
controlled substance is ineligible for federal higher education aid until a certain period of time
has passed since the conviction or the person completes drug treatment.
An ex-felon who has enough money to rent an apartment may not find a landlord willing or able
to rent. Many restrictions are imposed on assisted housing, particularly for persons convicted of
drug-related activity and sex crimes. In Kentucky, registered sex offenders cannot reside within
1,000 feet of a school, publicly owned playground, or licensed daycare facility.
Employers often exclude convicted felons from consideration. A few statutes preclude convicted
felons from holding occupational licenses or certificates. Several statutes permit but do not
require revocation or suspension of licenses and certificates. Other statutes address situations in
which convicted felons may lose or be denied employment.
Transportation can be difficult for convicted felons. Obtaining an operator’s license after
incarceration can be difficult without adequate personal documentation, which some released
felons may not have. Some problems with operators’ licenses relate to the felony conviction
itself. Statutes require revocation or suspension of licenses for various reasons, such as being
convicted of manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle, multiple convictions for driving
under the influence, and child support arrearages.
One of the biggest challenges facing some released felons is potential revocation of their parole.
From FY 1998 to FY 2008, 27 percent of prison admissions were for violating the technical
conditions of parole or probation. In the 2,820 parole revocation hearings in FY 2007, 1,789
persons had their parole deferred, meaning that they had to serve more time, and 859 persons
were ordered to serve out their sentences.
A convicted felon is not eligible to vote until civil rights are restored by the governor.
Some challenges could be lessened. For example, some incarcerated felons would benefit from
individualized pre-release assistance, including help making appointments with providers of
needed services. Incarcerated felons also would benefit from more and better-coordinated
academic, vocational, and technical programs geared to the workplace and from employers who
have expressed a willingness to hire them when they are released.

xi

Summary

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Recommendation 4.1
The Department of Corrections should dedicate staff at each prison and staff to work with local
jails to provide individualized assistance to persons with significant pre-release and post-release
needs. The assistance should include interaction with community providers to ensure that the
necessary services are available to released felons.
Recommendation 4.2
The Department of Corrections should dedicate staff to contact potential employers across the
state, assess the vocational and technical skills their employees must have, and encourage
employers to hire released felons with these skills. The department should provide appropriate
training to inmates, encourage inmates to participate in it, and inform inmates of employers who
have expressed a willingness to hire them.
Offender Reentry Programs and Practices
A 2006 review examined nearly 300 evaluations of evidence-based programs for adult offenders.
Only studies that included a matched comparison group that did not receive the treatment under
study were included. Based on the evaluations, some types of adult offender reentry programs
resulted in less crime but others did not. Six types of treatment each reduced recidivism by more
than 10 percent: 1) cognitive-behavioral treatment in the community for low-risk sex offenders
on probation, 2) intensive community supervision with a focus on treatment, 3) cognitivebehavioral treatment in prison for sex offenders, 4) vocational education in prison, 5) drug
treatment in the community, and 6) adult drug courts.
Other states have created offender reentry programs in recent years. For example, four PreRelease Centers in Georgia help family members of offenders be aware of ways they can assist
with the offender’s reentry into society. The governor of Illinois created a statewide working
group to initiate work on a statewide offender reentry plan. By executive order, all Rhode Island
state agencies are to collaborate on prisoner reentry, and there are local councils and a statewide
committee.
At the request of Program Review staff, the Department of Corrections updated its responses to a
survey on pre-release programming. The department also obtained updated results from 10 other
states. Five of the 11 states, including Kentucky, do not offer pre-release programs for state
inmates in local jails. Ten states provide pre-release programming for inmates in state prisons. In
eight of those states, including Kentucky, inmate attendance is voluntary. Nine states use one or
more forms of transitional detention. The percentage of the felon population in a state in
transitional detention ranged from 2 percent to 35 percent. In Kentucky, an estimated 4 percent
of felons are in transitional detention.

xii

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 1

Chapter 1
Overview and Background
On November 8, 2007, the Program Review and Investigations
Committee directed staff to study the process of reintegrating
incarcerated felons into Kentucky communities after their release
from prison release and the problems they encounter during the
reentry process.

Objectives and Overview of the Report
The objectives of this report are to
describe the Kentucky probation
and parole system and the current
process for returning and
reintegrating incarcerated felons
into local communities, and to
evaluate the effectiveness of the
current process.

The study had two major objectives:
1. Describe the Kentucky probation and parole system and the
current process for returning and reintegrating incarcerated
felons into local communities, including pre-release and postrelease strategies.
2. Evaluate the effectiveness of the current process for returning
and reintegrating incarcerated felons into local communities.

The Department of Corrections is
responsible for incarcerating
persons convicted of felony
offenses and for supervising those
released on probation and parole.
The department operates 13 state
prisons and contracts with
Corrections Corporation of
America to operate three
additional prisons. The
department also contracts with 75
local jails to house certain
minimum custody inmates. The
Parole Board is an independent
board attached to the Justice and
Public Safety Cabinet for
administrative purposes.

Kentucky’s Division of Probation and Parole is part of the
Department of Corrections, which is part of the Justice and Public
Safety Cabinet. The department is responsible for incarcerating
persons convicted of felony offenses and for supervising those
released on probation and parole. The department operates 13 state
prisons and contracts with Corrections Corporation of America to
operate 3 additional prisons. All 16 prisons and the Division of
Probation and Parole are accredited by the American Correctional
Association. The department also contracts with 75 local jails to
house certain minimum custody inmates. The Parole Board is an
independent board attached to the Justice and Public Safety
Cabinet for administrative purposes.
Focus of This Report
This report focuses on persons convicted of felony offenses who
are incarcerated, those who are released, and the problems they
face upon their reentry into society. Almost everyone who is
admitted to prison will be released. Program Review staff use the
term “convicted” or “conviction” to mean that a person was
convicted by a court of law or has entered a guilty plea, an Alford
plea, or a plea of no contest to a felony offense.

1

Chapter 1

This report focuses on persons
convicted of felony offenses who
are incarcerated, those who are
released, and the problems they
face upon their reentry into
society. This report does not
consider the appropriateness of
the type or length of sentence
given to a convicted felon. These
issues are being addressed by the
Interim Joint Committee on
Judiciary and the Kentucky
Criminal Justice Council.

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

This report does not consider the appropriateness of the type or
length of sentence given to a convicted felon. These issues are
being addressed by the Interim Joint Committee on Judiciary and
the Kentucky Criminal Justice Council. This report provides trend
information that may be helpful to these groups.
Senate Joint Resolution 80 of the 2008 Regular Session of the
General Assembly directed the co-chairs of the Interim Joint
Committee on Judiciary to appoint a Penal Code Subcommittee to
1) conduct a thorough review of the present Kentucky Penal Code;
2) identify and enact a philosophy for a modernization of the
Kentucky Penal Code; 3) identify what other states have done in
recent years in modernizing their penal codes; 4) reconstruct the
crimes contained in the Kentucky Penal Code to match the
philosophy identified for the code; 5) reconstruct and possibly
expand the classifications of felonies, misdemeanors, and
violations to provide a greater flexibility for the code; 6) study the
advisability of adjusting the current penalties for violent offenses,
offenses resulting in death and serious physical injury, and
offenses in which a weapon was used; 7) study the advisability of
adjusting the current penalties for nonviolent offenses, property
crimes, and related offenses; 8) restore an equal scheme of
penalties for crimes of equal nature and seriousness; 9) determine
whether penalties for controlled substances offenses should be
readjusted; and 10) make such other recommendations as it may
deem appropriate. The final report is due by December 1, 2008.
The Kentucky Criminal Justice Council has established five
committees to study similar issues. The Sentencing Committee is
reviewing Kentucky’s sentencing practices, including but not
limited to KRS Chapter 439 on probation and parole, sentencing
enhancements and disparities, persistent felony offender statutes,
and various published sentencing reports. The Penal Code
Committee is performing a general review of Kentucky’s Penal
code for statutory changes. The KRS 218A Committee is
reviewing controlled substances statutes for uniformity, proposed
changes, and the advisability of control substances statutes
becoming part of the Penal Code. The Corrections, Probation, and
Parole Committee is reviewing the current inmate population,
including aging and infirm prisoners; possible alternatives to
incarceration; statutes and practices relating to probation and
parole, including but not limited to KRS Chapter 439; Kentucky’s
violation and recidivism rates; and disparities within the system.
The Pre-trial Release Committee is reviewing criminal rules
regarding bail, actions of pre-trial officers and judges, and policies
to accomplish release after arrest in a timely and efficient manner.

2

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 1

Recommendations for statutory changes are due to be reported to
the Governor by December 1, 2008, for consideration by the 2009
General Assembly.
Recent Federal Initiatives on Reentry
Two federal laws enacted in 2008 are designed to help convicted
felons as they return to communities. Because the laws are so new,
it is unknown how they will be implemented and how effective
they may be.
The Second Chance Act of 2007 was signed into law in April
2008. The act will, among other things, assist states and local
governments, in partnership with nonprofit organizations, to
establish prisoner reentry demonstration projects. According to a
White House press release, “Demonstration projects include
education, vocational training, and job placement services;
coordinated supervision for offenders upon release, including
housing and mental and physical health care; and programs that
encourage offenders to develop safe, health, and reasonable family
and parent-child relationships” (United States).
On August 14, 2008, the Higher Education Amendments Act of
2007 was signed into law. The act includes a grant program to fund
state correctional agencies to help eligible incarcerated persons
acquire educational and job skills. The grant program would help
eligible incarcerated people acquire educational and job skills
through a) coursework to prepare students to take college-level
courses, b) the pursuit of a postsecondary education certificate or
degree by an accredited body while in prison, and c) employment
counseling and other related services that start during incarceration
and end no later than one year after release (Chronicle).
The Kentucky Offender Management System
Much of the information included in this report was provided by
the department from its Kentucky Offender Management System
(KOMS) and its previous information system. According to
department staff, the objectives of KOMS are to
• maintain information that applies to all offenders regardless of
whether they are in custody, on supervision, or unsupervised;
• maintain the information in a database shared and updated by
users;
• provide access to the database through a Web browser;
• make the update simple, reliable, and secure;

3

Chapter 1

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

•
•

provide non-updatable views to the information for everyday
use by anyone granted access by the department; and
produce reports utilized by the department (Commonwealth.
Cabinet for Justice. Department. Internal).

The department started using KOMS in May 2007. Some of the
information from the previous system did not transfer to KOMS as
planned. To provide information for this report, department staff
had to write programs to pull data from the old system.
KOMS is designed to store information on an individual,
emphasizing public safety and security. The system has potential
for routine reporting of information on a systemwide basis, such as
that included in this report. With additional resources to develop
the required programming, and with increased emphasis to staff to
fill out all relevant database fields, the department could provide
useful and timely information to policy makers on the
characteristics of the inmate population, the crimes for which they
were convicted, the efficacy of in-prison programming, and
recidivism rates of subpopulations, such as sexual offenders and
persons convicted of violating the controlled substances statutes.
This report recommends several ways in which the department
could better use KOMS to provide information on persons
admitted to and released from prison. An impediment to
implementing those recommendations is that local jail staff can
read information in KOMS but cannot add to or change it when an
inmate’s status changes (Thatcher). Without a way to update the
records of state inmates housed in county jails, the department
cannot know some current information, such whether the person
completed an educational program while incarcerated in jail.
Persons Admitted to and Released From Incarceration
In fiscal year 2008, Kentucky had
more than 21,000 felons in its
custody. About 14,000 were
housed in state prisons and about
7,000 in county jails. Annual
admissions to the department’s
custody have increased
86 percent over the last 11 years;
releases have increased 146
percent. On an average day in
FY 2008, 42 felons were admitted
and 46 were released.

In fiscal year 2008, Kentucky had more than 21,000 felons in its
custody. About 14,000 were housed in state prisons and about
7,000 in county jails.
From FY 1998 to FY 2008, the department admitted 127,221
offenders and released 115,904. As shown in Figure 1.A, annual
admissions to the department’s custody have increased 86 percent
over the last 11 years; releases have increased 146 percent. On an
average day in FY 2008, 46 felons were released and 42 were
admitted.

4

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 1

Number of Inmates

Figure 1.A
Admissions and Releases
Fiscal Year 1998 to Fiscal Year 2008
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0

Total Admissions

Total Releases

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Fiscal Year
Source: Prepared by Program Review staff from information provided by the Department of Corrections.

In FY 2008, the 16,915 felons who were released had been
convicted of committing 38,599 felonies. Nearly one-third of the
convictions were for violations of KRS Chapter 218A, Kentucky’s
controlled substances statute.
In FY 2008, 64 percent of admitted felons and 67 percent of
released felons had been convicted of Class D felonies. The vast
majority of persons convicted of Class D felonies are required by
statute to be housed in jails.
The Parole Board reviews the cases of some offenders and releases
them to parole supervision. A sentencing judge may release an
offender to probation without the offender serving any time under
incarceration or may release an offender at any time while the
offender is incarcerated. Both groups of people are under the
supervision of the Division of Probation and Parole. Except for
certain sexual offenders, persons who serve out their sentences are
not under the division’s supervision.
Most felons become eligible for parole consideration after serving
a specified portion of their sentences, depending on the class and
type of felony. From FY 1998 to FY 2008, 54 percent of persons
released were placed under parole or probation supervision,
41 percent were discharged without supervision, and 5 percent
were released to home incarceration and for other reasons. In
FY 2008, probation and parole officers had an average caseload of
94 persons. In FY 2007, the Parole Board conducted 13,279

5

Chapter 1

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

hearings and file reviews. Forty-nine percent of inmates were
released to parole, 32 percent had their parole deferred, and
19 percent were ordered to serve out their sentences.
Persons being released often face challenges in finding a job,
paying basic living expenses, finding substance abuse and mental
health treatment, finding a place to live, and paying child support
arrearages and court-ordered restitution, fees, and fines. Some of
these barriers to reentry are specified in federal or state statutes and
regulations.
One of the biggest challenges facing some released felons is
potential revocation of their parole. From FY 1998 to FY 2008,
27 percent of prison admissions were persons who had violated the
technical conditions of their parole or probation. In the 2,820
parole revocation hearings in FY 2007, 64 percent of persons had
their parole deferred, 30 percent were ordered to serve out their
sentences, and 6 percent were released back to parole supervision.
Recidivism Rates
In calendar year 2005, Kentucky’s
recidivism rate was 34 percent,
which means that one-third of
convicted felons returned to prison
within 2 years.

In calendar year 2005, Kentucky’s recidivism rate was 34 percent,
which means that one-third of convicted felons returned to prison
within 2 years. Table 1.1 shows recidivism rates for calendar years
1998 to 2005, the latest year for which a rate could be calculated.
Table 1.1
Recidivism Rates
Calendar Year 1998 to Calendar Year 2005
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

Percent
30%
31%
29%
30%
32%
35%
33%
34%

Source: Kentucky Department of
Corrections.

The recidivism rate, which is calculated using a method
recommended by the Association of State Correctional
Administrators, is calculated by calendar year for a 24-month
period. For example, the recidivism rate for 2005 was calculated
by taking the number of inmates that returned to prison by a new

6

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 1

conviction or a technical violation of the conditions of probation or
parole in 2005, 2006, and 2007, but within 24 months of release,
and dividing by the number of inmates released in 2005. The
recidivism rate for calendar year 2006 cannot be calculated until
December 2008.

How This Study Was Conducted
Program Review staff interviewed and obtained information from
officials of the Department of Corrections; the Department for
Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities, and Addiction Services
in the Cabinet for Health and Family Services; members and staff
of the Kentucky Parole Board; the Kentucky Association of
Regional Mental Health and Mental Retardation Programs; and the
Kentucky Jailers Association.
Staff interviewed incarcerated felons at all 16 prisons and at 3
county jails and released felons living in the community.
Staff obtained information from officials in the Department for
Community Based Services in the Cabinet for Health and Family
Services, the Kentucky Housing Corporation, the Kentucky State
Police, and the University of Kentucky’s Center for Drug and
Alcohol Research.
To learn about the pre-release programming provided in Kentucky
and other states, staff conducted surveys of the pre-release
coordinators at Kentucky’s prisons and members of the
Institutional Corrections Research Network in the National
Institute of Justice, of which Kentucky is a member.
Staff observed regular parole hearings, parole revocation hearings,
victim impact hearings, and interactions between parole officers
and parolees in local probation and parole offices.
Staff attended training sessions for probation and parole officers,
meetings of the Louisville Metro Reentry Council, and the
Association of Paroling Authorities International annual meeting.
Staff attended meetings of the Kentucky Criminal Justice Council.
Staff reviewed federal and state laws and regulations, the
department’s policy and procedure manual, and reports on best
practices and promising practices in other states.

7

Chapter 1

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Organization of the Report
This report consists of five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an
overview of the report and describes the study’s research methods
and major conclusions. Chapter 2 describes persons who are
incarcerated upon being convicted of felony offenses. With few
exceptions, the persons who are incarcerated will eventually be
released. Chapter 3 describes programs and services for
incarcerated felons. This information was considered important to
understand the programs and services that convicted felons have
available to them and that they avail themselves of while
incarcerated. Chapter 4 describes convicted felons who are
released from incarceration and the challenges they face when
reentering Kentucky’s communities. Chapter 5 describes research
and practices in felon reentry. Appendix A is a brief overview of
interviews conducted with felony inmates and released felons.

Major Conclusions
The report has two major
conclusions.

The report has two major conclusions:
1. The department’s reentry programming should be
strengthened. The formal reentry program is not offered
consistently among prisons and is not available in jails.
Department staff who present the program have additional job
responsibilities. The department should dedicate additional
staff to work only on reentry programming and to provide
individual assistance to persons who need it. Staff also should
be dedicated to work with employers, housing owners and
providers, and other providers of services to identify
specifically where a released felon may be able to get a job,
find a place to live, and/or obtain substance abuse or mental
health treatment. These efforts will smooth people’s transition
from prison to the community.
2. The only outcome measure the department currently reports is
the recidivism rate. The department should measure and report
outcomes of the programs and services provided to convicted
felons. The department provides work programs; academic,
vocational, and technical education; sex offender treatment;
and substance abuse programs. Information on inmates who
use these programs and services is not entered in the Kentucky
Offender Management System. Thus, the department is unable
to measure and report systemwide outcomes of its programs.

8

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 2

Chapter 2
Persons Incarcerated for Felony Offenses
Persons incarcerated for felony convictions are classified in the
Kentucky Offender Management System (KOMS) in various ways.
KOMS has data on the type of felony for which a person was
convicted, whether the person was incarcerated for committing a
new felony offense or violating the conditions of parole or
probation, and demographic information. Some data are
incomplete. This chapter summarizes available information to
describe the population of adults in the care and under the
supervision of the Department of Corrections.

Types of Felonies
Felonies are classified as capital
offenses and Class A, B, C, and D
felonies. The felony class affects
the time a person will be
incarcerated.

For sentencing purposes, felonies are classified as capital offenses
and Class A, B, C, and D felonies. The felony class affects the time
a person will be incarcerated.

A sentence of imprisonment for
most felonies is indeterminate and
is a range of years. The
sentencing judge sets the
maximum time for which a person
is to be incarcerated before being
released. For persons eligible for
parole, the Parole Board
determines how much of the
sentence must be served before
release.

A sentence of imprisonment for most felonies is an indeterminate
sentence that consists of a range of years. The sentencing judge
sets the maximum time for which a person is to be incarcerated
before being released. For persons eligible for parole, the Parole
Board determines how much of the sentence must be served before
release.

Length of Sentence

For some capital offenses, a sentence of death or life imprisonment
without benefit of probation or parole may be imposed. For other
capital offenses, an indeterminate sentence is imposed. The
generally authorized terms of imprisonment for felonies with
indeterminate sentences are as follows:
• For a capital offense, imprisonment for life without benefit of
probation or parole until a minimum of 25 years has been
served, or imprisonment of not less than 20 years nor more
than 50 years, or life imprisonment, for which a person may
later be released;
• For a Class A felony, not less than 20 years nor more than 50
years;
• For a Class B felony, not less than 10 years nor more than 20
years;

9

Chapter 2

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

•
•

For a Class C felony, not less than 5 years nor more than 10
years; and
For a Class D felony, not less than 1 year nor more than 5
years.

Examples of Class A, B, C, and D Felonies
Examples are provided of Class A,
B, C, and D felonies.

Examples of Class A felonies are
• controlled substance endangerment to a child in the first
degree, for example, when a child is present where
methamphetamine is being manufactured and the child dies;
• a second or subsequent offense of manufacture of
methamphetamine;
• rape in the first degree of a child under 12 years old or any
person who receives a serious physical injury;
• arson in the first degree, for example, when a person starts a
fire in an occupied building;
• a second or subsequent offense of theft by unlawful taking of
anhydrous ammonia, when it is proven that the person intended
to manufacture methamphetamine;
• a second or subsequent offense of receiving stolen anhydrous
ammonia, when it is proven that the person intended to
manufacture methamphetamine; and
• use of a minor in a sexual performance if the minor incurs
physical injury.
Many felonies have graduated sentences, depending on the number
of times a person is convicted of the offense. For example, in the
list above, a second offense of manufacture of methamphetamine is
a Class A felony, whereas a first offense is a Class B felony.
Examples of Class B felonies are
• a second or subsequent offense of selling controlled substances
to a minor;
• a second or subsequent offense of trafficking in a controlled
substance that is a narcotic drug;
• a second or subsequent offense of trafficking in marijuana of
five or more pounds;
• engaging in organized crime, for example, organizing a
criminal syndicate or any of its activities;
• manslaughter in the first degree, for example, when a person
with an intent to commit serious physical injury causes death;
• burglary in the first degree, for example, when a person enters
a building with the intent to commit a crime and is armed with
a deadly weapon; and

10

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 2

•

robbery in the first degree, for example, when a person
threatens the use of physical force and is armed with a deadly
weapon.

Examples of Class C felonies are
• theft of a controlled substance with a value greater than $300;
• a second or subsequent offense of criminal possession of a
forged prescription;
• a second or subsequent offense of obtaining a prescription for a
controlled substance by knowingly misrepresenting to a
practitioner;
• sexual abuse in the first degree when the victim is less than 12
years old;
• trafficking in stolen identities;
• forgery in the first degree, such as altering a check;
• criminal possession of a forged instrument in the first degree;
and
• possession of a handgun by a convicted felon.
Examples of Class D felonies are
• a fourth or subsequent offense of driving under the influence
within a five-year period;
• a first offense of trafficking in a controlled substance within
1,000 yards of a school;
• a first offense of cultivation of five or more marijuana plants;
• a first offense of criminal falsification of a medical record;
• making a false statement of material fact about financial
condition for procuring the issuance of a credit card;
• fraudulently using a credit card when the value obtained
exceeds $100 in a six-month period;
• reckless homicide;
• criminal mischief in the first degree, for example, intentionally
damaging property causing a loss of $1,000 or more;
• theft by deception when the value is $300 or more;
• theft of identity;
• bribing a witness;
• flagrant nonsupport; and
• a first offense of distributing matter portraying a sexual
performance by a minor.

11

Chapter 2

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Presentence Investigation
Someone convicted of a
noncapital felony offense is
usually not sentenced until the
judge reviews a presentence
investigation report prepared by a
probation and parole officer. The
report helps identify the treatment,
educational, and rehabilitation
needs of the convicted felon. The
report also helps identify programs
and resources that are available to
meet those needs or the lack of
such programs and resources.

In most cases, a person convicted of a felony other than a capital
offense is not sentenced until the judge reviews a presentence
investigation report prepared by a probation and parole officer.
KRS 532.050(5) states that the report should identify the treatment,
educational, and rehabilitation needs of the convicted felon. The
report also helps identify programs and resources in the
community and in correctional institutions that are available to
meet those needs or the lack of such programs and resources.

From FY 1998 to FY 2008, annual
admissions for felony offenses
increased approximately
86 percent, from approximately
8,000 to approximately 15,000.

In the last 11 years, 127,221 people have been admitted to adult
correctional institutions or county jails that house state inmates in
Kentucky. Table 2.1 shows the number of admissions by type of
felony per fiscal year. The number of admissions includes
duplicates because some people have been incarcerated for a
felony conviction more than once, and some people have been
incarcerated for a felony conviction, released on parole, and
returned to prison for a parole violation.1 The number of
admissions also includes persons from out of state who were
admitted.

Admissions by Type of Felony

Table 2.1
Admissions by Type of Felony
Fiscal Year 1998 to Fiscal Year 2008
Felony
Type
Capital
Class A
Class B
Class C
Class D
Other
Total

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
89
89
68
78
64
47
52
54
41
56
697
745
770
775
938
2,059 1,975 2,160 2,333 2,607
4,857 4,733 4,970 5,030 5,914
415
355
322
257
311
8,164 7,949 8,344 8,514 9,890

Fiscal Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
84
72
84
76
63
63
63
59
72
57
922 1,025 1,045 1,107 1,049
2,890 3,353 3,640 4,135 4,071
6,538 8,154 8,588 9,455 9,610
593
649
584
554
556
11,090 13,316 14,000 15,399 15,406

2008
71
35
1,031
4,216
9,740
56
15,149

Source: Prepared by Program Review staff from information provided by the Department of Corrections.

1

Program Review staff asked the department for the number of admissions
rather than the number of people to more accurately gauge the associated
workload. The admissions shown in Table 2.1 are compiled on the basis of the
highest level of felony for which a person was convicted. Thus, a person
convicted of Class C and D felonies simultaneously appears in Table 2.1 only in
the Class C category.

12

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 2

From FY 1998 to FY 2008, annual admissions for felony offenses
increased approximately 86 percent, from approximately 8,000 to
approximately 15,000. Relatively few persons are newly
imprisoned for capital or Class A felonies each year, but the
numbers for each were lower in FY 2008 than in FY 1998. Annual
admissions for Class B felonies increased 48 percent, increased
105 percent for Class C felonies, and increased 100 percent for
Class D felonies. Many persons were convicted of multiple
felonies at one time.

Admissions by Category
KOMS uses admission codes, which are defined below, to identify
the reason a person is incarcerated.
• “New commitment” indicates that a person has been convicted
of a new felony offense. This category is used to record the
admission of a person for being convicted of one or more
felony types. A person who is convicted of a new felony
offense while on parole or probation is admitted under this
code.
• “Parole” indicates that a person has been admitted for violating
the conditions of release while on parole, other than
committing another felony.
• “Probation” indicates that a person has been admitted for
violating the conditions of release while on probation, other
than committing another felony.
• “Other” category includes admissions for persons who have
been returned to prison from home incarceration, from escape,
from revocation of conditional discharge for sex offenders, and
by court order, as well as commitments from out of state.
Over the past 11-year period,
71 percent of admissions were for
those convicted of a new felony
offense. Twenty-seven percent of
admissions were for violations of
parole or probation.

Figure 2.A shows admissions for FY 1998 to FY 2008 using these
categories. New commitments accounted for 71 percent of
admissions in this period. Admissions of returned parolees were
21 percent, returned probationers were 6 percent, and admissions
for other reasons were 2 percent.

13

Chapter 2

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Figure 2.A
Felony Admissions by Category
Fiscal Year 1998 to Fiscal Year 2008
12,000

New Commitment
Parole
Probation
Other

11,000
10,000

Admissions

9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Fiscal Year
Source: Prepared by Program Review staff from information provided by the Department of Corrections.

Felony Admissions by Gender, Race, Age,
Marital Status, and Educational Status
Gender
In FY 2008, 83 percent of newly
admitted felony prisoners were
male and 17 percent were female.
These percentages are consistent
in other years for which data were
available.

In FY 2008, 83 percent of those admitted to prison for felonies
were male and 17 percent were female. These percentages were
consistent across the 11-year period.

14

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 2

Race
Seventy-two percent of those
newly incarcerated for felonies in
FY 2008 were Caucasian and
26 percent were African American.
The number of African Americans
newly incarcerated for felonies
increased 26 percent from
FY 1998 to FY 2008. The number
of admissions of Caucasians
increased 121 percent over this
period.

Figure 2.B shows felony admissions by race over 11 years.
Seventy-two percent of those newly incarcerated for felonies in
FY 2008 were Caucasian and 26 percent were African American.
The number of African Americans newly incarcerated for felonies
increased 26 percent from approximately 3,100 in
FY 1998 to more than 3,900 in FY 2008. The number of
admissions of Caucasians increased 121 percent from
approximately 5,000 in FY 1998 to nearly 11,000 in FY 2008.
Figure 2.B
Felony Admissions by Race
Fiscal Years 1998 to 2008

12,000

Admissions

10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000

10,920

African American
Caucasian
Other
4,942

3,923

3,110

2,000
0
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Fiscal Year
Note: “Other,” which represents 2 percent of the population being admitted, includes American Indian/Alaskan
Natives, Asian/Pacific Islanders, Hispanics/Latinos, biracial persons, and persons whose race is not known.
Source: Prepared by Program Review staff from information provided by the Department of Corrections.

15

Chapter 2

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Age
Nearly 70 percent of all
admissions into the prison system
are persons 21 to 40 years old.
Persons 21 to 30 years old
represented 40 percent of all
admissions in FY 2008.

Figure 2.C shows the number of prison admissions by age group in
FY 1998, FY 2003, and FY 2008. More than 40 percent of those
entering the prison system were 21 to 30 years old. Thirty percent
of admissions were persons 31 to 40 years. Nearly 70 percent of all
admissions into the prison system are persons 21 to 40 years old.

Figure 2.C
Felony Admissions by Age Group
Fiscal Years 1998, 2003, and 2008
7,000

Fiscal Year 1998
Fiscal Year 2003
Fiscal Year 2008

Admissions

6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
18 - 20

21 - 30

31-40

41-50

OVER 50

Age Group
Source: Prepared by Program Review Staff with information provided by the Department of Corrections.
From FY 1998 to FY 2008, the
number of annual admissions
increased for each age group
except 18 to 20 year olds. In terms
of numbers, the largest increase
by far was for those aged 21 to
30, from fewer than 3,200 in
FY 1998 to more than 6,000 in
FY 2008.

From FY 1998 to FY 2008, the number of annual admissions
increased for each age group except 18 to 20 year olds. In
percentage terms, the largest increases were for persons older than
50 (164 percent), followed by 21-30 year olds (94 percent). In
terms of numbers, the largest increase by far was for those aged 21
to 30, from fewer than 3,200 in FY 1998 to more than 6,000 in
FY 2008.

16

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 2

Marital Status
In FY 2008, nearly half the
persons newly incarcerated for
felonies were single. Seventeen
percent were married. Twenty-five
percent were divorced or
separated.

Table 2.2 shows that in FY 2008 nearly half the persons admitted
to incarceration were single. Seventeen percent were married, 25
percent were divorced or separated, and the marital status of 9
percent was unknown.
Table 2.2
Felony Admissions by Marital Status
Fiscal Year 2008
Status
Single
Married
Divorced
Separated
Widowed
Other
Unknown
Total

Number
7,090
2,550
2,910
922
165
130
1,382
15,149

Percentage
46.8%
16.8%
19.2%
6.1%
1.1%
0.9%
9.1%
100%

Note: “Other” includes co-habited and common law.
Source: Prepared by Program Review staff from
information provided by the Department of Corrections.

17

Chapter 2

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Educational Status
In FY 2008, 41 percent of
admissions had not graduated
from high school and 19 percent
had high school diplomas. The
educational status of 33 percent of
admissions was unknown.

Figure 2.D shows the educational levels attained at the time of
admission for FY 2008. Nineteen percent had graduated from high
school and 41 percent had not graduated from high school. The
educational status of 33 percent of admissions was unknown.
Figure 2.D
Felony Admissions by Educational Level
Fiscal Year 2008
High School
Diploma
19%
Some College
6%
Associate's
Degree
1%

No High
School
Diploma
41%

Unknown
33%

Source: Prepared by Program Review Staff from information provided by the
Department of Corrections.
A person’s case file provides
paper documentation on
educational level, but the
information is not always entered
in the Kentucky Offender
Management System. This limits
the Department of Corrections’
ability to evaluate its education
efforts on a systemwide basis.

A person’s case file provides documentation on educational level,
often from the presentence investigation report, but the information
is not always entered in KOMS. The lack of information in KOMS
limits the department’s ability to evaluate its education efforts on a
systemwide basis.

18

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 3

Chapter 3
Programs and Services for Incarcerated Felons
When the court imposes an indeterminate term of imprisonment,
the convicted felon is committed to the custody of the department
for the term of the sentence and until released in accordance with
the law, for example, through parole supervision, probation, or
expiration of sentence. This chapter provides an overview of the
programs and services offered by the department to felons while
they are incarcerated.

Where State Felons Are Incarcerated
Where the convicted felon is incarcerated depends on the felony
class and the type of crime, for example, violent or sexual offense,
as well as the custody level. Custody levels include maximum,
medium, minimum, and community.
Where the convicted felon is
incarcerated depends on the
felony class and type of crime and
the custody level. The place of
incarceration and custody level
determine the programs and
services that are potentially
available. A greater number and
variety of programs and services
are available to inmates in prison
than those in county jails.

The place of incarceration and custody level, in turn, determine the
programs and services that are potentially available to the person.
A greater number and variety of programs and services, including
educational opportunities and substance abuse treatment, are
available to state inmates in prison compared to those in county
jails. Figure 3.A shows the number of state inmates in prisons and
jails, as well as the percentage of state inmates in jails, from
FY 1998 to FY 2008. In FY 2008, Kentucky had 21,610 inmates,
of whom 14,263 were housed in prisons and 7,347 were housed in
county jails.

19

Chapter 3

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Figure 3.A
State Inmates Housed in Prisons and Jails
Fiscal Year 1998 to Fiscal Year 2008
40%

Jail

Prison

% in County Jails

14,000

34%

30%

Admissions

12,000
10,000

35%

25%

23%

8,000

20%

6,000

15%

4,000

10%

2,000

5%

0

0%

% in County Jails

16,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Fiscal Year
Source: Prepared by Program Review staff from information provided by the Department of Corrections.
From FY 1998 to FY 2008, the
number of state inmates housed in
county jails more than doubled to
7,347. Over this period, the
proportion of state inmates in
county jails increased from
23 percent to 34 percent.

The number of state inmates housed in county jails more than
doubled from 3,482 in FY 1998 to 7,347 in FY 2008. The
proportion of state inmates in county jails increased from
23 percent in FY 1998 to 34 percent in FY 2008.
Inmates who are released to home incarceration are discussed in
Chapter 4. These persons remain in the custody of the department
until they are discharged from supervision but are monitored by
private companies.

Credit on Sentence for Conduct While Incarcerated
Qualifying inmates may receive a
credit on their sentences for good
conduct, educational
achievement, and work or
program participation.

Persons incarcerated for committing felony offenses are offered
incentives to abide by institutional rules, participate in programs
and activities, and thus reduce the amount of the sentence that must
be served. For example, qualifying inmates may receive a credit on
their sentences for good conduct, educational achievement, and
work or program participation. The credits may be forfeited if the
inmate commits an offense or violates the rules of the institution.
KRS 197.045 states that inmates may receive up to 10 days credit
for good conduct for each month served. This good conduct credit
is also known as statutory good time and is awarded to inmates for
not violating institutional rules.

20

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 3

The statute allows the department to provide an educational good
time credit of 60 days to any inmate who receives a graduate
equivalency diploma (GED) or a high school diploma, a two-year
or four-year college degree, a two-year or four-year certification in
applied sciences, or a technical education diploma. However,
HB 406 of the 2008 regular session of the General Assembly
suspends this educational good time provision from
April 18, 2008, through June 30, 2010, to require the department to
award 90 days of credit. Inmates earn additional credit for each
program completed.
The statute allows the department to deduct up to five days a
month from an inmate’s sentence for performing exceptionally
meritorious service or performing duties of outstanding importance
in connection with institutional operations and programs. HB 406
suspends this provision and allows the commissioner to deduct up
to seven days a month for meritorious behavior.
KRS 197.047 allows the department to provide a time credit, as
well as compensation, for qualifying work activities. For every
eight hours of work, one sentence credit is earned. For every five
sentence credits earned, one day of the sentence is deducted from
the maximum expiration date of the sentence.
Thus, regardless of the sentences imposed on felons, they have
opportunities to reduce the amount of time they will be
incarcerated. For inmates eligible for parole, the Parole Board
considers the felons’ activities while incarcerated. However, the
types of programs available to convicted felons vary among
prisons and between prisons and jails.

Felons Incarcerated in Prisons
Persons who are incarcerated in
prison facilities are assigned to
one of 13 state-owned institutions
or one of three contact facilities.
Fourteen of the facilities house
men; 2 house women.

Persons who are incarcerated in prison facilities are assigned to
one of 13 state-owned institutions or one of the three facilities
contracted by the Commonwealth through Corrections Corporation
of America. Two facilities house women and 14 house men.

With some exceptions, persons
convicted of felony offenses are
evaluated and classified by
departmental staff to determine
their needs, including security,
education, and treatment.

With some exceptions, persons convicted of felony offenses are
evaluated and classified by departmental staff to determine their
needs, including security, education, and treatment. The main
assessment center is located at the Roederer Correctional Complex
in LaGrange and processes male inmates. A branch is located at
the Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women in Pewee Valley
and processes female inmates.

21

Chapter 3

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

The center is responsible for the initial evaluation of inmates,
including parole violators, shock probation violators, and returned
escapees. At any given time, Roederer Correctional Complex
houses numerous male inmates awaiting transfer to an appropriate
institution, unless they are to remain at Roederer.
Inmates sentenced to death are admitted directly to specialized
facilities. Inmates with special medical, psychological, or security
requirements are admitted to any appropriate facility with available
beds.
Inmates in state prisons are
encouraged to participate in work
activities and/or to further their
education. Those who qualify are
encouraged to participate in the
substance abuse program, the
sexual offender treatment
program, and other available
programs and activities. Those
likely to be released in the near
future also are encouraged to
attend pre-release programming.
All these work and educational
programs and services are
voluntary, and there are waiting
lists for them. Some inmates who
qualify for programs and services
never receive them because the
department has insufficient
resources to satisfy all requests.

Within the state prisons, inmates are encouraged to participate in
work activities and/or to further their education. Those who qualify
are encouraged to participate in the Substance Abuse Program, the
Sexual Offender Treatment Program, and other available programs
and activities. Sexual offenders are ineligible for parole unless they
complete the Sexual Offender Treatment Program. Inmates who
are likely to be released in the near future also are encouraged to
attend pre-release programming. All these work and educational
programs and services are voluntary, and there are waiting lists for
them. Some inmates who qualify for programs and services never
receive them because the department does not have sufficient
resources to meet all the requests.

Inmates have work opportunities
within the prison complex. Inmates
who qualify can work outside the
confines of the prison in the
governmental services program.

Inmates who qualify can work outside the confines of the prison in
the governmental services program. This program provides state
departments and agencies, as well as counties, cities, and other
political subdivisions, with a supplemental work force. The
purpose of the program is to provide the inmate with the
opportunity to learn job skills and obtain real-world experience.
Inmates assigned to a job program, whether inside or outside the
institution, work a schedule that approximates the work day in the
community. However, for many inmates, the job assignment is
participation as an academic student or participation in other
program assignments, such as the Substance Abuse Program.

Work Programs
The department provides work programs of various types. Inmates
have work opportunities within the prison complex, for example,
making furniture for Kentucky Correctional Industries and
working in landscaping, the laundry, sanitation services, or farm
operations. The department has no work programs for released
inmates.

22

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 3

To be eligible to participate in the governmental services program,
an inmate must 1) have a minimum custody level, 2) not have any
current loss of statutory good time, and 3) not have any felony
detainers, that would mean being charged with an offense in
another jurisdiction.
Each prison establishes a total number of inmate job assignments
within prescribed categories, such as four-hour and eight-hour jobs
and academic programs. An inmate is not classified to a job
assignment unless a vacancy exists. Persons entering the institution
are provided information on the jobs that are available. If the
inmate expresses an interest in the job and is chosen, the inmate is
then classified into that job (Thompson).
Inmates receive pay according to the type of assignment. For
example, for an eight-hour job, an inmate may qualify for $1.30 a
day, but inmates eligible for work time credits receive one-half the
pay rate. The inmate working an eight-hour day may receive $0.65
a day in pay and eight hours of time credit. Inmates serving a life
sentence are not eligible for work time credits.
Academic students and participants in other nonwork programs
receive $0.80 a day but are not eligible for work time credits.
However, they may earn educational good time, as described later
in this chapter.
Program Review staff asked for
the number of state inmates in
prisons and local jails that had job
and program assignment. The
department was unable to provide
this information.

Program Review staff asked the department for the number of state
inmates in prisons and local jails who had job and program
assignments to get an idea of the proportion of inmates who were
working or attending classes. The department was unable to
provide this information for three reasons: 1) all the job and
program assignments are not posted to KOMS, 2) the information
was not converted from the previous information system into
KOMS, and 3) jails do not log this information (Morgan).
Recommendation 3.1

Recommendation 3.1 is that the
department should enter each
inmate’s job and program
assignment into the Kentucky
Offender Management System
and update the information when
an inmate’s work or program
status changes.

The Department of Corrections should enter each inmate’s job
and program assignment in the Kentucky Offender
Management System and update the information when an
inmate’s work or program status changes.
This information will enable the department to report and analyze
systemwide successes in job and program activities and identify
improvements that should be made.

23

Chapter 3

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Academic and Vocational Programs
Adult education programs are
available in all prisons to any
inmate who does not have a high
school diploma or GED. From
January 2003 to June 2008, more
than 3,600 inmates received
GEDs.

The department provides academic and vocational education
programs for inmates. The department does not provide
educational programs for released felons.

The Kentucky Community and
Technical College System
provides vocational-technical
postsecondary education
programs in the state-operated
prisons. The privately owned
prisons contract with the National
Center for Construction Education
and Research for the teaching of
specific vocational and/or
technical programs.

A vocational-technical postsecondary education program is offered
in the state-operated prisons. These programs are provided by the
Kentucky Community and Technical College System (KCTCS).
Inmates may earn certificates of completion and diplomas by
participating in these programs. The privately owned prisons
contract with the National Center for Construction Education and
Research. These programs teach specific vocational and/or
technical programs and provide certificates only (Slemp.
Department. “LRC request”).

In all prisons, adult education programs are available to any inmate
who does not have a high school diploma or GED. From January
2003 to June 2008, more than 3,600 inmates received a GED
within Kentucky state prison institutions.

An inmate must already hold either a high school diploma or GED
to enroll in any course provided through KCTCS or the National
Center for Construction Education Research.
To earn an associate’s degree from KCTCS, an inmate must
complete 12 credit hours of qualifying studies in addition to
completing the vocational or technical diploma. Information is not
available on the number of inmates who have received their
associate’s degrees through KCTCS. Figure 3.B below shows the
number of certificates and diplomas earned by state prison inmates
from FY 2004 to FY 2007. The department learns of the number of
certificates and diplomas awarded from KCTCS and the National
Center for Construction Education Research.

24

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 3

Figure 3.B
Vocational and Technical Certificates and Diplomas Earned
Fiscal Year 2004 to Fiscal Year 2007
Certificates and Diplomas

1,400

Certificates

Diplomas

2004

2005

1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
2006

2007

Fiscal Year
Source: Prepared by Program Review staff from information provided by the
Department of Corrections.
From FY 2004 to FY 2007,
inmates earned nearly 4,500
certificates and more than 1,200
diplomas. Some inmates earned
multiple certificates leading up to
one diploma. The department was
unable to determine how many
persons were involved in these
academic programs.

During the 4-year period, inmates earned 4,487 certificates and
1,209 diplomas. However, the data do not indicate the number of
inmates who earned the certificates and diplomas, because some
inmates earn multiple certificates leading up to one diploma. The
department was unable to determine how many persons were
involved in these programs, because the information is not
routinely entered in KOMS and is not maintained independently by
the department.
Recommendation 3.2

Recommendation 3.2 is that the
department should enter each
inmate’s educational
achievements in the Kentucky
Offender Management System
and update the information when
an inmate’s educational status
changes.

The Department of Corrections should enter each inmate’s
educational achievements in the Kentucky Offender
Management System and update the information when an
inmate’s educational status changes.

The availability of vocational and
technical programs varies among
institutions. Three prisons offer no
programs. Inmates can request a
transfer to participate in and
qualify for a program that is
offered at another institution, but
not all transfer requests can be
honored because of a lack of bed
space.

The availability of vocational and technical programs varies among
institutions. Three prisons offer no programs. The manager of the
Educational and Vocational Branch identified a lack of funding as
the reason (Slemp. Department. “LRC question”). Inmates can
request a transfer if they want to participate in and qualify for a
program that is offered at another institution. However, not all

This information will enable the department to report and analyze
systemwide successes in its educational programs and identify
improvements that should be made.

25

Chapter 3

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

transfer requests can be honored because of a lack bed space.
Among convicted felons interviewed by Program Review staff,
most inmates and the vast majority of ex-inmates stated that they
did not learn a job or trade skill while in prison or jail.
Table 3.1 shows each adult correctional institution, whether
programs are offered, and the types of programs available at each
institution that offers them as of September 2008.
Table 3.1
Availability of Vocational and Technical Education by Institution
as of September 2008
Institution
Bell County Forestry Camp
Frankfort Career Development Center
Little Sandy Correctional Complex
Blackburn Correctional Complex
Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex
Kentucky State Penitentiary
Green River Correctional Complex
Roederer Correctional Complex
Kentucky State Reformatory
Luther Luckett Correctional Complex
Northpoint Training Center
Kentucky Correctional Institution for
Women
Western Kentucky Correctional Complex
Lee Adjustment Center

Marion Adjustment Center
Otter Creek Correctional Center

Programs Offered
None offered
None offered
None offered
Carpentry, Horticulture, Masonry
Carpentry, HVAC, Masonry,
Small Engine Repair
Auto Body Repair, Carpentry
Carpentry, Masonry
Horticulture
Auto Body Repair, Small Engine Repair,
Upholstery, Welding
Auto Technology, Carpentry
Carpentry, Electrical
Business, Carpentry, Horticulture
Horticulture
Business Class, Carpentry, Culinary Arts,
Horticulture, Masonry, Microsoft Office
Specialist
Construction Technology, Horticulture,
Microsoft Office Specialist
Business Management Skills, Carpentry,
Horticulture, Microsoft Office Skills

Source: Prepared by Program Review staff from information provided by the Department of Corrections.

Substance Abuse Program
The department provides a
Narcotics Anonymous/Alcoholics
Anonymous program to inmates
who choose to participate.

The department provides a Narcotics Anonymous/Alcoholics
Anonymous (NA/AA) program in all prisons to inmates who
choose to participate. These programs follow the traditional
twelve-step model and may be led by inmates who have been
trained. Some of the former inmates interviewed by Program

26

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 3

Review staff said the programs were helpful, but others said they
were a waste of time.
The department offers a formal
Substance Abuse Program to
inmates who have been
determined to have an addiction to
drugs and/or alcohol. Not every
inmate so identified is able to
participate in the Substance
Abuse Program because the
number of inmates who qualify
exceeds the department’s
resources.

The department also offers a formal Substance Abuse Program to
inmates who have been determined to have an addiction to drugs
and/or alcohol. The department does not offer the program to
released felons.
To participate, inmates must demonstrate a willingness and ability
to change their behavior. The program is offered to an inmate
approximately six months before the anticipated release date or the
date scheduled for a Parole Board hearing. However, not every
inmate who is identified as having an addiction is able to
participate in the Substance Abuse Program because the number of
inmates who qualify exceeds the department’s resources.
The program uses a “therapeutic community” model, which is a
participative approach to overcoming addiction that includes
interaction among treatment staff and group members and
individual homework assignments to help addicted inmates change
their behavior. The program consists of three phases, all of which
require active participation. The participant must successfully
complete each phase before proceeding to the next one.
The first phase is a six-week orientation in which the participant is
introduced to the therapeutic community model. Participants are
tested at the end of this phase to determine whether they are
sufficiently involved to continue in the program.
In the second phase, participants attend classes and complete
homework assignments related to setting goals and changing their
behavior. They also have work assignments and attend NA/AA
meetings. Participants are evaluated to determine their readiness
for treatment and willingness to make changes during the treatment
phase.
The third phase, treatment, consists of four modules.
• The “alcohol and other drugs of abuse” module helps
participants understand the physiological and psychological
implications of drug and alcohol dependency. Participants learn
how continued substance use can affect their health and
freedom.
• The “anger management” module helps participants recognize
their angry feelings, learn the causes, and deal with their
attitudes more responsibly.

27

Chapter 3

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

•

•

The “criminal thinking” module helps participants understand
and alter the thinking patterns that characterize offender
populations. Participants learn that they must accept
responsibility for their decisions and how those decisions affect
the people around them, including, when applicable, the
victims of their crimes.
The “relapse prevention” module offers education and skills on
how to avoid a return to self-destructive patterns of substance
use or criminal behavior. Participants are required to complete
a relapse prevention plan.

After their release from incarceration, participants are required to
complete a six-month aftercare component. They work with a
substance abuse coordinator at a probation and parole office who
helps them identify community resources for continued treatment.
They are required to pay for their treatment, and treatment
resources may be limited in availability in certain areas of the state.
The Substance Abuse Program is
offered in 6 of Kentucky’s 14 adult
institutions.

The Substance Abuse Program is offered in 6 of Kentucky’s 14
adult institutions. All but one of the 27 inmates interviewed by
Program Review staff who participated in the Substance Abuse
Program stated that the program was helpful. Table 3.2
summarizes the institutions with the program.

Table 3.2
Institutions Offering the Substance Abuse Program as of August 2008
Institution
Roederer Correctional Complex
Luther Luckett Correctional Complex
Green River Correctional Complex
Marion Adjustment Center
Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women
Otter Creek Correctional Center

Population
Served
Men
Men
Men
Men
Women
Women

Beds
200
192
124
252
48
65

Source: Prepared by Program Review staff from information provided by the
Department of Corrections.
The department was unable to
provide the number of persons
who had completed the Substance
Abuse Program.

The department was unable to provide the number of persons who
had completed the Substance Abuse Program. The information is
not routinely entered in KOMS. Instead, the department relies on
the University of Kentucky’s Center on Drug and Alcohol
Research to measure the number of completions when it conducts
its annual Criminal Justice Kentucky Treatment Outcome Study.
That study encompasses all the prisons but only a sample of the
jails.

28

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 3

Recommendation 3.3
Recommendation 3.3 is that the
department should enter each
inmate’s acceptance into the
Substance Abuse Program into
the Kentucky Offender
Management System and update
the information when the inmate
completes or exits the program,
including the reason for exiting the
program.

The Department of Corrections should enter each inmate’s
acceptance into the Substance Abuse Program in the Kentucky
Offender Management System and update the information
when the inmate completes or exits the program, including the
reason for exiting the program.
This information will enable the department to report and analyze
systemwide successes in the Substance Abuse Program and
identify improvements that should be made.
Sexual Offender Treatment Program
The department offers a Sexual Offender Treatment Program to
inmates who have been convicted of sex crimes. Sex crimes are
defined in KRS Chapter 510 and include rape, sodomy, sexual
abuse, sexual misconduct, indecent exposure, and unlawful use of
electronic means to induce a minor to engage in sexual activity.

The department is required by
statute to provide a specialized
treatment program for sexual
offenders. The program is offered
to an inmate within 48 months of
the earliest possible parole
release date in four men’s prisons.

KRS 197.400 requires the department to provide a specialized
treatment program for sexual offenders. The program is offered to
an inmate within 48 months of earliest possible parole release date
in four men’s prisons: Kentucky State Reformatory, Luther
Luckett Correctional Complex, the Kentucky State Penitentiary,
and Western Kentucky Correctional Complex, and one women’s
prison, the Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women. Sexual
offender treatment is not offered in county jails because persons
convicted of sex crimes are required to be incarcerated in prisons.
KRS 197.410 specifies eligibility for participation in the Sexual
Offender Treatment Program. Sexual offenders are eligible to
participate if they a) have demonstrated evidence of a mental,
emotional, or behavioral disorder, but not active psychosis or
mental retardation, and b) are likely to benefit from the program.
The department has determined that an offender is not likely to
benefit from the program if the offender will not admit to
committing the offense. Table 3.3 shows the number of persons
who completed the Sexual Offender Treatment Program in prison
and in the community from FY 2004 to FY 2008.
KRS 532.045(4) requires sexual offenders on probation or
conditional discharge to complete and pay for a community-based
Sexual Offender Treatment Program. Under conditional discharge,
an offender is subject to the supervision of the Division of
Probation and Parole for a five-year period after release, in

29

Chapter 3

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

accordance with KRS 532.043. Failure to successfully complete
the program constitutes grounds for revocation of probation or
conditional discharge.
Table 3.3
Number of Persons Who Completed the Sexual Offender Treatment Program
Fiscal Year 2004 to Fiscal Year 2008
Fiscal Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Total

Institution Community
139
82
126
88
139
90
193
98
148
68
745
426

Total
221
214
229
291
216
1,171

Source: Prepared by Program Review staff from information provided
by the Department of Corrections.

The number of program completions is low compared to the
number of persons incarcerated for sexual offenses. Figure 3.C
shows the number of persons convicted of a sex crime who resided
in prison as of June 30 in each of 11 years.
Figure 3.C
Sex Offenders Incarcerated as of June 30 of Each Year
Fiscal Year 1998 to Fiscal Year 2008
3,000

Sex Offenders

2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Fiscal Year
Source: Prepared by Program Review staff from information provided by the Department of
Corrections.
From 1998 to 2008, the number of
sex offenders in Kentucky state
institutions increased 40 percent
to more than 2,600.

The number of sexual offenders in Kentucky state institutions
increased 40 percent from 1,884 in FY 1998 to 2,636 in FY 2008.
Since FY 2001, the number of sexual offenders has increased on
average 5 percent per year.
30

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 3

Table 3.4 shows sex crimes committed by type. The number of
offenses exceeds the number of offenders because some offenders
were convicted of more than one sex crime. In FY 1998, persons
were incarcerated for more than 4,300 offenses. In FY 2008, the
number of offenses had increased more than 17 percent to more
than 5,000.
Table 3.4
Sex Crimes by Type
Fiscal Year 1998 to Fiscal Year 2008
Offense
Incest
Rape
Sexual Abuse
Sodomy
Other
Total

1998
180
1,328
1,503
1,207
99
4,317

1999
177
1,334
1,470
1,179
109
4,269

2000
133
1,277
1,467
1,150
112
4,139

2001
140
1,271
1,403
1,143
127
4,084

Fiscal Year
2002 2003 2004
143
135
147
1,308 1,362 1,413
1,442 1,400 1,412
1,203 1,241 1,297
141
146
156
4,237 4,284 4,425

2005
158
1,453
1,411
1,328
185
4,535

2006
170
1,518
1,414
1,357
200
4,659

2007
201
1,539
1,466
1,427
215
4,848

2008
209
1,593
1,530
1,502
249
5,083

Source: Prepared by Program Review staff from information provided by the Department of Corrections.

Over the 11-year period, 33 percent of convictions were for sexual
abuse in the first degree, 31 percent were for rape, and 29 percent
were for sodomy.
Program Review staff asked the department for the rate of
recidivism for sex offenders. The department was unable to
provide the information. KRS 197.420(6) requires the department
to study participating sexual offenders and their offenses and to
measure the impact of the Sexual Offender Treatment Program on
recidivism.
Recommendation 3.4
Recommendation 3.4 is that the
department should enter each
inmate’s acceptance into the
Sexual Offender Treatment
Program in the Kentucky Offender
Management System and update
the information when the inmate
completes or exits the program,
including the reason for exiting the
program.

The Department of Corrections should enter each inmate’s
acceptance into the Sexual Offender Treatment Program in the
Kentucky Offender Management System and update the
information when the inmate completes or exits the program,
including the reason for exiting the program.
This information will enable the department to report and analyze
systemwide successes in the Sexual Offender Treatment Program,
identify improvements that should be made, and calculate the
recidivism rate required by KRS 197.420(6).
Program Review staff conducted interviews with eight sexual
offenders awaiting their parole hearings or nearing the end of their

31

Chapter 3

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

sentences. Only two of the eight stated that they had participated in
the Sexual Offender Treatment Program. Of the six who did not
participate, two indicated it was because they did not have enough
time to complete the program, one indicated he was denied access
because of his past criminal history but did not elaborate, one
stated that he was not required to participate because he denied
committing the offense, and two did not state why they did not
participate. The two offenders who participated in the treatment
program thought it was helpful. Five of the eight were released to
conditional discharge when their sentences expired. Two were
discharged at the completion of their sentences, and one was
ordered by the Parole Board to serve out his sentence until 2011.
Of the seven who were released, one is currently incarcerated for
violating the conditions of his conditional discharge.
Information on sexual offender supervision in the community and
the requirements for sexual offenders to register with the Kentucky
Sex Offender Registry are discussed in Chapter 4.
Psychiatric Programs
The department provides
treatment for inmates with mental
illness in the Correctional
Psychiatric Treatment Unit in the
Kentucky State Reformatory.

The department provides treatment for inmates with mental illness
in the Correctional Psychiatric Treatment Unit in the Kentucky
State Reformatory. Inmates are received from within the
reformatory, other prisons, and county jails. In FY 2007, 480
inmates were admitted to the unit (McKune).
One 50-bed wing at the unit is designated for inmates who are
being evaluated or whose behavior has become unpredictable.
Such behavior may range from symptoms of psychosis or acute
depression to self-abusive behavior related to personality disorders.
When necessary, inmates are placed in one of 10 cells that have
video cameras to allow inmates to be monitored from a central
control center. Inmates in the unit also are monitored at five or
fifteen-minute intervals by specially trained correctional officers.
Two other wings in the unit are treatment-oriented structured
living areas. The majority of inmates in these wings have
diagnoses such as depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or
schizoaffective disorder. Many have reduced intellectual
functioning and/or personality disorders.
Each inmate participates in daily group therapy. In addition to
daily recreational activities, many inmates hold jobs within the
unit. The treatment program stresses participation in therapeutic
activities and compliance with taking prescribed psychotropic

32

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 3

medications. The inmates who graduate from the programs should
be able to move gradually to a less-restrictive environment.
Pre-release Programs
Between 30 and 180 days of an
inmate’s potential release from
prison, either through serving out
the sentence or at the discretion of
the parole board, the inmate will
have an opportunity to attend a
pre-release program. The
components of the program vary
considerably among institutions.

Between 30 and 180 days of an inmate’s potential release from
prison, an inmate will have an opportunity to attend a type of prerelease program. The most commonly used title for such a program
is “Prison to the Streets.” The components of the program vary
considerably among institutions. Table 3.5 shows, by prison, how
often the program is offered, the hours it is intended to encompass,
the actual hours provided in the program, how soon to the potential
release date it is offered, whether a refresher is offered regularly or
only at the request of the inmates, and whether the program is
available at all times or whether there is a waiting list.

Examples of topics included in the
pre-release program are preparing
for job interviews, parenting skills,
anger management, housing
options, and utilizing community
resources.

The “Prison to the Streets” program includes topics such as
• preparing for job interviews,
• how to fill out employment applications,
• resume writing,
• parenting skills,
• stress management,
• conflict resolution,
• anger management,
• housing options,
• where to find medical care,
• preparing for the Parole Board,
• utilizing community resources, and
• budgeting.

33

Chapter 3

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Table 3.5
Pre-release Programs in Kentucky Prisons
Fiscal Year 2008

Prison
Bell County
Forestry Camp
Blackburn
Correctional Complex
Eastern Kentucky
Correctional Complex
Frankfort Career
Development Center
Green River
Correctional Complex
Kentucky Correctional
Institution for Women
Kentucky State
Penitentiary
Kentucky State
Reformatory
Lee Adjustment Center
Little Sandy
Correctional Complex
Luther Luckett
Correctional Complex
Marion Adjustment
Center
Northpoint Training
Center
Otter Creek
Correctional Center
Roederer
Correctional Complex
Western Kentucky
Correctional Complex

Offered
Other

Intended
Program Hours
(Actual HoursIf Less Than
Intended)
6-10

Days
Before
Release
Program
Is Offered
60

Refresher
Offered?
Yes

Availability
Available

Other

16-20

60

Yes

Available

Monthly

16-20

180

Yes

Waiting list

Other

1-5

60

Available

Monthly

Over 21

180

Monthly

1-5

180

Only by
inmate request
Only by
inmate request
Yes

Waiting list

Daily

16-20

90

Yes

Available

Monthly

16-20

90

Yes

Available

Weekly
Other

180
180

Yes
Yes

Available
Waiting list

Over 180

Yes

Waiting list

Weekly

16-20
Over 21
(11-15)
6-10
(1-5)
1-5

60

Available

Monthly

16-20

30

Weekly

1-5

No answer

Only by
inmate request
Only by
inmate request
No

Other

6-10

90

No

Available

Daily

16-20

60

Yes

Available

Monthly

Available

Available
Available

Note: “Days Before Release Program Is Offered” is the days before the earliest possible release that the program is
offered.
Source: Prepared by Program Review staff from information provided by the Department of Corrections.
Some prisons spend 16-20 hours
on the topics relating to reentry;
others prisons spend only 1 to 5
hours.

The time dedicated to reentry programming varies. Some prisons
spend 16 to 20 hours on the topics relating to reentry, but others
spend only 1 to 5 hours. The programming is not provided in jails.
State inmates and ex-inmates interviewed by Program Review staff
had mixed opinions on the value of this program but offered little

34

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 3

in the way of constructive comments on what the department could
do to increase its value.
Probation and parole officers have a copy of a community resource
manual for released persons to review, and the manual is available
on the department’s Web site. The manual provides information on
resources available in the area, such as medical and mental health
care and employment services.
Some persons have been incarcerated for years and could use help
in developing their community skills. All persons should be
released to the community with a basic set of skills to help them
find employment, housing, and other necessities as quickly as
possible and contribute to society. Persons without such skills can
be particularly challenging to probation and parole officers who
are responsible for supervising them.
Recommendation 3.5
Recommendation 3.5 is that the
department should require the use
of a standardized reentry program
that focuses on a person’s
community knowledge and skills
to enable released felons to
reenter society as smoothly as
possible.

The Department of Corrections should require the use of a
standardized reentry program that focuses on a person’s
community knowledge and skills to enable released felons to
reenter society as smoothly as possible. The program should be
of sufficient duration to ensure adequate coverage of required
topics and should be offered in all prisons and county jails.

State Felons Incarcerated in County Jails
KRS 532.100 requires some convicted felons, except those who
commit sex crimes, to serve their sentences in county jails. Most
persons convicted of a Class D felony and sentenced to an
indeterminate term of imprisonment for five years or less generally
will serve that term in one of 75 county jails.
Persons convicted of Class C and D felonies with a sentence of 5
or more years who are classified by the department as community
custody generally serve their terms in county jails. A person
convicted of a sex crime and sentenced to an indeterminate term of
two years or more will serve that sentence in a state institution.
Jails that house state inmates are
required to offer programs
recommended by the Jail
Standards Commission. The
programs and services available
in local jails are not as
comprehensive as those offered in
prisons.

Jails that house state inmates are required to offer programs
recommended by Kentucky’s Jail Standards Commission.
However, the programs and services available in local jails are not
as comprehensive as those offered in prisons. The jails provide the

35

Chapter 3

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

services that are funded by the department. Jail programming could
improve if more funds were made available.
Regulations on programs and services for state inmates housed in
local jails are provided in 501 KAR 3:130. Each jail that houses
state felons must have written policies and procedures for prisoner
programs and services, including social services, religious services,
recreation and leisure time activities, and library services.
A state inmate must be provided the opportunity to attend an adult
basic education program or pursue a GED. Strained resources can
limit the availability of these programs in practice. The availability
of other educational programs is at the discretion of the county.
State inmates must be provided the opportunity to participate in
self-help substance abuse programs offered within the jail.
However, most of the 75 jails that house state prisoners do not
offer the program. Table 3.6 shows the 14 jails that offer a selfhelp substance abuse program, when the program started, and the
number of available beds as of September 2008.
Table 3.6
Jails Offering Substance Abuse Programs to State Inmates
as of September 2008
Jail
Breckinridge County Detention Center
Christian County Detention Center
Clark County Detention Center
Daviess County Detention Center
Floyd County Detention Center
Grayson County Detention Center
Hardin County Detention Center (men)
Hardin County Detention Center (women)
Hopkins County Jail
Kenton County Detention Center
Three Forks Regional Jail (Lee County)
Marion County Detention Center
Mason County Detention Center
Pike County Detention Center
Powell County Detention Center

Date
Started
6/2006
6/1997
9/2006
7/2005
9/2006
11/2005
7/1997
3/2006
1/2006
1/2006
2/2006
10/2005
12/2005
4/2006
5/2006

Number
of Beds
10
50
10
56
12
14
45
56
20
10
20
40
20
36
20

Source: Prepared by Program Review staff from information provided by the
Department of Corrections.

Hardin County has the only substance abuse program for female
state inmates in local jails. Most of the programs are relatively

36

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 3

new. Information on actual participation rates is not available, but
a department official states that the beds stay full (Holder).
State prisoners may be provided the opportunity to participate in
community-service work programs. Pre-release programming
typically is not offered in jails.

The Cost of Housing State Prisoners
The annual cost of inmates in
adult correctional institutions
increased from just under
$200 million in FY 2000 to more
than $281 million in FY 2008, an
increase of 41 percent. Over the
9-year period, the total cost of
correctional institutions was
$2.07 billion.

The cost of housing state prisoners has increased significantly
since FY 2000, the earliest year for which detailed financial
information was available from the statewide accounting system.
Expenditures include the costs of incarceration and related
security; medical and mental health costs; and costs of work,
educational, substance abuse, and sexual offender treatment
programs. Administrative costs, which extend across all
departmental functions, are not included in this section. Also
excluded from this section is debt service, which is a legitimate
cost of building or maintaining a facility, but is not a recurring
operational cost.
The annual cost of inmates in adult correctional institutions
increased from just under $200 million in FY 2000 to more than
$281 million in FY 2008, an increase of 41 percent. Over the
9-year period, the total cost of correctional institutions was
$2.07 billion, of which $2.06 billion was paid from state general
funds.

Annual expenditures for state
inmates in local jails doubled to
more than $122 million from
FY 2000 to FY 2008. Over the
9-year period, the department paid
$698 million to house state
inmates in local jails.

The cost of state inmates in local jails includes incarceration; state
inspection of jails; jailer training programs; and medical,
educational, work, and other programming expenditures. These
costs doubled in 9 years, from $61.6 million in FY 2000 to
$122.8 million in FY 2008. Over the 9-year period, the department
spent $698 million to house state inmates in local jails, of which
$676 million was paid from state general funds.

Alternatives to Incarceration
Some persons with substance
abuse problems and mental
illness would be better served in
the community than in prison or
jail.

Some persons with substance abuse problems and mental illness
would be better served in the community than in prison or in jail.
The 2007 Program Review and Investigations Committee report
Drug Courts describes alternative courts for people whose
substance abuse problems are the primary cause of the crimes for

37

Chapter 3

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

which they are charged. Offenders who come through drug courts
undergo a rigorous substance abuse treatment program under a
judge’s supervision. The Program Review report concluded that
more systematic evaluations of outcomes should be done, but that
existing evaluations indicated that participants in drug court are
less likely to be charged and convicted of crimes after leaving the
program than if they had not participated (Commonwealth.
Legislative. Drug).
On September 18, 2008, the Department for Mental Health,
Developmental Disabilities, and Addiction Services within the
Cabinet for Health and Family Services announced that Kentucky
had received a $50,000 grant from the Health Foundation of
Greater Cincinnati to work on a strategic plan to provide a
continuum of services for people who have been incarcerated or
are otherwise in the criminal justice system and have some form of
mental illness. The culmination of the grant will be an action plan
to provide guidance regarding program development designed to
reduce the numbers of people with mental illness and substance
abuse disorders who are incarcerated inappropriately in northern
Kentucky. The department and NorthKey Community Care are
among the partners in the effort (Commonwealth. Cabinet for
Health).

38

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 4

Chapter 4
Felony Offenders Released From Incarceration
Persons released from incarceration are classified in KOMS in the
same ways as persons who are admitted. For the person being
released from incarceration, KOMS has data on the type of felony
the person committed, the type of discharge the person received,
and demographic information. This chapter summarizes that
information to describe the population of inmates being released
from incarceration. Although this study focuses on and provides
additional information on felons released to parole supervision,
this chapter provides information on all persons released to provide
a clearer picture of where the department’s responsibility for these
persons ends.

Releases by Felony Type
In the past 11 years, nearly
116,000 convicted felons have
been released from adult
correctional institutions and county
jails in Kentucky, some more than
once. Over this period, annual
releases of felony offenders
increased 146 percent.

In the last 11 years, 115,904 convicted felons have been released
from adult correctional institutions and county jails in Kentucky.
The number of releases includes duplicates, because some people
have been released from incarceration and returned to prison for
another felony conviction, only to be released again. The number
of releases also includes persons from out of state who had been
incarcerated in Kentucky. Table 4.1 shows the number of releases
by type of felony for which the person was convicted and fiscal
year of release.
Table 4.1
Releases by Felony Type
Fiscal Year 1998 to Fiscal Year 2008
Fiscal Year

Felony
Capital

1998
27

1999
24

2000
22

2001
37

2002
41

2003
32

2004
26

2005
27

2006
39

2007
31

2008
46

Class A

54

44

53

43

57

63

51

59

69

35

44

Class B

511

576

603

702

772

917

966

861

940

950

964

Class C

1,558

1,911

1,908

2,141

2,355

2,688

2,826

2,976

3,527

3,600

3,982

Class D

4,273

4,915

4,715

4,795

5,087

6,312

6,693

7,460

8,581

9,051

11,277

455

453

376

331

334

254

175

158

99

350

608

6,878
7,923
7,677
8,049
8,646 10,266 10,737 11,541 13,255 14,017
Total
Source: Prepared by Program Review staff from information provided by the Department of Corrections.

16,915

Other

39

Chapter 4

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

From FY 1998 to FY 2008, total releases for felony offenses
increased 146 percent. Releases of persons convicted of Class B
felonies increased almost 89 percent, Class C felonies increased
almost 156 percent, and Class D felonies increased 164 percent. In
FY 2008, the largest groups of releases by felony type were persons
convicted of committing Class C felonies (24 percent) and D
felonies (67 percent).

Releases by Offense Committed
In FY 2008, nearly 17,000 felons
were released from incarceration.
They had been convicted of
committing more than 38,000
felonies. Nearly one-third of the
convictions were for violations of
KRS 218A, Kentucky’s controlled
substances statute.

In FY 2008, 16,915 felons were released from incarceration. They
had been convicted of committing 38,599 felonies. The number of
convictions exceeds the number of felons because many felons were
convicted of more than one offense. Table 4.2 summarizes the
number of convictions by KRS Chapter.

Table 4.2
Convictions of Released Felons by KRS Chapter
Fiscal Year 2008
KRS
Chapter
186
189A
218A
434
507
508
510
511
512
514
515
516
520
524
527
530
Other
Total

KRS Chapter Title
Licensing of Motor Vehicles, Operators, and Trailers
Driving Under the Influence
Controlled Substances
Offenses Against Property by Fraud
Criminal Homicide
Assault and Related Offenses
Sexual Offenses
Burglary and Related Offenses
Criminal Damage to Property
Theft and Related Offenses
Robbery
Forgery and Related Offenses
Escape and Other Offenses Relating to Custody
Interference With Judicial Administration
Offenses Relating to Firearms and Weapons
Family Offenses
Various KRS Chapters

Convictions
253
1,068
12,387
472
232
1,941
639
3,656
497
6,657
1,110
3,172
2,580
644
519
1,865
907
38,599

Percent
1%
3%
32%
1%
1%
5%
2%
9%
1%
17%
3%
8%
7%
2%
1%
5%
2%
100%

Source: Prepared by Program Review staff from information provided by the Department of Corrections.

40

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 4

Nearly one-third of the convictions were for violations of KRS
Chapter 218A, Kentucky’s controlled substances statute. Felons
released from incarceration in FY 2008 had been convicted of
12,387 controlled substances violations. The next highest
categories were convictions for theft and related offenses at
17 percent and burglary and related offenses at 9 percent.
These percentages are consistent with the previous two years. In
FY 2007, violations of KRS Chapter 218A were 32 percent of the
total, followed by theft and related offenses at 16 percent and
burglary and related offenses at 10 percent. In FY 2006, 30 percent
were violations of KRS Chapter 218A, theft and related offenses
were 16 percent, and burglary and related offenses were
11 percent.
In the 1998 regular session of the
General Assembly, KRS Chapter
218A was revised to include
charges and penalties related to
methamphetamine possession,
trafficking, and manufacture.

In the 1998 regular session of the General Assembly, many
sections of KRS Chapter 218A were revised to include charges and
penalties related to methamphetamine possession, trafficking, and
manufacture. The addition of methamphetamine to the controlled
substances statute may have contributed to the increased
proportion of felony convictions under KRS Chapter 218A. In
FY 1998, 19 percent of total convictions were for controlled
substances violations. In FY 2008, the proportion had risen to
32 percent.

Releases by Category
KOMS uses codes to identify the reason a person is released from
an institution. Releases include persons who are discharged from
custody, persons who are released to parole and probation
supervision, and others, as described below.
• “Discharged” indicates that a person’s sentence has expired,
the sentence was vacated, or the person was released because
of a terminal illness.
• “Parole” indicates that the person was released to parole
supervision.
• “Probation” indicates that the person was released on shock
probation or some other form of probation ordered by the
court.
• The “other” category includes releases for home incarceration,
conditional discharges for sexual offenders, commutations of
sentence, pardons, and returns to other states.

41

Chapter 4

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

From FY 1998 to FY 2008,
41 percent of releases were
offenders whose sentences had
expired or been vacated or who
were terminally ill. In the majority
of these cases, the department
has no further responsibility.
During this period, 40 percent,
were released on parole, and
14 percent were released on
probation.

Figure 4.A shows releases for FY 1998 to FY 2008 using these
categories. Discharges accounted for 41 percent of releases in this
period. In the majority of cases, the department has no further
responsibility for discharged persons. Persons released on parole
were 40 percent, releases on probation were 14 percent, and
releases for other reasons were 5 percent.

Figure 4.A
Releases by Category
Fiscal Year 1998 to Fiscal Year 2008

8,000
Discharged

7,000

Parole

Probation

Other

Releases

6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Fiscal Year
Source: Prepared by Program Review Staff with information provided by the Department of Corrections.

The department’s probation and parole officers are responsible for
supervising persons released to the community on parole,
probation, home incarceration, and sexual offenders released on
probation or parole. The officers also verify home addresses of all
registered sex offenders. The time and intensity of supervision
varies. Community supervision is discussed in more detail later in
this chapter.
On an average day in FY 2008,
46 felons were released into local
communities and 42 were
admitted to correctional
institutions. The number of
releases is likely to increase
because of provisions in HB 406.

In just a one-year period, FY 2007 to FY 2008, releases increased
by 21 percent. On an average day in FY 2008, 46 felons were
released into local communities and 42 were admitted to
correctional institutions.
The number of releases is likely to increase because of provisions
in HB 406 that temporarily increase the availability of home
incarceration for persons convicted of nonviolent and nonsexual
Class C or D felonies, the granting of parole supervision credit
toward an inmate’s remaining unexpired sentence, a decrease in

42

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 4

the amount of time a nonviolent offender convicted of a Class D
felony must serve before having the case reviewed by the Parole
Board, increased time credit for program completion while
incarcerated, and an increase in the amount of meritorious time
credit an inmate may earn. The provisions of HB 406 are effective
from April 18, 2008, through June 30, 2010. In addition, HB 683
of the 2008 regular session of the General Assembly added two
full-time Parole Board members and allows the board to conduct
file reviews of certain Class C felons eligible for parole without
holding a formal hearing, in addition to the Class D felons already
eligible for file reviews. As of September 11, 2008, 1,416 felons
had been released in accordance with the temporary provisions of
HB 406. Table 4.3 shows the locations from which the felons were
released.
Table 4.3
Locations From Which Felons Were Released
in Accordance With the Provisions of HB 406
as of September 11, 2008
Location
Prison
Jail
Halfway house or other community setting
Total

Releases
652
682
82
1,416

Source: Prepared by Program Review staff from information
provided by the Department of Corrections.

Releases by Gender, Race, and Age
In FY 2008, 81 percent of prison releases were male and
19 percent were female. These percentages were consistent across
the 11-year period for releases and admissions.
The number and percentages of releases by race were similar to the
patterns for admissions described in Chapter 2. The number of
Caucasians released increased significantly; the number of African
Americans did not.

43

Chapter 4

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Table 4.4 shows the number of releases by age group for FY 2008.
Table 4.4
Releases by Age Group
Fiscal Year 2008
Age
Group
18-20
21-30
31-40
41-50
Over 50
Total

Number
Released
559
6,615
5,230
3,342
1,169
16,915

Percent
3%
39%
31%
20%
7%
100%

Source: Prepared by Program Review staff
from information provided by the Department of
Corrections.
In FY 2008, 39 percent of all
releases were 21 to 30 years old.
Seventy percent were 21 to 40
years old.

In FY 2008, 39 percent of all releases were 21 to 30 years old and
31 percent were 31 to 40. Seventy percent of all releases into local
communities are persons aged 21 to 40. The ages of persons
exiting the system are consistent with the ages of those being
admitted.
Releases by Educational Level

At the time of release in FY 2008,
5 percent of felons had some
college, 17 percent had a high
school diploma, and 33 percent
were being released into local
communities without a high school
diploma. However, the
department’s data system had no
information on the educational
level of 45 percent of persons
released that year.

Figure 4.B shows the educational levels of felons at the time of
release in FY 2008. According to KOMS, 5 percent had some
college, 17 percent had a high school diploma, and 33 percent were
being released into local communities without a high school
diploma. However, the educational level of 45 percent of persons
was unknown, making it impossible to determine the success of the
department’s educational programs. This information is not
routinely entered in KOMS. Implementation of recommendation
3.2 should alleviate the lack of systemwide information on
educational levels.

44

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 4

Figure 4.B
Educational Level of Felons at Time of Release
Fiscal Year 2008
High School
Diploma
17%

Some
College
5%

No High
School
Diploma
33%
Unknown
45%

Source: Prepared by Program Review staff from information provided by the
Department of Corrections.

The Parole Process
HB 683 of the 2008 regular
session of the General Assembly
amended KRS 439.320 by adding
two full-time members to the
Parole Board, making a total of
nine full-time and two part-time
members to be appointed by the
governor.

HB 683 of the 2008 regular session of the General Assembly
amended KRS 439.320 by adding 2 full-time members to the
Parole Board, making a total of 9 full-time and 2 part-time
members to be appointed by the governor. To qualify, a board
member may have had at least five years of actual experience in
the field of penology, corrections work, law enforcement,
sociology, law, education, social work, medicine, or a combination
of those, or have served at least 5 years previously on the board.
Inmate Eligibility for Parole

Most persons sentenced to
incarceration for a felony offense
will become eligible for parole
consideration after a specified
time. However, some sexual
offenders are not eligible based on
time served.

Most persons sentenced to incarceration for a felony offense will
become eligible for parole consideration after a specified time.
However, some sexual offenders are not eligible based on time
served. According to 501 KAR 1:030, sexual offenders convicted
on or after July 15, 1998, are not eligible for parole consideration
unless they have completed the department’s Sexual Offender
Treatment Program. Also, sexual offenders who are confined as a
result of the revocation of their conditional discharge are not
eligible. In addition, all inmates who are within 60 days of being
released are not eligible for parole consideration.

45

Chapter 4

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

The regulation also specifies the conditions for parole eligibility.
Eligibility is based on the sentence being served, the time service
required minus jail time before the inmate’s first review, the date
on which the person was convicted or the date of the crime, and the
type of felony offense.
For felony convictions after December 3, 1980, the following
provisions of 501 KAR 1:030 apply, except as noted in the
following paragraph. When the sentence is less than 2 years, the
time service required is 4 months. When the sentence is 2 years up
to and including 39 years, the time service required is 20 percent of
the sentence. These provisions were suspended by HB 406 for
persons convicted of nonviolent Class D felonies with an aggregate
sentence of 1 to 5 years. The board is required to conduct a case
review after the person has served the longer of 15 percent of his
sentence or 2 months. When the sentence is more than 39 years
and up to and including life, the time service required is 8 years.
For a person convicted of being a persistent felony offender in the
first degree in conjunction with a Class A, B, or C felony, the time
service required is 10 years.
Persons who committed felonies on or after July 15, 1998 that are
a capital offense, Class A felony, Class B felony involving death or
serious physical injury to the victim, or rape or sodomy in the first
degree have different requirements for time served. For a sentence
of a number of years, the required time service is 85 percent of the
sentence received. For a sentence of life, the requirement is
20 years. These provisions were not suspended by HB 406.
Parole Hearings
In considering whether to
recommend parole, the parole
board considers the person’s
criminal record, conduct,
employment, and attitude in
prison, and the reports of physical
and mental examinations.

In considering whether to recommend parole, the board reviews
the person’s criminal record; conduct, employment, and attitude in
prison; and the reports of physical and mental examinations
conducted. Persons who have been convicted of committing
certain capital offenses, Class A and B felonies, and some Class C
felonies will be granted an interview and hearing before the board.
However, the board may conduct a case review of a prisoner
convicted of a nonviolent or nonsexual Class C felony or any
Class D felony. The Class C felons were added by HB 683.
In addition to or in conjunction with the parole hearing, the board
conducts another hearing before granting parole to a person
convicted of a Class A, Class B, or violent Class C felony to obtain
input from victims, law enforcement, and any other interested
parties.

46

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 4

The decision of whether to recommend or deny parole rests with
the members of the Parole Board. The criteria for recommending
or denying parole specified in 501 KAR 1:030 are
• current offense (seriousness, violence involved, firearm used,
life taken or death occurred during commission);
• prior record (prior felony convictions, prior misdemeanor
convictions, history of violence, prior contact with law
enforcement or criminal courts where conviction did not
occur);
• institutional adjustment and conduct (disciplinary records, loss
of good time, and program involvement);
• attitude toward authority before and during incarceration;
• history of alcohol or drug involvement;
• history of prior probation, shock probation, or parole
violations;
• education and job skills;
• employment history;
• emotional stability;
• mental status (capacity and stability);
• terminal illness;
• history of deviant behavior;
• official and community attitudes of accepting an inmate back
into the county of conviction;
• victim impact statement and victim impact hearing;
• review of parole plan (housing, employment, need for
community treatment and follow-up resources); and
• other factors involved that relate to public safety or the
inmate’s needs.
Parole and final parole revocation hearings are conducted by
panels of the board, subject to the following requirements in
KRS 439.320:
• When a two-member panel is used, both members must agree
on the decision.
• When a three-member panel is used, two of the three members
must agree on the decision.
• When a panel of four or more members is used, a majority of
the panel must agree on a decision.
If these requirements cannot be satisfied, the matter is referred to
the full board for consideration. Parole revocation hearings are
discussed later in this chapter.
For increased efficiency, hearings are conducted via
teleconference, when possible. Program Review staff observed

47

Chapter 4

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

some of these hearings at the Parole Board office in Frankfort. The
hearings were conducted by two-member panels. For parole
hearings, one board member recited to the inmate the crimes for
which he or she was convicted and any programs or services he or
she had participated in while incarcerated. The inmate was asked
to verify the information and state why he or she should be
released on parole and to offer any other relevant testimony. The
board members conferred in private to reach a decision and then
informed the inmate of their decision. Program Review staff
considered the board members’ decisions to be reasonable based
on the facts and circumstances.
Conditions of Parole
Regulation specifies the
conditions that parolees must
meet.

KRS 439.342 allows the Parole Board to retain a person granted
parole for a period of at least one year. In addition, a number of
conditions described in 501 KAR 1:030 must be adhered to. The
parolee
• must report to the assigned parole officer immediately upon
arrival at his or her destination and submit a report in writing
once a month or more often if directed by the officer;
• permit the parole officer to visit the parolee’s home and place
of employment at any time;
• not indulge in the use of a nonprescribed controlled substance
or alcohol;
• submit to random tests to determine the existence of any illegal
substance in his or her system when directed to do so by the
parole officer;
• work regularly and support legal dependents, and if
unemployed, must report the fact to the parole officer and
make every attempt to obtain employment;
• not associate with a convicted felon except for a legitimate
purpose, including family, residential, occupational, or
treatment;
• not visit with an inmate of a penal institution without
permission of the parole officer;
• not leave the state, district, residence, or place of employment
without written permission of the parole officer;
• not purchase, own, or possess a firearm or other weapon;
• not violate any law or city ordinance of Kentucky, any other
state, or the United States;
• not falsify any report to the parole officer;
• not to register to vote or hold office;
• comply with instructions of the Parole Board and special
instructions of the parole officer;
• pay a supervision fee unless expressly waived by the board;
48

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 4

•
•

pay the balance of any restitution ordered; and
pay the balance of any sum payable to the Crime Victims
Compensation Fund.

If additional supervision or conditions are deemed necessary, the
board may order a parolee to observe any condition it considers
necessary for the safety of the public or rehabilitation of the
parolee.
KRS 439.3405 allows the board to release a prisoner on parole
when 1) the prisoner has been found by the department’s medical
staff to have a terminal medical condition likely to result in death
within one year; severe chronic lung disease, end-state heart
disease, or severe neuromuscular disease, such as multiple
sclerosis; has limited mobility due to paralysis as a result of stroke
or trauma; or dependency on external life support systems; and
2) the prisoner would not pose a threat to society if paroled.
Results of Parole Board Hearings
Based on results of more than
13,000 parole hearings and file
reviews by the Parole Board in
FY 2007, 49 percent of inmates
were released to parole, 32 had to
spend more time in prison, and
19 percent were ordered to serve
out their sentences.

The results of the board’s 13,279 parole hearings and file reviews
in FY 2007 are as follows:
• 49 percent of inmates were released to parole;
• 32 percent of inmates had their parole deferred, meaning that
they had to spend more time in prison; and
• 19 percent of inmates were ordered to serve out their sentences
(Commonwealth. Parole).

Community Supervision
In this report, the term “community supervision” refers to the
probation and parole program, the halfway house and community
services programs, and the home incarceration program.
Probation and Parole Supervision Levels
The department’s Division of
Probation and Parole supervises
adult offenders released to
community supervision. Offenders
are assessed at the point of entry
into community supervision using
a risk assessment scale.
Requirements for parolees vary by
level of risk.

The department’s Division of Probation and Parole supervises
adult offenders released to community supervision. Offenders are
assessed at the point of entry into community supervision using a
risk assessment scale. This scale is a classification tool designed to
assess the offender’s probability for additional criminal activity.
Offenders are assessed and supervised according to the following
supervision levels:
• High Risk. This supervision level requires two face-to-face
contacts a month between the officer and the offender. One

49

Chapter 4

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

•

•

•

monthly contact is required to be made at a location outside the
office. One face-to-face contact must be held at the offender’s
residence at least once every three months. An address change
must be verified by a home visit within 30 days of the change.
A record check and employment verification must be
conducted at least once a month. Any change in employment
must be verified within 30 days by a personal visit, receipt of a
paycheck stub, or other means.
Moderate Risk. This level requires one face-to-face contact a
month between the officer and the offender at an acceptable
location. One face-to-face contact must be held at the
offender’s residence at least once every six months. An address
change must be verified by a home visit, lease, or mail within
30 days of the change. A record check and employment
verification must be conducted at least once a month. Any
change in employment must be verified within 30 days by a
personal visit, receipt of a paycheck stub, or other means.
Low Risk. This level requires one face-to-face contact every
three months between the officer and the offender at an
acceptable location. The offender must mail in reports during
the months he or she does not report in person. An address
change must be verified by a home visit, lease, or mail within
30 days of the change. A record check and employment
verification must be conducted at least once a month. Any
change in employment must be verified within 30 days by a
personal visit, receipt of a paycheck stub, or other means.
Administrative. This level requires a record check once a
month. The offender must provide documentation regarding
financial obligations monthly to the officer. The offender must
mail in reports quarterly with verification of employment and
compliance with financial obligations.

Table 4.5 shows the monthly average of offender cases by level of
supervision for FY 2008. Forty-six percent of cases are classified
at the moderate risk level of supervision, 23 percent are low risk,
and 13 percent are high risk. Eleven percent of cases receive
administrative level of supervision and 5 percent of cases are
considered to be absconded, meaning the offenders cannot be
located. On average, 680 offenders entered the probation and
parole system each month awaiting classification.

50

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 4

Table 4.5
Probation and Parole Cases by Supervision Level
Monthly Average for Fiscal Year 2008
Level of
Supervision
High Risk
Moderate Risk
Low Risk
Administrative
Absconded
New
Total

Number
of Cases
5,006
17,452
9,179
4,236
2,193
680
38,746

Percent
13%
46%
23%
11%
5%
2%
100%

Source: Prepared by Program Review staff from
information provided by the Department of Corrections.

Although offenders are classified into supervision levels, the
probation and parole officers are responsible for individual cases.
Administrative staff are responsible for the administrative cases.
The division has two types of officers: sex offender officers and
regular officers. Sex offender officers supervise only offenders
convicted of sex crimes. Sex offender cases can include high,
moderate, and/or low levels of supervision. Regular officers
supervise all remaining offender cases, which can include high,
moderate, and/or low levels of supervision. The monthly average
of all cases for FY 2008 was 38,746. Regular cases are the most
abundant, at 82.6 percent, followed by administrative cases at
13.8 percent, and sex offender cases at 3.5 percent.
The monthly average of regular
probation and parole cases in
FY 2008 was 32,008. With 339
officers assigned to regular cases,
the typical caseload per officer
was 94.

The monthly average of regular cases in FY 2008 was 32,008.
With an average of 339 officers assigned to regular cases, the
typical caseload per officer was 94. The Division of Probation and
Parole’s 2007 Strategic Plan includes a caseload goal of 90 to 1
(Commonwealth. Cabinet for Justice. Department. Division).
Figure 4.C shows that the number of regular cases increased during
FY 2008, but the number of officers remained steady. The average
monthly caseload varied across the year from 99 in July 2007, with
a slight decrease in mid-year, to 95 in June 2008. The average
caseload decreased because the department was able to increase its
use of administrative staff to supervise persons on the
administrative level of supervision.

51

Chapter 4

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Figure 4.C
Regular Cases and Number of Officers
Fiscal Year 2008
33,000

400
Number of Officers

350

32,500

Cases

Cases

250
200

31,500

150

31,000
99

95

Average Monthly Caseload

30,500

Officers

300
32,000

100
50
0

30,000
July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb. March April May

June

Month

Source: Prepared by Program Review staff from information provided by the Department of Corrections.

The Division of Probation and Parole has 19 district offices in the
state. Probation and parole officers supervise released felons in
18 districts, four of which are in Jefferson County. The officers in
District 4 in Jefferson County only perform presentence
investigations.

52

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 4

Figure 4.D displays the average regular caseload by supervision
district for the month of August 2008. For each district, the figure
shows the minimum caseload a regular officer had, the maximum
caseload a regular officer had, and the average caseload. The
lowest caseload any officer had was 52; the highest caseload was
146. The average ranged from 78 in District 10 to 120 in
District 18.
Figure 4.D
Minimum, Maximum, and Average Regular Caseloads by District
August 2008

Caseload

Minimum

Maximum

Average

150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
1

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

District
Source: Prepared by Program Review staff from information provided by the Department of Corrections.

Program Review staff requested a point-in-time count of persons
only on parole supervision in each district. On August 28, 2008,
the division had a supervision caseload of 10,343 parolees.
Table 4.6 shows the number of parole cases by district. Parolees
represent only about 26 percent of the supervised population.

53

Chapter 4

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Table 4.6
Parole Cases by Supervision District on August 28, 2008
District
District 1
Ballard
Caldwell
Calloway
Carlisle
Fulton
Graves
Hickman
Livingston
Lyon
Marshall
McCracken
Trigg
Total
District 2
Allen
Butler
Christian
Edmonson
Hopkins
Logan
Simpson
Todd
Total
District 3
Adair
Barren
Casey
Cumberland
Metcalfe
Monroe
Warren
Total
District 5
Breckenridge
Bullitt
Grayson
Hardin
Hart
Meade
Total

Cases
31
26
71
7
55
105
11
0
11
82
300
16
715
32
35
128
33
153
36
28
40
485
39
44
38
19
7
39
314
500
68
100
102
221
44
76
611

District
District 6
Boyle
Green
Larue
Marion
Mercer
Nelson
Pulaski
Rockcastle
Taylor
Washington
Total
District 7
Boone
Campbell
Kenton
Total
District 8
Bath
Breathitt
Clark
Estill
Lee
Madison
Menifee
Montgomery
Owsley
Powell
Rowan
Wolfe
Total
District 9
Fayette
District 10
Bell
Clinton
Knox
Laurel
McCreary
Russell
Wayne
Whitley
Total

Cases

District
District 11
Clay
Floyd
Harlan
Jackson
Knott
Leslie
Letcher
Magoffin
Perry
Pike
Total
District 12
Anderson
Carroll
Franklin
Gallatin
Grant
Henry
Oldham
Owen
Shelby
Spence
Trimble
Total
District 13
Crittenden
Daviess
Hancock
Henderson
McLean
Muhlenburg
Ohio
Union
Webster
Total

68
18
28
30
38
110
192
59
61
28
632
158
368
139
665
25
51
73
45
29
136
22
69
28
56
27
27
588
956
141
52
133
270
76
59
77
82
890

Cases
56
65
117
34
36
24
26
33
111
135
637
23
49
97
22
50
19
36
19
48
12
7
382
39
294
18
230
77
94
85
72
64
973

District
District 14
Bourbon
Garrard
Harrison
Jessamine
Lincoln
Nicholas
Pendleton
Robertson
Scott
Woodford
Total
District 15
Boyd
Bracken
Carter
Elliot
Fleming
Greenup
Johnson
Lawrence
Lewis
Martin
Mason
Morgan
Total
District 16
Louisville East
District 17
Louisville West
District 18
Louisville
Southwest
District 19
Louisville
Southeast

Cases

Grand Total

10,343

Source: Prepared by Program Review staff from information provided by the Department of Corrections.

54

21
43
39
78
57
19
38
1
41
25
362
86
25
18
16
11
40
41
21
17
17
38
17
347
396
363

423

418

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 4

Sexual Offender Community Supervision
Sexual Offender Treatment Programs in the community use the
same curriculum that is used in the prisons. The programs are
offered in the following probation and parole districts:
• District 1–Caldwell County,
• District 6–Pulaski County,
• District 7–Campbell County,
• District 8–Rowan County,
• District 9–Fayette County,
• District 11–Pike County,
• District 13–Daviess County, and
• Districts 16-19–Jefferson County.
Sexual offenders in other districts travel to one of the districts that
offers the program or they use private providers. The number of
sexual offender cases being supervised by probation and parole
officers has remained relatively stable during FY 2008, with 1,436
being supervised on June 30, 2008.
Kentucky Sex Offender Registry
Persons convicted of felony sex
crimes are required to register
with the Kentucky Sex Offender
Registry maintained by the
Kentucky State Police when they
are paroled or they serve out their
sentences. Depending on the type
of felony committed, a sexual
offender will register as either a
lifetime registrant or 20-year
registrant.

Persons convicted of felony sex crimes are required to register with
the Kentucky Sex Offender Registry maintained by the Kentucky
State Police when they are paroled or they serve out their
sentences. As registrants in Kentucky, they are automatically
registered nationally.
The registration requirements are specified in KRS 17.510.
Depending on the type of felony committed, a sexual offender will
register as either a lifetime registrant or a 20-year registrant. In
July 2006, the 10-year registrant option was abolished from statute;
however, those who were registered before July 12, 2006, may
remain under the 10-year registration period unless they are
convicted of additional offenses that would require a different
period. The lifetime and 20-year registration requirements are
described below.
• Examples of felonies for which a person is subject to lifetime
registration include the following: a person commits
kidnapping or unlawful imprisonment when victim is under age
18 (except for parent); a person convicted of a sex crime has
one or more prior felony convictions against a victim who is a
minor or has one or more prior sex crime convictions; a person
is convicted of two or more felony criminal offenses against a
victim who is a minor; a person is convicted of rape in the first
degree, sodomy in the first degree, or is a sexually violent
55

Chapter 4

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

•

predator. This person must have his or her address verified by
the probation and parole officer every 90 days.
Persons convicted of other sex crimes are subject to the 20-year
registration period. The person will have his or her address
verified by the probation and parole officer every year.

A person who has committed a sex crime in Kentucky reports his
or her address to the department before being released from prison
or to the Division of Probation and Parole after release. The
information is forwarded to the Kentucky State Police for inclusion
on the registry. At the required intervals, the State Police mail a
certified address verification letter to the offender’s registered
address. The offender is required to sign and return the letter
within 10 days. An offender who fails to respond is considered
noncompliant. The State Police send a letter of noncompliance to
the probation and parole office, and an officer takes the letter to a
local prosecutor. The offender is then subject to being charged
with a Class D felony for the first offense and a Class C felony for
subsequent offenses of not providing a current address.
In addition to the registration type, the state registry also maintains
the status of the sexual offenders. A sexual offender’s status will
be one of the following:
• compliant,
• noncompliant,
• incarcerated-currently incarcerated in Kentucky,
• noncompliant/incarcerated-incarcerated in Kentucky for
noncompliance or other charges,
• absconded noncompliant-offender moved and has not
responded to a noncompliance letter,
• deceased,
• deported,
• nonresident-registered in Kentucky for school and/or work but
address is in another state,
• out of state-registered in Kentucky but currently lives in
another state,
• out of state/incarcerated-Kentucky offender is arrested in
another state, or
• not applicable-missing information.

56

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

As of 2008, Kentucky had more
than 7,000 sex offender
registrants but this not mean there
are that many convicted sex
offenders in Kentucky. The
registry includes persons who are
registered in Kentucky but now
live in other states, are
incarcerated, are deceased, or
have been deported. Recidivism
rates for sex offenders are
unknown.

Chapter 4

Table 4.7 shows the number of sexual offenders by registration
period and status. As of September 17, 2008, Kentucky had 7,157
registrants. However, this number does not mean that more than
7,000 sexual offenders are in Kentucky’s communities. The
registry includes persons who are registered in Kentucky but now
live in other states, are incarcerated, are deceased, or have been
deported. When the Division of Probation and Parole knows that a
sexual offender is deceased, deported, or living in another state, it
notifies the State Police. However, the Sex Offender Registry does
not always remove the offenders right away.
Among all registrants, 53 percent are lifetime registrants,
40 percent are 10-year registrants, and 7 percent are 20-year
registrants.

Table 4.7
Sexual Offenders by Registration Period and Status
As of September 17, 2008

Status
Compliant
Noncompliant
Incarcerated
Noncompliant/Incarcerated
Absconded Noncompliant
Deceased
Deported
Nonresident
Out of State
Out of State/Incarcerated
Not Applicable
Total

Lifetime
2,417
73
327
83
2
40
10
69
996
44
2
4,063

Registration Period
1020year
year
1,803
324
51
5
306
65
69
5
1
12
18
1
12
4
6
1
364
20
23
2
2
0
2,655
439

Total
4,544
129
698
157
15
59
26
76
1,380
69
4
7,157

Source: Prepared by Program Review staff from information provided by the Kentucky State
Police.

Home Incarceration
Some persons convicted of felony
offenses serve part of their
sentences on home incarceration.
A person on home incarceration
remains in the custody of the
department but is under the
supervision of the county jailer or
other community supervision
agency.

Some persons convicted of felony offenses serve part of their
sentences on home incarceration. The sentencing court may grant
home incarceration, and the department may release some felons in
accordance with KRS 532.260 and HB 406. According to KOMS,
1,093 offenders were released to home incarceration in FY 2008.

57

Chapter 4

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

A person on home incarceration remains in the custody of the
department and is monitored by a private company. The person is
required to maintain a telephone or other approved monitoring
device in the home or on his or her person at all times. Fees are
charged for supervision and equipment usage according to the
person’s ability to pay.
Conditions of Release
Statute specifies the conditions
that must be met for releasing a
Class C or D felon to home
incarceration. Statute also
specifies the requirements for
those incarcerated at home.

KRS 532.260 states that the commissioner may release a Class C
or D felon to serve the remainder of the sentence under the terms
of home incarceration using a monitoring device if the felon
1) has not been convicted of a violent felony or a sex crime;
2) has 90 days or less to serve on the sentence–temporarily
extended by HB 406 to 180 days;
3) has voluntarily participated in a discharge planning process
with the department to address education, employment,
technical, and vocational skills, and housing, medical, and
mental health needs; and
4) has needs that may be adequately met in the community in
which he or she will reside upon release.
Conditions of Home Incarceration
KRS 532.220 specifies the conditions of home incarceration. The
person is required to adhere to a schedule prepared by an officer of
the supervising authority that sets forth the times the person may
be absent from the home and where the person may be during
those times. The person must be confined to the home at all times
except when
• working at approved employment or traveling directly to and
from such employment;
• undergoing medical, psychiatric, or mental health treatment or
approved counseling and aftercare programs;
• attending an approved educational institution or program;
• attending a regularly scheduled religious service at a place of
worship; or
• participating in an approved community work service program.
A person who violates any of these conditions or commits another
offense while on home incarceration may be prosecuted for escape
under KRS 520.030.
At least every 30 days, the supervising authority is required by
KRS 532.250 to provide all local and county law enforcement
agencies a list of persons under home incarceration in their

58

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 4

jurisdictions. The list includes the person’s place of home
incarceration; the crime for which the person was convicted; the
date that the sentence of home incarceration will be completed; and
the name, address, and phone number of the person’s supervising
officer.
A person serving a sentence on home incarceration is responsible
for food, clothing, and medical care expenses.

Community Service Centers
The halfway house and
community center programs are
transitional programs for felons
who need a structured
environment but have achieved a
community custody level and are
near their parole eligibility dates.

The halfway house and community center programs are referred to
as community service centers and provide transitional programs for
felons who need a structured environment but have achieved a
community custody level and are near their parole eligibility dates.
Halfway houses serve felons who need additional alcohol or drug
addiction treatment before returning fully to the community, and
they provide GED programs. Community centers serve felons who
generally are seeking employment.

Cost of Community Supervision
The cost of community
supervision includes the probation
and parole program, the home
incarceration program, and other
miscellaneous costs. The cost has
increased from $22.4 million in
FY 2000 to $51.4 million in
FY 2008, an increase of
130 percent.

The cost of community supervision includes the probation and
parole program, the home incarceration program, and other
miscellaneous costs. The cost has increased from $22.4 million in
FY 2000 to $51.4 million in FY 2008, an increase of 130 percent.
The probation and parole program accounts for most of the cost of
community supervision, increasing 60 percent during the 9-year
period. Close to $246 million was spent on probation and parole
supervision during the period, with $241.8 million paid from state
general funds.
The cost of the halfway house program was just over $8 million
and remained relatively stable through FY 2006. In FY 2007, it
increased to $12.5 million, and to more than $13.6 million in
FY 2008, demonstrating an increased use of transitional programs
in Kentucky. The cost of the program over the period was
$59.5 million, of which state general funds paid all but $11,500.
The cost of the home incarceration program, also known as the
electronic monitoring program, was just over $1.5 million from
FY 2006 to FY 2008. Almost $1.4 million was paid from state
general funds.

59

Chapter 4

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Challenges of Reentry
Persons being released from incarceration face a number of
challenges, some of which are faced by much of the population,
such as finding a good job and paying for basic living expenses.
Convicted felons often face additional challenges related to the
availability of community mental health and substance abuse
treatment, finding a place to live, and paying child support
arrearages and court-ordered restitution, fees, and fines.
The reentry process itself may be difficult for persons who have
been incarcerated for a number of years and may be estranged
from their families and friends. Some challenges relate specifically
to the type of felony conviction. Compounding the problems, the
department has no statewide system for easing the transition from
prison to the community. A probation and parole officer may help
individuals, but with an average caseload of 94 persons, the
amount and quality of that help varies.
Inmates interviewed by Program Review staff anticipated having
problems upon release with alcohol and/or drug use, financial
issues, and finding a job. The interviewed ex-inmates reported
problems with finding jobs, reconnecting with family, and
financial issues.
Community Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services
Chapter 3 discussed programs and services available to persons
incarcerated for felonies, including psychiatric and substance abuse
treatment. Inmates in the Corrections Psychiatric Treatment Unit
may need psychiatric help and/or medication throughout their
lives.
Persons who are addicted to
drugs or alcohol may still be
addicted when released from
incarceration because they were
unable to graduate from the
substance abuse program. If
these persons are unable to
obtain substance abuse services
in the community, they may
continue their pattern of abuse
and be incarcerated for additional
drug-related felonies.

Persons who are addicted to drugs or alcohol may still be addicted
when released from incarceration because they were unable to
graduate from the Substance Abuse Program. Felons released from
incarceration in FY 2008 had been convicted of 12,387 controlled
substances violations, which is 32 percent of total felony
convictions. If these persons are unable to obtain substance abuse
services in the community, they may continue their patterns of
abuse and be incarcerated for additional drug-related felonies.
A person’s ability to obtain mental health and substance abuse
treatment in the community varies, depending on the availability of
services and a person’s ability to pay. Private providers are
available in some areas but expect payment for services that some

60

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 4

released felons may not be able to afford. The ability of
community mental health centers to provide services to released
felons varies. The 2007 Program Review report Kentucky’s
Community Mental Health System Is Expanding and Would Benefit
From Better Planning and Reporting noted the fiscal stress on the
system. From FY 2001 to FY 2005, the number of persons served
by the centers increased by almost 17 percent, and the number of
services increased by almost 28 percent, while inflation-adjusted
revenue increased less than 9 percent. The report noted that the
system statewide appeared to be stable in terms of providing
current services to current populations, but the system’s capacity to
expand services or serve larger populations was questionable,
particularly in some regions of the state. The desired or required
treatment for persons with mental illness and/or substance abuse
problems may not be available (Commonwealth. Legislative.
Kentucky’s).
Many convicted felons have received services from community
mental health centers in the past. A data match project between the
Department for Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities, and
Addiction Services revealed that, from FY 2002 to FY 2006,
30.6 percent of felons in the department’s custody had at least one
contact with a community mental health center (Barrett).
Higher Education Financial Aid
According to federal law, a person
who has been convicted of any
offense under any federal or state
law involving the possession or
sale of a controlled substance is
ineligible for federal educational
aid until a certain period of time
has passed since the conviction or
the person completes drug
treatment.

Persons with substance abuse convictions may be unable to obtain
federal education grants, loans, or work assistance. The 1998
Amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1995 state that a
person who has been convicted of any offense under any federal or
state law involving the possession or sale of a controlled substance
is ineligible for the federal aid until a certain period of time has
passed since the conviction or the person completes drug
treatment.
For possession of a controlled substance, a first conviction results
in one year of ineligibility; a second conviction results in two years
of ineligibility; and a third conviction results in an indefinite period
of ineligibility. For sale of a controlled substance, a first conviction
results in two years of ineligibility; a second offense results in
indefinite ineligibility.
The convicted felon may receive financial aid if an acceptable drug
treatment program is completed. An acceptable program must
include two random drug tests and satisfy one of the following
criteria:

61

Chapter 4

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

•
•
•
•

be qualified to receive funds from federal, state, or local
governments;
be qualified to receive funds from a federal or state licensed
insurance company;
be administered or registered by a state, federal, or local
government agency or court; or
be administered or recognized by a federal or state licensed
hospital, health clinic, or medical doctor.

Housing
Finding suitable housing is another potential barrier faced by
persons who have been convicted of felony offenses. Even if the
person has enough money to rent an apartment, the person may not
find a landlord willing or able to rent. Many restrictions are
imposed on assisted housing, in particular.
Many restrictions are imposed on
assisted housing. For example, a
person with a felony conviction
may not be eligible for tenantbased rental assistance if evicted
from federally assisted housing for
drug-related criminal activity.

Tenant-based Rental Assistance. Sexual offenders who are
subject to a lifetime registration requirement are never eligible for
tenant-based rental assistance. Other sexual offenders are
prohibited from participation during the time they are registered
and for three years following the completion of the requirement to
register. A person with a felony conviction may not be eligible for
assistance when evicted from federally assisted housing for drugrelated criminal activity. However, if the housing agency approves,
the person could be admitted after proving completion of a
supervised drug rehabilitation program. A person who was evicted
for drug-related activity generally is prohibited from participation
for three years from the date of the eviction. Anyone convicted of
producing methamphetamine on the premises of federally assisted
housing is subject to a lifetime prohibition. A person who
successfully completes the Recovery Kentucky substance abuse
recovery program without having any additional charges during a
12-month period is eligible to participate without waiting the
customary three years (Beran).
Recovery Kentucky. Recovery Kentucky centers cannot provide
assistance to anyone who is subject to a lifetime registration
requirement under the state’s Sex Offender Registry or anyone
who has been convicted of drug-related criminal activity for
methamphetamine production on the premises of federally assisted
housing (Beran).
Safe Havens. The Safe Havens program for homeless families and
individuals with severe and persistent mental illness cannot
provide assistance to anyone who is subject to a lifetime

62

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 4

registration requirement under the state’s Sex Offender Registry or
anyone who has been convicted of drug-related criminal activity
for methamphetamine production on the premises of federally
assisted housing (Beran).
State law specifies that a person
listed on the Sex Offender
Registry cannot reside within
1,000 feet of a high school, middle
school, elementary school,
preschool, publicly owned
playground, or licensed daycare
facility.

Additional Housing Barriers for Sex Offenders. KRS 17.545
requires that a person listed on the Sex Offender Registry cannot
reside within 1,000 feet of a high school, middle school,
elementary school, preschool, publicly owned playground, or
licensed daycare facility. The registrant is responsible for knowing
whether the residence is within 1,000 feet of the properties and is
presumed to know of any property opening within the 1,000-foot
requirement. If a designated facility opens, the registrant is
required to move immediately. The penalties for violating
KRS 17.545 are conviction of a Class A misdemeanor for the first
offense and a Class D felony for subsequent offenses.
Employment

Employers often conduct a
criminal background check on
applicants and may automatically
exclude convicted felons from
consideration.

Another obstacle facing a person convicted of a felony is
employment. Employers often conduct a criminal background
check on applicants and may automatically exclude convicted
felons from consideration. Even though a convicted felon has
learned a trade or job skill while incarcerated, there is no guarantee
that the person will be able to find employment when released.

A few statutes for occupations and
professions preclude convicted
felons from having licenses and
certificates. Other statutes
address situations in which
convicted felons may lose or be
denied employment.

A few statutes for occupations and professions preclude convicted
felons from having licenses and certificates. Several statutes allow
but do not require the governing board to revoke or suspend
licenses and certificates. For example,
• emergency medical services personnel or applicants for
licensure or certification shall not be convicted of a felony
(KRS 311A.050);
• licensed embalmers and funeral directors may be refused
renewal of their licenses or may have their licenses revoked or
suspended for being convicted of a felony (KRS 316.150);
• cosmetologists may be refused renewal of their licenses or may
have their licenses revoked or suspended, and applicants may
be refused issuance of a license for conviction of a felony
(KRS 317A.140);
• optometrists may have their licenses limited or restricted,
revoked, or suspended upon the conviction of a felony, and
applicants may be refused a license upon conviction
(KRS 320.310);
• landscape architects may have their licenses suspended or
revoked upon conviction of a felony (KRS 323A.110);

63

Chapter 4

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

•
•

real estate appraisers may be refused renewal of a certificate or
license or have their licenses revoked upon conviction of a
felony (KRS 324A.050); and
certified public accountants who are convicted of any felony
may have their licenses revoked or suspended or may be
refused issuance or renewal of their licenses (KRS 325.340).

Other statutes address situations in which convicted felons may
lose or be denied employment. Following are some examples,
followed by the KRS reference:
• A person who is a violent offender or has been convicted of a
sex crime is precluded from employment in a child care center
in a position that involves supervisory or disciplinary power
over or direct contact with a minor (KRS 17.165).
• An applicant for state employment who has been convicted of a
felony within the preceding five years and has not had civil
rights restored or has not been pardoned by the governor may
be disqualified from state employment; if such a person has
already been appointed to a state position, he or she may be
dismissed (KRS 18A.032).
• A person who is a violent offender or has been convicted of a
sex crime may not be employed by a school district
(KRS 160.380).
• A person who has been convicted of a felony offense of the
following types is precluded from being employed by a longterm care facility owned, managed, or operated by the
Department for Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities, and
Addition Services unless the person has been pardoned or the
record has been expunged: abuse, neglect, or exploitation of
adults (KRS Chapter 209); prohibited acts related to controlled
substances (KRS Chapter 218A); criminal homicide
(KRS 507.020, 507.030, 507.040); kidnapping and related
offenses (KRS Chapter 509); sexual offenses (KRS Chapter
510); burglary and related offenses (KRS Chapter 511); arson
and related offenses (KRS Chapter 513); theft by unlawful
taking or disposition (KRS 514.030); family offenses (KRS
Chapter 530); pornography (KRS Chapter 531); and assault
and related offenses (KRS 508.010, 508.020, 508.032).
• A person convicted of a felony offense related to theft; abuse
or sale of illegal drugs; abuse, neglect, or exploitation of an
adult; or the commission of a sex crime is precluded from
employment in agencies providing services to senior citizens
funded by the Department for Community Based Services or
the Department for Aging and Independent Living
(KRS 216.787).

64

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 4

•

•

A person convicted of a felony offense related to theft; abuse
or sale of illegal drugs; abuse, neglect, or exploitation of an
adult; or a sexual crime is precluded from employment in a
long-term care facility other than one owned, managed, or
operated by the Department for Mental Health, Developmental
Disabilities, and Addiction Services, nursing pool providing
staff to a nursing facility, or assisted-living community
(KRS 216.789).
A person convicted of criminal abuse in the first, second, or
third degree or who has had a report of abuse substantiated by
the Cabinet for Health and Family Services is precluded from
being registered to operate a boarding home (KRS 216B.305).

Transportation
Obtaining transportation to work,
educational programs, the
probation and parole office, and
appointments for counseling and
treatment can be difficult for some
released felons to obtain. Upon
release from incarceration, a
person’s operator’s license may
be expired. This issue can be
significant, since an operator’s
license is almost universally used
for identification purposes.

Obtaining transportation to work, educational programs, the
probation and parole office, and appointments for counseling and
treatment can be difficult. Upon release from incarceration, a
person’s operator’s license may be expired. This can be significant
because an operator’s license is almost universally used for
identification purposes. The department allows released inmates to
keep their inmate identification cards. Each inmate is encouraged
to take that card, a copy of the resident record card, the release
letter, and the parole certificate or notice of discharge to the circuit
clerk to verify identification. Some clerks are more receptive than
others to issuing a driver’s license or state identification card on
the basis of these documents.
Some problems with operators’ licenses relate to the person’s
felony conviction. KRS 186.440 requires the Transportation
Cabinet to revoke the operator’s license of any person convicted of
murder or manslaughter resulting from the operation of a motor
vehicle, any felony in the commission of which a motor vehicle is
used, and theft of a motor vehicle or of any of its parts. If the
convicted person does not hold a license, the cabinet is required to
deny the person a license for the same period of time as though a
license had been revoked. The revocation or denial of a license or
the withdrawal of the privilege of operating a motor vehicle for a
conviction of murder or manslaughter resulting from the operation
of a motor vehicle is for a period of not less than five years. In all
other cases, the period is six months, except when the person has
had one previous conviction of any offense noted above. In that
case, the period is one year. If the person has had more than one
previous conviction of the offenses noted above, the period is for
not less than two years.

65

Chapter 4

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

The operator’s license of a person who is behind in child support
payments can be suspended. KRS 186.570 states that any person
who has a child support arrearage that equals or exceeds the
cumulative amount that would be owed after one year of
nonpayment or failure to comply with a subpoena or warrant
relating to paternity or child support proceedings must be denied
an operator’s license or the operator’s license must be suspended.
However, any child support arrearage existing prior to
January 1, 1994, is not included in the calculation. The denial or
suspension shall continue until the arrearage has been eliminated,
payments on the arrearage are being made in accordance with a
court or administrative order, or the person complies with the
subpoena or warrant relating to paternity or child support.
KRS 189A.070 states that the operator’s license must be revoked
for 60 months for a person 18 years or older for a fourth or
subsequent offense of driving under the influence. A person whose
license has been revoked may move the court to reduce the
applicable minimum period of revocation by one-half but in no
case less than 12 months, if the following conditions are satisfied:
a) the person shall not operate a motor vehicle or motorcycle
without an ignition interlock device; b) the person shall not operate
a motor vehicle or motorcycle at any other time and for any other
purposes than those specified by the court; and c) the ignition
interlock device shall be installed for a period of time not less than
the applicable minimum period of revocation.
Leniency is allowed in certain circumstances. KRS 189A.410
states that, at any time following the expiration of the minimum
license suspension periods, the court may grant the person hardship
driving privileges for the balance of the suspension period imposed
by the court, upon written petition of the defendant, if it finds
reasonable cause to believe that revocation would hinder the
person’s ability to continue employment; continue attending school
or an educational institution; obtain necessary medical care; attend
driver improvement, alcohol, or substance abuse education
programs; or attend court-ordered counseling or other programs.
However, the court may not to issue a hardship license to a person
who has refused to take an alcohol concentration or substance
abuse test offered by a law enforcement officer.

66

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 4

Revocation of Parole or Probation
A significant challenge facing some released felons is potential
revocation of release because of a technical violation of the
conditions of release such as use of alcohol. Consuming alcohol is
not committing a crime, but it is a technical condition of parole
that must be adhered to. Chapter 2 reported that, from FY 1998 to
FY 2008, 27 percent of prison admissions were persons who had
violated the technical conditions of parole or probation.
Regulations for conducting preliminary parole revocation are in
501 KAR 1:040.
If a parole officer believes that a
parolee has violated the terms of
release, the parole officer
investigates and submits a report
of the alleged violations to the
district supervisor. If the officer
and supervisor decide to schedule
a preliminary revocation hearing,
the officer notifies the Parole
Board and the parolee. An
administrative law judge employed
by the board conducts the hearing
and determines if there is
probable cause to believe that the
parolee has committed the alleged
violations.

If a parole officer believes that a parolee has violated the terms of
release, the parole officer investigates and submits a report of the
alleged violations to the district supervisor. If the officer and
supervisor decide to schedule a preliminary revocation hearing, the
officer notifies the Parole Board and the parolee.
An administrative law judge employed by the board conducts the
hearing and determines if there is probable cause to believe that the
parolee has committed the alleged violations. However, the judge
may grant leniency if all parties agree and if the parolee agrees to
any additional conditions of his parole set forth by the judge. The
judge may also recommend that the parolee not be returned as a
parole violator if there is a viable alternative to incarceration
If the judge finds probable cause and leniency is not granted, the
case is referred to the Parole Board, which issues a parole violation
warrant. The parolee is reincarcerated. A final parole revocation
hearing is conducted by a panel of Parole Board members, in the
same way as parole hearings are conducted. The person may have
the order of parole revoked or deferred or may be returned to the
community at the panel’s discretion.
The results of the board’s 2,820 parole revocation hearings in
FY 2007 are as follows:
• 172 persons were released back to parole,
• 1,789 persons had their parole deferred, and
• 859 persons were ordered to serve out their sentences
(Commonwealth. Parole).

67

Chapter 4

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Voting
KRS 116.113 states that the name
of a person who has been
convicted of a felony offense will
be removed from voter registration
records. However, a person can
petition the governor for
restoration of civil rights and
regain the right to vote.

KRS 116.113 states that the name of a person who has been
convicted of a felony offense will be removed from voter
registration records. However, a person can petition the governor
for restoration of civil rights and regain the right to vote. The
department has an application for restoration of civil rights on its
Web site, and probation and parole officers have copies in their
offices. A person applies for restoration through the Division of
Probation and Parole. Division personnel review the application
for completeness and investigate to determine if a person has
pending charges or unpaid restitution, fines, or fees. An application
will be rejected if it is incomplete or the person has unpaid
obligations. Accepted applications are forwarded to the governor.
All inmates and ex-inmates interviewed by Program Review staff
said that felons should have the right to vote once they have been
discharged.
Table 4.8 shows the number of persons whose civil rights were
restored in calendar year 2003 to October 6, 2008.
Table 4.8
Restoration of Civil Rights
Calendar Year 2003 to October 6, 2008
Calendar Year Restored
2003
1,049
2004
318
2005
256
2006
169
2007
190
2008
1,464
Total
3,446
Source: Prepared by Program Review staff
from information provided by the Department
of Corrections.

During this period, 3,446 persons had their civil rights restored.
Most had their rights restored in 2008.

68

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 4

Some Challenges Could Be Lessened
Incarcerated felons would benefit
from individualized pre-release
and post-release assistance,
including help making
appointments with specific
providers of needed services.
However, each prison conducts its
own version of the department’s
reentry program, and felons
housed in county jails receive little
or no reentry programming.

Incarcerated felons would benefit from individualized pre-release
and post-release assistance, including help making appointments
with specific providers of needed services. However, each prison
conducts its own version of the department’s reentry program, and
felons housed in county jails receive little or no reentry
programming. Prison employees who present the reentry program
have additional work responsibilities. They have little opportunity
to work with individual inmates who have significant pre-release
and post-release needs, such as substance abuse treatment, or to
work with community substance abuse treatment providers to
ensure the person will have continuity of care. This situation not
only fails to meet certain inmates’ needs, but it also increases
pressure on probation and parole officers who have high caseloads
and little time to provide individualized assistance. Dedicated staff
at each prison and staff to work with local jails to provide
individual help to persons with significant pre-release and postrelease needs would help alleviate the reentry challenges of
convicted felons.

Incarcerated felons would benefit
from more and better-coordinated
academic, vocational, and
technical programs. Waiting lists
for education and training prevent
some inmates from participating.

Incarcerated felons would benefit from more and bettercoordinated academic, vocational, and technical programs. Waiting
lists for education and training prevent some inmates from
participating. Even when inmates participate, they later find that
many employers will not hire convicted felons. More education
and training programs are needed. In addition, assigning staff to
contact potential employers across the state, assess the vocational
and technical skills their employees must have, and encourage
them to hire released felons who have those skills would help
alleviate challenges. By knowing the job skills needed in the
marketplace, the department could provide appropriate training,
encourage inmates to participate in it, and inform inmates of
employers who have expressed a willingness to hire them when
they are released.
These activities may require additional resources for a time.
However, the department should later realize savings from reduced
recidivism. With fewer persons entering prison, the department
would have the resources to provide more pre-release and postrelease programming. In addition, the probation and parole officer
caseloads would become more manageable and allow time for
persons who need individualized assistance. Chapter 6 provides
examples of promising programs and practices in other states.

69

Chapter 4

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Recommendation 4.1
Recommendation 4.1 is that the
Department of Corrections should
dedicate staff at each prison and
staff to work with local jails to
provide individualized assistance
to persons with significant prerelease and post-release needs.
The assistance should include
interaction with community
providers to ensure that the
necessary services are available
to released felons.

The Department of Corrections should dedicate staff at each
prison and staff to work with local jails to provide
individualized assistance to persons with significant pre-release
and post-release needs. The assistance should include
interaction with community providers to ensure that the
necessary services are available to released felons.

Recommendation 4.2 is that the
Department of Corrections should
dedicate staff to contact potential
employers across the state,
assess the vocational and
technical skills their employees
must have, and encourage them
to hire released felons who have
those skills. The department
should provide appropriate
training to inmates, encourage
inmates to participate in it, and
inform inmates of employers who
have expressed a willingness to
hire them.

The Department of Corrections should dedicate staff to contact
potential employers across the state, assess the vocational and
technical skills their employees must have, and encourage
employers to hire released felons who have those skills. The
department should provide appropriate training to inmates,
encourage inmates to participate in it, and inform inmates of
employers who have expressed a willingness to hire them.

Recommendation 4.2

70

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 5

Chapter 5
Offender Reentry Programs and Practices

Caution is warranted when claims
are made about the effectiveness
of particular offender reentry
programs. Many are relatively
new. Few established programs
have been evaluated
systematically.

Caution is warranted when claims are made about the effectiveness
of particular felony reentry programs. Many of the programs are
relatively new, so they may not have had time to achieve results
that could be analyzed. Few programs with longer histories have
had rigorous evaluations. Most evaluations have used recidivism as
the sole outcome criterion (Petersilia).
Given that caveat, this chapter is a brief overview of offender
reentry programs in states and localities. The first section
summarizes research on reentry programs including a study of
nearly 300 evaluations of programs for adult offenders. The second
section has brief descriptions of a statewide programs in eight
states. Next, examples are given of programs cited in the report of
the Re-Entry Policy Council. The chapter concludes with a
summary of responses to a survey on pre-release programs from
Kentucky and 10 other states.

Promising Programs Based on Research
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
In 2006, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy published
a systematic review of 291 evaluations of evidence-based
programs for adult offenders conducted in the United States and in
other English-speaking countries over the past 35 years. The
authors only considered evaluation studies that included a matched
comparison group that did not receive the treatment under study.
They concluded that some types of adult corrections programs
have a demonstrated ability to reduce crime but other types do not
(Aos). Some of these programs are related to offender reentry
efforts.
The authors of the study compared the estimated percentage
changes in recidivism rates for adult corrections programs. For
example, an analysis of five community drug treatment program
evaluations indicated that community drug treatment programs
achieved, on average, a statistically significant 12.4 percent
reduction in the recidivism rates of program participants compared
with a control group.

71

Chapter 5

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

The results of the study indicate that some offender reentry
initiatives may be effective based on the estimated percentage
change in recidivism rates. Table 5.1 provides details for five
categories of programs.
A 2006 review of nearly 300
evaluations indicated that six
types of treatment each reduced
recidivism by more than 10
percent: 1) cognitive-behavioral
treatment in the community for
low-risk sex offenders on
probation, 2) Intensive community
supervision with a focus on
treatment, 3) cognitive-behavioral
treatment in prison for sex
offenders, 4) vocational education
in prison, 5) drug treatment in the
community, and 6) adult drug
courts.

Based on the evaluations, six types of treatment each reduced
recidivism by more than 10 percent:
• cognitive-behavioral treatment in the community for low-risk
sex offenders on probation (31.2 percent reduction),
• intensive community supervision with a focus on treatment
(21.9 percent reduction),
• cognitive-behavioral treatment in prison for sex offenders
(14.9 percent reduction),
• vocational education in prison (12.6 percent reduction),
• drug treatment in the community for drug-involved offenders
(12.4 percent reduction), and
• adult drug courts (10.7 percent reduction).

Table 5.1
Programs Shown To Reduce Recidivism Based on Multiple Evaluations
% Reduction Number of
in Recidivism Evaluations
Programs for Drug-involved Offenders
Drug treatment in the community
Adult drug courts
Programs in prison or jail with separate units for drug
offenders who are involved with organizing and operating the
unit:
• with community-based aftercare
• without community aftercare
Cognitive-behavioral drug treatment in prison
Drug treatment in jail
Programs for the General Offender Population
General and specific cognitive-behavioral treatment programs
Programs for Sex Offenders
Cognitive-behavioral treatment in the community for low-risk
offenders on probation
Cognitive-behavioral treatment in prison
Intermediate Sanctions
Intensive community supervision with a focus on treatment
Work and Education Programs
Vocational education in prison
Correctional industries programs in prison
Basic adult education programs in prison
Employment training and job assistance in the community
Source: Aos 3, 4, 6.

72

12.4%
10.7%

5
56

6.9%
5.3%
6.8%
6.0%

6
7
8
9

8.2%

25

31.2%

6

14.9%

5

21.9%

10

12.6%
7.8%
5.1%
4.8%

3
4
7
16

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

According to the same study, the
following programs have not
resulted in reductions in recidivism
based on the evaluations: jail
diversion programs for adult
offenders with mental illness and
for those with co-occurring mental
health substance abuse disorders,
treatment programs for domestic
violence offenders, psychotherapy
and behavioral treatments for sex
offenders, intensive community
supervision with a focus on
surveillance instead of treatment,
adult boot camps, electronic
monitoring, and restorative justice
programs.

Chapter 5

According to the same study, the following programs have not
resulted in reductions in recidivism based on the evaluations:
• jail diversion programs for adult offenders with mental illness
and for those with co-occurring mental health and substance
abuse disorders;
• treatment programs for domestic violence offenders;
• psychotherapy for sex offenders;
• behavioral treatments for sex offenders focusing on reducing
deviant arousal and increasing skills for interacting with ageappropriate people;
• intensive community supervision with a focus on surveillance
instead of treatment;
• adult boot camps;
• electronic monitoring; and
• restorative justice programs focusing on mediation between the
offender and the victim, family conferences, or restitution
(Aos 3-7).
Note that the results are based only on the criterion of reducing
recidivism and do not take into account the costs of programs. A
program that is very effective may be very costly. A program that
reduces recidivism by a small amount may be inexpensive. A
program that is not found to reduce recidivism may have other
benefits. For example, the research indicated that jail diversion for
adult offenders with mental illness did not reduce recidivism, but it
may result in lower costs because fewer offenders go to jail
(Aos 5). Restorative justice programs may provide benefits for
crime victims.
Goldsmith and Eimicke
Based on site visits and their review of research on existing
programs, Goldsmith and Eimicke identified useful reentry
programs. The need for such research is great because, in the
authors’ view,
most state penal and judicial officials are not working with
or sponsoring effective reentry programs. Instead, they
approach this looming public safety disaster without a clear
mission, quantitative measures of success, or evidencebased decision making. In addition, officials generally do
not direct public expenditures to where they might make
the greatest difference. For example, offenders likely to
succeed on release do not need intensive programs, yet they
are enrolled in them; and offenders judged likely to commit
a serious crime upon release—no matter the intervention—
should not be released, yet they are (Goldsmith 2).

73

Chapter 5

According to the authors of a 2008
review of research, four practices
that should be strongly considered
are enhanced supervision, adding
employment to support and
supervision, interventions that
start before release from prison,
and connections to community
support and resources. Examples
are cited of programs consistent
with these practices.

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Based on their research, they identified four practices “worthy of
serious consideration”:
• enhanced supervision;
• adding employment to support and supervision;
• interventions that start before release; and
• connections to significant community support and resources,
such as might be provided by faith-based organizations
(Goldsmith 3).
These recommended practices are consistent with the findings of
the study from the Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Enhanced Supervision. The authors noted that parole officers’
typical caseloads precluded providing enhanced supervision, but
that this practice can serve as an effective support system for
offenders. A cited example is the Maryland Division of Parole and
Probation’s Proactive Community Supervision program. Probation
and parole officers assess each parolee, develop an individualized
plan for supervision with goals for the parolee, and hold parolees
accountable through incentives and sanctions. In four localities,
parole officers working with high risk/high-need participants had
their caseloads reduced from 100 to 55. The program uses
community networks to help with preemployment training and
contacts employers that are willing to hire participants. Parole
officers are encouraged to meet with low-risk parolees in
community settings. It is recommended that meetings with highrisk parolees be at the local police station to remind them that
parole officers work with law enforcement (Goldsmith 4).
Adding Employment to Support and Supervision.
Unemployment rates for felons reentering society are high, but it is
likely that “no support system makes as much difference as a job”
(Goldsmith 5). The authors cite as a successful example New
York’s Center for Employment Opportunities. In a typical year, the
program is able to place two-thirds of participants who meet with a
job developer into full-time employment. The program begins with
preemployment workshops. Participants are then placed in
transitional jobs performing tasks such as maintenance and repair
for government agencies. A job coach assists participants in
building work skills. Employment specialists work with
participants to help them get regular jobs. The program continues
to provide support to help the participant maintain regular
employment (Goldsmith 5)
Starting Programs Before Release. According to research cited
by the authors, recidivism rates are typically lower for inmates

74

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 5

who participate in education programs in prison. Programs that
offer services in prison and after release are also promising. For
example, the Reintegration of Offenders project in Texas is an
employment program for released offenders, but contact begins
when offenders enter prison. Project staff provide information on
the program, begin recruiting, and bring prospective employers to
prison (Goldsmith 7).
Encourage Community Support. Ex-offenders often return to
neighborhoods with relatively high amounts of crime and
offenders, so supportive communities are important. For example,
the Operation of New Hope program in Jacksonville, Florida began
as an employment program but now also includes mentoring by
members of a local ministry. In a program in New York City,
“family partnering case management” occurs with the participation
of the parolee, family members, the parole officer, and someone
from a family support center (Goldsmith 8).
Statewide Programs in Offender Reentry
Other states have created
offender reentry programs in
recent years. This chapter
summarizes eight examples.

Other states have created offender reentry programs in recent
years. Below are summaries of eight states’ offender reentry
programs.
Arizona

In an Arizona program, prison life
for inmates is restructured to
mirror as closely as possible life
on the outside. The program
encourages inmates to make
decisions for themselves and
includes a system of graduated
incentives and privileges to reward
good behavior.

Arizona received an award from Harvard University’s Kennedy
School of Government for its offender reentry program Getting
Ready: Keeping Communities Safe. The program was developed
and implemented without additional state funding. Correctional
staff received additional training and rearranged their schedules for
expanded services and hours.
Prison life for inmates is restructured to mirror as closely as
possible life on the outside. During the first week of incarceration,
each inmate undergoes a needs assessment and receives an
individualized corrections plan (Moore). The program encourages
inmates to make decisions for themselves and includes a system of
graduated incentives and privileges to reward good behavior.
Inmates are expected to work or further their education, achieve
and maintain sobriety, and participate in victim-focused volunteer
activities 7 days a week (Harvard. Kennedy).
It is unknown how many inmates started but did not finish the
program. Of the 3,000 who did complete the entire program since
2004, only 2 percent have returned to prison according to an article

75

Chapter 5

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

in The Christian Science Monitor (Moore). The program claims a
$1.6 million spending reduction as a direct result of its impact.
According to the Kennedy School press release for the award,
inmate-on-inmate violence is down by 37 percent, inmate-on-staff
assaults are down by 51 percent, and inmate suicides are down by
33 percent. Seventy-five percent of the inmate population has
earned a GED (Harvard. Kennedy).
Georgia
In Georgia, four pre-release
Centers help family members of
offenders be aware of ways they
can assist with offenders’ reentry
into society.

In Georgia, Family Day Programs help family members of
offenders be aware of ways they can assist with the offender’s
reentry into society. Four pre-release centers around the state aid in
this process. The centers were created for minimum security
inmates near the end of their incarceration periods; each center can
house 200 inmates. Faith and Character programs are available to
these inmates. The centers provide inmates with work experience.
Staff assist inmates in locating housing and jobs ahead of their
departures from prison. The centers provide cognitive-behavioral
programming, substance abuse programming, and vocational
classroom training (State of Georgia).
Illinois

In 2004, the governor of Illinois
created a Statewide Community
Safety and Reentry Working
Group to initiate work on a
statewide offender reentry plan.
This has led to a program for
offenders with substance abuse
problems and a plan to double the
number of parole officers.

In 2004, the governor created a Statewide Community Safety and
Reentry Working Group to initiate work on a statewide offender
reentry plan. The 33-member committee includes law enforcement
officials, elected officials, public policy experts, faith-based
leaders, corrections officials, human services providers, substance
abuse providers, education leaders, job placement specialists,
business leaders, housing activists, and ex-offenders
(State of Illinois).
Two programs have been implemented as part of this statewide
effort. The Sheridan National Model Drug Prison and Reentry
Program focuses on inmates with substance abuse problems. It
offers them intensive drug treatment, job preparation, vocational
education, and cognitive skills development. Inmates participate in
the program for the entirety of their incarceration. They are
followed through their reentry into the community through an
extensive case management program with intensified parole
supervision. It is unknown how many participants started the
program but did not graduate, but reported graduate recidivism
rates were approximately 40 percent lower than for comparison
groups in the first 2 years of the program (State of Illinois).

76

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 5

The Operation Spotlight Parole Reform Plan mandated doubling
the number of parole officers in Illinois to 740 over a 4-year
period, mitigating their caseloads, increasing mandatory minimum
parolee contacts, and enhancing risk assessment and case
management training (State of Illinois).
Indiana
Indiana’s Pre-Release Reentry
Program provides inmates with
programming on self-improvement
skills, job-seeking skills, and
community and family values. The
Sex Offender Management and
Monitoring Program involves
public and private sector
collaboration. All inmates
discharged from
Methamphetamine Treatment
Units receive individualized
release recovery plans providing
specific recommendations for
follow-up services.

Indiana has several programs for offender reentry. Examples are
below.
The Pre-Release Reentry Program provides inmates with
programming on self-improvement skills, job-seeking skills, and
community and family values. A staff person at each state prison
serves as reentry coordinator to help facilitate the program
(State of Indiana. Department. “Our”).
The Sex Offender Management and Monitoring Program involves
public and private sector collaboration. It provides treatment to
increase offenders’ self-awareness and to help offenders make
cognitive and behavioral changes. It also monitors offenders’
progress while in prison and after prison release. Seven to nine
months prior to release, sex offenders are provided a reentry class
educating them on the Indiana Sex Offender Registry and
providing them with information about community supervision
issues (State of Indiana. Department. “Our”).
All inmates discharged from Methamphetamine Treatment Units
receive individualized release recovery plans providing specific
recommendations for follow-up services (State of Indiana.
Department. “Inside”).
Michigan

The Michigan Prisoner Reentry
Initiative emphasizes state and
local collaboration and a plan of
services and supervision from
prison entry through reentry,
reintegration, and aftercare. The
initiative has a state policy team
led by the deputy legal counsel of
the Governor’s Office and
executive cabinet representatives.

The Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative, begun in 2003,
emphasizes state and local collaboration and a plan of services and
supervision from prison entry through reentry, reintegration, and
aftercare. A Transition Accountability Plan is used to assess
inmates’ risks, needs, and strengths. Offenders’ strengths are built
upon during incarceration through pre-release training. The
initiative consists of institutional, reentry, and community phases
(State of Michigan. Department. “MPRI Informational”).
The Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative has a state policy team
led by the deputy legal counsel of the Governor’s Office and
executive cabinet representatives. There is also an advisory council

77

Chapter 5

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

and an executive management team involved in the governance of
the program (State of Michigan. Department. “The MPRI Model”).
Ohio
A key feature of the Ohio Plan for
Productive Offender Reentry and
Recidivism Reduction is a
commitment to securing family
involvement in offender reentry. A
Reentry Accountability Plan is
used, which consists of a
validated risk assessment, needs
assessment, and programming
that matches the needs of the
offender.

A key feature of the Ohio Plan for Productive Offender Reentry
and Recidivism Reduction, established in 2002, is a commitment
to secure family involvement in offender reentry. A Reentry
Accountability Plan is used, which consists of a validated risk
assessment, needs assessment, and programming that matches the
needs of the offender. An Office of Offender Reentry and
Correctional Best Practices was created to oversee this initiative
(State of Ohio).
The goals for the offender reentry initiative in Ohio are to develop
a seamless and successful offender transition from prison to the
streets, to ensure that offenders are prepared to return home and
that they are better off at the completion of reentry than they were
when first incarcerated, to mitigate recidivism, to equip offenders
with long-term marketable skills, to assist offenders in being
responsible parents after leaving prison, to provide offenders with
effective life coping skills, and to increase offenders’ awareness of
the impact of their crimes on victims and the community and
provide them with opportunities to make amends for effects
(State of Ohio).
Rhode Island

By executive order, all Rhode
Island state agencies are to
collaborate on prisoner reentry. A
15- member statewide committee
began meeting in 2004. Local
reentry councils were established
in four cities with a long-term goal
of developing them into regional
reentry councils covering the
entire state.

The governor signed an executive order in 2004 directing all state
agencies to collaborate on prisoner reentry. A 15-member
statewide committee began meeting that year. Local reentry
councils were established in four cities with a long-term goal of
developing them into regional reentry councils covering the entire
state. The goal of the councils is to create seamless offender
reentry into the community by mitigating barriers to offender
reentry such as difficulty finding employment, health care, and
affordable housing (State of Rhode Island).
The underlying philosophy is that offender reentry is a statewide
issue, past correctional methods were costly and ineffective,
multiple state agencies must become partners in the reentry
process, communities and community-based agencies must be part
of the reentry process, reentry models can cut across bureaucratic
structures, changes in organizational culture and attitudes are
necessary, data sharing and communication are essential, and
offender reentry success can and should be measured (Wall).

78

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 5

Washington
In Washington, personalized plans
for inmates are created on entry to
prison or jail based on the results
of medical, mental health, social,
and risk assessments. The
approach employs a “step down”
process targeting the offender’s
successful progression to
increasingly lower security levels.
Near the end of their prison
sentences, inmates are sent to
Reentry Centers for more
intensive programs and activities.

Washington’s Reentry Initiative takes a long-term view of offender
reentry from entry into prison through community supervision.
Personalized plans are created on inmates’ entry to prison or jail
based on the results of medical, mental health, social, and risk
assessments. The approach employs a “step down” process
targeting the offender’s successful progression to increasingly
lower security levels. Near the end of their prison sentences,
inmates are sent to Reentry Centers for more intensive programs
and activities. Washington attempts to build stronger ties with
inmates’ families. A 12-week Long Distance Dads Program
teaches inmates with children how to be better parents. A work
release program involves partial confinement of inmates with good
institutional behavior who have less than 6 months left on their
prison sentence. They are confined in community-based facilities
for most of each day but are allowed to leave the facility for work,
school, or treatment programs (State of Washington).

Examples From the Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council
The Re-Entry Policy Council was
established by the Council of
State Governments to assist
policymakers and practitioners
who wish to improve offender
reentry. The council’s 2005 report
included hundreds of examples of
programs consistent with what the
council considered consensusbased principles. This chapter
includes some of those examples
and principles.

The Re-Entry Policy Council was established by the Council of
State Governments to
assist policymakers and practitioners seeking to improve the
likelihood that adults released from prison or jail will avoid
crime and become productive, healthy members of families and
communities (Re-Entry xix).
The 100-member council’s 2005 report included 35 policy
statements that the council considered consensus-based principles
that should be part of reentry initiatives. The report included
hundreds of examples of programs consistent with these principles.
Some of the examples are discussed below. For each example, the
council’s relevant policy statement is included to provide context.
Physical Health Care
Policy Statement 10 is to
[f]acilitate community-based health care providers’ access to
prisons and jails and promote delivery of services consistent
with community standards and the need to maintain public
health (Re-Entry iv).
Example. The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
has been using videoconferencing technology since 1994 to
facilitate the practice of telemedicine in all Ohio prisons.
79

Chapter 5

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Currently, approximately 5,000 medical consultations are
conducted using telemedicine. The department estimates savings
between $200 and $1,000 for each use of telemedicine
(Re-Entry 556).
Mental Health Care
Policy Statement 11 is to
[f]acilitate community based mental health care providers’
access to prisons and jails and promote delivery of services
consistent with community standards and the need to maintain
public mental health (Re-Entry iv).
Example. The Maryland Mental Hygiene Administration started
the Trauma, Addiction, Mental Health, and Recovery Project in
1998. Targeted to women in local jails, the project provides
integrated, trauma-oriented services for individuals with mental
illness and co-occurring substance abuse disorders. The project
was developed with a grant from the United States Substance
Abuse Mental Health Services Administration. During federal
fiscal year 2000, 103 women participated in this pilot project. The
recidivism rate was reported to be less than 3 percent
(Re-Entry 522).
Creation of Employment Opportunities
Policy Statement 21 is to
[p]romote, where appropriate, the employment of people
released from prison and jail, and facilitate the creation of job
opportunities for this population that will benefit communities
(Re-Entry v).
Example. The Safer Foundation in Chicago oversees two
minimum security male residential transition centers on behalf of
the Illinois Department of Corrections that house 550 residents.
Participants are required to be involved in outside employment,
education, life skills, and/or community service activities for a
minimum of 35 hours per week, as well as being responsible for
daily in-house assignments. Residents receive case management
services, cognitive therapies, mental health services, substance
abuse treatment, and family support services. The program claims
a recidivism rate of less than percent compared to an Illinois
recidivism rate of more than 42 percent (Re-Entry 510).

80

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 5

Identification and Benefits
Policy Statement 24 is to
[e]nsure that individuals exit prison or jail with appropriate
forms of identification and that those eligible for public
benefits receive them immediately upon their release from
prison or jail (Re-Entry 5).
Example. In 2002, Louisiana’s Department of Corrections and
Office of Motor Vehicles began a state identification card program
for inmates who are within 6 to 8 months of their prison release
date. Four times per year, staff from the Office of Motor Vehicles
visit Louisiana prisons to administer the issuance of state
identification cards to inmates. Qualifying inmates can also renew
their driver’s licenses. The Department of Corrections and the
Office of Motor Vehicles collaborate to ensure that inmates have
the proper documentation for card issuance. Inmates receive their
identification cards at discharge from the correctional facility
(Re-Entry 518).
Design of Supervision Strategy
Policy Statement 25 is to
[a]ssign terms and conditions of release that are in line with
the supervision strategies selected, reflect the likelihood of the
person re-offending, correspond to the resources available to
the supervising agency, complement transition plans
developed by community service providers, and engage
incentives to encourage compliance with the conditions of
release (Re-Entry v).
Example. Since 1994, the New York State Division of Parole,
working with the Office of Mental Health, has initiated a
specialized parole caseload in which parole officers receive extra
training and reduced caseloads in order to better serve parolees
with mental illness. Parole officers carry a reduced caseload of 25
cases and work closely with community mental health agencies to
help parolees engage in treatment. No specialized funding is
involved (Re-Entry 547).
Implementation of Supervision Strategy
Policy Statement 26 is to
[c]oncentrate community supervision resources on the period
immediately following the person’s release from prison or jail,
and adjust supervision strategies as the needs of the person

81

Chapter 5

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

released, the victim, the community, and the family change
(Re-Entry v).
Example. The Day Reporting Center Re-entry Program,
established in 1998, targets high-risk parolees returning to south
Chicago neighborhoods by providing intense supervision,
monitoring, treatment, and educational services in order to mitigate
recidivism. The Illinois Department of Corrections claims that the
recidivism rate for graduates of the program is 10 percent
compared to 35 percent for a comparison group. They also
estimate that the program saved $3.6 million in correctional and
court costs (Re-Entry 509).
Job Development and Supportive Employment
Policy Statement 28 is to “[r]ecognize and address the obstacles
that make it difficult for an ex-offender to obtain and retain viable
employment while under community supervision” (Re-Entry v)
Example. The Delancey Street Foundation, created in 1971 in San
Francisco, functions as a residential education center assisting
formerly homeless persons, former substance abusers, and
formerly incarcerated individuals to acquire basic and
employment-related skills and to achieve economic independence.
Participants live in dorm style rooms and are required to stay in the
program for 2 years. Participants learn from each other and hand
down skills so that others can move into new work positions. More
than 14,000 people have completed the program since its
inception. More than 10,000 participants have completed their
GEDs. One thousand participants have graduated from a stateaccredited, three-year vocational program. Participants have built
and remodeled more than 1,500 low-income housing units and
trained over 800 individuals in the construction trade
(Re-Entry 488).
Graduated Responses
Policy Statement 29 is to
[e]nsure that community corrections officers have a range of
options available to them to reinforce positive behavior and to
address, swiftly and certainly, failures to comply with
conditions of release” (Re-Entry v).
Example 1. The Re-Entry Court Project was established in Allen
County, Indiana in 2001. It is a 6-month early prison/jail release
program in which a reentry judge oversees the development and
implementation of a reintegration plan for each inmate already

82

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 5

involved in the Community Transition Program. Participants are
under 24-hour supervision, including six months of electronic
monitoring and random home and work visits. Weekly substance
abuse testing and periodic needs assessment are employed.
Participants are assigned to relevant programs based on the needs
assessment. They appear before the judge every 2 to 6 weeks to
review compliance with their reintegration plans (Re-Entry 513).
Example 2. The Missouri Department of Corrections developed
the Violation Response Grid in 2004 to guide parole officers in
selecting sanctions to respond to parole violations. Many parolees
return to prison due to technical violations, so the instrument
provides for measures short of revoking parole in order to correct
parolees’ behavior and keep them from returning to prison or jail.
Some of the sanction options are community treatment, curfew,
increased supervision contact, caution letter, verbal reprimand,
travel restriction, and community service (Re-Entry 533).

Pre-release Programs in Kentucky and Other States
A survey conducted by the American Correctional Association in
2003 appeared in the association’s book Reentry Today: Programs,
Problems, and Solutions. Because pre-release programming was
likely quite different in 2003 than in 2008, Program Review staff
asked the department to update its responses to the survey
questions.
At the request of Program Review
staff, the Department of
Corrections updated its responses
to a survey on pre-release
programming and obtained
updated results from 10 other
states.

Kentucky is one of 15 states that are members of the Institutional
Corrections Research Network in the National Institute of Justice,
and department staff have contact persons in the other states.1 The
department updated its responses and asked other network member
states to update their responses to the survey questions as well.
Results are shown in Table 5.2 and are summarized below.

1

The 15 member states are Kentucky, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas,
Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Virginia.

83

Chapter 5

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Table 5.2
Pre-release Programs in Kentucky and 10 Other States
(Response Category in Which Kentucky Is Included Is in Italics)
Pre-release Program
Programming for state felons in local
jails
Programming for state felons in prisons
Mandatory for some or all felons
Staff assigned exclusively to
pre-release program
Work with community agencies
Use transitional detention

Time before release that programming
begins
Amount of time devoted to
programming for state felons in prisons

Yes
2

No
5

10
2
2

1
8
8

10
9

0
1

Note
Four states do not house state
prisoners in local jails.

States ranged from 2% to
35% of felons in transitional
detention. Kentucky has 4%.

Earliest
Latest
16
6
months
months
Least
Most
12 hours 480 hours Kentucky is designed to offer
20 hours; most of its prisons
offer fewer hours.

Source: Survey done by the Department of Corrections at the request of Program Review staff.

Pre-release Programming for State Felons in Local Jails
Five of the 11 states, including
Kentucky, do not offer pre-release
programs for state inmates in local
jails.

Two states provide pre-release programs for state inmates in local
jails, but they have a smaller scope and duration from that offered
to inmates in prison. Five states, including Kentucky, do not offer
pre-release programs for state inmates in local jails. Four states do
not house state inmates in local jails.
Pre-release Programming for State Felons in Prisons

Ten states provide pre-release
programming for inmates in state
prisons. In eight of those states,
including Kentucky, inmate
attendance is voluntary.

Ten states provide pre-release programming for inmates in state
prisons. In one state, all inmates are required to attend the prerelease program. In another state, all persons eligible for parole are
required to attend, but the program is optional for inmates who are
serving out their sentences. Inmate attendance is voluntary in
Kentucky and the other seven states that provide the programming.

84

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Chapter 5

Pre-release programming in states
begins from 6 to 16 months before
an inmate’s release. In Kentucky,
most inmates are within 6 months
of release when they are offered
the program. The amount of time
devoted to the program ranges
from 12 to 480 hours. Kentucky’s
program is designed to cover 20
hours.

Timing of Pre-release Programming. The pre-release
programming begins 6 to 16 months before an inmate’s release. In
Kentucky, most inmates are within 6 months of parole eligibility or
their serve-out date when they are offered the program. The
amount of time devoted to the program ranges from 12 to 480
hours. Although Kentucky’s program is officially designed to
cover 20 hours, Chapter 3 noted that most prisons provide less than
that, and five prisons provide only 1 to 5 hours.

In 8 of the 10 states that offer
pre-release programs in prisons,
staff assigned to the programs
also have other duties. All 10
states work with community
agencies.

Staffing for Pre-release Programming. The 10 states that offer
pre-release programs have staff assigned to provide the
programming. In eight of the 10 states, including Kentucky, the
program staff assigned to pre-release programming also have other
job responsibilities, for example, working in the inmate
classification system.
Working with Community Agencies. All 10 states work with
community agencies to provide support in programming for
released inmates. Agencies most frequently mentioned include
providers of housing, employment, education, vocational
education, substance abuse services, mental health services, and
life skills. Governmental agencies include those that issue drivers’
licenses, Social Security cards, and birth certificates. Kentucky
listed the following: Social Security Administration, Veterans
Administration, Vocational Rehabilitation, social service agencies,
and substance abuse treatment specialists.

Nine states use one or more forms
of transitional detention. The
percentage of the felon population
in a state in transitional detention
ranged from 2 percent to 35
percent. In Kentucky, an
estimated 4 percent of felons are
in transitional detention.

Transitional Detention. Nine states use one or more forms of
transitional detention. Eight states, including Kentucky, use
halfway houses. Five states have pre-release facilities, and three
use separate housing within the prison. Four use a day-reporting
center in the community. One contracts with local jails for
transitional detention. Of the eight states that provided information
on the estimated percentage of the felon population residing in
transitional detention, responses ranged from 2 percent to
35 percent. Kentucky estimated that 4 percent of its felon
population resides in transitional detention.
How Programming Could Be Improved

If more resources were available,
all states indicated that they would
change their pre-release and postrelease programming, and they
made suggestions for doing so.

If more resources were available, all states indicated that they
would change their pre-release and post-release programming.
Potential improvements for pre-release programming included
• having a reentry specialist and separate housing at each prison
for inmates in transition,

85

Chapter 5

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

having more programs to assist offenders in preparing for and
returning to the community,
increasing the prisons’ involvement with community resources
during the transition phase,
increasing staff to provide treatment programs in each prison,
implementing a work-release camp,
including cognitive behavior classes,
focusing on needs and providing funding for basic necessities
when inmates are released, and
using evidence-based practices for offender management.

Potential improvements for post-release programs included
• providing transitional housing for difficult-to-house
populations,
• establishing programs for high-risk populations,
• increasing community education and support programs, and
• decreasing the caseloads of probation and parole officers.

86

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Works Cited

Works Cited
American Correctional Association. Reentry Today: Programs, Problems, and Solutions. Alexandria, VA: American
Correctional Association, 2006.
Aos, Steve, Marna Miller, and Elizabeth Drake. Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and
What Does Not. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2006.
<http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/06-01-1201.pdf> (accessed Sept. 12, 2008).
Barrett, Hope. Department for Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities, and Addiction Services. “RE: I have two
more questions, please.” E-mail to Cindy Upton. Sept. 15, 2008.
Beran, Lisa. Kentucky Housing Corporation. “KHC Responses.” E-mail to Cindy Upton. Sept. 2, 2008.
Chronicle of Higher Education, The. “President Bush Signs Legislation to Renew the Higher Education Act.”
Aug. 14, 2008. <http://chronicle.com/news/article/4996/president-bush-signs-legislation-to-renew-the-highereducation-act> (accessed Sept. 24, 2008).
Commonwealth of Kentucky. Cabinet for Health and Family Services. “Kentucky Receives Grant to Plan for
Specialized Mental Health Services.” Press Release. Sept. 18, 2008.
<http://migration.kentucky.gov/newsroom/chfs/Mental+Health+Grant+08.htm> (accessed Sept. 18, 2008).
---. Cabinet for Justice and Public Safety. Department of Corrections. Division of Probation and Parole.
2007 Strategic Plan. Frankfort.
---. ---. ---. Internal training document on the Kentucky Offender Management System.
---. Legislative Research Commission. Drug Courts. LRC Research Report No. 346. Frankfort: LRC, 2007.
---. ---. Kentucky’s Community Mental Health System Is Expanding and Would Benefit From Better Planning and
Reporting. LRC Research Report No. 340. Frankfort: LRC, 2007.
---. Parole Board. 2006-2007 Parole Board Annual Report. Frankfort: no date.
Goldsmith, Stephen, and William Eimicke. “Moving Men into the Mainstream: Best Practices in Prisoner Reentry
Assistance.” Civic Bulletin 51 (March 2008): 1-14.
<http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cb_51.pdf> (accessed Sept. 12, 2008).
Harvard University. Kennedy School of Government. Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation.
“Arizona’s Department of Corrections Wins Innovations in American Government Award.” Press Release.
Cambridge, MA: Sept. 9, 2008.
<http://content.knowledgeplex.org/streams/ksg/AshInstitute/09.09.08_GettingReady.pdf> (accessed Sept. 11, 2008).
Holder, Gwen. Department of Corrections. “GRCC class phases.” E-mail to Cindy Upton. August 13, 2008.
McKune, Liz. Department of Corrections. “RE: Mental Health Beds.” E-mail to Tara Rose. September 22, 2008.
Moore, Sarah McCann. “Program Helps Arizona Prisoners Get Ready for Real Life.” The Christian Science
Monitor. July 31, 2008. < http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2008/07/31/program-helps-arizona-prisonersget-ready-for-real-life/> (accessed Sept. 11, 2008).
Morgan, Tammy. Department of Corrections. “RE: Who’s Working?” E-mail to Tara Rose. September 16, 2008.

87

Works Cited

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Petersilia, Joan. “What Works in Prisoner Reentry? Reviewing and Questioning the Evidence.” Federal Probation,
68(2) (Sept. 2004): 4-8. <http://www.uscourts.gov/fedprob/September_2004/whatworks.html> (accessed Sept. 12,
2008).
Re-Entry Policy Council. Report of the Reentry Policy Council: Charting the Safe and Successful Return of
Prisoners to the Community. New York: 2005. <http://reentrypolicy.org/report/download>
(accessed Dec. 18, 2007).
Slemp, Martha. Department of Corrections. “LRC question.” E-mail to Tara Rose. Sept. 18, 2008.
---. ---. “LRC request Clarification.” E-mail to Tara Rose. Aug. 8, 2008.
State of Georgia. Department of Corrections. “Pre-Release Centers.”
<http://www.dcor.state.ga.us/pdf/PRC5-04.pdf > (accessed Sept. 11, 2008).
State of Illinois. Office of the Governor. “Governor Blagojevich Launches New Statewide Community Safety and
Reentry Working Group.” Press Release. Dec. 17, 2004. <http://www.idoc.state.il.us/subsections/news/archive/
2004/2004-ovLaunchesCommSafety&ReentryGroup.shtml> (accessed Sept. 11, 2008).
State of Indiana. Department of Corrections. “Inside These Walls.” <http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/inside.pdf>
(accessed Sept. 11, 2008).
---. ---. “Our Services.” <http://www.in.gov/idoc/reentry/2517.htm> (accessed Sept. 11, 2008).
State of Michigan. Department of Corrections. “MPRI Informational Brochure.” April 2006.
<http://www.michigan.gov/documents/MPRI_INFO_BROCHURE_GENERAL_155644_7.pdf >
(accessed Sept. 11, 2008).
---. ---. “The MPRI Model: Policy Statements and Recommendations.” Jan. 2006.
<http://www.michigan.gov/documents/THE_MPRI_MODEL_1005_140262_7.pdf> (accessed Sept. 11, 2008).
State of Ohio. Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. The Ohio Plan for Productive Offender Reentry and
Recidivism Reduction. Columbus: July 2002.
<http://www.drc.ohio.gov/web/ReentryFinalPlan.pdf> (accessed Sept. 11, 2008).
State of Rhode Island. Department of Corrections. Office of Reentry Services. “Rhode Island’s Rhode to Reentry
Initiative.” No date. <http://www.doc.ri.gov/documents/reentry/Reentry%20brochure%20print.pdf>
(accessed Sept. 11, 2008).
State of Washington. Department of Corrections. “The DOC Reentry Initiative: Smart on Crime.” Dec. 22, 2006.
<http://www.doc.wa.gov/docs/reentrywhitepaper.pdf> (accessed Sept. 11, 2008).
Thatcher, Craig. Department of Corrections. “RE: LRC Question.” E-mail to Tara Rose. Oct. 2, 2008.
Thompson, Ruth. Department of Corrections. “RE: More questions, of course.” E-mail to Cindy Upton.
Sept. 17, 2008.
United States. White House. “Fact Sheet: President Bush Signs Second Chance Act of 2007.” April 9, 2008.
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/04/20080409-15.html> (accessed Sept. 24, 2008).
Wall II, Ashbel T., and Tracey Z. Poole. “Partnerships with Local Law Enforcement and Community Agencies: A
Critical Component to Successful Prisoner Initiatives.” Corrections Today (April 2008): 30-37.
<http://www.aca.org/fileupload/177/ahaidar/WallandPoole.pdf > (accessed Sept. 11, 2008).

88

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Appendix A

Appendix A
Interviews With Inmates and Ex-felons
Interviewees, Procedures, and Limitations of the Analysis
Program Review staff interviewed 76 incarcerated felons at all 16 Kentucky prisons and at three
county jails: Louisville Metro Corrections, Shelby County Detention Center, and Hardin County
Detention Center. Those interviewed were identified by prison wardens or county jailers as
prisoners who were due to see the Kentucky Parole Board within one to two months or who
were due to serve our their sentences within one to two months. Twelve of the 76 inmates were
interviewed in groups of two to four; otherwise, each interview was conducted with one inmate
at a time.
Program Review staff interviewed 40 formerly incarcerated felons. The interviewees were
identified by parole office supervisors, prison pre-release coordinators, or transitional house
executive directors as having served out their sentences or been paroled within the past two
years. The interviews were conducted at Kentucky Probation and Parole offices in
Lawrenceburg, Lexington, and Louisville; two transitional houses in Louisville; formerly
incarcerated individuals’ homes; or public venues.
All inmates were asked the same 34 questions. There were five additional questions asked of
eight sex offenders. All ex-felons were asked the same 35 questions. The interviews lasted from
30 minutes to two and one half hours.
The responses of the interviewees should not be considered representative of inmates or exfelons. The interviewees were not randomly selected and some of their characteristics are known
to differ from those of populations of inmates and ex-felons. For example, more than one half of
the ex-felons interviewed are female. For many questions, there is no way to verify whether the
information provided by the inmates and ex-felons is accurate. Not every interviewee answered
every question.
Responses
The perspective of inmates and ex-felons is most useful in helping to determine the problems
they face and how programs could possibly help in addressing those problems. Overall, the most
commonly mentioned problems were dealing with drug and/or alcohol abuse and getting jobs.
These two problems were the most cited by felony inmates who indicated that they had
experienced problems on the outside after previously being released from prison. Thirty-two
inmates said that drug and/or alcohol abuse was a problem. Thirteen noted that they had trouble
finding jobs. Two of the three most common problems that inmates said they anticipated upon
release were problems related to drugs and/or alcohol (18 responses) and finding a job (14
responses). Fourteen inmates said they anticipated financial problems. The difficulty of finding a
job was the problem most often mentioned by ex-felons (12 responses).
89

Appendix A

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Only 33 percent of inmates and less than 10 percent of ex-felons said they learned a job or trade
skill in prison. Inmates’ two most commonly mentioned suggestions for improving reentry
programming were that the Department of Corrections should be more proactive in arranging for
jobs for inmates (12 responses) and that vocational trade and educational classes should be added
(9 responses). Among ex-felons, one of the most frequent suggestions was also that the
department should be more proactive in lining up jobs (6 responses). The other most mentioned
suggestions were that the department should provide money to prisoners at the time of their
release (6 responses) and that the department should be more proactive in helping with housing
(5 responses).
Responses to selected questions are summarized in the following table. Unless otherwise noted,
the number of respondents ranged from 47 to 76 for inmates and from 32 to 40 for ex-felons.

90

Legislative Research Commission
Program Review and Investigations

Appendix A

Demographics
Average age
% Male
Race:
% Caucasian
% African American
Average length of time incarcerated
Average length of time since release
% Responding That
offender rehabilitation is emphasized by the Department of
Corrections
offender reentry is emphasized by Department of Corrections
the Department of Corrections has a formal, systematic offender
reentry process for Kentucky inmates exiting prison
they participated in prison programming
• % of program participants responding that prison programming was
helpful (43 inmate participants, 32 ex-felon participants)
they participated in the Prison to the Streets pre-release program
• % of program participants responding that the program was helpful
(43 inmate participants, 22 ex-felon participants)
more in-prison programming is needed
the quality of in-prison programming should be improved
there are enough community resources on the outside to help them be
successful
they were housed at two or more correctional facilities
they have changed their thinking and behavior as a result of being
incarcerated
prison or jail made them better people
family ties are important to an inmate doing time in prison or jail
they were prepared to leave prison or jail at the time of release
they were worried about being labeled or stigmatized by people on
the outside
they have been labeled or stigmatized by people on the outside
their parole officers have been helpful
they planned to get jobs after leaving prison or jail
they were employed at the time of the interviews
ex-felons should have the right to vote restored once they have served
their time in prison or jail and paid their debt to society

91

Inmates
35
86%

Ex-felons
38
38%

70%
26%
6 years
---

60%
38%
4 years
8 months

14%

10%

20%
7%

7%
3%

57%
67%

80%
75%

57%
72%

55%
50%

77%
67%
72%

64%
68%
85%

79%
90%

88%
90%

78%
100%
88%
30%

87%
97%
97%
---

----75%

49%
70%
--70%
100%

100%