Review of Guidelines Worksheet Structure – Data Analysis.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Department of Corrections Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission “Prison Bound Offenders” Appropriations Act Item 387 D September 8, 2008.
Advertisements

JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE Preliminary FY2007. Preliminary FY2007 Guideline Worksheets Keyed as of 3/5/07 (N=10,715)
Proposed Topics for Possible Guidelines Revisions September 8, 2014 VIRGINIA CRIMINAL SENTENCING COMMISSION.
Sentencing Structure Comparisons Barb Tombs July 16, 2007 Presentation to the CT Sentencing Task Force Subcommittees.
New Directions in Prosecution
SENTENCING REFORM IN NORTH CAROLINA Thomas W. Ross.
DUI AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY ART LUSSE JUNE 30, 2010 LAW & JUSTICE INTERIM COMMITTEE.
PROCESSING OF YOUTHFUL AND JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN NORTH CAROLINA Youth Accountability Planning Task Force December 10, 2009.
Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D. Treatment Research Institute at the University of Pennsylvania TRI science addiction Effective Strategies for Drug-Abusing.
Possible Recommendations for Guidelines Revisions November 5, 2014 VIRGINIA CRIMINAL SENTENCING COMMISSION.
Proposed Recommendations for Guidelines Revisions.
Study of Virginia’s Parole- Eligible Inmate Population.
May 1, Division of Parole and Probation Tony DeCrona, Interim Chief Kim Madris, Deputy Chief Tony DeCrona, Interim Chief Kim Madris, Deputy Chief.
Public Safety Realignment Local custody for non-violent, non- serious, non-sex offenders Changes to State Parole Local Post-release Supervision Local.
June 9, 2014 Two Decades of Truth-in-Sentencing in Virginia VIRGINIA CRIMINAL SENTENCING COMMISSION.
Re-validation of the Nonviolent Offender Risk Assessment Instrument: Preliminary Findings.
Larceny and Fraud Study Proposed Methodology.
Proposed Study: Probation/Suspended Sentence Violations Scored on the Felony Sentencing Guidelines.
Virginia Sentencing Guidelines Preliminary FY2013 Report June 10, 2013.
September 8, 2014 VIRGINIA CRIMINAL SENTENCING COMMISSION Two Decades of Truth-in- Sentencing in Virginia Update.
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 2011 PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT PLAN AUGUST 30, 2011.
The Rhode Island Experience Ellen Evans Alexander Assistant Director RI Department of Corrections.
November 5, 2014 New Nonviolent Offender Risk Assessment Instruments – Status Update VIRGINIA CRIMINAL SENTENCING COMMISSION.
Pretrial, Probation and Parole
1 The MDOC Five Year Plan to Control Prison Growth Phase III: Long Term Policy Options SUMMARY BRIEF SUMMARY BRIEF Preliminary MDOC Proposal Revising Michigan’s.
Guidelines Research Proposals. 2 Felony Child Abuse and Neglect  Focus: Convictions under § (A) between FY03 and FY07 Any parent, guardian.
Use of Offender Risk Assessment in Virginia Presentation at the 2012 NASC Conference Meredith Farrar-Owens Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission.
Proposed Recommendations for Guidelines Revisions.
Proposed Recommendations for Guidelines Revisions November 6, 2013.
ANALYSIS OF LOUISIANA PRISON SYSTEM 1 Main Office: 720 Kearney St. Denver, CO Ph Wendy Naro-Ware October2012.
Welcome to unit What’s New? Announcements Questions - Concerns.
North Carolina TASC NC TASC Bridging Systems for Effective Offender Care Management.
Chapter 2 Sentencing and the Correctional Process Corrections: An Introduction, 2/e Seiter ©2008 Pearson Education, Inc. Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle.
The Need For Evidence Based Sentencing Chief Justice William Ray Price, Jr.
EL PASO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SERVICES Dr. Henry Sontheimer Department Director & Criminal Justice Planner.
Larceny and Fraud Study Update. Background.
Drug Abuse Trends in the State of California Presented to: CA Association for Criminal Justice Research March 17, 2005 Presented by: Kiku Annon, MA, WestEd.
Salient Factor Score CTSFS99. What it is How to use it.
What’s New 2015 Virginia’s Sentencing Guidelines.
Project Director: Brian Ostrom, Ph.D. National Center for State Courts Assessing Consistency & Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States.
Juveniles Convicted in Circuit Court FY2001 – FY2008.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INTRO TO CORRECTIONS. WHAT IS CORRECTIONS? Corrections is that portion of the criminal justice system charged with carrying out the sentences.
Sentencing: Once guilt has been determined, the next step is to decide what to do to the offender What should sentencing accomplish? Multiple goals of.
What’s New 2011 Virginia’s Sentencing Guidelines.
MINNESOTA SENTENCING GUIDELINES COMMISSION MEETING OUTCOMES: FIRST- AND SECOND-DEGREE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OFFENDERS April 18, 2013.
Proposed Recommendations for Guidelines Revisions.
What’s New 2012 Virginia’s Sentencing Guidelines.
Legislative Impact Analysis for the 2008 General Assembly.
Judicial Concurrence with Sentencing Guidelines Preliminary FY2009.
Proposed Topics for Possible Guidelines Revisions September 21, 2015 VIRGINIA CRIMINAL SENTENCING COMMISSION.
Training Update| User Comments | Possible Revisions Administration TopicsAdministration Topics.
Larceny and Fraud Study Update. Embezzlement Study The Commission conducted a study of felony embezzlement cases to examine the.
Review of Guidelines Worksheet Structure - Research Proposal.
Immediate Sanction Probation Pilot Project Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission June 8, 2015.
Proposed Recommendations for Guidelines Revisions.
Corrections Chapter Twelve Reading
Legal Consequences Illegal Drug Possession And Underage Drinking Presented by Mrs. Noël.
Virginia Sentencing Guidelines Preliminary FY2014 Report April 14, 2014.
JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Office of Research 1.
Yavapai County Jail Planning Services Presentation to: Yavapai County Board of Supervisors January 6, 2016.
Slide 1 Examining Kansas SB 123: Mandatory Probation and Treatment Don Stemen, Loyola University Chicago The Honorable Richard Smith, Kansas Sentencing.
Sentencing and the Correctional Process
Virginia Sentencing Guidelines Preliminary FY2015 Report June 8, 2015.
Virginia Sentencing Guidelines Preliminary FY2013 Report September 9, 2013.
The Impact of Mandatory Supervised Release (MSR) Violators & Time Served on IDOC’s Population David E. Olson, Ph.D. & Donald Stemen, Ph.D. Department of.
Using the National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices (NCJTP) Survey
Jail Population Management and Pretrial Practice in California
Community Corrections
Corrections.
Presentation transcript:

Review of Guidelines Worksheet Structure – Data Analysis

2 Definition of a Prison Sentence Has Changed Prison - 1 yr. or more Jail - 12 mos. or less Prison - more than 2 yrs. Jail - 2 yrs. or less Abolition of parole Prison - 1 yr. or more Jail - less than 1 yr. Prison* - 1 yr. or more Jail* - 12 mos. or less * policy of Virginia Department of Corrections Prison - more than 6 mos. Jail - 6 mos. or less Structure of current guidelines

3 Current Sentencing Guidelines Structure Conviction No Yes Section C: Sentence Length Recommendation - Incarceration > 6 months Probation Incarceration Up to 6 months Section A: Incarceration > 6 months Yes/No Recommendation Section B: Probation or Incarceration up to 6 months Recommendation

4 Study Objectives  Staff is conducting exploratory analysis to examine: the impact of the inconsistency between the structure of the guidelines and the definition of a prison sentence, the differences in jail versus prison sanctioning decisions, the impact of nonviolent risk assessment recommendations on sentencing decisions, and the feasibility of simplifying the guidelines while maintaining statistical power of the sentencing models. This leads to a consideration of different worksheet structures.

5 Exploration of Different Worksheet Structures  Study the possibility of revising worksheets to reflect current definition of a prison inmate: Section A- In/Out (Incarceration 1 Year or More) Section B- Prob. or Incarceration up to 12 Months Section C- Sentence Length (1 Year or More)  Study the possibility of reducing the number of worksheets from 3 to 2: Section A- Incarceration In/Out Section B- Sentence Length  Driven by historical sentencing data

6 Data Analysis  Staff is utilizing FY1999 – FY2003 Pre/Post-Sentence Investigation (PSI) data FY2003 is complete Only truth-in-sentencing cases are included  Analysis is being conducted by guidelines offense group First group analyzed was Schedule I/II drugs: – Make up 32% of all guidelines cases – Disposition and sentence length vary widely by primary offense

7 FY Drug Schedule I/II PSI Cases Analyzed Primary OffenseNumberPercent Incarceration Rate (Pct) Possession/1 st Offender 22, Imitation Schedule I/II Accommodation Sale Sale, PWID, etc/Sell to minors 11, Sale, PWID, etc – 2 nd or subsequent* Total35, *Held out of analysis due to extremely high incarceration rate

8 Predictive Power of Disposition Models

9 Extralegal Factors Which Predict Disposition Outcome  Jury trial  Pre-trial status  Male offender  Nonwhite offender  Educational level  Drug abuse apparent  Committed for mental health treatment  Judicial region and circuit

10 Legal Factors Which Predict Disposition Outcome  Primary offense *  Primary offense additional counts *  Additional offenses *  Knife or firearm in possession at time of offense *  Mandatory firearm conviction for current event *  Prior convictions/adjudications *  Number of prior incarcerations *  Number of prior felony drug convictions * * On current Drug Schedule I/II Section A worksheet

11 Legal Factors Which Predict Disposition Outcome (cont.)  Number of prior felony person convictions  Number of prior felony property convictions  Number of prior probation/parole revocations  Drug type/amount (1 gm or more of meth, cocaine, heroin)  Possession + 2 or more prior Schedule I/II felonies *  Legal restraint *  Number of prior misdemeanor convictions * On current Drug Schedule I/II Section A worksheet

12 Exploration of Different Worksheet Structures in Drug Schedule I/II Cases  Is it feasible to reduce the number of worksheets from 3 to 2? A proposed sentencing model incorporating the legal factors was developed. Cases were scored on the accompanying worksheet and their scores were compared with their observed outcomes. Analysis showed that simplification of the worksheets can be achieved only at the expense of a loss in the statistical power of the sentencing model. Predictive accuracy of the proposed model peaked at 64% - lower than that achieved under the current model.  Exploring the possibility of revising the worksheets to reflect the current definition of a prison inmate appears to be a better strategy. Section A – In/Out (Incarceration 1 year or more) Section B – Probation or Incarceration up to 12 months Section C – Sentence Length (1 year or more)

13 Potential Sentencing Guidelines Structure Conviction No Yes Section C: Sentence Length Recommendation - Incarceration 1 Yr or more Probation Incarceration Up to 12 months Section A: Incarceration 1 Yr or more Yes/No Recommendation Section B: Probation or Incarceration up to 12 months Recommendation