1. Review of Guidelines Worksheet Structure – Data Analysis

2. 2 Definition of a Prison Sentence Has Changed Prison - 1 yr. or more Jail - 12 mos. or less 1990200219921994199619982000 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 7 FY1999-2003 Drug Schedule I/II PSI Cases Analyzed Primary OffenseNumberPercent Incarceration Rate (Pct) Possession/1 st Offender 22,13561.844.7 Imitation Schedule I/II5351.560.7 Accommodation Sale9612.770.2 Sale, PWID, etc/Sell to minors 11,48432.077.8 Sale, PWID, etc – 2 nd or subsequent* 7132.089.9 Total35,828100.057.1 *Held out of analysis due to extremely high incarceration rate

8. 8 Predictive Power of Disposition Models

9. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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