Commission Meeting Minutes: March 7, 2013 Post… · The public meeting of the Pennsylvania...

Commission Meeting Minutes: March 7, 2013

Commission Meeting: June 6, 2013

Commission Meeting Notes, March 7, 2013: of 6

URL: http://pasentencing.us

Phone: 717.772.3776

Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing

The public meeting of the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing was held on Thursday, March 7, 2013 at the

Pennsylvania Judicial Center, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. with the

following individuals in attendance:

Commission Members present: Law Professor Steven L. Chanenson, Chair; Judge Sheila A.

Woods-Skipper, Vice Chair; Judge Rita Donovan Hathaway; Defense Attorney Royce L. Morris;

Senator John C. Rafferty, Jr.; Judge Jill E. Rangos; Representative John P. Sabatina, Jr.; District

Attorney Francis J. Schultz; Representative Todd Stephens.

Ex Officio Members present: Secretary John E. Wetzel, PA Department of Corrections; Carol L.

Lavery, PA Victim Advocate.

Commission Staff present: Mark H. Bergstrom, Executive Director; Dr. Cynthia A. Kempinen,

Deputy Director/Research Director; Professor Joseph Sabino Mistick, Counsel; Catherine W.

Dittman, Administrative Support Assistant; Joan Lisle, Manager of Information Access; Carrie

L. Peters, Sentencing Policy Specialist; Helene Placey, Sentencing Policy Specialist; Jodi Ripka,

Office Manager; Dr. Diane E. Shoop, Manager of Outreach and Policy Support; Carol A. Zeiss,

Manager of Data Management.

Guests present: Ryan T. Boop, Chief of Staff to Senator Rafferty; Zach Hoover, Chief of Staff for

Senator Leach; Senior Judge Linda K.M. Ludgate;

Public Comment Period

There were no public comments.

Approval of Minutes

Judge Woods-Skipper moved to approve the December 13, 2012 Commission meeting minutes. District Attorney Schultz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Commission Membership

The Commission Chair welcomed two new members: Senator John Rafferty and Judge Daniel J. Milliron.

Professor Chanenson recognized Judge Ludgate’s years of service to the Commission. Her term expired in

December. She relayed her enjoyment with working on the Commission and offered her services for the future.

The Chair then turned to Counsel for the election of officers.

Judge Rangos nominated Professor Chanenson as Chair and Judge Woods-Skipper as Vice Chair. The motion passed unanimously.

Executive and Administrative Support

Executive Director Bergstrom directed attention to Tab 3 of the Commission meeting materials. He noted the list of

committee assignments as discussed in December remains intact for the next two years.

The Commission advertised for a data management specialist in late fall. It offered the position to Brenda Cooper

who previously worked for the Commission. She will begin her duties in April. Additionally, the Commission

advertised for a limited term data quality specialist. Grace Monjardo was hired and began work in February. She will

be addressing data quality issues for all counties with the exception of Philadelphia and Allegheny. Her contract will


Commission Meeting: June 6, 2013 Commission Meeting Notes, March 7, 2013: of 6 URL: http://pasentencing.us Phone: 717.772.3776


end in December. The Commission anticipates hiring a similar position to be based within Allegheny County and a position to be based in Philadelphia to focus specifically on risk assessment and other issues in those counties.

Additionally, Duquesne Law student Genevieve Micharka is working on the case law review for the 7th Edition Sentencing Guidelines. It should be completed in the near future and will be posted on the Commission web site.

Mr. Bergstrom next addressed management and oversight issues. The Senate and House sent notice that the respective standing Judiciary Committees will continue to have oversight of the Commission. Any revisions to guidelines or other Commission matters will be forwarded to them for review.

He reminded Commission members of the State Ethics Act form. Professor Chanenson and Attorney Morris will be required to complete the form by May 1st as will the Deputy Director and Executive Director. He asked that other members of the Commission completing the form in other capacities to provide a copy to the Commission. Information on the Act and a 2001 memorandum by Counsel Mistick was provided in the Commission meeting materials.

Turning to fiscal matters, Executive Director Bergstrom noted Act 9(a) of 2012 which gave leadership of the General Assembly the authority to rebalance funding of the legislative service agencies. The leadership first created a reserve account for each agency that provides for three months of funding for each. As the Commission went through three cycles of layoff notices during a budget crisis a few years ago, these funds will provide for a continuation of service. During the budget issue, The Pennsylvania State University fronted funds to keep staff employed. Second, the leadership created a separate fund that could be used by legislative service agencies to pay off any kind of vacation or sick leave for employees leaving Commonwealth service. In the past, each agency was independently responsible for retaining funds in their own budgets for payouts of accumulated leave. Third, the leadership reviewed the Commission’s appropriation and carryover of less than $70,000. The carryover funds were encumbered for specific IT needs but not spent by the close of the fiscal year. The leadership agreed to move those funds into the current appropriation which creates a total of $1.8 million. Last, there was an agreement with the Executive Branch about the funding levels of the legislative service agencies for the next fiscal year. The Commission’s request of $1.73 million was honored and in the Governor’s Executive budget for the upcoming fiscal year.

Next, Mr. Bergstrom addressed the fiscal audit solicitation. The Legislative Budget and Finance Committee suggested the Commission undergo a fiscal audit annually. The Commission has done so each year. It is time to solicit proposals from auditors for FY2011-2012. In the past 10 years (as long as the Commission has been undergoing an audit) only Parente Beard has submitted a proposal. It submitted an unsolicited proposal which is included in the meeting materials as informational only. In response to Judge Rangos, Mr. Bergstrom stated that the $10,000 quoted was in line with prior years. Professor Chanenson stated that while he has no reason to question the quality of Parente Beard’s audits, it is a good management practice not to use the same auditors every year.

Judge Rangos moved that the Commission issue a request for proposals for a FY2011-2012 financial audit. Judge Woods-Skipper seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Executive Director Bergstrom moved to the FY2012-2013 budget. The total budget is $1.8 million due to the carryover funds moved as discussed. Federal funds equal $571,000, of which $400,000 is a Justice Assistance Grant. The $171,000 is a set-aside grant for supporting sentencing operations. There are currently no recommended changes to the operating budget.

For FY2013-2014, he expects the Justice Assistance Grant to be replaced with a Justice Reinvestment Initiative in-state grant. Statute provides for up to $400,000. Therefore, the funds could be less. He expects the sentencing support grant to continue. Overall, the FY2013-2014 is consistent with the Commission’s request. He asks for support in the General Assembly as the budget process moves forward.




Data Management and Information Access Committee Carol Zeiss, Manager of the Data Management Unit, referred Commission members to meeting materials which summarized unit activities. She noted that approximately 125,000 sentences were reported in calendar year 2012. As the unit works to get all cases submitted, this figure should increase. Executive Director Bergstrom added that the number of reported sentences will most likely be less than those reported in 2011. It is a continuation of a trend that the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts also recognizes for the past four to five years. However, it continues to be monitored as it is an anomaly after many years of annual increases in reported sentences.

Ms. Zeiss called attention to the proposals from Cross Current Corporation, the software vendor for SGS Web. One has to do with allowing a transition from judicial proceeding to a person-based system for future use with parole guidelines. Another Statement of Work concerns the enhancements for criminal gangs and murder victims younger than age 13. These proposals are pending Commission decisions on the enhancements.

Joan Lisle, Manager of the Information Access Unit, referred Commission Members to the Commission materials. She noted the information for data reports and data sets requested. No data sets were requested since the December 2012 meeting.

She reported that the Data Management and Access Committee met and discussed revisions to the Commission’s Release of Information Policy for consideration. Under General Release, ‘version’ was struck as the ‘Annual Report version’ of the data is used for general release data sets. Under Section 2B, contracted release, ‘version’ was again struck. Another change is to shift approval of release of custom data sets from the Data Management and Access Committee to the Executive Director. The Executive Director may still seek recommendations from the Committee or Commission.

Executive Director Bergstrom added that the Release of Information Policy was first established in 2000 after at least one public hearing. The Commission had a policy of not releasing sentencing data that included judge name, offender name, etc. Currently social security numbers and user inputted reasons for departure are excluded. As the Commission moves in a more open release policy, there is concern to ensure inappropriate information was not released. The Policy has been updated numerous times throughout the years to reflect a shift toward more transparency and availability of sentencing data. At this point, data sets are generally approved for release unless the scope of the request is at a magnitude that it would overwhelm staff and resources. Those cases should trigger a mechanism in which the Executive Director may question the investment of staff resources. If it is a sensitive issue or one where the Commission should actively be involved in the discussion, the request would be brought to the Committee and then the Commission. But generally, the policy should be to respond to requests as they are received.

Judge Rangos noted that the number of custom data set requests is low. Executive Director Bergstrom suggested that the reason is that the general data sets are broad, and few requests would fall under custom data sets. Ms. Lisle added that individuals may generate their own ad hoc data reports via the Commission website.

Judge Woods-Skipper moved to adopt revisions to the Release of Information Policy as noted. District Attorney Schultz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Lisle reported that staff members are looking into developing a privacy policy. The Commission has the Release of Information Policy and a Right to Know Policy. As the Commission is situated at Penn State, there are numerous security policies. A coordinated review of all the policies is being undertaken so that any overlaps or gaps may be identified.




Research and Evaluation Committee Cynthia Kempinen, Research Director/Deputy Director, reminded Commission members of the risk presentation at the last Commission meeting and of the Commission’s decision to define a low risk score. Since then, the validation sample data were analyzed against the low risk score. Findings were validated. The predictors and error rates were identical. The next step will involve using another sample from later years to validate the model.

In tandem, work is underway on how to implement the risk assessment scale. Four counties with judges on the Commission will be involved in focus groups. The focus groups met this morning. Professor Ruback presented background information on why we do risk, what risk means, and the Commission’s risk assessment tool project. The next step will be to send ten case scenarios to the focus group with the accompanying risk assessment for scoring. The Commission staff will review to determine how they interpreted risk, how easy it was to access the information, and similar issues. The next step is to beta test the risk assessment tool in those four counties on actual cases and compare the results with actual sentences implemented prior to the risk assessment tool.

Dr. Kempinen next turned to the Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Program report. The legislative report was previously distributed. A Research Bulletin summarizes findings of the report. A draft is included in the Commission meeting materials.

Judge Hathaway moved to approve the public dissemination of the Research Bulletin which recaps the 2013 Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Program Report to the Legislature. Judge Rangos seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

On a final note, Dr. Kempinen addressed the County Sentencing Project. In December, the Commission was provided a copy of the report on revocations and time served. Currently, staff members are undertaking a small recidivism study.

Executive Director Bergstrom added information about two additional projects. The Justice Research Center at Penn State has undertaken a study of level 5 offenders. Professor Berk of the University of Pennsylvania is taking a different approach to look at risk and forecasting. Other discussions with individuals at the University of Pennsylvania occurred as well. Related projects may be established through service purchase contracts. He reminded the Commission that high risk offenders need to be identified as well as low risk offenders.

Outreach and Policy Support Committee Diane Shoop, Manager of the Outreach and Policy Support Unit, summarized the outreach activities for calendar year 2012 since there was only one month of 2013 information for this Commission meeting. Sentencing Policy Specialists Helene Placey and Carrie Peters responded to nearly 1,100 inquiries. They conducted 30 seminars during this time frame with more than 1,000 participants in total. There were more than 39,000 visits to the Commission web site.

Six seminars are scheduled for the spring. The spring 2013 edition of The Monitor is drafted and under review.

In conjunction with the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD), $15,000 were awarded to 11 county criminal justice advisory boards (CJAB). An additional $15,000 was moved into available funding at PCCD’s request. An announcement to the CJABs was made.

As mentioned earlier, Grace Monjardo was hired on a limited term contract as a data quality specialist. She will be working through December 2013 on a number of initiatives.

Moving on to policy support matters, Dr. Shoop noted that the 7th Edition Sentencing Guidelines are effective as of December 28, 2012. The text of the guidelines, matrices, offense listing, and sample form are posted on the web site.




The draft of the commentary/analysis section is currently being reviewed by staff members. As soon as it is completed, it will be posted on the website, and the manual will go the printer. One printing is planned. There were about 4,600 manuals pre-ordered.

Other materials provided to Commission members include the new offense list, legislation passing one chamber, and recent case law. As mentioned, an impact analysis for House Bill 321 is underway.

Copies of the Task Force Report on Restitution in Pennsylvania were provided by the PA Office of the Victim Advocate. Victim Advocate Lavery reminded the Commission that the Task Force was created to report recommendations concerning restitution to the legislature, governor, and judiciary. The Task Force was comprised of 39 members representing state and local interests. It was a robust process with considerable participation from the members. Recommendations were not 100 percent supported by every member, but the details of how much support they received and whether there were dissenting opinions are included in the report. After about a year of deliberations, 47 recommendations were put forth by the group. These recommendations are a mix of legislative or judicial changes and policy and practice changes. They range from the need for development of training guidelines, judicial bench books, and tool kits to tools to accomplish collections and the ability to revoke licenses. The Task Force determined that there is a need and desire for the work to continue through ongoing coordination and discussion and a need to have an identified source or home for that ongoing coordination and discussion. The Office of Victim Advocate is in the process of making that happen. The report and other materials are available on the Office of Victim Advocate’s web site.

Executive Director Bergstrom directed attention to two other reports. Portions of the report on the Task Force on Child Protection were provided in the Commission meeting materials. It includes a recommendation that the Commission create a sentencing enhancement. Second, the PA Department of Corrections issued a landmark report on recidivism in Pennsylvania.

Secretary Wetzel added that the report is available on the Department of Correction’s web site. The study used the broadest definition of recidivism ever used in a study of this type. In terms of re-incarceration, the recidivism rate was about 43 percent. The rate was 50 percent for re-arrest. The combination of re-incarceration and re-arrest is unique and is the overall recidivism rate is about 66 percent. The time frame is three years after a release in 2008. While the numbers are nothing to brag about, the Department feels it is important to focus on outcomes. This study establishes a baseline. It provides a point of reference to measure outcomes based on changes being made.

Amendments to the 7th Edition Sentencing Guidelines Professor Chanenson acknowledged the discussions held during the Commission policy meeting regarding any amendments to the 7th Edition Sentencing Guidelines. No action will be taken on the revisions during the meeting. However, he relayed that it is important that action be taken during the June meeting. Several issues have been resolved but others need more review, particularly in regard to child pornography.

Continuing, he announced the formation of two work groups. One group will work on guideline revisions, led by Representative Sabatina. Ms. Peters and Ms. Placey will serve as lead staff. It is anticipated that this group could come back to the Commission in June with recommendations. The other is work group will focus on state parole recommitment ranges under Representative Stephens. Dr. Shoop will serve as lead staff. This group is not on a fast track but the work is part of the Commissions’ legislative mandate. Any Commission members that would like to volunteer to serve on the work groups is welcome. Staff will reach out to the District Attorneys Association and the Defense Attorney Association to ensure representation on the work groups.




Miscellaneous The Commission will hold a Policy Committee meeting and dinner on Wednesday, June 5, 2013 at the Harrisburg Hilton. The Policy Committee (committee-of-the-whole) will meet again the morning of June 6th. The Commission’s quarterly meeting will be held the afternoon of June 6th. Both meetings will be held at the Pennsylvania Judicial Center in the Capitol Complex.

The Commission meeting was adjourned at 1:49 p.m.

Commission Meeting Minutes: June 6, 2013


The public meeting of the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing was held on Thursday, June 6, 2013 at the Pennsylvania Judicial Center, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The meeting was called to order at 1:09 p.m. with the following individuals in attendance:

Commission Members present: Law Professor Steven L. Chanenson, Chair; Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper, Vice Chair; Judge Rita Donovan Hathaway; Judge Daniel J. Milliron; Senator John C. Rafferty, Jr.; Judge Jill E. Rangos; District Attorney Francis J. Schultz; Representative Todd Stephens.

Ex Officio Members present: Secretary John E. Wetzel, PA Department of Corrections; Carol L. Lavery, PA Victim Advocate.

Commission Staff present: Mark H. Bergstrom, Executive Director; Dr. Cynthia A. Kempinen, Deputy Director/Research Director; Professor Joseph Sabino Mistick, Counsel; Catherine W. Dittman, Administrative Support Assistant; Joan Lisle, Manager of Information Access; Carrie L. Peters, Sentencing Policy Specialist; Helene Placey, Sentencing Policy Specialist; Dr. Diane E. Shoop, Manager of Outreach and Policy Support.

Guests present: Ryan T. Boop, Chief of Staff to Senator Rafferty; David Mussel, Senior Deputy District Attorney, Lehigh County; Cynthia T. Tolsma, Director, Pennsylvania Auto Theft Protection Authority.

Public Comment Period The Commission Chair made a letter from Chrissy McLaughlin part of the record. The letter supported the proposed sentencing guidelines enhancement to third degree murder of a child younger than age 13.

The Director of the Pennsylvania Auto Theft Protection Authority addressed concerns about the current grading of auto theft. All auto theft is essentially a third degree felony with no provision for higher grading or sentencing enhancements for aggravating circumstances. The Authority recommends increasing the grading and Offense Gravity Score if 1) soliciting, recruiting, training or otherwise involve a minor in auto theft; 2) moving stolen vehicles across state lines; 3) theft for purposes of export; 4) repeat convictions within five years; and 5) use of a stolen vehicle to commit another felony.

The Commission’s Executive Director noted that both the Authority’s letter and request was submitted to the Guideline Revision Work Group and the Policy Committee for review. He stated for purposes of proportionality and due to the statutory limit for a maximum sentence of incarceration, the Commission is constrained as to what it can do without a change in offense grade. Therefore, the General Assembly needs to act on increasing the grade to give the Commission more flexibility in reviewing Offense Gravity Score assignments. The Chair added that the Commission’s Policy Committee would review the Authority’s concerns and develop some recommendations for the Commission to provide to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees.

Approval of Minutes Representative Stephens moved to approve the March 7, 2013 Commission meeting minutes. Judge Hathaway seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Commission Membership Executive Director Bergstrom advised that there are three outstanding appointments to the Commission. Judge Hathaway and Judge Rangos had communications that they will be reappointed; however, the Commission has not yet received an official notice. The reappointment of Professor Chanenson or new appointment of a law professor

Commission Meeting: September 5, 2013, 2013 Commission Meeting Notes: June 6, 2013: Page 1 of 8 URL: http://pasentencing.us Phone: 717.772.3776



or criminologist by the Governor is outstanding. All individuals continue to serve on the Commission until replaced.

Executive and Administrative Support The Commission posted openings for two Sentencing Policy Specialists. One would work out of the University Park Office and the other would work out of the Harrisburg Office. The positions were built into the budget. In the upcoming months, the Commission anticipates possibly adding two additional positions: one with a focus on state parole and the other a 75% clerical support position, both out of the Harrisburg office.

Two service purchase contract positions are in place. One is embedded in Allegheny County and working on data quality issues. The other is working more state-wide on the same type of issues. There is a possibility of a third service purchase contract position to be embedded in Philadelphia to work on data gaps and processes.

In terms of the risk assessment work, discussions are underway to use Montgomery County data. This work would be done in conjunction with Professor Berk at the University of Pennsylvania who is doing some risk assessment modeling parallel to Dr. Kempinen’ s work. A service purchase contract would be utilized for a temporary staff person to collect and analyze the data.

All the service purchase contract positions are funded through a grant with the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency which ends in December. However, the grant could be extended.

Executive Director Bergstrom directed attention to the Commission’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with The Pennsylvania State University. The Commission has had a research partnership since the early 1980s. In 1999, it was formalized with a MOU which establishes what the Commission and the University each will provide. While subject to review every year, the MOU is generally a five-year agreement. The current MOU expires in December 2013. The Dean of the College of Liberal Arts, of which the Commission is affiliated, is supportive of another five-year MOU.

Judge Rangos moved to approve the 2014-2018 Memorandum of Understanding between the Commission and The Pennsylvania State University. Senator Rafferty seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Next, Mr. Bergstrom addressed the fiscal audit solicitation. A number of years ago, the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee suggested the Commission undergo an annual fiscal audit. The Commission has done so each year. The Commonwealth’s Office of Budget reviewed the FY2010-2011 financial audit and was satisfied. He also added that the Commission relies on the University to ensure that the Commission is abiding by standard internal processes and rules since the audit only covers finances.

During the March Commission meeting, members recommended that the Commission issue a request for proposals for the FY2011-2012 financial audit to broaden the pool of venders. There were no responses other than the original proposal received from Parente Beard. In the past 10 years (as long as the Commission has been undergoing an audit) only Parente Beard has submitted a proposal.

Professor Chanenson stated that while he has no reason to question the quality of Parente Beard’s audits, he would recommend trying to expand options for the next fiscal year. Judge Rangos added that it is difficult to get audits on small accounts. Mr. Bergstrom stated that the starting point was vendors on the State’s contract list who have expressed an interest and the ability to do these types of reviews; but the Commission has not been successful in obtaining a proposal.

Judge Woods-Skipper moved that the Commission accept the proposal by Parente Beard for a FY2011-2012 financial audit. Judge Milliron seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Turning to fiscal matters, Executive Director Bergstrom recommended changes to the FY2012-2013 budget. It involves moving funds between categories as noted in the Commission meeting materials.




Judge Milliron moved that the Commission modify its FY2011-2012 budget as reflected in the meeting materials. Judge Hathaway seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

The proposed budget for FY2013-2014 is $2.3 million. It is comprised of three sources. First is the state appropriation. Both the Governor’s budget proposal and House Bill 1437 include an appropriation level of $1.73 million. This is the amount the legislative leadership suggested when rebalancing the Legislative Service Agency budgets and creating reserve accounts.

Second, a state-funded Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) grant of $400,000 is anticipated. The Justice Reinvestment legislation created grants from funds realized from reductions in state prison population. However, if there are no savings, there are no funds to reinvest in the system. The most recent Department of Corrections’ projections suggest that it has not experienced the reduction in population that it expected. It may be due to a transitional period or some other factors. However, the Budget Office is considering filling the void to make sure that the agencies listed in the JRI distribution formula are held harmless and receive anticipated funds. As this grant is not firm, the Commission has continued to be prudent in its expenditures.

Third, a federal Justice Assistance Grant is anticipated. For a number of years, the Commission has received a grant of approximately $175,000 to offset outreach costs. Salaries for three positions and some related expenses are covered by this grant.

There are also carryover funds from the prior fiscal year.

The proposed FY2013-2014 operating budget is the same as the current year’s budget with changes in salaries and fringe to accommodate any additional positions and potential salary increases. These increases would be linked to the increases authorized by the University. This year, increases will not be known or effective until October 1st and will not be retroactive to July 1st as in previous years.

Judge Rangos moved to approve the FY2013-2014 budget in the amount of $2.3 million, using the current budget as the operating framework. Judge Milliron seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Executive Director Bergstrom addressed two additional service purchase contracts tied to the upcoming fiscal year.

[Professor Mistick, legal counsel, exited the room].

First, the annual service purchase contract with The Pennsylvania State University is in the amount of up to $1.44 million and allows the Commission to purchase services through the University, such as salary, fringe, operations, etc. The University then invoices the Commission monthly, and the Commission pays the University from its state appropriation. This contract can be amended if the budget increases. Some Commission expenses are handled directly through the Commonwealth account and not via the University.

Judge Wood Skipper moved to approve the Service Purchase Contract with The Pennsylvania State University in the amount of $1.44 million for FY2013-2014. District Attorney Schultz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Second, the Commission contracts legal services annually. For a number of years, the Commission has contracted with Professor Mistick for these services. The Service Purchase Contract is in the amount of $20,000, or $5,000 per quarterly meeting and the work occurring between the meetings.

Judge Milliron moved to approve the Service Purchase Contract in the amount of $20,000 with Professor Joseph Sabino Mistick for legal services for FY 2013-2014. District Attorney Schultz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

[Professor Mistick, legal counsel, returned to the room].




Data Management and Information Access Committee Joan Lisle, Manager of Information Access Unit, referred Commission members to meeting materials for both her unit and the Data Management Unit. She noted that the meeting materials included a summary of the Data Management and Access Committee meeting with Judge Rangos. She and Carol Zeiss, Manager of the Data Management Unit, also met with Judge Rangos concerning standard sentencing reasons listed in SGS Web.

Meeting materials included sentences reported from 2001 through 2013 to date and the number of inquiries for assistance to the Help Desk. Information was sent to judges on sentences reported in the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts Common Pleas Court Management System but not reported in SGS Web. Additionally, notice was sent to judges that the 2012 calendar year for sentencing information was closing May 31st and affording them an opportunity to verify sentencing information.

A summary of SGS Web projects currently underway or recently assigned are provided. Executive Director Bergstrom reminded Commission members that the Commission has two sources of revenue to pay for the SGS Web enhancements. One is a federal grant in the amount of $400,000 and the other is the state appropriation itself which includes a line item for SGS Web enhancements. Some of the enhancements are tied to changes from the 7th Edition Sentencing Guidelines.

Mr. Bergstrom elaborated. With the requirement to develop parole guidelines, the Commission will need to collect parole information. It would be helpful to leverage existing sentencing information already collected in SGS Web for use in a parole module. It would augment the information used in parole decision making. The information in SGS Web would need to be transformed from a judicial proceeding-basis used in sentencing to a person-basis used in parole.

Therefore, the Commission is working on data quality and to ensure that all sentences are reported to the Commission and reported accurately. It will provide a foundation as the Commission continues to build out the system to meet its duties for parole and resentencing guidelines.

One initiative is to help improve the Prior Record Score information by creating a floor of conviction offenses and adjudications to count toward the Prior Record Score. SGS Web could utilize its own stored sentencing information and previously completed Prior Record Score Worksheets to identify prior adult convictions or prior juvenile adjudications.

Review of sentencing information shows that 1) there may be negotiation around the Prior Record Score by not including some conviction offenses, 2) there may be information that was not known and, therefore, not included, or 3) there may be errors. This could undermine the sentence actually imposed for someone who may be a serious and repeat offender. By creating an error check or floor, conviction offenses would be added going forward. It provides a starting point for the Prior Record Score. It would both improve the accuracy of the sentencing guidelines and take advantage of information already reported to the Commission. The Commission would need to make a policy decision as to whether to allow editing of that information. There may be out-of-state convictions to add, for instance. The project is a large expense but adds much value.

In response to the Chair, the Executive Director acknowledged that notice to the Commission of any expungements or reversal of convictions would need to be addressed. Judge Rangos noted that the Commission’s obligation is to provide accurate information and allow attorneys to argue staleness or other relevant factors to determine if a sentence should be mitigated or aggravated.

Mr. Bergstrom added that he has been investigating ways to streamline SGS Web to take advantage of information that may be available in the Common Pleas Court Management System (CPCMS). Currently, SGS Web imports offender and offense information from CPCMS. If possible, additional information may be able to populate additional fields in SGS Web in order to reduce the burden on users entering information into two different systems.




Ms. Lisle returned to discussion of the meeting materials. They include data report and data set requests. Also, two reports are included in the Guideline Review materials. One is the composition of Prior Record Scores. The other pertains to offenders sentenced at the top of the standard range.

Research and Evaluation Committee Cynthia Kempinen, Research Director/Deputy Director, turned attention to an update of the risk assessment project. The meeting materials include the 7th Interim Report which focuses on the validation of the risk scale.

The validation used a second sample from the 2004 through 2006 data, which was the same years as the development sample, and a sample from 2007 through 2008. The findings were consistent with those of the development sample. The same eight predictors of recidivism were found and to the same extent. The level of recidivism of offenders defined as low risk was 22% and the error rate was essentially the same: about 15 people falsely predicted to recidivate for every one person falsely predicted not to recidivate. The error is on the side of over-predicting arrest, which was a policy decision of the Commission.

Dr. Kempinen reported that the basic conclusion is that the 14 point scale is recommended for use at this point. However, the risk scale should be revalidated periodically.

The next part of the risk assessment project involves incorporation of the risk scale into sentencing guidelines. A survey is ready to be deployed to four counties that participated in the March focus group meeting. The group was expanded to include assistant district attorneys, assistant public defenders, all judges and all probation officers in those four counties (Allegheny, Blair, Philadelphia, and Westmoreland). The survey consists of six actual case scenarios with Pre-Sentence Investigation information. The goal of the survey is to ascertain the best way to present risk information so that it is understood.

Judge Hathaway moved to approve the public release of the 7th Interim Report, Validation of Risk Scale. Judge Woods Skipper seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Dr. Kempinen next discussed the county sentencing project. The primary purpose of this project was to collect information on county sentencing practices, particularly time served, and parole revocation practices. Some additional information was collected such as previous incarcerations, age at first crime, and demographic and socio-economic characteristics. A mini recidivism study will be conducted. Analysis should indicate if the same factors predict recidivism for this sample and if there is added benefit to including additional factors.

Last, the Research and Evaluation Unit will begin work on the State Intermediate Punishment Program evaluation for the legislative report due February 2014.

Outreach and Policy Support Committee Diane Shoop, Manager of the Outreach and Policy Support Unit, summarized the outreach activities from January through April 2013. Sentencing Policy Specialists Helene Placey and Carrie Peters responded to more than 350 inquiries. They conducted 9 seminars during this time frame with more than 410 participants in total. There were more than 15,000 visits to the Commission web site. The spring 2013 edition of The Monitor was published electronically.

As mentioned earlier, Mark Pieper was hired on a limited term contract as a data quality specialist in Allegheny County. He will be working on a number of projects. One will be comparing the first three months of Sentencing Orders against sentences reported in SGS Web and the Common Pleas Court Management System.

Also as mentioned, the SGS Web User Questionnaire was distributed in April. To date, 57 responses out of 67 counties were received. An individual county-based report will be provided to each President Judge with a copy to the Questionnaire's point of contact. An aggregated report will be compiled and sent as well. Grace Monjardo, another limited term contracted data quality specialist, is coordinating this project. Commission Meeting: September 5, 2013, 2013 Commission Meeting Notes: June 6, 2013: Page 5 of 8 URL: http://pasentencing.us Phone: 717.772.3776



In addition, Ms. Monjardo sent out reports to each judge listing any sentences not reported in SGS Web but reported to the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, based on Offense Tracking Number. About 7,000 sentences were not reported to the Commission. In some of those cases, the sentences had not yet been imposed and in others, the Offense Tracking Numbers were missed in the Judicial Proceeding. In other cases, the charges were reduced to summaries; these sentences should not be reported. Ms. Monjardo also sent out the notices about the closing of the 2012 year of sentences and an opportunity for judge verification.

Last, Dr. Shoop mentioned the report, An Examination of Criminal Justice Offenders in Pennsylvania, by AnnMarie Cordner, a professor at Kutztown University. The report notes the importance and need of sentencing guidelines education. The Outreach and Policy Support Committee recommended that the Commission respond to the author and to the report sponsor, the Center for Rural Pennsylvania, concerning the current educational and outreach activities offered by the Commission.

Executive Director Bergstrom added that he will make Steve Feiler, head of Judicial Education, aware of the report as well. Judge Rangos was also in discussions with Dr. Feiler about judicial trainings including sentencing guidelines. Professor Chanenson noted that he attended a Commission seminar conducted by Ms. Placey and was pleased to see that a few judges and law clerks also were in attendance. He would encourage some cross advertising between the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts and the Commission to ensure that judges know that the Commission is holding seminars across the Commonwealth.

Dr. Shoop next addressed the policy portion of the meeting materials. They include the Impact Analysis of House Bill 321 which mostly addressed the stacking issue. Also included is the listing of legislation passing one chamber, the new offense list, recent case law, and the majority and concurring opinions for Commonwealth v. Batts. Additionally, the materials include a resolution from the Bar Association about re-examining Unlawful Delivery of Controlled Substance in a School Zone and testimony from the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association regarding sentencing guidelines.

The 7th Edition Sentencing Guidelines Implementation Manuals were all distributed by Jodi Ripka.

The Outreach and Policy Support Committee met in January and April 2013. The State Parole Recommitment Range Work Group met in May. Dr. Shoop will be following up with a meeting about data collection with point persons from the Board of Probation and Parole and the Department of Corrections. The Guideline Revision Work Group met in April and May.

Professor Chanenson added that the District Attorney’s Association is suggesting a different approach to sentencing guidelines. The Executive Director had discussions with the group, and Professor Chanenson expects he, Mr. Bergstrom, and District Attorney Schultz will have additional informal conversations with them before the next Commission meeting.

Amendment to the 7th Edition Sentencing Guidelines The Executive Director reminded Commission members of the morning discussion regarding the Amendment to the 7th Edition Sentencing Guidelines and the lengthy discussion concerning sexual abuse of children, 18 Pa.C.S. §6312. Given that legislation is still pending, the Commission will not incorporate any changes concerning sexual abuse of children in the Amendment. The Commission is also constrained due to statutory limits.

It was determined that the Commission would recommend to the General Assembly a change in statutory grade based on indecent contact with the victim. Senator Rafferty’s Chief of Staff, Ryan Boop, drafted suggested changes to the statute. There would be a baseline of a felony 2 for subsection (b) and a baseline of a felony 3 for subsections (c) and (d). If there would be indecent contact with the victim, the grade would increase by one step. The provision about a second subsequent offense would be removed. Language would be inserted for a sentencing guidelines enhancement related to age of child, determination of pre-pubescence, number of images possessed, and the nature and character of the abuse depicted. Commission Meeting: September 5, 2013, 2013 Commission Meeting Notes: June 6, 2013: Page 6 of 8 URL: http://pasentencing.us Phone: 717.772.3776



The Chair added that a letter to the General Assembly would be sent pursuant to Section 2153(a)(12) of the Commission’s enabling legislation which gives it power to make recommendations to the General Assembly concerning modification or enactment of sentencing, parole, and correctional statutes which the Commission finds to be necessary and advisable to carry out an effective, humane, and rational sentencing, resentencing, and parole policy. The letter would be sent as soon as possible given the General Assembly is in the midst of budget negotiations and will break for a summer recess. Commission members would have an opportunity to review the letter draft prior to sending it. Upon being sent to the House and Senate, a copy of the letter will be sent to the District Attorney’s Association, Defense Attorneys Association, and the Attorney General.

Judge Milliron moved that the Commission send a letter to the General Assembly with recommendations of modifications to 18 Pa.C.S. §6312. District Attorney Schultz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Bergstrom directed attention to the summary of the Amendment to the 7th Edition Sentencing Guidelines previously decided at the December and March meetings. Additional changes were discussed at the morning Policy Committee meeting.

In 303.12(a)(4)(ii), the ‘Department of Health and Bureau of Drug and Alcohol Programs’ was changed to the ‘Department of Drug and Alcohol.’ In 303.12(c)(2)(3), language relative to State Intermediate Punishment was modified to reflect recent changes in statute. Where relevant, the term ‘defendant’ was replaced with ‘offender.’ Sentencing guidelines recommendations were made for offenders less than age 18 who are convicted of Murder 1 and Murder 2.

Language was added in 303.3 Offense Gravity Score: the offense gravity score of 15 is assigned only for Murder 1 and 2 when committed by offenders younger than age 18.

To maintain consistency with the 7th Edition Sentencing Guidelines, text concerning the criminal gang enhancement and third degree murder of a victim younger than age 13 enhancement will be 303.9 (j) and (k) rather than (d) and (e). The subsections can be rearranged in a future edition of the guidelines.

If during a final review, staff members catch any typos or formatting errors in the text or offense list, they will be corrected.

Judge Woods-Skipper moved to adopt the Amendment to the 7th Edition Sentencing Guidelines as described. Judge Rangos seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

The Chair thanked Judge Woods-Skipper and her committee, Representative Sabatino and his Work Group, and staff for all their work on the Amendment.

Miscellaneous The Executive Director alerted the Commission members that the National Association of Sentencing Commissions Conference will be held in August. The conference is being held in conjunction with and at the University of Minnesota Law School. Costs will be lower than in the past. Additionally, the content of the conference is specific to the interests of the Commission. The Commission will cover the cost of registration, hotel, and travel. A reception will be held August 4th, and the conference itself begins the morning of August 5th and ends mid-afternoon on August 6th. Commission members interested in attending should contact Cathy Dittman by June 26th in order for her to make conference registration and hotel arrangements. Attendees are responsible for making their own travel arrangements. After June 26th, attendees must also make their own hotel reservations and register for the conference. As noted, these costs will be reimbursed.

The Commission will hold a Policy Committee meeting and dinner on Wednesday, September 4, 2013 at the Harrisburg Hilton. The Policy Committee (committee-of-the-whole) will meet again the morning of September 5th.




The Commission’s quarterly meeting will be held the afternoon of September 5th. Both meetings will be held at the Pennsylvania Judicial Center in the Capitol Complex.

The Commission meeting was adjourned at 2:41 p.m.


Commission Meeting Minutes: September 5, 2013


The public meeting of the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing was held on Thursday, September 5, 2013 at the Pennsylvania Judicial Center, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. with the following individuals in attendance:

Commission Members present: Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper, Vice Chair; Judge Rita Donovan Hathaway; Defense Attorney Royce L. Morris; Senator John C. Rafferty, Jr.; Judge Jill E. Rangos; Representative John P. Sabatina, Jr.; Judge Jill E. Rangos; District Attorney Francis J. Schultz; Representative Todd Stephens.

Ex Officio Members present: none

Commission Staff present: Mark H. Bergstrom, Executive Director; Dr. Cynthia A. Kempinen, Deputy Director/Research Director; Professor Joseph Sabino Mistick, Counsel; Joan Lisle, Manager of Information Access; Ryan S. Meyers, Sentencing Policy Specialist; Carrie L. Peters, Sentencing Policy Specialist; Helene Placey, Sentencing Policy Specialist; Dr. Diane E. Shoop, Manager of Outreach and Policy Support; Nancy S. Xavios, Sentencing Policy Specialist; Carol Zeiss, Manager, Data Management.

Guests present: Ryan T. Boop, Chief of Staff to Senator Rafferty; K. Bret Bucklen, Director of Planning and Research, Department of Corrections; Travis Kryder, staff member to Senator Rafferty.

Public Comment Period There were no comments.

Approval of Minutes Judge Rangos moved to approve the June 6, 2013 Commission meeting minutes. Judge Hathaway seconded the motion. The meeting minutes were amended to reflect Representative Sabatina’s attendance. The motion passed unanimously.

Commission Membership Executive Director Bergstrom reported that Professor Chanenson was reappointed to a two-year term by the Governor. The Chief Justice reappointed both Judge Rangos and Judge Hathaway for two-year terms. The next reappointments will be in the new year. Notices will be sent at that point.

Executive and Administrative Support Two newly hired Sentencing Policy Specialists were welcomed and introduced: Ryan Meyers and Nancy Xavios. Mr. Meyers worked at Centre County Probation and Ms. Xavios worked at Berks County Probation. They will be working closely with Ms. Peters and Ms. Placey.

The Commission anticipates adding two additional positions: one with a focus on state parole and the other a 75% clerical support position, both out of the Harrisburg office.

Two service purchase contract positions are in place. One is embedded in Allegheny County and working on data quality issues. The other is working more state-wide on the same type of issues. Staff have been working with a gentleman from Philadelphia County to develop a contract for some additional work there and are nearing a point where we execute that contract. That goal is to better understand and, hopefully improve, the processing of cases in Philadelphia.

Commission Meeting: December 5, 2013, 2013 Commission Meeting Notes: September 5, 2013: Page 1 of 5 URL: http://pasentencing.us Phone: 717.772.3776



We also anticipate moving forward with a service purchase contract for data collection and analysis with Dr. Jordan Hyatt, JD. He will work with the Commission and with faculty at the University of Pennsylvania on risk assessment. In particular, we will reach out to Montgomery County to test some of the work on risk assessment.

Executive Director Bergstrom directed attention to the 2014-2018 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with The Pennsylvania State University. The executed MOU was provided in the meeting materials. It was approved at the last Commission meeting and signed in June by both the Commission and by the University. As a reminder, he mentioned that the Commission also has an MOU with Duquesne University School of Law and with Villanova University School of Law.

Turning to fiscal matters, Mr. Bergstrom noted that the Commission previously authorized a contract with ParenteBeard for the fiscal audit of FY2011-2012. The audit is complete, and the report will be forthcoming.

The budget for FY2012-13 ended with a balance of $447,680. Since the Commission is a legislative service agency, it is able to carry over those funds into the next fiscal year. As the Commission did not receive one of the sources of funding it anticipated, the carryover will be needed. The Justice Reinvestment Initiative was to include a $400,000 grant to the Commission. It did not happen.

The Commission needs an operating budget of $2.3 million to have confidence in carrying out the newer duties it was mandated (risk assessment, parole guidelines, resentencing guidelines, and recommitment ranges). The carryover will allow this work to continue. However, if the fiscal goal is not met in the next fiscal year, the abilities to continue to work on these projects will be impacted.

Senator Rafferty moved that the Commission approve the closing of FY2012-2013 operating budget as reflected in the meeting materials. Representative Sabatina seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

The Commission moved into Executive Session. Counsel, Professor Mistick, advised that pursuant to Section 708(a)(1), the Commission would move into executive session to discuss personnel matters. All staff and visitors were asked to leave the room and no stenographic record would be taken and no recording devices will be active. Only appointed members of the Sentencing Commission, legal counsel, and the Executive Director remain in the room.

(Executive session)

Upon conclusion of the Executive Session, the Executive Director addressed the proposed operating budget for FY2013-2014. The budget, included in the meeting materials, reflects the anticipated appropriation, the carryover funds, and anticipated grant funding. Salary and fringe show the anticipated merit and equity increases. They are based on what has been proposed and referred to Penn State.

Mr. Morris moved that the Commission approve the FY2013-2014 operating budget as reflected in the meeting materials. Judge Hathaway seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

The Executive Director reviewed the Commission’s grants and grant renewals. The Sentencing Technical Assistance and Training grant is a federal grant through the Commission on Crime and Delinquency. It required a 10 percent match in the past. It is used to offset salary for two sentencing policy specialists and the SGS Web Help Desk position. It also supports the annual Villanova Sentencing Workshop and other training-related activities. It is a $170,000 12-month grant, running from January through December 2014.

Senator Rafferty moved that the Commission approve the application for the Sentencing Technical Assistance and Training grant for calendar year 2014. Judge Rangos seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Bergstrom explained that the second grant, Criminal Justice Advisory Board Assistance grant, is a $475,000 pass-through grant that supports Criminal Justice Advisory Boards (CJAB). It primarily is used by the Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD) to contract with four individuals who work closely with counties and CJABs. The Commission derives some indirect benefit from the grant as its staff members work with CJABs and others to promote sentencing policies. The Commission has no match requirements but manages the grant on behalf of PCCD. The Commission Commission Meeting: December 5, 2013, 2013 Commission Meeting Notes: September 5, 2013: Page 2 of 5 URL: http://pasentencing.us Phone: 717.772.3776



does not have much direct control over the activities of the individuals contracted through the grant. Mr. Bergstrom and the Chair are working to more clearly articulate that it is a pass-through grant and refine the application.

Senator Rafferty moved that the Commission approve the application for the pass-through grant, Criminal Justice Advisory Board Assistance Grant, in the amount of $475,000. Judge Rangos seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Data Management and Information Access Committee Ms. Zeiss, Manager of the Data Management Unit, noted that more than 71,000 sentences are reported to date this year. The Help Desk has responded to more than 500 telephone requests and more than 400 email requests for assistance. The Help Desk is also handling registration for criminal history users through JNET. As the Pennsylvania State Police changed some processes, the work load has increased.

Statements of Work (SOW) for modifications and enhancements to SGS Web were signed. One SOW is in response to changes at JNET, and another SOW will make changes from Act 122 of 2012 (Senate Bill 100). A SOW will assist PCCD with some information on RIP/drug and alcohol data collection. Last, an SOW will provide information to the upcoming contracted position in Philadelphia to do data quality work as mentioned earlier.

Executive Director Bergstrom expanded upon the SOW that concerns security changes made at JNET which involves moving to an internet base. JNET is the secure means of sharing criminal justice information across criminal justice agencies. It has traditionally been an intranet. There has been an effort to change the platform for JNET so it could be used more readily through the internet but remain a secure site. That change requires additional security to be built into aspects of SGS web. It will work in this internet environment, but in a secure fashion. There are costs to make these changes as reflected in the SOW. However, the internet platform will allow individuals to easily access SGS web from the courtroom or bench and not require an individual to use a JNET terminal.

Mr. Bergstrom noted that the 2012 Annual Report is complete and posted on-line. A limited number of copies will be printed.

Ms. Lisle, Manager of the Information Access Unit, referred to the list of data set and data report requests found in the meeting materials. She continues to work with Dr. John Speir of Applied Research Services, on the simulation model. The unit continues to add reports to the on-line data access portal. A privacy policy is also being developed and will be presented to the Data Management and Access Committee.

The Executive Director expanded upon the work on the simulation model. There are three separate modules that are supposed to work in sync. The Commission has one for sentencing simulation. The Department of Corrections has another which is used for correctional population projections. The Board of Probation and Parole has the third which assists in case management. The original goal was that the models would flow from one to another and assist in developing population projections. Unfortunately, the modules are not complete or synced. Work has been slow.

The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD) set aside $250,000 in federal funds for an effort to improve the three modules or find a way to integrate them for better utility. During the last PCCD Research Committee meeting, it was recommended that $50,000 be used to review the three modules to determine their status and how best to move forward to improve their capacities. The remaining funds would be applied to implementing recommendations.

Research and Evaluation Committee Cynthia Kempinen, Research Director/Deputy Director, provided an update on the risk assessment project. To assist in the implementation of the risk assessment tool for offenders at Level 3 and 4, a survey was sent to all judges, district attorneys, public defenders, and probation officers in the four focus group counties (Allegheny, Blair, Philadelphia, and Westmoreland). This survey consisted of six offense scenarios using actual presentence




investigation reports. The surveys were varied according to two major dimensions: 1) how much information on risk is needed or wanted, i.e. a final score or all the detail, and 2) the type of contextual information that should be provided, i.e. an individual risk score in comparison to other risk scores. Additionally, the survey would help determine the preferable format such as text, graphic, or tables. The survey was sent in mid-July with two follow-up notices. Analysis has begun.

Additionally, a second internal study is underway. The Commission has focused on Level 3 and Level 4 offenders. This new analysis will include all five sentencing guideline levels. As a preliminary step, state identification numbers are obtained in order to procure criminal history records on offenders included in the study.

The Commission is also working with researchers at other universities. Professor Richard Berk at the University of Pennsylvania is using a forecasting method to analyze risk. Professor Al Blumstein at Carnegie Mellon is working with his class on risk assessment with Allegheny County. He is particularly interested in Prior Record Score and his theory of redemption. The Commission is providing a data set. The Pennsylvania State University’s Criminal Justice Research Center is studying Level 5 offenders.

Another project entailed analyzing data collected for the county sentencing project in terms of risk assessment. A few years ago, data were collected in a number of counties with a focus on time served and revocation practices. Other data items were collected to utilize in future risk assessment studies. Data included are not available in sentencing data or in rap sheets. They include whether a person was previously incarcerated, if a person has a substance abuse problem, or if a person has mental health issues. Four additional demographic and socio-economic factors were included: living status, marital status, education attainment, and employment. After analysis was undertaken with risk factors currently identified and used for level 3 and 4 offenders, these additional factors were incrementally included.

The factors currently used in the risk assessment scale were found to be the primary factors that explain recidivism, for this sample. Small additional benefits were gained by including education, employment, and living status. However, as it was a very small sample, it is not conclusive. Additional study is warranted before a decision to add additional risk factors to the scale is made.

Dr. Kempinen reported that it was the first time nationwide criminal history records were used in analysis. The records are in paper format and they are not standardized. It made the work challenging. However, it was interesting to find that offenders in the sample committed crimes in 22 different states, even though the majority was in states contiguous to Pennsylvania. It is possible that some of these offenders relocated. This aspect should be considered in future recidivism studies. It is important to identify out-of-state offenses for not only recidivism studies but for use in risk assessment in terms of public safety.

Executive Director Bergstrom added that the Commission is a state criminal justice agency but not considered a federal criminal justice agency. Other sentencing commissions are in the same position. While the Commission can access other states or FBI rap sheets, it cannot access them on-line. He plans to following up on efforts with Congress to sponsor legislation identifying state sentencing commissions as federal criminal justice agencies.

Additionally, there is a Ph.D. student at Penn State with an interest in DUI issues, and Professor Barry Ruback will work with him to study current DUI legislation, treatment requirements, and some other issues. They would partner with Department of Drug and Alcohol programs and Department of Transportation.

Dr. Kempinen concluded by reporting that work is underway on the biannual evaluation of state intermediate punishment. She thanked the Department of Corrections for providing information.

Outreach and Policy Support Committee Diane Shoop, Manager of the Outreach and Policy Support Unit, summarized the outreach activities from May through July 2013. Ms. Peters and Ms. Placey answered 233 inquiries for sentencing assistance and conducted five




seminars. They have scheduled seminars for the fall: four sentencing guidelines and sentencing in Pennsylvania seminars and four sentencing update seminars. There were more than 7,000 visits to the Commission website, The Monitor is in progress and will be published in September.

This week, Mr. Meyers and Ms. Xavios joined the Commission as Sentencing Policy Specialists.

The SGS Web User Questionnaire results were compiled. The report is provided in the Commission materials. There is a public version which is posted on the web site. An internal version contains a few more details.

Executive Director Bergstrom relayed that the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) scheduled two mini Sentencing Workshops, one in the east and one in the west, each a two day session. The format will be based on the Villanova model. However, the participants will be judges only. They will have cases to review in advance and propose sentences. Discussion will center on why and how judges arrived at their sentences and what issues are involved. Professor Chanenson and Mr. Bergstrom will facilitate while Ms. Peters and Ms. Placey will provide support. If the workshops are successful, it may be an activity for AOPC to consider in the future.

Dr. Shoop next addressed policy support activities. The amendment to the 7th Edition Guidelines was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin in June and will take effect September 27th if not rejected by the General Assembly. Materials will be posted on the Commission website by the end of the month. The commentary section may be delayed. The materials will only be published electronically. Notices that the materials are available will be emailed.

The State Parole Recommitment Workgroup will be meeting later this month to work on technical parole violator recommitment ranges.

Miscellaneous The Executive Director addressed the 2014 meeting schedule. Tentative dates for consideration include: March 5 and 6, June 4 and 5, September 3 and 4, and December 3 and 4. The format will remain the same with a Wednesday evening dinner meeting and Thursday morning policy meeting. The Commission will hold its quarterly meeting Thursday afternoon. If there is a need for public hearings, they can be held Wednesday morning or afternoon. Mr. Bergstrom noted that the State Parole Recommitment Workgroup may be ready to provide a product for the Commission to hold hearings in 2014 on recommitment ranges.

In closing, Mr. Bergstrom reported on the National Association of Sentencing Commissions’ conference held at the University of Minnesota Law School in August. It was more of an academic conference format with a focus on risk assessment and sentencing. Papers were presented and a respondent panel discussed. Panels were composed of practitioners, prosecutors, probation officers, and others. The first plenary session focused on risk assessment and sentencing. The second plenary session focused on the role and impact of criminal history in sentencing decisions, including the use of prior record for retribution as well as risk. The third plenary session dealt with revocations and other sanctions for violations of probation and parole. The papers and presentations are available on the NASC website. The Federal Sentencing Reporter, the journal for sentencing commissions and the U.S. Sentencing Commission, will most likely package some of the papers and make that available in printed form.

Overall, it was a good conference, well run, and not too expensive. Several sites are being considered for the 2014 conference: Salt Lake City, Utah; New Orleans, Louisiana; Connecticut; and Alaska. It is typically held the first week of August, Sunday through Tuesday.

Judge Woods-Skipper stated that the next Commission meeting will be held December 4 and 5 in Harrisburg.

The commission meeting adjourned at 2:01 p.m.


Commission Meeting Minutes: December 5, 2013


The public meeting of the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing was held on Thursday, December 5, 2013 at the Pennsylvania Judicial Center, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. with the following individuals in attendance:

Commission Members present: Professor Steven L. Chanenson, Chair; President Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper, Vice Chair; Judge Daniel J. Milliron; Defense Attorney Royce L. Morris; Senator John C. Rafferty, Jr.; Judge Jill E. Rangos; Representative John P. Sabatina, Jr.; District Attorney Francis J. Schultz; Representative Todd Stephens.

Ex Officio Members present: Jennifer Storm, Pennsylvania Victim Advocate

Commission Staff present: Mark H. Bergstrom, Executive Director; Dr. Cynthia A. Kempinen, Deputy Director/Research Director; Professor Joseph Sabino Mistick, Counsel; Cathy Dittman, Staff Assistant; Joan Lisle, Manager of Information Access; Ryan S. Meyers, Sentencing Policy Specialist; Carrie L. Peters, Sentencing Policy Specialist; Helene Placey, Sentencing Policy Specialist; Jodi Ripka, Office Manager; Dr. Diane E. Shoop, Manager of Outreach and Policy Support; Nancy S. Xavios, Sentencing Policy Specialist; Carol Zeiss, Manager, Data Management.

Guests present: Ryan T. Boop, Chief of Staff to Senator Rafferty; Carol Lavery, former PA Victim Advocate; and Casey Smith, staff member to Senator Leach.

Public Comment Period There were no comments.

Approval of Minutes Senator Rafferty moved to approve the September 5, 2013 Commission meeting minutes. Judge Rangos seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Commission Membership Chairman Chanenson welcomed the newly appointed Pennsylvania Victim Advocate, Jennifer Storm, to the Commission. She will serve as an ex officio member. He thanked Carol Lavery, former Pennsylvania Victim Advocate, for her five years of service on the Commission as an ex officio member. The Commission presented her with a plaque. Ms. Lavery gave remarks, thanked the Commission and its staff, and offered her support for and endorsement of Ms. Storm.

The Chairman also congratulated Judge Woods-Skipper who was recently unanimously elected to become President Judge of the First Judicial District.

Executive and Administrative Support Executive Director Bergstrom reported that the Commission continues to work toward adding two new positions: one with a focus on state parole and the other a 75% clerical support position, both out of the Harrisburg office. It is anticipated that the positions will be filled in the first quarter of 2014.

A service purchase contract position which is in place will be extended for six months. Mark Pieper, a former staff member of the Allegheny Courts, is working on data quality issues. His original contract will terminate December 31,

2013. Sufficient funding remains to cover that period.

Another service purchase contract was presented for consideration. It is based on a proposal from the University of Pennsylvania. While it was discussed at prior Commission meetings, it has been repackaged with a different source of funding for consideration. It is a two-year project, for $95,702. The study is a different and more sophisticated

Commission Meeting: March 6, 2014 Commission Meeting Notes: December 5, 2013: Page 1 of 6 URL: http://pasentencing.us Phone: 717.772.3776



approach to conducting research on risk assessment. It is more closely aligned with the work that the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole Board and the Department of Corrections have undertaken with Professor Richard Berk, University of Pennsylvania. It would be a worthwhile pilot project to better understand the next generation of risk assessment for use at sentencing.

The Chairman added that one of the project investigators is Dr. Jordan Hyatt, J.D., a former student of his and who co-authored articles about Pennsylvania risk with Mr. Bergstrom and with himself. The project staff members are familiar with the risk work of the Commission.

Senator Rafferty moved to approve the service purchase contract with the University of Pennsylvania in the amount of $95,702 for the research project Integrating Advanced Forecasting Methods into Sentencing Decisions. Representative Sabatina seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Turning to management and oversight, Executive Director Bergstrom noted that Professor Chanenson asked him to investigate whether there would be ways to recognize Commission staff for their service to the Commission. Some staff members have worked for the Commission for more than 20 years.

The Commission staff members are employees of The Pennsylvania State University, contracted to the Commission. The Commission itself is a legislative service agency. The Commission generally follows the University procedures for compensation. There are some gaps in which the service to the Commission as a state agency is not recognized by the University. The Commission does not currently do anything separately through the Commonwealth to recognize service to the Commission.

Mr. Bergstrom and Professor Mistick are reviewing the policies and procedures that are in place for Commission staff. They will put together a revised policy and procedure manual and some recommendations or suggestions concerning recognition of staff positions. It will be brought to the Commission through the Executive Administrative Support Committee and then to the Commission for adoption.

The Executive Director next addressed fiscal issues. First, copies of two recently completed fiscal audits were distributed to attendees: FY2011-2012 and the FY2012-2013. The findings are similar to those of the prior years.

Mr. Bergstrom responded to Judge Milliron’s question as to whether there were recommendations included in the reports. He briefly explained the history of the audits. The annual requirement for an outside fiscal audit originated with findings from the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee recommendation, based on their own audit. They recognized that while most funds and expenses go through the University, there are separate expenses paid directly through the Commission’s Commonwealth account based on decisions made by the Commission. Examples of these would include service purchase contracts or reimbursement for travel expenses to Commission members. Since then, the Commission annually publishes a request for proposal for an annual fiscal audit. Each year, ParenteBeard (or the entity’s predecessor) has won the bid.

He added that approximately three or four years ago, due to changes in the Federal Accounting Standards, language was added to the audit findings that state there are aspects that the auditors could not account for or could not address because they are internal to the operations of the Commission; their findings are based on information provided to them and reviewed; and they could not affirm they understood our internal operating procedures. As a safeguard, any kind of action items dealing with expenses of the Commission are brought to the Commission. Additionally, on a quarterly basis, a summary is sent to the Chairman for review of all of the financial items signed off by or any expenses that are paid to the Executive Director.

The Chairman suggested tabling a vote to accept the audits until March 2014 in order to give members sufficient time to review them. He added that while the annual request for proposals is sent to a number of agencies, ParenteBeard is the only respondent. Due to the small scale of the budget, it is difficult to attract other larger vendors. While satisfied with the current vendor, it is good business practice to engage others. The Chair asks that the Commission continue to offer suggestions to find additional interested vendors.




The Executive Director turned to the second fiscal item, the FY2013-2014 budget. The current operating budget was included in the Commission materials. It was recommended that funds be shifted between line items to accommodate anticipated expenditures.

The Chair noted that he is recusing himself from the vote as one of the modifications includes the Sentencing Workshop. The Vice Chair presided over the vote.

District Attorney Schultz moved to approve the modification to the Commission’s FY2013-2014 operating budget. Representative Stephens seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with Professor Chanenson abstaining.

Mr. Bergstrom addressed the third fiscal item, federal grants. The two continuation grants that the Commission approved during the September 2013 Commission meeting were included in the meeting materials as informational items: 1) Sentencing, Technical Assistance and Training Grant and 2) CJAB Technical Assistance Grant (a pass-through grant to the PA Commission on Crime and Delinquency.

The Executive Director also took the opportunity to report on a meeting held with Cross Current Corporation, the vendor for the SGS Web application. The focus was to expand the application to integrate risk assessment and to develop offender information. Aggregating sentencing information already in SGS Web by offender will be very useful in developing a risk score. It will also be necessary as the Commission moves forward in developing and then implementing parole and resentencing guidelines. Grant funds that must be expended by June 30, 2014 will be used in this work.

The Executive Director addressed the final fiscal item, the FY 2014-2015 budget request. It has been the Commission’s practice to adopt a budget request and submit it to the Governor’s Budget office with copies to the legislature. The request outlines the Commission’s work of the prior year and upcoming year. While the administration no longer asks for the budget request, the Commission continues to send it. A few years ago, as part of the efforts to ‘right size’ and identify appropriate levels of funding for legislative service agencies, the General Assembly Appropriations Committees’ leadership was involved in reviewing funding levels and has taken a lead in determining the Commission’s budget.

Therefore, Mr. Bergstrom proposes that a memo be submitted to the leadership, the Appropriations Committees, and the Judiciary Committees in the General Assembly requesting level funding for the next fiscal year. Two years ago, the Commission identified its baseline funding as $2.3 million. The FY2014-2105 request would be in the same amount. He continued that the Commission did not receive the $400,000 of the funding for the current year that was through a formula in the Justice Reinvestment Initiative funding. These funds were linked to reductions in state prison population, which did not occur. As no funds were saved due to a reduction, there were no funds to distribute. The budget request will note the lack of those soft funds for the current year.

Senator Rafferty asked that a copy of the budget request also be sent to Commission members who are members of the General Assembly.

Defense Attorney Morris moved to approve Commissions FY2014-2015 budget request of $2.3 million be submitted to the leadership, Appropriations Committees, and Judiciary Committees of the General Assembly with copies to Commission members of the General Assembly. District Attorney Schultz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Lastly, the Executive Director addressed the Commission meeting schedule for 2014. It is proposed that the Commission will meet the first week in March, June, September, and December. A dinner meeting will be held Wednesday evening, a policy meeting Thursday morning, and the full Commission meeting Thursday afternoon. It is anticipated that the Commission will hold its Thursday meetings at the Judicial Center and Wednesday dinners at the Hilton in Harrisburg. In the past, the Commission designated one meeting location as State College, devoted to strategic planning and visiting the Commission’s offices on campus.




The Chair stated that most of the staff members work from the University campus office and its research partnership is based there. He feels it is valuable to have the opportunity periodically to interact with the staff. The June meeting would be timely as there is more potential for the availability of hotel or campus space.

The Commission members who are members of the General Assembly noted that there are a number of session days scheduled for June devoted to the budget process. Senator Rafferty added that it will be a very difficult budget year as the Commonwealth is facing a $700 million to $1 billion structural deficit.

After discussion, it was determined that the meetings would be tentatively held in Harrisburg in 2014. However, if meeting space was available in September in State College, the meeting schedule would be modified and republished.

Senator Rafferty moved to approve the publication of the 2014 Commission meeting schedule of March 6, June 5, September 4, and December 4, with meetings held in Harrisburg. Judge Woods-Skipper seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Data Management and Information Access Committee Ms. Zeiss, Manager of the Data Management Unit, directed attention to the summary of offenses reported to the Commission. She noted that as of the end of October, the number of reported sentences was greater than the prior year. The Help Desk continues to be busy.

The Executive Director added that since about 2008, there was a fairly steady decline or leveling of the number of arrests and convictions and, subsequently, sentences reported to the Commission. Prior to that, there were steady increases each year. It is unknown if the increase in reported sentences for 2013 will continue. However, as about 14% of sentences are state incarceration, an increase in the total number of sentences will most likely result in an increase in state prison population. He added in response to District Attorney Schultz’s question that there are sentences that are not reported to the Commission. However, the Outreach and Policy Support Unit is working to identify those cases and work with counties.

Continuing, Ms. Zeiss advised that the most recent revision of reasons for sentencing outside the standard ranges of the sentencing guidelines was included in the meeting materials. Staff members met with Judge Rangos to streamline the list, reducing redundancy and eliminating inappropriate reasons. The list represents principal reasons for departures above or below the guidelines. Commission members were asked to review the listing and contact Ms. Zeiss if there were concerns. The list will replace the current listing in January.

Ms. Zeiss next addressed upcoming SGS Web enhancements. In addition to the project discussed earlier, two additional statements of work were prepared. One modifies theft offenses enabling the Commission to record motorized vehicle separately. It is in response to concerns raised by the Auto Theft Prevention Authority. Currently the theft offense includes stolen property exceeding $2,000, automobiles, airplanes, motorcycles, motorboats, etc. The change in SGS Web only modifies how the information is collected in SGS Web in order to separate auto theft from other major thefts. It does not change the Sentencing Guidelines. It will enable the Commission to track sentences for these types of thefts and do analysis.

The second statement of work modifies SGS Web to provide the ability to indicate that the prosecutor waived certain eligibility criteria.

Ms. Lisle, Manager of the Information Access Unit, referred to the list of data set and data report requests found in the meeting materials. There have been a number of requests but none out of the ordinary.

There are a number of other projects underway. She continues to work on the privacy policy. It will be presented to the Data Management and Information Access Committee before it comes to the full Commission. There was a software upgrade to the web-based sentencing reports. She expects a new version of the sentencing simulation model in the next week. She is updating the data request forms and protocols. Commission Meeting: March 6, 2014 Commission Meeting Notes: December 5, 2013: Page 4 of 6 URL: http://pasentencing.us Phone: 717.772.3776



Ms. Lisle noted that, while not involving her unit directly, staff members throughout the Commission are involved in the removal of social security numbers from data sets. It is a labor intensive project. It will require modification of programs used to extract data as well. Programs will also be modified to use both offense codes from the 7th Edition Amendment and prior Sentencing Guidelines. It is a time consuming project.

Mr. Bergstrom provided information on a project to be undertaken by the Criminal Justice Population Projections Committee. A number of years ago, the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency put forth a grant that funded the development of population simulations for use in population projections for the Department of Corrections, the Board of Probation and Parole, and the Commission on Sentencing. There are three separate modules that are supposed to work in sync. The Commission has one for sentencing simulation. The Department of Corrections has another which is used for correctional population projections. The Parole Board has the third which assists in case management. The original goal was that the models would flow from one to another and assist in developing population projections. Unfortunately, the modules are not complete or synced.

There is more work that needs to be done. The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency set aside $250,000 in federal funds for an effort to improve the three modules or find a way to integrate them for better utility. The Committee decided that $50,000 be used to review the three modules to determine their status, identify gaps or flaws, and recommend how best to move forward to improve their capacities. A Request for Proposals (RFP) will be issued either through the Commission or one of the other agencies. The remaining $200,000 will be available to implement recommendations. A separate vendor would be engaged via RFP for the implementation stage.

Research and Evaluation Committee Dr. Kempinen, Research Director/Deputy Director, provided an update on the risk assessment project during the Policy meeting in the morning. The beta testing will move forward based on providing the information rather than in terms of low or high risk categories. The Commission will undertake a second internal study on all sentencing guideline levels. Previously, analysis was focused on levels three and four. It may indicate further refinements can be made in terms of cells rather than levels.

Dr. Kempinen noted that the Commission’s Report to the Legislature on State Intermediate Punishment (SIP) is due by February. She found that SIP continues to be underutilized. About 27 percent of the offenders who are eligible actually get admitted in the program. The Commission made recommendations to the General Assembly several years ago to increase judicial discretion. The General Assembly made changes in eligibility by removing the requirement of defendant approval. It also modified offenses that were ineligible for SIP. Previously offenders convicted of personal injury crimes were ineligible for SIP. The legislature changed the requirement to designate specific violent offenses as ineligible. This modification expands the eligibility pool.

The current reports looks at what factors would best predict whether an offender will complete SIP and what factors predict recidivism. The study found that of offenders who complete SIP, DUI offenders perform better. These offenders actually perform better regardless of the type of sentence received. It is a consistent finding throughout the years. Another finding is that offenders with greater substance abuse problems, as defined by assessments by the Department of Corrections, are more likely to complete SIP. They were also less likely to recidivate regardless of whether they were sentenced to SIP or to incarceration.

In terms of overall recidivism, offenders completing SIP recidivate less during a six month to five year period than comparable offenders who were eligible for SIP but not accepted into SIP. However, when controlling for other factors such as age and number of prior arrests, the finding no longer holds. The study found that offenders expelled from SIP were more likely to recidivate than other offenders.

Dr. Kempinen noted that she would be working with Bret Bucklen of the Department of Corrections to obtain more information about the types of treatment offenders with greater substance abuse problems receive in state prison in order to control for that factor in future studies. Mr. Bergstrom added that a future study may include the use




of consecutive periods of probation to determine if it has any bearing on the success of the program. Statute authorizes the court to impose consecutive period of probation.

Senator Rafferty moved to approve the publication of the 2014 Report to the Legislature on State Intermediate Punishment with the update of the Commission member listing in the report. Judge Milliron seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Outreach and Policy Support Committee Dr. Shoop, Manager of the Outreach and Policy Support Unit, summarized the outreach activities from August through October 2013. Staff responded to more than 200 inquiries for sentencing assistance and conducted four seminars. The fall issue of the Monitor was published. There were more than 6,700 visits to the Commission website. Minutes from the Outreach and Policy Support Committee’s August and November meetings were provided in the meeting materials

Mr. Meyers and Ms. Xavios are primarily focused on the sentencing information quality work. One component involves determining if there are sentences reported to the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts in the Common Pleas Court Management System (CPCMS) but not reported in SGS Web. They will be contacting counties concerning those missing sentences for the first half of 2013. A second component will include the review of sentences to ensure that all offenses under an offense tracking number are reported in SGS Web. The third component will review the consistency of information across systems. It will compare key items in CPCMS against SGS Web and then SGS Web against sentencing orders.

Dr. Shoop referred Commission members to the policy-related meeting materials. Attachments included the new offense list, case law highlights, and an impact analysis for Senate Bill 28. The legislation enacted and legislation passed one chamber was slightly updated since materials were printed: House Bill 27 and House Bill 714 were enacted and Senate Bill 731 was referred to the Rules Committee. The opinions for the Commonwealth v. Cunningham were included as was the brief for Commonwealth v. Eiland.

The work group for state parole recommitment ranges provided its recommendations which were referred to the Policy Committee. Lastly, the Guideline Revision Work Group will be reconvened to look at House Bill 321 dealing with child pornography. It is expected to pass the General Assembly in the near future.

The Executive Director added that he previously mentioned that he and the Chair met with several district attorneys to discuss their concerns or interests in looking more fundamentally at the guidelines. They wanted to gauge support in making changes in sentencing guidelines similar to some of the federal guidelines. A few other parties may be brought in for an additional meeting in the near future.

Miscellaneous The 2014 National Association Sentencing Commission conference will be held August 3rd to 5th of 2014 in New Haven, Connecticut.

The Commission meeting adjourned at 2:17 p.m.


Commission Meeting Minutes: March 7, 2013 Post… · The public meeting of the Pennsylvania...

Documents

Transcript of Commission Meeting Minutes: March 7, 2013 Post… · The public meeting of the Pennsylvania...