Review of Guidelines Worksheet Structure – Data Analysis

2

Definition of a Prison Sentence Has Changed

Prison - 1 yr. or moreJail - 12 mos. or less

1990 20021992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Prison - more than 2 yrs.Jail - 2 yrs. or less

Abolition of parole

Prison - 1 yr. or moreJail - less than 1 yr.

Prison* - 1 yr. or moreJail* - 12 mos. or less

* policy of Virginia Department of Corrections

Prison - more than 6 mos.Jail - 6 mos. or less

Structure of current guidelines

3

Current Sentencing Guidelines Structure

Conviction

No Yes

Section C:Sentence Length

Recommendation -Incarceration > 6 months

Probation IncarcerationUp to 6 months

Section A:Incarceration > 6 monthsYes/No Recommendation

Section B:Probation or

Incarceration up to 6 months Recommendation

4

Study Objectives

Staff is conducting exploratory analysis to examine:

• the impact of the inconsistency between the structure of the guidelines and the definition of a prison sentence,

• the differences in jail versus prison sanctioning decisions,

• the impact of nonviolent risk assessment recommendations on sentencing decisions, and

• the feasibility of simplifying the guidelines while maintaining statistical power of the sentencing models. This leads to a consideration of different worksheet structures.

5

Exploration of Different Worksheet Structures

Study the possibility of revising worksheets to reflect current definition of a prison inmate:

• Section A- In/Out (Incarceration 1 Year or More)

• Section B- Prob. or Incarceration up to 12 Months

• Section C- Sentence Length (1 Year or More)

Study the possibility of reducing the number of worksheets from 3 to 2:

• Section A- Incarceration In/Out

• Section B- Sentence Length

Driven by historical sentencing data

6

Data Analysis

Staff is utilizing FY1999 – FY2003 Pre/Post-Sentence Investigation (PSI) data

• FY2003 is complete

• Only truth-in-sentencing cases are included

Analysis is being conducted by guidelines offense group

• First group analyzed was Schedule I/II drugs:

– Make up 32% of all guidelines cases

– Disposition and sentence length vary widely by primary offense

7

FY1999-2003 Drug Schedule I/II PSI Cases Analyzed

Primary Offense Number Percent

Incarceration Rate (Pct)

Possession/1st Offender 22,135 61.8 44.7

Imitation Schedule I/II 535 1.5 60.7

Accommodation Sale 961 2.7 70.2

Sale, PWID, etc/Sell to minors 11,484 32.0 77.8

Sale, PWID, etc – 2nd or subsequent*

713 2.0 89.9

Total 35,828 100.0 57.1

*Held out of analysis due to extremely high incarceration rate

8

Predictive Power of Disposition Models

Probation/Incar

Prob/Jail up to12 mos./ Prison

Prob/Incar upto 6 mos./Incar6 mos. or more

Optimal

9

Extralegal Factors Which Predict Disposition Outcome

Jury trial

Pre-trial status

Male offender

Nonwhite offender

Educational level

Drug abuse apparent

Committed for mental health treatment

Judicial region and circuit

10

Legal Factors Which Predict Disposition Outcome

Primary offense*

Primary offense additional counts*

Additional offenses*

Knife or firearm in possession at time of offense*

Mandatory firearm conviction for current event*

Prior convictions/adjudications*

Number of prior incarcerations*

Number of prior felony drug convictions*

* On current Drug Schedule I/II Section A worksheet

11

Legal Factors Which Predict Disposition Outcome (cont.)

Number of prior felony person convictions

Number of prior felony property convictions

Number of prior probation/parole revocations

Drug type/amount (1 gm or more of meth, cocaine, heroin)

Possession + 2 or more prior Schedule I/II felonies*

Legal restraint*

Number of prior misdemeanor convictions

* On current Drug Schedule I/II Section A worksheet

12

Exploration of Different Worksheet Structures in Drug Schedule I/II Cases

Is it feasible to reduce the number of worksheets from 3 to 2?

• A proposed sentencing model incorporating the legal factors was developed. Cases were scored on the accompanying worksheet and their scores were compared with their observed outcomes.

• Analysis showed that simplification of the worksheets can be achieved only at the expense of a loss in the statistical power of the sentencing model.

• Predictive accuracy of the proposed model peaked at 64% - lower than that achieved under the current model.

Exploring the possibility of revising the worksheets to reflect the current definition of a prison inmate appears to be a better strategy.

• Section A – In/Out (Incarceration 1 year or more)

• Section B – Probation or Incarceration up to 12 months

• Section C – Sentence Length (1 year or more)

13

Potential Sentencing Guidelines Structure

Conviction

No Yes

Section C:Sentence Length

Recommendation -Incarceration 1 Yr or more

Probation IncarcerationUp to 12 months

Section A:Incarceration 1 Yr or moreYes/No Recommendation

Section B:Probation or

Incarceration up to 12 months Recommendation