State Intermediate Punishment ProgramThe State Intermediate Punishment [SIP] Program is a two-year,...

Commission Members

2014 Report to the Legislature

Pennsylvania

Commission

on

Sentencing

Harrisburg Office:

408 Forum Building

Capitol Complex

Mail:

PO Box 1045

Harrisburg, PA

17108-1045

Phone:

717.772.3776

Fax:

717.772.8892

URL: http://pasentencing.us

Prof. Steven L. Chanenson

Chair

Hon. Sheila Woods-Skipper

Vice Chair

Mark H. Bergstrom

Executive Director

Pennsylvania’s State Intermediate Punishment

Program

January 2014

The Commission is an agency of the General Assembly affiliated with The Pennsylvania State University.

Todd Stephens

Montgomery County

Judge

Royce L. Morris

Defense Attorney

Dauphin County

The Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing was created in 1978 for the primary purpose of creating

a consistent and rational statewide sentencing policy to promote fairer and more uniform sentencing practices.

Michael C. Potteiger

Chairman

PA Board of Probation and Parole

Ex officio Members:

John E. Wetzel

Secretary

PA Department of Corrections

Jennifer Storm

PA Victim Advocate

Sheila A. Woods-Skipper

President Judge

Philadelphia County

Blair County Crawford County

Jill E. Rangos

Judge

Allegheny County

Villanova University School of Law

Daniel J. Milliron Francis J. Schultz

Judge District Attorney

Members selected by the Chief Justice of

Pennsylvania

Members selected by the Governor of

Pennsylvania

Rita Donovan Hathaway Steven L. Chanenson

Professor of Law

Westmoreland County

John C. Rafferty, Jr.

Senator (R) Representative (R)

Berks/Chester/ Montgomery Counties

Daylin B. Leach John P. Sabatina, Jr.

Senator (D) Representative (D)

Delaware/Montgomery Counties Philadelphia County

Professor Steven L. Chanenson, Chair

President Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper, Vice Chair

Members selected by the President Pro

Tempore of the Senate

Members selected by the Speaker of the House

of Representatives

COMMISSION MEMBERS

Pennsylvania’s

State Intermediate Punishment Program

2014 Report to the Legislature

Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing

The Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing would like to acknowledge the tremendous assistance provided by the staff at the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and the Pennsylvania State Police in the preparation of this report.

Pennsylvania’s State Intermediate Punishment Program: 2014 Report to the Legislature


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 1

Legislative Background ......................................................................................................................................... 2

Legislative Reports ................................................................................................................................................ 2

Eligibility for SIP .................................................................................................................................................... 2

Sentencing Guidelines for SIP ............................................................................................................................... 3

Legislative Changes to SIP ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Procedure for Referral to SIP ................................................................................................................................ 4

SIP Program Assessments ..................................................................................................................................... 5

The SIP Program .................................................................................................................................................... 5

Admissions to SIP ................................................................................................................................................. 6

Recidivism Study .................................................................................................................................................. 7

SIP Offender Characteristics ........................................................................................................................... 8

What Predicts Whether Offenders Will Complete SIP or Be Expelled ......................................................... 11

Are Offenders who Complete SIP Less Likely to Recidivate than Offenders Released from Prison? ........... 15

Summary and Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 21

Appendices

Appendix A Current Sentencing Guideline Rcommendations for State Intermediate Punishment .. ............... 24

Appendix B The Number of Offenders Eligible, Evaluated, and Sentenced to SIP by Year…………..…………………25

Appendix C. Logistic Regression Models by Year………………………..………………………………….…………..…………………26


1


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The State Intermediate Punishment [SIP] Program is a two-year substance abuse treatment program for eligible offenders sentenced to state prison.

The SIP program became effective in May 2005. As of July 2013:

o 17,363 offenders had been sentenced to the Department of Corrections who were statutorily eligible for the SIP Program

o 4,647 offenders (27%) had been evaluated for the SIP Program o Among those evaluated 3,579 offenders (77%) had been admitted to the SIP Program. Of those

admitted into the Program:

2,003 offenders (56%) had successfully completed the SIP Program

658 offenders (18%) had been expelled from the SIP Program 918 offenders (26%) were still enrolled in the SIP Program

As a result of concerns about the underutilization of SIP, the Commission had recommended that the Legislature review the ineligibility criteria for SIP, as well as allow greater discretion to the sentencing court for SIP consideration. Act 112 of 2012 revised statute to incorporate these recommendations. It is estimated that these changes will result in about a 16-19% increase in the number of offenders eligible for SIP.

Judges in 62 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties have sentenced offenders to the SIP program.

The majority of offenders approved for SIP were male, white, and had an average age of 35 years. Most offenders were convicted of drug delivery or DUI offenses. Most offenders had previously received substance abuse treatment and were at high or medium risk of re-offending.

Offenders were more likely to complete SIP if they were: older, female, not from Philadelphia County, convicted of a drug delivery or DUI offense, had fewer prior arrests, did not use heroin, and had a more serious substance abuse problem.

After three years, 38% of the SIP completers recidivated, compared to 71% of those who were expelled and 44% of those who were eligible for SIP but sentenced to prison instead. While offenders who completed SIP were less likely to recidivate than offenders sentenced to prison, this finding was not significant when controlling for other factors. However, offenders who were expelled from SIP were significantly more likely to recidivate that those who completed SIP or those who went to prison.

Offenders were also more likely to recidivate if they had been convicted of a property offense [compared to a drug delivery or DUI offense], had a greater number of prior arrests, were male, were younger, had a less serious substance abuse problem, and were from Philadelphia or Allegheny Counties.


2


LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND

The State Intermediate Punishment [SIP] Program is a two-year, step-down, substance abuse program for offenders sentenced to state prison. The impetus behind the creation of the SIP program was the General Assembly’s concern about the link between substance abuse and crime, and the finding that many persons commit crimes while under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. Additionally, the Legislature determined that many crimes are committed by persons who are unable to secure employment because of their substance abuse problem, and committing crime allows these people to secure the necessary funds to purchase their drugs and alcohol. The SIP program was viewed as a way to both enhance public safety and reduce recidivism by punishing offenders for the harm they have brought to their victims, while at the same time offering treatment as a mechanism for offenders to address their substance abuse issues. Toward that end, the General Assembly created the State Intermediate Punishment [SIP] Program via Act 112 of 2004, which was signed into law by Governor Rendell on November 19, 2004, and became effective on May 18, 2005.

LEGISLATIVE REPORTS

By statute, the Department of Corrections and the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing must monitor and evaluate the SIP program, with the Department submitting a report to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees in odd-numbered years and the Commission submitting a report to these committees in even-numbered years. The reports are to include six items [42 Pa.C.S. §9907]: (1) the number of offenders evaluated for the SIP program, (2) the number of offenders sentenced to the SIP program, (3) the number of offenders sentenced to a state prison who may have been eligible for the SIP program, (4) the number of offenders successfully completing the drug offender treatment program, (5) the six-month, one-year, three-year, and five-year recidivism rates for offenders who completed the SIP program and for offenders who were not placed in the SIP program, and (6) any recommended changes for improving the effectiveness of the SIP program.

ELIGIBILITY FOR SIP

State Intermediate Punishment primarily targets drug dependent offenders who would otherwise be serving an individual or aggregate minimum sentence of confinement in a state facility. Statute mandates that an eligible offender meet the following criteria:

The court designates the offender as a person convicted of a drug-related offense, including an individual convicted of 35 P.S. §780-13(a)(14), (30) or (37) where the sentence was imposed pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. §7508(a)(1)(i), (2)(i), (3)(i), (4)(i) or (7)(i) (relating to drug trafficking sentencing and penalties).

The offender must undergo an assessment performed by the DOC which has concluded that the defendant is in need of drug and alcohol addiction treatment.

The offender does not demonstrate a history of present or past violent behavior. The offender would be in the custody of the DOC if not otherwise sentenced to State IP. Individuals subject to the deadly weapon-used enhancement under the sentencing guidelines are

ineligible for SIP. Victims of personal injury crimes shall be given the opportunity to receive notice of and to provide

prior comment on any recommendation by the DOC that the offender participates in SIP. A person who has been convicted or adjudicated delinquent of a crime requiring registration

under 42 Pa.C.S. chapter 97, subchapter H (relating to registration of sexual offenders) is ineligible for SIP.


3


A person with a current conviction or with a prior conviction within the past ten years of any of the following offenses is ineligible for SIP:

18 Pa.C.S.§ 2502 (murder) 18 Pa.C.S.§ 2503 (voluntary manslaughter) 18 Pa.C.S.§ 2506 (drug delivery resulting in death) 18 Pa.C.S.§ 2901(a) (kidnapping) 18 Pa.C.S.§ 3301(a)(1)(i) (arson) 18 Pa.C.S.§ 3502 (burglary, house/person present) 18 Pa.C.S.§ 3701(a)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) (robbery) 18 Pa.C.S.§ 3702(robbery of motor vehicle) 18 Pa.C.S.§ 7508(a)(1)(iii), (2)(iii), (3)(iii) or (4)(iii) (drug trafficking)

The prosecuting attorney may advise the court that the Commonwealth has elected to waive the eligibility requirements if the victim has been given notice of the prosecutor’s intent to waive eligibility and an opportunity to be heard on the issue. The court, after considering victim input, may refuse to accept the prosecutor’s waiver of the eligibility requirements.

SENTENCING GUIDELINES FOR SIP

Act 112 of 2004 also mandated the Sentencing Commission to identify offenders who would be appropriate for SIP consideration. In accordance with its statutory mandate, the Sentencing Commission originally adopted sentencing guidelines that targeted drug dependent offenders who otherwise would be serving a minimum sentence of confinement in a state facility for 30 months or more. A 30-month minimum sentence was determined to be appropriate to ensure that drug dependent offenders who were eligible for the County Intermediate Punishment Program would not be sent to the state system for SIP consideration, and that a distinction be maintained between offenders who are considered appropriate for drug treatment through County Intermediate Punishment versus State Intermediate Punishment. [The guidelines became effective June 3, 2005].

Subsequently, however, the Commission revised the sentencing guidelines that provided for greater emphasis on the recommended place of confinement, rather than sentence length, for targeting the use of State Intermediate Punishment versus County Intermediate Punishment. The revised guidelines, which became effective December 5, 2008, recommend the consideration of State Intermediate Punishment in lieu of incarceration for eligible offenders who are sentenced to confinement in a state facility. [See Appendix A for Sentencing Guidelines text relevant to SIP.]

LEGISLATIVE CHANGES TO SIP

Historically, only about 27% of SIP eligible offenders have been referred and evaluated for the SIP Program.1 To address the concern about the underutilization of SIP, the Commission made several recommendations to the legislature that included revising the ineligibility criteria, and providing greater discretion to the judge. Subsequently, the legislature passed legislation that incorporated the following recommended changes to SIP [Act 112 of 2012]:

Revised the ineligible offense criteria [effective 7/1/2013]

1 See “State Intermediate Punishment Program: 2013 Performance Report” by the Pennsylvania Department of

Corrections. Also, The Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing states in this current report that since the inception of the program, about 27% of the SIP eligible offenders were referred and evaluated for SIP.


4


o Offenders had been ineligible if convicted of a personal injury offense as defined in the Crime Victims Act [18 P.S. 11.103]. This was replaced with a list of specific ineligible offenses to allow for offenders convicted of less serious offenses to be eligible [e.g., simple assault, for which offenders often receive probation] [61 Pa.C.S. §4103]

o Offenders sentenced under the mandatory drug statute had been eligible for SIP. The revision restricts the eligibility to offenders convicted under the first tier [e.g., 2 to less than 10 grams] [61 Pa.C.S. §4103]

Removed the requirement of an agreement of the defendant during the referral process [61 Pa.C.S. §4104 (a)] 2 [effective 9/4/2012]

Removed the agreement of the defendant as a prerequisite for the commitment of an eligible offender to SIP [61 Pa.C.S. §4104 (d)] 2 [effective 9/4/2012]

Estimated impact of legislative changes. Based upon the changes to the eligibility criteria, it is estimated that there would be an increase of 16%-19% in the number of SIP eligible offenders per year, depending upon whether sentence length is considered in the estimate. 3 The actual number of additional offenders per year is estimated to range from about 369 to 994. The lower number [n=369] reflects the number of additional offenders if only offenders who received a minimum sentence of 24 months or greater are included in the estimate. The higher number [n=994] does not take sentence length into consideration.

PROCEDURE FOR REFERRAL TO SIP

Prior to sentencing an offender to the SIP Program, the court, upon motion of the District Attorney commits the offender to the Department of Corrections [DOC] for comprehensive drug and alcohol and risk assessments.4 The following information is forwarded by the court to assist the DOC in their evaluation: (a) a summary of the offense for which the defendant was convicted, (b) information about the defendant’s criminal history, (c) information about the defendant’s history of drug or alcohol abuse, (d) a presentence report, and (e) any other relevant information. The Sentencing Commission has also arranged via the JNET structure to provide the DOC the ability to access the sentencing guideline forms for offenders being considered for the program, which provide additional case, offense, and criminal history information.5

The DOC evaluation must be based on valid, nationally recognized, instruments that assess drug and alcohol addiction, as well as crime risk assessments. These evaluations are to be conducted by persons skilled in the treatment of drug and alcohol addictions and trained to conduct assessments. The Department’s assessment of the defendant’s eligibility for the program and treatment recommendation must be provided to the court, the defendant, the District Attorney, and the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing within 60 days of the defendant’s commitment to the Department. The court may then

2 The Commission had also recommended that this apply to the district attorney as well, though the legislation did not

incorporate this change. 3 The estimates are based upon sentences reported to the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing from May 2005 through

December 2012. 4 The original legislation provided that there be agreement of the defendant. Act 122 of 2012 removed that provision.

5 JNET (Justice Network) is a secure virtual system for the sharing of offender records and other justice information by statewide

approved users.


5


sentence the offender to a period of 24 months of SIP. Males sentenced to the SIP program are sent to SCI Chester or to the Quehanna Boot Camp, while females are sent to SCI Cambridge Springs.

SIP PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS

Treatment recommendations by staff from the Department of Corrections are based on information from the county, an interview with the defendant, and four assessment instruments. Information from the county may include, depending on availability, the Pre-Sentence Investigation, the Criminal Complaint, the Order of Court Sentence, the Affidavit of Probable Cause, and the Inmate Commitment Summary Report. The four assessment instruments used by the Department of Corrections are: (1) the Risk Screen Tool, (2) the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified, (3) the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire, and (4) the Texas Christian University Drug Screen II.

The Risk Screen Tool (RST) tool was internally developed, and validated, to determine an offender’s risk for future criminal conduct. Higher scores are related to higher rates of recidivism. This tool, which went into effect in 2008, replaced The Level of Service Inventory (LSI-R), which was used previous to the RST.

The Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified (CSS-M) measures criminal attitudes and values that have been linked to antisocial behavior. Higher scores on the CSS-M indicate higher levels of criminal attitudes and values.

The Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire (HIQ) measures an offender’s propensity toward anger/hostility. Research indicates that higher scores on the HIQ are related to a greater predisposition to hostility/anger, which is linked to criminal conduct, including violence.

The Texas Christian University Drug Screen II (TCU) is a comprehensive instrument for assessing alcohol and drug use in an offender population. Higher scores on the TCU Drug Screen indicate more serious substance abuse problems.

THE SIP PROGRAM

There are four phases to the 24 month SIP Program, allowing for a gradual step-down of treatment:

Phase I: a minimum of 7 months incarceration in a state correctional institution that includes a minimum of 4 months in an institutional therapeutic community

Phase II: a minimum of 2 months in a community based therapeutic community

Phase III: a minimum of 6 months in an outpatient addiction treatment facility

Phase IV: supervised reintegration into the community for the balance of the 24 months

Upon successful completion of the program, the Department notifies the judge, district attorney, and Sentencing Commission. If the offender is expelled from the program, the Department also notifies the judge, district attorney, and Sentencing Commission and then holds the offender in prison or jail until a revocation hearing is scheduled. Upon revocation, the court may sentence the offender to the sentencing options available at the initial sentencing. The Department provides a final report on the offender to the judge, district attorney, defendant, and Sentencing Commission. Under the statute, the Department is given maximum flexibility to administer the treatment program, both as a whole and for individual participants. The Department has the right to refuse to admit a participant to a community-based


6


NUMBER PERCENT

Total DOC Admissions 89100

Eligible for SIP 17363 19.4

Evaluated for SIP 4647 26.8

Sentenced to SIP 3579 77.0

Completed 2003 56.0

Expelled 658 18.4

Still Enrolled 918 25.6

Table 1. Offenders Eligible, Evaluated,and Sentenced to SIP

[May 2005 - July 2013]

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Figure A. Percent of Offenders Eligible, Evaluated, and Sentenced to SIP by Year [2006-2012]

Sentenced

Evaluated

Eligible

therapeutic community or outpatient addiction treatment facility, and may expel a participant from the program for failing to comply with administrative or disciplinary procedures.

ADMISSIONS TO SIP

Act 112 of 2004 mandated that the SIP Report provide information on the number of offenders who were eligible, evaluated, and sentenced to SIP, as well as the number who successfully completed the program. Table 1 shows that since the inception of the program in May 2005 through July 2013, there were: 89,100 offenders sentenced to the Department of Corrections and that 19% [n=17,363] were eligible for the program. 6 Of those eligible, 27% [n=4,467] were referred and evaluated for SIP and of those evaluated, 77% [n=3,579] were sentenced to SIP. The DOC reports that the major reason referred offenders are not admitted into the program is due to detainers or other outstanding legal action. 7 Among those sentenced to SIP, 56% completed the program [n=2003], 18% were expelled [n=658], and 26% [n=918] were still enrolled in the program. Figure A shows the percentage of offenders who were eligible, evaluated, and sentenced to SIP by year. [The graph excludes 2005 and 2013 as they were partial years]. The percentage of offenders sentenced to DOC who were eligible for SIP has remained essentially the same, at 19%, since the program began. The percentage of eligible offenders who were evaluated fluctuated somewhat, ranging from a high of 32% in

6 The criteria DOC used to determine eligibility were: 1) not convicted of ineligible offense, 2) had a minimum sentence of 24

months or longer, and 3) had a TCU drug screen score of 3 or above, indicating AOD dependence. 7 State Intermediate Punishment Program: 2013 Performance Report. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.


7


2007 to a low of 22% in 2011. The percentage of offenders evaluated who were sentenced to SIP stayed similar throughout the years, averaging 77%, though that percentage did drop during 2012 to 72%. [See Appendix B for the number of offenders eligible, evaluated, and sentenced to SIP by year].

RECIDIVISM STUDY

As recidivism reduction was one of the major goals behind the creation of the SIP Program, a focus of this report is a study we conducted to determine whether offenders who attend the SIP Program are less likely to commit future crime than offenders who are sentenced to prison. In our recidivism analysis we compared three groups of offenders: SIP eligible offenders who were sentenced to prison rather than SIP, SIP eligible offenders who were admitted and completed the program, and SIP eligible offenders who were admitted and expelled from the program. Since offenders who were admitted into SIP were divided into completions and expulsion, we first conducted analysis to determine whether there were differences between offenders who completed SIP compared to those who were expelled.

Study Sample

For the current study we used offenders who were admitted to SIP from May 2005 through December 2010, and completed or were expelled from the program between September 2007 and December 2012. For the prison group, we used offenders who were released between September 2007 and December 2012. This allowed for a minimum six month tracking period. [While we used a three year tracking period for the recidivism study, we included offenders who could be tracked for six months as this was one of the time periods for which the Legislature requested recidivism rates].

A matching procedure was conducted in order to determine which offenders sentenced to prison would comprise the comparison group so that it would be as comparable as possible to the SIP group. First, the Department of Corrections provided us with a file of offenders admitted to the DOC and who were released under regular parole between September 2007 and December 2012. We selected out those offenders who had an SIP eligible offense, had received a minimum sentence of 2 years or greater, came from counties that utilized the SIP option, and had a TCU score of three or greater. Second, we used this group of offenders to further match the comparison group with the SIP group on the following factors: county, age, race, gender, prior arrests, current conviction offense, and TCU Score.8 The sample consisted of 4,374 offenders, with 2,187 having been sentenced to SIP, and 2,187 sentenced to traditional prison. We used this sample of 2,187 SIP offenders to examine the predictors of program completion.

8 We used propensity score matching to select the sample of offenders sentenced to prison, which provides as comparable a

group to SIP offenders as possible. The propensity score is computed using logistic regression and is the predicted probability of being sentenced to SIP controlling for multiple offender characteristics. Cases are then matched on their propensity score ranging from 0 and 1. In this analysis we used one to one matching without replacement meaning each offender sentenced to SIP is matched with only one SIP eligible offender and each SIP eligible offender could only be matched once. We found, however, that even after the matching procedure, there were differences between the two groups. Thus, we controlled for these factors in our analysis.


8


SIP OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS

Of the 2,187 SIP offenders in our study, 1,776 [81%] successfully completed the program, and 411 were expelled [19%].9 The major reasons for expulsion were: escaping or failure to report to a community corrections center or treatment services [31%], behavioral issues [24%], and relapse [17%].

Table 2 provides a description of the offenders who were admitted into the SIP program during the timeframe of our study [completed or expelled between September 2007 and December 2012]. Judges in 62 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties had sentenced offenders to the SIP program, with the highest percentage coming from Philadelphia [18%], Lackawanna [7%], Washington [6%], Dauphin [5%], and Lancaster [5%] Counties. The majority of these offenders were male [79%], white, [66%], and had an average age of 35 years. Most offenders were convicted of drug delivery [49%] or driving under the influence [23%] offenses. Additionally, a large percentage of the offenders had been previously arrested for a drug offense [63%]. The Department of Corrections conducts an evaluation on offenders referred to SIP to determine if they are in need of treatment and would benefit from the program. These reports, which are provided to the Sentencing Commission, contain information on type of substance abuse, age at first use, frequency of use, previous treatment, and current treatment recommendations. The majority of offenders used multiple substances, with the most common substances being alcohol [87%], marijuana [59%], cocaine [42%], crack [41%] and heroin [31%]. However, offenders were more likely to report crack [23%] or heroin [31%] as their most serious substance compared to alcohol [16%] or marijuana [15%]. The percentage of offenders who used alcohol or drugs on a daily basis ranged from 14% [cocaine] to 36% [marijuana]. Offenders reported starting to use alcohol and marijuana at a young age [mean age =15 years], while they were older when they first used cocaine, heroin, and crack, [mean ages = 20, 24, and 23, respectively]. About 76% of the offenders had previously received substance abuse treatment, with an average of about 3 previous treatment episodes. The vast majority of offenders reported having successfully completed at least one type of treatment program in the past. The most common physical problems experienced by the offenders as a result of their drug use were increased tolerance [96%], morning use [72%], blackouts [67%], withdrawal symptoms [48%], and mood swings [42%]. Based upon the RST risk assessment tool used by the Department of Corrections to determine the offender’s risk for future criminal activity, half of the offenders [50%] were at medium risk of re-offending, while the remaining offenders were split between high [24%] and low [26%] risk. Based upon the TCU score used to assess substance abuse, most offenders had a serious problem with drugs and/or alcohol [mean score of 6.9 on ten point scale].

With respect to program recommendations, all of the offenders were recommended for the therapeutic community. Other programs that were most recommended were violence prevention [61%], vocational evaluation [22%], Thinking for a Change [13%], and education participation [11%].

9 These numbers are based upon letters received from the DOC indicating when an offender has successfully completed the

program and when an offender has been expelled.


9


Table 2. Offenders Sentenced to the State Intermediate Punishment Program [N=2,187]

COUNTY NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT

Adams 34 2% Tioga 8 0%

Allegheny 87 4% Union 10 0%

Armstrong 8 0% Venango 66 3%

Beaver 21 1% Warren 5 0%

Bedford 7 0% Washington 131 6%

Berks 11 1% Wayne 2 0%

Blair 65 3% Westmoreland 66 3%

Bradford 26 1% Wyoming 2 0%

Bucks 39 2% York 45 2%

Butler 39 2%

Cambria 3 0% GENDER

Cameron 2 0% Male 1718 79%

Carbon 3 0% Female 469 21%

Centre 12 1%

Chester 32 1% RACE

Clearfield 3 0% White 1440 66%

Clinton 7 0% Black 550 25%

Columbia 1 0% Hispanic 197 9%

Crawford 14 1%

Cumberland 22 1% AGE

Dauphin 112 5% 18-21 155 7%

Delaware 69 3% 22-29 688 31%

Elk 8 0% 30-39 665 30%

Erie 3 0% 40-49 468 21%

Fayette 73 3% 50 and older 211 10%

Forest 2 0% Mean 34.5

Franklin 73 3%

Fulton 12 1% CURRENT CONVICTION OFFENSE

Greene 32 1% drugs 1074 49%

Huntingdon 23 1% dui 509 23%

Indiana 5 0% theft/forgery 419 19%

Jefferson 35 2% other 185 8%

Juniata 5 0%

Lackawanna 154 7% PRIOR ARREST

Lancaster 113 5% no 156 7%

Lawrence 22 1% yes 2031 93%

Lehigh 5 0% Mean number of arrests5.2

Luzerne 8 0%

Lycoming 34 2% TYPE OF PRIOR ARREST

Mercer 22 1% Drug 1384 63%

Mifflin 39 2% DUI 770 35%

Monroe 21 1% Property 1335 61%

Montgomery 70 3% Person 805 37%

Northampton 12 1%

Northumberland 22 1%

Perry 1 0%

Philadelphia 386 18%

Pike 2 0%

Potter 7 0%

Schuylkill 23 1%

Snyder 8 0%

Somerset 13 1%

Susquehanna 2 0%


10


Table 2 [cont.]. Offenders Sentenced to the State Intermediate Punishment Program [N=2,187]

NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT

DRUG TYPE [current] REPORTED PROBLEMS WITH DRUGS [n=1744]

Alcohol 1908 87% Tolerance 1680 96%

Marijuana 1290 59% Blackouts 1167 67%

Cocaine 924 42% Morning use 1249 72%

Crack 888 41% Withdrawal symptoms 830 48%

Heroin 668 31% Mood swings 734 42%

Missing 443

DRUG TYPE [most serious]

Alcohol 349 16% ASSESSMENT SCORES

Marijuana 337 15% RST Score

Cocaine 270 12% High 351 24%

Crack 506 23% Medium 746 50%

Heroin 668 31% Low 382 26%

Missing 708

DAILY USE OF SUBSTANCE HIQ Score

Alcohol 687 31% High 633 32%

Marijuana 787 36% Medium 672 34%

Cocaine 304 14% Low 663 34%

Crack 418 19% Missing 219

Heroin 524 24% CSS-M Score

High 564 26%

AGE AT FIRST USE [mean] Medium 627 29%

Alcohol 15 Low 972 45%

Marijuana 15 Missing 24

Cocaine 20 TCU Score

Crack 24 3 171 8%

Heroin 23 4 56 3%

5 59 3%

PREVIOUS TREATMENT 6 786 36%

Yes 1646 76% 7 271 12%

No 520 24% 8 273 12%

Missing 21 9 571 26%

Mean 3.2 Mean 6.9

Missing 542

RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS [n=2040]

PREVIOUS TYPE OF TREATMENT Therapeutic community 2040 100%

Inpatient/Residential 1137 52% Violence Prevention 1247 61%

Intensive Outpatient 313 14% Vocational Evaluation 450 22%

Outpatient 996 46% Thinking for a Change 259 13%

Detox 255 12% Education Participation 218 11%

Employment Preparation 53 3%

SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF PREVIOUS TREATMENT Decision Making 121 6%

Inpatient/Residential 1018 90% Missing 144

Intensive Outpatient 234 75%

Outpatient 738 74%

Detox 233 91%


11


WHAT PREDICTS WHETHER OFFENDERS WILL COMPLETE SIP OR BE EXPELLED?

Table 3 provides the findings from the bivariate analysis which found the following factors to be related to program completion: gender, race, age, county, offense, prior arrests, drug type, drug use frequency, and scores on the four assessment scales. More specifically:

Females [86%] were more likely than males [80%] to complete SIP.

White offenders [79%] were more likely than Black [71%] or Hispanic offenders [59%] to complete the program.

Older offenders [mean age=35] were more likely than younger offenders [mean age=32] to complete SIP.

Offenders from Philadelphia County [29%] were more likely to be expelled from SIP than offenders from other urban [16%] or rural [18%] counties.

Offenders convicted of DUI [92%] were more likely to complete SIP than offenders convicted of drug [81%] or property [75%] crimes.

Those offenders with fewer prior arrests were more likely to complete SIP.

Offenders whose most serious substance was alcohol were most likely to complete SIP, while offenders whose most serious substance was heroin were least likely [90% vs. 77%].

Offenders who had used drugs daily were more likely to be expelled from SIP, particularly when the drug was heroin, crack, or marijuana.

Offenders who were assessed to be at low risk [RST Assessment] for recidivism were more likely to complete SIP [96%] than those who were medium [78%] or high [53%] risk.

Offenders who scored low on the criminal attitude scale [CSSM Score] were more likely to complete SIP [84%] than those who scored medium [80%] or high [77%].

Offenders who scored low on the anger scale [HIQ] were more likely to complete SIP [83%] than those who scored medium [80%] or high [79%].

Offenders who were assessed to have more serious substance abuse problems [TCU] were more likely to complete the program.


12


Completed Expelled Completed Expelled% % N N TOTAL N

OVERALL 81% 19% 1776 411 2187

GENDER **Male 80% 20% 1375 343 1718Female 86% 15% 401 68 469

RACE ***

White 84% 16% 1210 230 1440Black 77% 23% 425 125 550Hispanic 72% 28% 141 56 197

AGE ***

18-21 76% 24% 118 37 15522-29 76% 24% 521 167 68830-39 82% 18% 544 121 665 40-49 87% 13% 406 62 46850 and older 89% 11% 187 24 211

AGE [mean] *** 35.2 31.9

COUNTY ***Philadelphia 71% 29% 274 112 386 Allegheny 91% 9% 79 8 87Urban 84% 16% 654 128 782Rural 83% 17% 769 163 932

OFFENSE ***Drug 81% 19% 868 206 1074Driving under the Influence 92% 8% 467 42 509Property 75% 25% 315 104 419Other 68% 32% 126 59 185

PRIOR ARRESTS ***No 91% 9% 142 14 156Yes 81% 20% 1634 397 2031

NUMBER OF PRIOR ARRESTS *** 4.8 6.8

PRIOR ARREST TYPEDUI ***

No 78% 22% 1103 314 1417Yes 87% 13% 673 97 770

Drug ***No 88% 12% 704 99 803Yes 78% 23% 1072 312 1384

Property ***No 83% 17% 749 103 852Yes 78% 22% 1027 308 1335

Personal ***No 88% 12% 1151 231 1382Yes 77% 23% 625 180 805

DRUG TYPE [most serious drug]***Alcohol 90% 10% 313 36 349Marijuana 80% 20% 269 68 337Cocaine 86% 14% 232 38 270Crack 79% 21% 400 106 506Heroin 77% 23% 516 152 668

Table 3. Bivariate Results for Offenders Completing SIP vs. Expelled from SIP [N=2187]


13


Table 3. [Cont.] Bivariate Results for Offenders Completing SIP vs. Expelled from SIP [N=2187]

Completed Expelled Completed Expelled% % N N TOTAL N

AGE AT FIRST USE [Mean] 20.8 20.1 1629 374 2003Missing 184

FREQUENCY OF USE ***Daily 79% 21% 993 271 1264Less than daily 85% 15% 783 140 923

FREQUENCY OF USE

Alcohol #daily 83% 17% 570 117 687less than daily 82% 18% 848 190 1038rarely or never 77% 23% 358 104 462

Marijuana ***daily 76% 24% 597 190 787less than daily 83% 17% 294 61 355rarely or never 85% 15% 885 160 1045

Crack **daily 75% 25% 315 103 418less than daily 82% 18% 278 60 338rarely or never 83% 17% 1183 248 1431

Cocainedaily 80% 20% 244 60 304less than daily 80% 20% 359 91 450rarely or never 82% 18% 1173 260 1433

Heroin *** daily 76% 24% 398 126 524less than daily 79% 21% 48 13 61rarely or never 83% 17% 1330 272 1602

RECEIVED PRIOR TREATMENTYes 81% 20% 1325 321 1646No 84% 16% 435 85 520Missing 21

NUMBER OF PRIOR TREATMENTS 3.2 3.1Missing 542

ASSESSMENT TOOLSRST Score ***

Low 95.8% 4.2% 366 16 382Medium 77.5% 22.5% 578 168 746High 52.7% 47.3% 185 166 351Missing 708

CSSM Score**Low 84.2% 15.8% 818 154 972Medium 80.4% 19.6% 504 123 627High 77.3% 22.7% 436 128 564Missing 24

HIQ Score**Low 83.1% 16.9% 551 112 663Medium 80.4% 19.6% 540 132 672High 79.3% 20.7% 502 131 633Missing 219

TCU Score ***Medium 60% 40% 172 114 286High 84% 16% 1604 297 1901mean *** 7.0 6.2

* Significant at .05 level ** Significant at .01 level *** Significant at .001 level # marginally significant at .10 level


14


In Table 4, we show the results of the next level of analysis, which involved several multivariate models that considered the significant factors simultaneously to determine those that best predict successful program completion. Multivariate models are needed in order to determine whether the relationship between two variables is real and important, even after controlling for the other variables.

In Model 1, we considered two major legal variables that are utilized at sentencing: offense and prior record. In Model 2, we introduced variables related to substance abuse: the most serious drug used, frequency of use, and extent of substance abuse [TCU assessment score]. In Model 3, we introduced two assessment scales: HIQ [anger scale] and CSSM [criminal attitudes scale]. In Model 4, we introduced four demographic variables: age, gender, race, and county.

The findings from these models indicate that offenders with the following characteristics were more likely to complete the SIP Program:

Offenders convicted of a DUI or drug offense were more likely than property offenders to complete the program.

Offenders who had fewer prior arrests were more likely to complete the program.

Offenders who used heroin were less likely than offenders who used crack or cocaine to complete the program.

Offenders with more serious substance abuse problems [TCU score] were more likely to complete the program.

Offenders who were older were more likely to complete the program.

Females were more likely than males to complete the program.

Offenders from Philadelphia were less likely than offenders from other urban counties to complete the program.

The HIQ Anger Scale, CSSM Criminal Attitudes Scale and race did not predict program completion. The finding for Frequency of Use, with offenders who used drugs daily being less likely to complete the program, approached significance. [See Appendix C for logistic regression model.]


15


Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 3R

2=.081 R

2=.156 R

2=.159 R

2=.194

Legal

Variables

Add Substance

Abuse

Variables

Add

Addessment

Scores

Add

Demographic

Variables

Legal Variables

Current Offense [convicted of DUI or drug compared to property] *** *** *** ***Prior arrests [fewer prior arrests] *** *** *** ***

Substance Abuse VariablesMost serious current drug type [heroin least likely] ** ** **Frequency of use [daily] * * #

TCU [more severe substance abuse problem] *** *** ***

Assessment Scores VariablesHIQ Anger Scale no no

CSSM Criminal Attitudes Scale no no

Demographic VariablesAge [older] ***

Gender **Race [White compared to Black or Hispanic] noCounty **

NOTES:

Model 1 includes the two major legal factors: current offense and prior arrests.Model 2 add the substance abuse factors.Model 3 adds the assessment tools used by the DOC.Model 4 adds extra-legal factors: age, gender, race, county.


Table 4. Factors that predict successful completion of SIP [N=2187]

RECIDIVISM:

ARE OFFENDERS WHO COMPLETE SIP LESS LIKELY TO RECIDIVATE THAN OFFENDERS RELEASED

FROM PRISON?

Act 114 of 2004 mandated that the six-month, one-year, three-year, and five-year recidivism rates be provided for offenders who completed the SIP program in comparison to a comparable group of offenders who went to prison. Table 5 shows the recidivism rates for these time periods, as well as the two-year and four-year recidivism rates. We measure recidivism as either a return to prison or an arrest for a new crime. The SIP offender is not released to parole, and thus, cannot be returned to prison for a technical violation. However, since offenders sentenced to prison can be returned for a technical violation, we include those in our calculation for recidivism to avoid them being erroneously included as successes.

For all six tracking periods, the recidivism rates for offenders who completed SIP were lower than for those offenders who went to prison. Furthermore, the recidivism rates of offenders who were expelled


16


PERCENT NUMBER TOTAL

NUMBER

Prison Prison

Completion Expulsion Completion Expulsion

[n=1776] [n=411] [n=2187] [n=1776] [n=411] [n=2187] [N=4374]

6 Months ***

Recidivated 8.3 24.3 11.7 148 100 256 504

Did not Recidivate 91.7 75.7 88.3 1628 311 1931 38704374

1 Year ***

Recidivated 18.0 43.1 23.6 292 154 452 898


39022 Year ***

Recidivated 29.9 62.8 36.0 380 167 496 1043


3 Year ***

Recidivated 37.8 70.5 44.4 330 110 404 844


1939

4 Year ***

Recidivated 43.5 76.5 51.3 208 52 254 514


1041

5 Year ***

Recidivated 41.4 81.8 60.6 67 9 132 208


391

*** Statistically significant at .001 level

SIP SIP

Table 5. Recidivism Rates of Matched Sample

from SIP were higher than for offenders who either went to prison or had completed SIP. 10 Figure B shows the cumulative recidivism rates of the three groups after three years. [We graph these survival rates after three years, since only 24% of the sample is tracked for four years, and 9% for five years.]

10

We also looked at the recidivism rates with the expulsion removed, and the finding that offenders who completed SIP were less

likely to recidivate than comparable offenders who go to prison remained significant for all six time periods.


17


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

0 6 12 18 24 30 36

Pe

rce

nt

Months

Figure B. Cumulative Recidivism Rate after Three Years

SIP Expelled

Prison

SIP Completed

Though these recidivism rates are based upon a matched sample of SIP and prison offenders, we conducted further analysis to determine whether this finding held when controlling for all variables simultaneously. The analysis also informs us what other variables are related to recidivism. For this analysis we only used offenders who could be tracked for three years to allow for a large enough number of offenders to do the analysis.

We first conducted the bivariate analysis on all of our variables to determine which factors should be considered in the model. Table 6 shows that, after three years, offenders were more likely to recidivate if:

they were released from prison [44%] or expelled from SIP [71%] than if they successfully completed SIP [38%]

they were male [45%] compared to female [37%]

they were Black [50%] or Hispanic [49%] compared to white [40%]

they were younger [32 vs. 36 years of age]

they were from Philadelphia [55%] or Allegheny [57%] compared to other urban [40%] or rural [40%] counties

they had a less severe substance abuse problem [6.5 vs. 6.9]

they were convicted of a property offense [52%] compared to a drug [43%] or DUI offense [28%]

they had a greater number of arrests [6.3 vs. 4.5].


18


Success Failure Success Failure Success Failure Success Failure% % N N % % N N

Group *** Prior Arrests ***Completed SIP 62% 38% 544 330 no 73% 27% 120 45Expelled from SIP 30% 71% 46 110 yes 55% 45% 975 799Released from prison 56% 44% 505 404

Number of prior arrests ***

Gender ** 0 73% 27% 120 45

Male 55% 45% 835 689 1-5 62% 38% 647 395

Female 63% 37% 260 155 6-10 49% 51% 246 258

11-15 35% 65% 56 105Race *** 16-20 43% 57% 20 26

White 60% 40% 734 488 21 or more 29% 71% 6 15

Black 50% 50% 272 269 Mean *** 4.5 6.3 1095 844

Hispanic 51% 49% 89 87

Prior DRUG ***

Age *** No 66% 34% 455 234

18-21 38% 62% 53 86 Yes 51% 49% 640 610

22-29 48% 52% 302 326

30-39 58% 43% 343 254 Prior DUI ***

40-49 66% 34% 272 141 No 54% 46% 722 624

50 and older 77% 23% 125 37 Yes 63% 37% 373 220

mean*** 35.9 31.9 1095 844

County Category *** Prior Personal ***

Philadelphia 45% 55% 161 198 No 60% 40% 709 475

Allegheny 43% 57% 36 47 Yes 51% 49% 386 369

Urban 60% 40% 439 295

Rural 60% 40% 459 304 Prior Property Charge ***

No 68% 32% 497 231

TCU *** Yes 49% 51% 598 613

3 40% 60% 79 117

4 59% 41% 34 24 Prior Weapons Charge *

5 63% 37% 43 25 No 57% 43% 1012 756

6 54% 46% 371 322 Yes 49% 52% 83 88

7 66% 34% 149 78

8 57% 43% 147 110

9 62% 38% 272 168

TCU Score [mean]*** 6.9 6.5 1095 944

Offense ***

Drug offense 57% 43% 590 443

Property 48% 52% 178 191

DUI 72% 28% 260 102

Other 38% 62% 67 108

* Significant at .05 level ** Significant at .01 level *** Significant at .001 level

Table 6. Bivariate Recidivism Results [N=1,939][after three years]


19


Table 7 shows the results of the multivariate analysis, which helps to determine whether the bivariate relationships discussed above are real and important, even after controlling simultaneously for the other variables. Model 1 included two major legal factors: current offense and prior record. Model 2 added the type of sentence: SIP or prison. Model 3 added the TCU assessment score, which is a measure of substance abuse, and Model 4 added four extra-legal factors of age, gender, race, and county, which previous research has often found to be related to recidivism.

In the first model we found that offenders who had a greater number of prior arrests, a prior arrest for a property offense, and were convicted of property offenses rather than drug delivery or DUI were more likely to recidivate. In the second model, we added the variable of sentence type, and found that offenders who had been expelled from SIP were more likely to recidivate than those who went to prison. The previous finding that offenders who completed SIP were less likely to recidivate than those sentenced to prison was not found to be significant upon controlling for other factors. Current offense and prior arrests continued to also be significant. In the third model, we added the variable of TCU substance abuse score and found that offenders with a more serious substance abuse problem were less likely to recidivate. The final model, introduced the four legal variables; three of which were significantly related to recidivism: age, gender, and county. Younger offenders were more likely to recidivate; males were more likely to recidivate; and offenders from Philadelphia or Allegheny Counties were more likely to recidivate than offenders from other urban counties. Current offense, prior arrests, type of sentence, and substance abuse level also remained significantly related to recidivism.

More specifically, holding everything else constant: 1) the odds of offenders convicted of property offenses recidivating were 70% greater than those who were convicted of DUI and 41% greater than those convicted of drug offenses, 2) for each prior arrest, there was a 9% increase in the odds of recidivating, 3) for each level increase on the substance abuse scale, there was a 14% decrease in the odds of offenders recidivating, 4) the odds of offenders expelled from SIP recidivating were 2.4 times greater than offenders sentenced to prison, 5) for each year increase in age, there was a 5% decrease in the odds of recidivism, and 6) the odds of male offenders recidivating were 38% greater than females; and 7) the odds of offenders from Philadelphia recidivating were 34% greater than for offenders from other urban counties. [see Appendix C for logistic regression model.]


20


Table 7. Summary of Multivariate Models Predicting Recidivism after Three Years [N=1,939]

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4R 2=.102 R 2=.125 R 2=.146 R 2=.200

Legal Variables

Add

Sentence

Type

Add Assessment

Scores Add Extra legal

Legal Variables

Current Offense [convicted of property] * * * *

Prior arrests [larger number of prior arrests] *** *** *** ***

Prior drug offense * * # #

Prior DUI offense no no no no

Prior personal offense no no no no

Prior Property offense ** ** * *

Type of Sentence [compared to prison]SIP - completedSIP - expelled [more likely to recidivate] # no no

*** *** ***

Assessment ScoresTCU [substance abuse scale]-higher score less likely to recidivate *** ***

Extralegal Variables

Age [younger] *** ***

Gender [male] * *

Race no noCounty [from Philadelphia or Allegheny County] * *

NOTES:

Model 1 includes two major legal factors: current offense and prior recordModel 2 adds the type os sentence: SIP completed, SIP expelled, or prisonModel 3 adds the TCU risk assessment score.

Model 4 adds the extra-legal factors: age, gender, race, county.



21


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The SIP program opened in May 2005, and by July 2013, there were 17,363 offenders sentenced to the Department of Corrections who were eligible for the program. Of these, about 27% [N=4,647] were referred and evaluated for SIP. Of those evaluated, about 77% [N=3,579] were sentenced and admitted into the program. Of those admitted into SIP, 56% successfully completed the program, 18% were expelled, and 26% were still enrolled.

Due to concerns about the underutilization of SIP, the Commission had recommended several changes to the SIP statute that included revising the ineligibility criteria and providing greater discretion to the judge. Subsequently, Act 112 of 2012 amended the SIP statute to allow offenders convicted of less serious personal offenses [e.g., simple assault] to be eligible for SIP, while restricting eligibility of offenders sentenced under the mandatory drug statute to low level dealers [e.g., 2- less than 10 grams cocaine]. Act 112 of 2012 also removed the defendant agreement requirement as a prerequisite for SIP. It is estimated that the changes in the offense eligibility would result in an increase of 16%-19% in the number of eligible offenders per year. These changes went into effect July 1, 2013, and thus, for the next report we will be able to determine the actual impact of these changes.

Though the number of eligible offenders sentenced to SIP has traditionally been low, 62 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties have sentenced offenders to the SIP program. Most offenders sentenced to SIP were male, white, convicted of drug delivery or DUI offenses, had previous substance abuse treatment, used crack or heroin, and were at high or medium risk for recidivism. Offenders were significantly more likely to complete the SIP program if they were older, female, from a county other than Philadelphia, did not use heroin, had fewer prior arrests, were convicted of a DUI offense or drug offense, and had a greater substance abuse problem.

Offenders who did not successfully complete the SIP program were significantly more likely to recidivate than those who completed the program or went to prison. While offenders who completed SIP were less likely than those who went to prison to recidivate, this finding was not significant. After three years post release from SIP or prison, 38% of offenders who completed SIP recidivated, compared to 44% of those released from prison and 71% of those who did not complete SIP.

The predictors of recidivism were similar to the predictors of program completion. Offenders who were older, female, had fewer prior arrests, convicted of a DUI or drug offenses were less likely to recidivate. The finding that drug offenders, along with DUI offenders, have a lower risk of recidivism than property offenders supports the eligibility provision that offenders convicted of the lowest level of drug delivery subject to a mandatory sentence be eligible for the SIP Program. The findings that offenders with more serious substance abuse problems were more likely to complete SIP and less likely to recidivate indicates that perhaps these are the offenders most motivated to participate in SIP and most likely to benefit from the program. However, it should be noted that those offenders who went to prison and had serious substance abuse problems also were less likely to recidivate. As we do not have information on whether they participated in a prison based drug program, we do not know whether they may have also benefited from such a program.

Overall, the findings from our study provide some support for the SIP Program in that offenders who completed the program were less likely to recidivate than comparable offenders going to prison, though it is important to note that this finding was not significant when controlling for other factors that account for lower recidivism. It appears that the Department of Corrections is appropriately identifying offenders who are a risk to the public and/or are not benefiting from the program and expelling them from the


22


program. Those offenders who had been expelled were most likely to recidivate upon release from prison. Future reports will continue to examine the success of SIP in meeting its objectives and will be able to examine recidivism five years post release.


23


APPENDICES


24


APPENDIX A

CURRENT SENTENCING GUIDELINE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STATE INTERMEDIATE PUNISHMENT

[EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 5, 2008]

§303.11. Guideline sentence recommendation: sentencing levels.

(a) Purpose of sentence. In writing the sentencing guidelines, the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing strives to provide a benchmark for the judges of Pennsylvania. The sentencing guidelines provide sanctions proportionate to the severity of the crime and the severity of the offender's prior conviction record. This establishes a sentencing system with a primary focus on retribution, but one in which the recommendations allow for the fulfillment of other sentencing purposes including rehabilitation, deterrence, and incapacitation. To facilitate consideration of sentencing options consistent with the intent of the sentencing guidelines, the Commission has established five sentencing levels. Each level targets certain types of offenders, and describes ranges of sentencing options available to the court.

(b) Sentencing levels. The sentencing level is based on the standard range of the sentencing recommendation. Refer to §303.9 to determine which sentence recommendation (i.e. - Basic, Deadly Weapon Enhancement or Youth/School Enhancement) applies. When the individual or aggregate minimum sentence recommendation includes confinement in a county facility, county intermediate punishment should be considered in lieu of confinement for an eligible offender. When the individual or aggregate minimum sentence recommendation includes confinement in a state facility, county or state intermediate punishment should be considered in lieu of confinement for an eligible offender.

§303.12. Guideline sentence recommendations: sentencing programs.

(c) State Intermediate Punishment (SIP).

(1) Eligibility

(i) The following statute governs operation of and eligibility for State Intermediate Punishment: 42 Pa.C.S. Chapter 99

(ii) Any person convicted of a drug-related offense for which the sentence recommendation includes total confinement in a state facility may be considered for state intermediate punishment.

(2) The court may, upon motion of the Commonwealth and agreement of the defendant, commit a defendant to the custody of the Department of Corrections for the purpose of evaluating whether the defendant would benefit from a drug offender treatment program and whether treatment in a drug offender treatment program is appropriate.

(3) Upon receipt of a recommendation for placement in a drug offender treatment program and an individualized treatment plan from the Department of Corrections, and agreement of the attorney for the Commonwealth and the defendant, the court may sentence an eligible offender to a period of 24 months of state intermediate punishment.

(4) The court may impose a consecutive period of probation. The total duration of a sentence of state intermediate punishment and consecutive probation may not exceed the maximum term for which the eligible offender could otherwise be sentenced.

6th Edition, Revised (12/05/2008)


25


APPENDIX B

THE NUMBER OF OFFENDERS ELIGIBLE, EVALUATED, AND SENTENCED TO SIP BY YEAR

NUMBER

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total

Total DOC Admissions 3275 6737 8314 9941 10771 11571 14144 16127 8220 89100

Eligible for SIP 374 1182 1683 2040 2265 2325 2855 3041 1598 17363

Evaluated for SIP 40 303 535 600 657 630 624 751 507 4647

Sentenced to SIP 33 251 445 484 522 518 493 537 296 3579

Completed 31 212 358 389 412 339 258 3 1 2003

Expelled 2 37 81 75 90 139 127 71 36 658

Still Enrolled 0 2 6 20 20 40 108 463 259 918

PERCENT

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total

Eligible for SIP 11.4 17.5 20.2 20.5 21.0 20.1 20.2 18.9 19.4 19.5

Evaluated for SIP 10.7 25.6 31.8 29.4 29.0 27.1 21.9 24.7 31.7 26.8

Sentenced to SIP 82.5 82.8 83.2 80.7 79.5 82.2 79.0 71.5 58.4 77.0

Completed 93.9 84.5 80.4 80.4 78.9 65.4 52.3 0.6 0.3 56.0

Expelled 6.1 14.7 18.2 15.5 17.2 26.8 25.8 13.2 12.2 18.4

Still Enrolled 0.0 0.8 1.3 4.1 3.8 7.7 21.9 86.2 87.5 25.6

Pennsylvania’s State Intermediate Punishment Program: 2014 Report to the Legislature DRAFT

26


B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

OFFENSE [Property reference] 29.405 3 .000

Drugs .322 .173 3.470 1 .062 1.380

DUI .778 .265 8.601 1 .003 2.178

Other -.547 .215 6.488 1 .011 .579

NUMBER OF PRIOR ARRESTS -.093 .014 43.481 1 .000 .912

TCU SCORE .320 .035 85.678 1 .000 1.376

MOST SERIOUS DRUG [heroin

reference]14.282 4 .006

Alcohol .443 .265 2.791 1 .095 1.557

Marijuana .623 .205 9.231 1 .002 1.864

Cocaine .739 .234 9.954 1 .002 2.093

Crack .360 .174 4.304 1 .038 1.434

DRUG USE FREQUENCY -.248 .138 3.249 1 .071 .780

CSSM SCORE [high reference] .619 2 .734

Medium -.038 .159 .057 1 .812 .963

Low .080 .163 .238 1 .626 1.083

HIQ SCORE [reference High] .430 3 .934

Medium -.010 .156 .004 1 .948 .990

Low .032 .175 .034 1 .854 1.033

Missing .141 .244 .333 1 .564 1.151

AGE .036 .007 23.675 1 .000 1.037

GENDER [male reference] .424 .167 6.464 1 .011 1.528

RACE [non-white reference] .170 .182 .873 1 .350 1.186

COUNTY [Philadelphia reference] 9.327 2 .009

Rural .155 .214 .526 1 .468 1.168

Other urban .483 .188 6.624 1 .010 1.620

Constant -1.444 .494 8.532 1 .003 .236

Table C1. Logistic regression results for prediction of progam completion [final model].

Table C2. Logistic regression results for prediction of recidivism [final model].

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

OFFENSE [Property reference] 28.115 3 .000

Drugs -.343 .150 5.238 1 .022 .709

DUI -.530 .210 6.383 1 .012 .589

Other .509 .202 6.347 1 .012 1.663

PRIOR ARRESTS .088 .015 32.803 1 .000 1.092

PRIOR DRUG .240 .126 3.645 1 .056 1.272

PRIOR DUI -.022 .146 .023 1 .880 .978

PRIOR PROPERTY .295 .126 5.496 1 .019 1.344

PRIOR PERSONAL -.048 .114 .176 1 .674 .953

SENTENCE [Prison reference] 21.953 2 .000

Completed SIP -.074 .105 .489 1 .484 .929

Expelled from SIP .870 .201 18.666 1 .000 2.387

TCU Score [substance abuse] -.149 .029 26.639 1 .000 .862

AGE -.046 .006 61.781 1 .000 .955

GENDER [Female reference] .324 .128 6.394 1 .011 1.382

RACE [Non-white reference] -.038 .133 .080 1 .777 .963

COUNTY [Phil/Alleg reference] 4.136 2 .126

Rural -.264 .160 2.733 1 .098 .768

Other urban -.290 .145 4.005 1 .045 .748

Constant 1.344 .390 11.843 1 .001 3.833

APPENDIX C. LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODELS

Executive Unit Administrative Support Unit

Mark H. Bergstrom Jodi R. Ripka

Executive Director Fiscal/Office Manager

Cynthia A. Kempinen, Ph.D. Catherine W. Dittman

Deputy Director/Research Director Staff Assistant

Data Management Unit Outreach and Policy Support Unit

Carol A. Zeiss Diane E. Shoop, Ph.D.*

Manager Manager

Linda M. Bell Ryan S. Meyers

SGS Web Support Sentencing Policy Specialist

Brenda Cooper Helene Placey*

Data Research Management Specialist Sentencing Policy Specialist

Robert E. Probst Carrie L. Peters

Lead Data Input Specialist Sentencing Policy Specialist

Information Access Unit Nancy Xavios*

Joan F. Lisle Sentencing Policy Specialist

Manager

Research Unit

Haiou Hu Cynthia A. Kempinen, Ph.D.

Research Associate Director

Leigh A. Tinik

Research Associate

*located in Harrisburg Office

Staff


http://pasentencing.us

State College Office Harrisburg Office 009 Brumbaugh Hall The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802

408 Forum Building Capitol Complex Harrisburg, PA 17120

Mail: PO Box 1200 State College, PA 16804-1200

Mail: PO Box 1045 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1045

Phone: 814.863.2797

Phone: 717.772.3776

Fax: 814.863.2129

Fax: 717.772.8892

http://pasentencing.us/

State Intermediate Punishment ProgramThe State Intermediate Punishment [SIP] Program is a two-year,...

Documents

Transcript of State Intermediate Punishment ProgramThe State Intermediate Punishment [SIP] Program is a two-year,...