muskie school of public service analysis of sentences and probation conditions of mdoc clients...
Post on 27-Mar-2015
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Muskie School of Public Service
Analysis of Sentences and Probation Conditions of MDOC clients 2004-2007
October 30, 2007
Mark Rubin, Research Associate
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Data
• Data of Prison inmates on 10/15/2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 (snapshots)
• All sentences (including suspended/unsuspended portion) issued to MDOC clients from Jan. 1, 2004 to October, 2007.
• All probation conditions of clients Jan. 1, 2004 to October 2007
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Adult Facilities/Prison Demographics Analysis
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Prison Population on 10/15/2004, 2005, 2006, 2007
2023
2161
1994
2022
1900
1950
2000
2050
2100
2150
2200
2004 2005 2006 2007
Prison Population 10/15
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Prison Population by Type of Court Action
29.3% 28.1% 27.0% 24.8%
70.7% 71.9% 73.0% 75.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
2004 2005 2006 2007
Partial/Full RevocationSentenced for a New Crime
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Class of Crime in Adult Facilities (10/15/2007)
26%
30%
34%
2%
0% 8%
A BC DE M
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Top Ten Controlling Sentences in Adult Facilities 10/15/2007
Crimes Inmates
GROSS SEXUAL ASSAULT A 197
BURGLARY B 183
MURDER M 182
UNLAWFUL TRAFFICKING IN SCHEDULED DRUGS B 149
ROBBERY A 129
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT B 106
THEFT BY UNAUTHORIZED TAKING OR TRANSFER C 83
BURGLARY C 60
ASSAULT C 59
THEFT BY UNAUTHORIZED TAKING OR TRANSFER B 56
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Sentence Length
• Almost two thirds of the prison population (10/15/2007) have a sentence of 3 years or less.
Crime Class Frequency Percent Average sentence length A 568 26.3 9.3 years B 652 30.2 3.0 years
C 711 32.9 2.1 years
D 38 1.8 1.3 year
E 4 .2 NA
Murder 182 8.4
45 years (141 inmates) Life (42 inmates)
Other 6 .2 NA
Total 2161 100.0 7.2 years
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Analysis of sentences resulting in DOC supervision (Adult Facilities or Probation)
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
DOC supervision sentences
1. Straight prison
2. Prison/probation
3. Jail/probation
4. Straight Probation
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Mean length of underlying sentence for 1 count disposition
6.6
8.2
6.9
8.4
3.43.0
3.43.1
2.1 2.02.2 2.2
0.6 0.6 0.6 0.70.4 0.3 0.3 0.2
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
A B C D E
Ye
ars
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Mean length of unsuspended (custody) time for 1 count sentences
2.4
2.93.0
3.6
0.70.6
0.70.5
0.40.3 0.3 0.3
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.02
004
200
5
200
6
200
7
200
4
200
5
200
6
200
7
200
4
200
5
200
6
200
7
200
4
200
5
200
6
200
7
200
4
200
5
200
6
200
7
A B C D E
Yea
rs
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Mean suspended percent for 1 count sentences
64.1
56.2 56.9
80.1 81.179.4
82.9 81.6
86.2 85.1 84.8
92.0 92.4 91.1 92.4 91.087.1
79.1
72.3
64.7
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
200
4
200
5
200
6
200
7
200
4
200
5
200
6
200
7
200
4
200
5
200
6
200
7
200
4
200
5
200
6
200
7
200
4
200
5
200
6
200
7
A B C D E
Per
ce
nt
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Mean length of probation4.1
3.7 3.7
4.0
2.4
2.1 2.22.0
1.9
1.6 1.5 1.5
1.11.2 1.2 1.2
0.80.6
0.40.2
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.52
00
4
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
A B C D EIn 2004, Probation lengths were reduced 4 yrs. to 3 yrs. for B crimes and 4 yrs.to 2 yrs. for C class crimes
Ye
ars
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Controlling Sentence of DOC clients
Most common offense leading to DOC supervision between 2004-2007
Offense Number Percent
ASSAULT/THREATENING 4169 25.2
THEFT 2185 13.2
DRUGS 2062 12.5
BURGLARY 1936 11.7
OUI 1163 7.0
TRAFFIC CRIMINAL 874 5.3
SEX OFFENSES 658 4.0
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Sentencing Analysis of Four crimes
1. OUI
2. Theft
3. Burglary
4. Drugs
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Mean Underlying Sentence (OUI)
2.6
0.6 0.6
2.4
0.6
2.6
0.6
2.8
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
C D
OUI
Yea
rs
2004 Mean Sentence200520062007
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Mean Underlying Sentence (Theft)
3.5
2.2
0.70.4
3.7
2.0
0.70.4
3.9
2.3
0.70.5
3.9
2.0
0.7 0.6
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
B C D E
THEFT
Ye
ars
2004 Mean Sentence
2005
2006
2007
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Mean Underlying Sentence (Burglary)
2.8
2.3
2.8
2.5
3.0
2.42.4 2.4
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
B C
BURGLARY
Ye
ars
2004 Mean Sentence
2005
2006
2007
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Mean Underlying Sentence (Drugs)
3.5
2.3
2.9
2.0
3.4
2.1
3.1
2.2
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
B C
DRUGS
Ye
ars
2004 Mean Sentence
2005
2006
2007
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Mean Unsuspended Time (OUI)
1.0
0.1
0.8
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.7
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
C D
OUI
Ye
ars
2004 Mean Custody 200520062007
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Mean Unsuspended Time (Theft)
1.00.9
0.1 0.1
1.1
0.6
0.10.2
1.4
0.7
0.10.2
1.3
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
B C D E
THEFT
Ye
ars
2004 Mean Custody
2005
2006
2007
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Mean Unsuspended Time (Burglary)
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
B C
BURGLARY
Ye
ars
2004 Mean Custody
2005
2006
2007
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Mean Unsuspended Time (Drugs)
0.9
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.8
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
B C
DRUGS
Ye
ars
2004 Mean Custody
2005
2006
2007
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Mean Probation Time (OUI)
1.9
1.0
1.9
1.0
1.6
1.0
1.7
0.9
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
C D
OUI
Ye
ars
2004 Mean Probation
2005
2006
2007
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Mean Probation Time (Theft)
2.8
1.6
1.00.8
2.5
1.5
0.9
0.4
2.2
1.5
0.8
0.5
2.2
1.4
0.7
0.3
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
B C D E
THEFT
Ye
ars
2004 Mean Probation
2005
2006
2007
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Mean Probation Time (Burglary)
2.5
2.22.2
1.92.1
1.91.91.8
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
B C
BURGLARY
Ye
ars
2004 Mean Probation
20052006
2007
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Mean Probation Time (Drugs)2.2 2.2
2.01.9
2.2
1.6
1.91.7
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
B C
DRUGS
Ye
ars
2004 Mean Probation200520062007
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Analysis of Probation Conditions and Revocations
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Active Probation Population on 10/15/2004, 2005, 2006, 2007
64796472
9902
6768
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
2004 2005 2006 2007
Active Probation Population10/15
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Revocations to Prison
• In 2007, revocation serve days have increased by 56 days from previous year.
523
536
520
577
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
570
580
590
2004 2005 2006 2007
Da
ys
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Standard probation conditions1) No new criminal acts,
2) Report as directed,
3) No excessive alcohol,
4) No unlawful drug use,
5) Seek and maintain employment,
6) Devote to an employment /education program,
7) Answer all Questions,
8) Permit visit,
9) Agree to waive extradition,
10) Provide DNA sample as directed,
11) Identify as a probationer,
12) Obtain permission before change of address,
13) Obtain permission before change of employment,
14) Not to leave State without permission,
15) Notify of Police Contact
Muskie School of Public Service Institute for Public Sector Innovation
Most common special probation conditions
No alcohol 78.7%
Pay supervision fee 73.5%
Search and test for alcohol and drugs 59.6%
No contact of any kind (specify) 50.9%
Counseling - Substance Abuse 42.0%
Pay Restitution 36.9%
No drugs (illegal or misuse of prescription drugs) 32.4%
Not to own/possess any firearms or dangerous weapons 29.2%
Counseling – substance abuse (out patient) 24.4%
Evaluation – substance abuse 26.4%
top related