criminal justice policy & planning division state of connecticut office of policy &...

Criminal Justice Policy & Planning Division

STATE OF CONNECTICUT OFFICE OF POLICY & MANAGEMENT (OPM)

WWW.CT.GOV/OPM/CriminalJustice/Research

1

An Analysis ofConnecticut

Burglary Crime Data

Presentation to the Sentencing Task ForceOctober 2, 2007




2

Acknowledgements

Office of Policy and ManagementCriminal Justice Policy & Planning

John E. Forbes, Assistant Director

Linda D. DeConti, M.Sc., Research Manager

Alyse A. Chin, M.S.W., Assistant Manager

Central Connecticut State University

Stephen M. Cox, Ph.D., SAC Director

Lyndsay Ruffolo, Program Administrator

State of Connecticut Judicial Branch

Court Operations

Judith Lee, Esq., Caseflow Mgmt. Specialist

Court Support Services DivisionCenter for Research & Quality Improvement

Brian Hill, Manager

Susan C. Glass, Program Manager

Department of Correction (DOC)Offender Classification

Frederick J. Levesque, Director

Board of Pardons & Paroles (BOPP)

Richard Sparaco, Parole & CS Manager

Jerry Stowell, Ph.D., Consultant

Department of Public Safety (DPS)Division of State Police

Lois A. Desmarais, Planning Specialist

Gary Lopez, Planning Specialist

Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS)

Alfred Bidorini, Director of Planning

Forecasting/Research Work Group

Research Consultant to theU.S. Attorneys Office

Ivan Kuzyk

Department of Correction (DOC)

Jody Barry, Research Analyst

Department of Public Safety (DPS)

Tom Myers, IT Analyst 2

Office of Legislative Research

Christopher Reinhart, Senior Attorney




3

Stephen M. Cox, Ph.D.Central Connecticut State University

Connecticut Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) Directorand

Co-Chair for the Forecasting/Research Work Group




4

• Our collaborative strength bridges the gap in data sharing where current technology and comparable resources may not exist.

• This is the best data that we have at the moment – we have more work to do.

• Why can’t we get that now?

• There are data collection flaws and the data is imprecise.

• People incorrectly assume data systems are reporting systems.

• Each agency maintains their information for their own operational purpose. These are real time operational systems and NOT always Research Friendly.

• Some data is continually overwritten and historical records may be lost.

• Cross agency issues in terms of data fields: how we define, store or search for data.

• This request has shown us: How are we doing things? AND How we can improve?

Data Qualifications

From the Research Perspective…




5

• Overview/Trends

• Process

• Who’s in the System Now

• Issues for Further Study

Presentation Outline




6

• National Rankings for Burglary

• Trends in Burglary Arrest Data

• Burglary Statutes in Connecticut

• Classification of Violent Offenses in Connecticut

Overview/Trends




7

National Rankings for Burglary

* Definition: The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines burglary as the unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or theft. To classify an offense as a burglary, the use of force to gain entry need not have occurred. The Program has three sub-classifications for burglary: forcible entry, unlawful entry where no force is used, and attempted forcible entry. The UCR definition of “structure” includes, for example, apartment, barn, house trailer or houseboat when used as a permanent dwelling, office, railroad car (but not automobile), stable, and vessel (i.e., ship).

Source: Crime in the United States, 2006. U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2007.

Rank StateBurglary

Rate*Rank State

Burglary Rate*

1 North Carolina 1,212.70 41 Pennsylvania 463.22 Arkansas 1,139.90 42 New Jersey 4523 New Mexico 1,069.70 43 Wyoming 450.54 Louisiana 1,049.20 44 Connecticut 419.35 Tennessee 1,040.90 45 Virginia 417.66 Nevada 994.6 46 North Dakota 376.37 South Carolina 989.8 47 New York 355.18 Alabama 969.1 48 South Dakota 338.99 Oklahoma 960.5 49 New Hampshire 331.410 Florida 944.6 50 Montana 310.7

Lowest 10 States BurglaryRate per 100,000 inhabitants

Highest 10 States BurglaryRate per 100,000 inhabitants




8

Trends in Burglary Offense Data (2004)

Source: Department of Public Safety, 2004 “Crime in Connecticut”

US

CT




9

2004 Burglary Offense Data

Source: Department of Public Safety, 2004 “Crime in Connecticut” DATA NOTE: This publication uses UCR and NIBRS data combined.

• Most burglaries happen during the day

• Nearly 70% of all burglaries take place at a residence

• Slightly more than 20% of all burglaries happen at a residence during the night




10

Burglary Statutes in Connecticut

Source: OLR Research Report - Burglary Statutes, 2007-R-0505, August 22, 2007, Christopher Reinhart, Senior Attorney

Offense Time of CrimeLocation of Crime

Attendant Circumstances Weapon Sentence

53a-101(a)(1) Anytime Building Armed with weaponExplosive, deadly weapon, or dangerous instrument

B felony 5years mandatory

53a-101(a)(2) Anytime Building

Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly inflicts or attempts to inflict bodily injury on someone while attempting to commit the offense or while fleeing

- B felony

53a-102At night / Anytime someone is home

Dwelling* - - C felony

53a-102aAt night / Anytime someone is home

DwellingUses, armed with and threatens use, displays, or represents that he or she possesses a firearm

Pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, or other firearm

C felony, one year mandatory

53a-103 Anytime Building - - D felony

53a-103a Anytime BuildingUses, armed with and threatens use, displays, or represents that he or she possesses a firearm

Pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, or other firearm

D felony, one year mandatory

* Dwelling is a type of building (see State v. Perez, 78 Conn. App. 610 (2003)




11

Classification of Violent Offenses in ConnecticutDepartment of Correction (DOC)

Source: State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Objective Classification Manual, Revised July 2005http://www.ct.gov/doc/lib/doc/PDF/PDFReport/ClassificationManualLibraryCopy.pdf

Murder/Negligent Homicide Inciting injury to persons or property Manslaughter, 1st & 2nd Rioting, 1st, 2nd, DOC Facility, Incite

Injury or Risk of Injury to Minor Harassment, 1st Cruelty to Persons Intimidating a Witness

Intimidation based on bigotry or bias, 1st & 2ndAssault, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, DOC Personnel Sexual Assault, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th Stalking, 1st, 2nd and 3rd Sexual Assault, In Cohabiting Relationship Criminal Violation of Protective or Restraining Order Rape, 1st & 2nd

Abuse, 1st, 2nd and 3rd (Elderly, Blind, Disabled or Mentally Disabled)Kidnapping, 1st & 2ndUnlawful Restraint, 1st & 2nd Cruelty to Animals

Reckless Endangerment, 1st & 2nd Commission of a Class A, B, or C Felony w/Assault Weapon or FirearmMisconduct with a Motor Vehicle Criminal Use of Firearm or Electronic Device Threatening, 1st & 2nd Criminal Possession of a Firearm, Electronic Device, Pistol, Body ArmorPromoting Prostitution, First Degree Possession of a Weapon in DOC Facility or School

Possession of an Assault Weapon, Shotgun or Silencer Arson, 1st, 2nd & 3rd Carrying or Sale of Dangerous Weapon(s)

Sale or Transfer of an Assault WeaponBurglary, 1st & 2nd w/Firearm Machine guns Robbery, 1st, 2nd & 3rd and by Carjacking Manufacture of Bombs




12

85% Regulations: Definitions of Violent Offenses(P.A. 95-255 for offenses committed after 7/1/96)

53a48/53a54 Conspiracy to Commit Murder53a49/53a54 Criminal Attempt to Commit Murder53a-55 Manslaughter 1st

53a-55a Manslaughter 1st with a Firearm53a-56 Manslaughter 2nd

53a-56a Manslaughter 2nd with a Firearm53a-56b Manslaughter 2nd with a Motor Vehicle53a-57 Misconduct with a Motor Vehicle53a-59 Assault 1st

53a-59b Assault on Department of Correction Employee53a-60 Assault 2nd

53a-60a Assault 2nd with a Firearm53a-60b Assault of a Victim Sixty or Older 2nd

53a-60c Assault of a Victim Sixty or Older 2nd with a Firearm53a-59a Assault of a Victim Sixty or Older53a-70 Sexual Assault 1st

53a-70b Sexual Assault in a Spousal or Cohabiting Relationship53a-72b Sexual Assault 3rd with a Firearm53a-92 Kidnapping 1st

53a-92a Kidnapping 1st with a Firearm53a-94 Kidnapping 2nd

53a-94a Kidnapping 2nd with a Firearm53a-95 Unlawful Restraint 1st

53a-101 Burglary 1st

53a-102a Burglary 2nd with a Firearm53a-103a Burglary 3rd with a Firearm53a-111 Arson 1st

53a-112 Arson 2nd

53a-134 Robbery 1st

53a-135 Robbery 2nd

53a-136 Robbery 3rd

53a-167c Assault on a Policeman or Fireman53a-179b Rioting in a Correctional Facility53a-179c Inciting a Riot in a Correctional Facility

Classification of Violent Offenses in Connecticut

• Any individual convicted of Conspiracy (53a-48), Criminal Attempt (53a-49) or Criminal Liability (53a-8) to the aforementioned statutes, or who is convicted of Violation of Probation where the underlying charge is one of the aforementioned statutes, is subject to 85% designation provided the offenses or underlying offenses are committed after July 1, 1996.

Board of Pardons and Paroles (BOPP)

Source: State of Connecticut, Board of Pardons and Paroles




13Source: State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch, Court Support Services Division

• List of statutes used by CSSD Adult Probation Officers to determine whether or not an individual on probation is eligible to be placed on administrative monitoring if the risk assessment indicates they are low risk.

Judicial BranchCourt Support Services Division (CSSD)

Classification of Violent Offenses in Connecticut CSSD Administrative Monitoring Excluded Offenses




14

• Overview/Trends

• Process







15

Process

Offenses and Court Disposition by Burglary Statute

• 81% of Burglary offenses are Burglary 3 (53a-103)• 43% of all Burglary offenses end in a Conviction (Convictions and Plea)• 57% of all Burglary offenses receive a Nolle

Source: OLR Research Report – Burglary Statistics, 2007-R-0506, August 27, 2007, Christopher Reinhart, Senior Attorney (Aggregation of Table 4)

Aggregations of Judicial Case Data for Burglary Statutes, FY 2002 to FY 2007

Fiscal Year Offenses Jury

ConvictionNon-Jury

Conviction Plea Bond

Forfeiture Fail to Appear

Jury Not Guilty

Non-Jury Not Guilty Nolle

2002 to 2007 1,325 75 60 294 - - 39 5 852 Average 221 13 10 49 - - 7 1 142

2002 to 2007 4,415 36 407 1,117 1 - 7 3 2,844 Average 736 6 68 186 0 - 1 1 474

2002 to 2007 34 1 - 7 - - 1 - 25 Average 6 0 - 1 - - 0 - 4

2002 to 2007 24,136 61 2,414 8,348 5 1 13 15 13,279 Average 4,023 10 402 1,391 1 0 2 3 2,213

2002 to 2007 45 2 - 14 - - - - 29 Average 8 0 - 2 - - - - 5

Total Burglary 2002 to 2007 29,955 175 2,881 9,780 6 1 60 23 17,029 % Total 100% 1% 10% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 57%

53a-103a

53a-101

53a-102

53a-102a

53a-103




16

Process

Offenses and Length of Prison Sentence

• Burglary 1: 95% of Convicted Offenders were Sentenced to Prison7.8 years Average Sentence

• Burglary 2: 79% of Convicted Offenders were Sentenced to Prison2.2 years Average Sentence

Source: State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch, Court Operations Data; Analyzed by Stephen M. Cox, Ph.D., Central Connecticut State University

None1 to 30 Days

2 to 6 Months

7 to 12 Months

2 to 5 Years

Over 5 Years

53a-101 17 - 1 11 126 167 7.8 322 305 95%53a-102 241 5 43 127 660 68 2.2 1,144 903 79%53a-102a 1 - - 1 3 - 1.9 5 4 80%53a-103 2,314 37 515 1,193 3,481 8 1.4 7,548 5,234 69%53a-103a 3 - 1 2 5 - 1.4 11 8 73%

Total 2,576 42 560 1,334 4,275 243 9,030 6,454

% Sentenced to Prison

Number of Offenders Sentenced to Average Sentence

(years)

Total Number of Offenders

Total Less None

Judicial Data for Burglary Statutes, FY 2002 to FY 2007




17

Process

Offenses and Type of Sentence

• Burglary 1: 59% of Convicted Offenders were Sentenced to Prison with some form of post-release supervision

• Burglary 2: 50% of Convicted Offenders were Sentenced to Prison withsome form of post-release supervision

PrisonOnly

Probation Only

Prison followed by Probation

Prison followed by Special Parole Total

53a-101 119 10 145 41 315

53a-102 337 228 463 103 1,131

53a-102a 1 1 2 1 5

53a-103 2,671 2,223 2,352 211 7,457

53a-103a 5 3 3 0 11

Total 3,133 2,465 2,965 356 8,919

Judicial Data for Burglary Statutes, FY 2002 to FY 2007

Source: State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch, Court Operations Data; Analyzed by Stephen M. Cox, Ph.D., Central Connecticut State University




18

• Overview/Trends

• Process







19

Persons Convicted of Burglary: Probation or DOC Supervision

Who’s in the System Now (September 14, 2007)

• Total DOC Supervision: 25,631

• 4,689 or 18% of DOC offenders have been convicted of at least one burglary

• Only 237 had a single criminal docket, which means the vast majority of offenders had more than one conviction.

• Burglary convictions include current or past sentence.

• Third Degree Burglary has the highest number of Offenders

Offense Probation* DOC 53a-101 112 315 53a-101(a) 65 2 53a-101(a)(2) 88 - 53a-102 578 480 53a-102a 5 4 53a-103 2,836 3,187 53a-103a 9 9 1 & 2 18 1 & 3 99 2 & 3 515 Other 60

Total 3,693 4,689

*Total for Probation represents more than the total number of probationers, since some had multiple burglary convictions.

Source: State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch, Court Support Services Division; and Connecticut Department of Correction Data Analyzed by Ivan Kuzyk, Research Consultant to the U.S. Attorneys Office




20

Probation % Prison Unsent Parole Spec Par HWH/TS Other Total %63% 11% 9% 4% 6% 7%

Total Persons 3,591 2,963 517 441 195 259 314 4,689 Male 3,302 2,859 500 416 189 245 304 4,513 Female 289 104 17 25 6 14 10 176 White 1,923 54% 1,153 195 204 82 108 118 1,860 40%Black 819 23% 1,058 190 143 71 90 80 1,632 35%Hispanic 803 22% 733 129 91 41 60 114 1,168 25%Asian 15 0% 9 1 2 1 - - 13 0%Indian/Native 5 0% 10 2 1 - 1 2 16 0%Other/Unknown 26 1% - - - - - - - 0%

Persons Convicted of Burglary: Probation or DOC Supervision


• 74% of the 4,689 DOC offenders convicted of at least one burglary are incarcerated

• At least 19% of burglars are in DOC Community Supervision, which is less than 4% of the Total DOC Population

Source: State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch, Court Support Services Division; and Connecticut Department of Correction Data Analyzed by Ivan Kuzyk, Research Consultant to the U.S. Attorneys Office




21

Persons Convicted of Burglary: Maximum Sentence


* 21 burglars excluded with sentences of 999 yrs

Source: Connecticut Department of Correction Data Analyzed by Ivan Kuzyk, Research Consultant to the U.S. Attorneys Office

*All BurglarsBurglars No

ViolenceBurglars With

Violence

Months 83.37 43.36 127.25Years 6.95 3.61 10.60

Total Burglars 3,959 2,060 1,899

Months 42 36 66Years 3.5 3 5.5

Total Burglars* 3,938 2,060 1,878

Median

Average




22

FIRST AND LAST CONVICTIONS, 4689 BURGLARS

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

15 25 35 45 55 65

FIRST CONV ALL

LAST CONV ALL

Persons Convicted of Burglary: DOC Supervision


For the 4,689 Total Burglars the Median Age:

At First Conviction: 21 years oldAt Last Conviction: 28 years old

Data represents the first conviction that resulted in incarceration and not the first conviction overall.





23

Less than HSD

High School Diploma (HSD)

Greater than HSD



• Relative to the adult population, burglars as well as all offenders have significantly lower levels of educational attainment.

• While 31% of Connecticut adults have at least a four year degree, less than 1% of convicted burglars have completed 4 years of college

• Convicted burglars compared to other offenders have a slightly higher level of educational attainment

Burglars All Offenders CT Adults

All Burglars

All Offenders

CT Adults, 2000

No High School 8% 8% 6%Some High School 35% 36% 10%High School Diploma 47% 42% 28%Some College 10% 12% 24%4 Yr Degree or More 1% 2% 31%

Total 100% 100% 100%

Educational Attainment





24

All Burglars

All Offenders

1 50% 55%2 31% 26%3 17% 16%4 2% 2%5 0% 0%

100% 100%

Mental Health Score



• Burglars had a higher level Alcohol/Drug Score compared to all offenders under DOC Supervision

• Compared to all other offenders, Burglars had a higher level Discipline Score

All Burglars

All Offenders

1 79% 83%2 7% 5%3 7% 5%4 7% 6%5 0% 0%

100% 100%

Discipline Score

• Burglars had a similar Mental Health Score compared to all offenders under DOC Supervision

• Compared to all other offenders, Burglars had a higher level Violence Score

All Burglars

All Offenders

1 59% 65%2 23% 19%3 15% 12%4 4% 4%

100% 100%

Violence Score

All Burglars

All Offenders

1 15% 21%2 10% 14%3 33% 34%4 39% 30%5 2% 1%

100% 100%

Alcohol/Drug Score





25

Persons Convicted of Burglary: Top 20 Town of Residence


• All offenders who were under DOC supervision on September 14, 2007 identified 907 locations as their place-of-residence.

• Burglars identified 334 places as their place-of-residence.

• 71% of burglars come from the 20 towns.

Top 20 Towns forConvicted Burglars

BurglarsTotal

Offenders(all crimes)

Burglarsas a %of Total

Offenders

Total Offenders per townas a %

of All Offenders

Percent offenders who are burglars

HARTFORD 595 3,656 13% 14% 16%NEW HAVEN 558 3,131 12% 12% 18%BRIDGEPORT 475 2,976 10% 12% 16%WATERBURY 380 2,108 8% 8% 18%NEW BRITAIN 157 937 3% 4% 17%MERIDEN 134 650 3% 3% 21%STAMFORD 117 659 2% 3% 18%WEST HAVEN 91 440 2% 2% 21%EAST HARTFORD 88 508 2% 2% 17%BRISTOL 86 358 2% 1% 24%NORWALK 80 569 2% 2% 14%DANBURY 75 474 2% 2% 16%MIDDLETOWN 73 267 2% 1% 27%NORWICH 72 338 2% 1% 21%TORRINGTON 71 273 2% 1% 26%MANCHESTER 70 396 1% 2% 18%NEW LONDON 61 415 1% 2% 15%WILLIMANTIC 58 268 1% 1% 22%HAMDEN 53 277 1% 1% 19%STRATFORD 48 249 1% 1% 19%WINSTED 10 51 0% 0% 20%





26

• Overview/Trends

• Process







27

Issues for Further Study

Recommendations to the Task Force:

• Establish a clear vision of what problem(s) it is trying to solve and which information will be most helpful to support solutions to those problems.

• Need a common definition of “Violent Offenders” in Connecticut.

Recommendations to Improve Research:

• Meet with OBTS staff to discuss research/data needs and data accessibility.

• Set standards for data quality within the Connecticut criminal justice system.

• Consider how things are counted and recorded – individuals, cases, dockets and charges can be difficult to reconcile.

• Need to develop and implement a consistent, unique identifier that begins at arrest to follow offenders through the Connecticut criminal justice system.

From the Research Perspective…




28

An Analysis ofConnecticut

Burglary Crime Data

Presentation to the Sentencing Task ForceOctober 2, 2007

criminal justice policy & planning division state of connecticut office of policy &...

Documents