november 5, 2014 new nonviolent offender risk assessment instruments – status update virginia...
TRANSCRIPT
November 5, 2014
New Nonviolent Offender Risk Assessment Instruments –
Status Update
VIRGINIA CRIMINAL SENTENCING COMMISSION
In 1994, Virginia’s legislature directed the newly-
created Sentencing Commission to:
Develop an empirically-based risk
assessment instrument predictive of a
felon’s relative risk to public safety, and
Apply the instrument to nonviolent felons
recommended for prison, with a goal of
placing 25% of those offenders in
alternative sanctions.
After the instrument was developed and pilot-
tested, the Commission recommended, and the
General Assembly approved, statewide
implementation for July 1, 2002.
Legislative Directive for Nonviolent Offender Risk Assessment
2
In 2003, the General Assembly directed the
Commission to determine, with due regard for
public safety, the feasibility of adjusting the
instrument threshold to recommend additional
low-risk nonviolent offenders for alternative
punishment.
The Commission concluded that the threshold
could be raised from 35 to 38 points without
significant risk to public safety.
− Change became effective July 1, 2004.
Legislative Directive to Revisit Nonviolent Offender Risk AssessmentLegislative Directive for Nonviolent Offender Risk
Assessment
3
4
The risk assessment is completed in larceny, fraud and
drug cases for offenders who are recommended for
incarceration by the sentencing guidelines.
Offenders recommended for probation without
incarceration do not undergo risk assessment.
− Goal is to avoid net widening.
Offenders must also meet the eligibility
criteria.
− Most importantly, offenders with a
current or prior violent felony conviction (as
defined in § 17.1-805) are excluded
from risk assessment.
Use of Nonviolent Offender Risk Assessment
5
For offenders who score low enough on the risk scale, the sentencing guidelines cover sheet indicates a dual recommendation.
− Traditional incarceration
− Alternative punishment
As with the sentencing guidelines, compliance with the risk assessment recommendation is discretionary.
If a judge follows either sentencing recommendation, he or she is considered in compliance with the guidelines.
Use of Nonviolent Offender Risk Assessment
6
Because it had been a number of years since the
instrument was last examined, the Commission, in
2010, directed staff to begin the process of re-
validating its risk assessment tool based on a more
recent sample of felony cases.
Following completion of the study, the Commission
approved the revised risk assessment tools (one for
fraud/larceny offenders and one for drug offenders).
The 2012 Annual Report included a recommendation
to implement the revised risk instruments, which was
accepted by the General Assembly.
The new instruments became effective on July 1, 2013.
Most Recent Risk Assessment Study
7
As with prior nonviolent offender risk assessment studies, the official measure of recidivism was a new felony conviction within 3 years.
However, multiple measures of recidivism were collected.
Any new arrest
New felony arrest
Any new conviction
New felony conviction
New conviction is measured as a new arrest within three years of release that ultimately resulted in a conviction.
Recidivism Measures
8
Three-Year Recidivism Rates (following release to community)
Analysis is based on the sample weighted to reflect the population of offenders eligible for risk assessment.
New conviction is measured as a new arrest within three years of release that ultimately resulted in a conviction.
9
Three-Year Recidivism Rate:New Felony Conviction within Three Years
by Offense Group
10
Total = 1,509
Analysis is based on the sample weighted to reflect the population of offenders eligible for risk assessment.
New conviction is measured as a new arrest within three years of release that ultimately resulted in a conviction.
10
Guidelines users reported that information for two
factors on the previous risk assessment instrument
(employment history and marital status) was not
always available.
It has always been the Commission's policy that the
guidelines preparer err on behalf of the defendant if
a particular piece of information is unknown.
As a result, some offenders recommended for an
alternative sanction would not have been recommended
had unemployment and marital status been known and
scored accurately.
Scoring of Employment Record and Marital Status on FY2003-FY2013 Risk Assessment Instrument
11
A check box was added to the Nonviolent Offender Risk Assessment form in FY2011 to indicate when offender information was not available.
In addition, data entry procedures were modified to track instances where scores were missing.
In FY2011, the check box was marked or information was missing relating to unemployment or marital status in 14.4% of eligible cases.
Scoring of Employment Record and Marital Status on FY2003-FY2013 Risk Assessment Instrument
12
Total = 1,509
Based on Previous Risk Assessment Instrument (as scored)
Analysis is based on the sample weighted to reflect the population of offenders eligible for risk assessment.
New conviction is measured as a new arrest within three years of release that ultimately resulted in a conviction.
Three-Year Recidivism Rate:New Felony Conviction within Three Years
13
Total = 963
Based on Previous Risk Assessment Instrument
For Offenders Who Received Points on the Employment or Marital Factor
Three-Year Recidivism Rate:New Felony Conviction within Three Years
Analysis is based on the sample weighted to reflect the population of offenders eligible for risk assessment.
New conviction is measured as a new arrest within three years of release that ultimately resulted in a conviction.
14
MOST RECENT RISK ASSESSMENT STUDY
For Drug offenders:
The FY2003-FY2013 instrument correctly identified 82.6% of non-recidivists.
The FY2014 instrument correctly identified 84.0% of non-recidivists.
This figure was found to be stable across 750 subsamples.
The threshold for the FY2014 instrument was set such that approximately the same percentage of drug offenders would be recommended for alternatives as had been in FY2012 (61.3%).
MOST RECENTRISK ASSESSMENT STUDY
For Larceny/Fraud offenders:
The FY2003-FY2013 instrument correctly identified 76.3% of non-recidivists.
The FY2014 instrument correctly identified 79.3% of non-recidivists.
This figure was found to be stable across 650 subsamples.
The threshold for the FY2014 instrument was set such that approximately the same percentage of larceny/fraud offenders would be recommended for alternatives as had been in FY2012 (42.6%).
Recommended for Alternative
Not Recommended for Alternative
N=6,062
N=7,060
N=6,704
Risk Assessment Outcomes for Nonviolent Offenders*
* Offenders recommended by the sentencing guidelines for prison or jail incarceration
17
N=6,200
17
Recommended for Alternative
Not Recommended for Alternative
18
FRAUD
Recommended for Alternative
Not Recommended for Alternative
LARCENY
Recommended for Alternative
Not Recommended for Alternative
SCHEDULE I/II DRUG
Recommended for Alternative
Not Recommended for Alternative
OTHER DRUG
Risk Assessment Outcomes for Nonviolent Offenders*
* Offenders recommended by the sentencing guidelines for prison or jail incarceration
N=1,025
N=806
N=2,537
N=2,436
N=2,549
N=2,400
N=594
N=560
18
19
FY2005-FY2006* FY2014
Fraud 55.7% Male 62.9% Male
Fraud65.9% Legally Restrained at Offense
68.3% Legally Restrained at Offense
Larceny 31.4% Female 37.6% Female
Other Drug5.0 median prior record points scored on Section C
7.0 median prior record points scored on Section C
Examples of Differences in Offender Population:FY2005-FY2006 versus FY2014
* Population used to create sample for the most recent risk assessment study.
19
While the analysis to develop the new risk
assessment instruments was valid, the proportion
of certain types of individuals in the felon
population appears to have changed.
These shifts in the population appear to be
affecting risk assessment outcomes (i.e., the
percentage of offenders recommended for
alternatives).
Staff will continue to monitor the new risk
assessment instruments throughout FY2015.
Monitoring
20
