Changing the Sentencing Grid?

1. Changing the Sentencing Grid? Creating a “Crime Impact Statement” (to accompany a fiscal impact statement) to Assist Decision Making Sentencing Guidelines Commission SeaTac, Washington June 12, 2009 Steve Aos Assistant Director Washington State Institute for Public Policy Phone: (360) 586-2740 E-mail: saos@wsipp.wa.gov Institute Publications: www.wsipp.wa.gov 1 of 16

2. Context The Big Limitation Crime, Risk, Prison Example Washington State Institute for Public Policy Created by the 1983 Legislature • Mission: carry out non–partisan research on projects assigned by the legislature or the Institute’s Board of Directors • Board of Directors • Senator Karen Fraser • Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles • Senator Pam Roach • Senator Mark Schoesler • Representative Glenn Anderson • Representative Mary Lou Dickerson • Representative Phyllis Kenney • Representative Skip Priest • Ken Conte, House Staff • Richard Rodger, Senate Staff • Robin Arnold-Williams, Gov. Policy • Victor Moore, OFM • Sandra Archibald, Univ. of WA • Andrew Bodman, Western WA Univ. • Les Purce, The Evergreen State Col. • Robert Rosenman, WA State Univ. 2 of 16

3. Context The Big Limitation Crime, Risk, Prison Example What We’ll Cover Today • Context: Some Key Washington Trends • Crime rates and taxpayer costs • Incarceration rates • The Big Limitation (to producing a “Crime Impact Statement”) • Some Numbers: Crime, Risk, & Incapacitation • DOC risk assessment information • The prison/crime relationship • Diminishing returns • An Example “Crime Impact Statement” • The Institute’s analysis of the 5990 earned early release law 3 of 16

4. Percent Change Since 1980 +140% Taxpayer Costs Are Up (Inflation-Adjusted, Total State & Local Criminal Justice Dollars Per Household) +120% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ +100% $ $ $ +80% $ $ +60% $ $ $ +40% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ +20% $ $ $ 0% -20% Crime Rates Are Down -40% 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 All data are for Washington State. Monetary values in 2007 dollars. Crime rates cover major felony crimes as reported to police. Context The Big Limitation Crime, Risk, Prison Example The Big Picture: Crime Rates & Taxpayer Costs: 1980 to 2007 In 1980, taxpayers spent $557 per household on the criminal justice system. Today they spend $1,223 per year. A 120% increase. In 2007, crime rates were 39% lower than they were in 1980. 4 of 16

5. Context The Big Limitation Crime, Risk, Prison Example Adult and Juvenile (State) Incarceration Rates In Washington: 1960 to 2008 Adults incarcerated per one thousand 18- to 49-year olds Juveniles incarcerated per one thousand 10- to 17-year olds 7 6 US (adult) 5 4 DOC (adult) 3 JRA (juvenile) 2 1 0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Source: WSIPP analysis of data from the Caseload Forecast Council, OFM, and the US Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 of 16

6. The Big Limitation Context Crime, Risk, Prison Example Two Typical Goals of a Sentencing Grid… • …Punish Past Crimes A grid that makes offenders “pay” for their previous crimes—“just desserts” • …Avoid Future Crimes A grid that tries to reduce future crimes from happening, via… • …Incapacitation (crimes avoided while an offender is incarcerated) • …General deterrence (send a message to would-be offenders) • …Rehabilitation (crimes avoided after an offender is released) Our Analytical Focus 6 of 16

7. Crime, Risk, Prison Context The Big Limitation Example 13-Year Felony Reconviction Rates (in Washington) for Offenders Leaving Prison Type of Offender Leaving Prison Sex Property Drug Violent (not sex) Percent Reconvicted for any new Felony 52% 29% 70% 51% By Type of Most Serious Reconviction 24% 8% 23% 14% Violent (not sex) 3% 11% 3% 1% Sex Reconviction 16% 7% 37% 12% Property Reconviction 9% 3% 7% 24% Drug Reconviction Source: WSIPP analysis of data from the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Department of Corrections 7 of 16

8. Crime, Risk, Prison Context The Big Limitation Example Recidivism in Washington State: The DOC Risk Assessment of Felony Offenders OAA (1999) requires DOC to classify and supervise offenders according to risk to re-offend and harm done. Improved risk assessment developed by Institute (2005). Results of the DOC risk classification: Distribution of Offenders 3 - Year Felony Recidivism* Prison Community Prison Community DOC Risk Group High, Violent 32% 13% 61% 56% Violent High, Non- 37% 25% 52% 52% Moderate 18% 37% 28% 27% Lower 13% 25% 13% 14% Total 100% 100% 45% 34% * Re-conviction in WA How accurate is the risk assessment? It is about half way to perfection—it is about mid-way between 100% accuracy and simply tossing a coin. 8 of 16

9. Crime, Risk, Prison Context The Big Limitation Example The Timing of Recidivism in Washington State: The DOC Risk Assessment of Felony Offenders for… …a New Felony Conviction …a Violent Felony Conviction 4.5% 4.5% Classified by DOC as: High, Violent 4.0% 4.0% 3.5% 3.5% 3.0% 3.0% High, Non- Violent 2.5% 2.5% 2.0% 2.0% Classified by DOC as: High, Violent 1.5% 1.5% Moderate 1.0% 1.0% 0.5% 0.5% Lower 0.0% 0.0% 1 6 12 18 24 30 36 1 6 12 18 24 30 36 Months After Being At-Risk in the Community Months After Being At-Risk in the Community Source: WSIPP analysis of data from the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Department of Corrections 9 of 16

10. 80 If Prison Really Works '88 '87 1980 '86 70 '89 '85 '91 '81 '92 '95 Washington’s Crime Rate (non-drug crimes per 1,000 pop) '90 '97 '82 60 '83 '84 '98 If Prison Doesn’t Work '93 '94 '96 '04 '99 '05 '03 '00 '01 '02 50 '06 40 2 3 4 5 Washington’s Incarceration Rate (ADP per 1,000 pop) Crime, Risk, Prison Context The Big Limitation Example Does Prison Affect the Crime Rate? A 10% change in incarceration rate leads to a 2% to 4% change in the crime rate. Each data point is that year's incarceration rate and crime rate. 10 of 16

11. Diminishing Returns The more you do of something, the smaller your added benefit 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 1 10 2 15 3 20 4 25 5 30 6 Incarceration Rate in Washington Starbucks Stores in Olympia Crime, Risk, Prison Context The Big Limitation Example Prison & Diminishing Returns As incarceration rates are raised, prison’s marginal effectiveness declines 1980 Crimes Avoided Per New Prison Bed Profit Per New Store Added 2005 Estimates for Washington State 11 of 16

12. Crime, Risk, Prison Context The Big Limitation Example The Economics of Changing the Incarceration Rate • Changing the Incarceration Rate Will (Probably) Affect the Crime Rate • Magnitude of the effect varies by: • The total incarceration rate (diminishing returns happen) • The type and risk level of offenders incarcerated • Estimates of the effect are imprecise • Benefits and Costs: Things We Can Measure • State and local taxpayer costs: police, courts, prosecutors, defenders, juvenile and adult corrections • Cost to crime victims: we use national estimates • Lost earnings of those incarcerated • Things We Can’t Measure (at all, or well) • The value of just desserts, retribution, vengeance • Other offender costs of incapacitation: other costs to offender families and society 12 of 16

13. Example Context The Big Limitation Crime, Risk, Prison A “Crime Impact Statement” — an Example From a Recent Institute Report Evaluating a 2003 Law That Increased Earned Release Time from Prison for Lower-Risk Non-Violent Offenders (an average 63 day shorter prison stay) Benefits per offender released early Prison costs saved from reduced length of stay $5,501 Recidivism effect (we found lower 3-year recidivism) Future crime victim costs avoided $5,096 Future taxpayer costs avoided $2,968 Increased labor market earnings $1,785 Total benefits per average offender $15,359 Costs per offender released early $8,179 Incapacitation effect: Total increase in crime costs (taxpayers and victims) due to reduced incarceration rate. Bottom Line Net benefits per participant (benefits minus costs) $7,180 Benefit - to - cost ratio $1.88 13 of 16

14. Example Context The Big Limitation Crime, Risk, Prison Measuring the Uncertainty in Our Bottom Line of the “Crime Impact Statement” 300 Break Even: $1.00 Base Case: $1.88 • We varied key estimates and assumptions in our base-case analysis. • We re-ran the model 10,000 times, testing to see how often a benefit-to-cost ratio would indicate a bad outcome (less than $1 of benefit per dollar of cost). 250 91% of the 10,000 Cases Had a Benefit-to-Cost Ratio Greater than $1.00 200 150 100 50 0 $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 $10.00 Benefit-to-Cost Ratio 14 of 16

15. Summary Context The Big Limitation Crime, Risk, Prison Summary • Changing the Sentencing Grid? • Be careful; crime rates will be affected • Using Offender Risk and Cost-Benefit Information Can Provide Useful Information • Remember, however, the “big limitation” to the analysis • Bottom Line: it is probably possible to find combinations of sentencing grid adjustments that can reduce crime rates and save taxpayers money 15 of 16

16. Percent Change Since 1980 +140% Taxpayer Costs Are Up (Inflation-Adjusted, Total State & Local Criminal Justice Dollars Per Household) +120% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ +100% $ $ $ +80% $ $ +60% $ $ $ +40% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ +20% $ $ $ 0% -20% Crime Rates Are Down -40% 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 All data are for Washington State. Monetary values in 2007 dollars. Crime rates cover major felony crimes as reported to police. Summary Context The Big Limitation Crime, Risk, Prison The Big Picture Revisited: Crime Rates & Taxpayer Costs: 1980 to 2007 In 1980, taxpayers spent $557 per household on the criminal justice system. Today they spend $1,223 per year. A 120% increase. In 2007, crime rates were 39% lower than they were in 1980. 16 of 16

17. Thank You!

18. MDT Foster Care-22.0% (3)$77,798 Reducing Crime: Some Findings Evidence Topics Outcomes Economics Next Steps Change In Crime (# of EB Studies) Benefits - Costs (per-person, life cycle) Adult Offenders Adult Drug Courts-8.0% (57)$4,767 Education Prgs., Prison-7.0% (17)$10,669 Drug Tx in Prison (TC or out-patient)-5.7% (20) $7,835 Cog-Behavioral Treatment-6.3% (25)$10,299 ISP: surveillance-0.0% (23)-$3,747 ISP: treatment-17.1% (11)$11,563 • We located and analyzed 57rigorous drug court outcome evaluations conducted in the United States. • On average they reduced recidivism rates 8 percent. • Withoutdrug court, an offender has a58%chance of being reconvicted for a new felony or misdemeanor after 13 years; • Withdrug court, the odds drop to about54%. • The reduced recidivism generates a NET gain of$4,767per drug court participant. • We estimate drug courts cost$4,333more per person than regular court processing (court costs, treatment); benefits of reduced recidivism total$9,100 totaxpayers(lower criminal justice costs) andcrime victims(reduced victimization). Juvenile Offenders Functional Family Thpy.-15.9% (7)$31,821 Multisystemic Therapy-10.5% (10)$18,213 Aggression Repl. Trng.-7.3% (4)$14,660 Family Int. Transitions-13.0% (1)$40,545 Restorative Justice (low risk)-8.7% (21)$7,067 Prevention Pre-School* (low income)-14.2% (8)$12,196 Nurse Family Partnership*-36.3% (2)$18,052 12 of 17 Why focus on juveniles if our focus is prison? 73% of adults in Washington’s prisons have been in Washington’s juvenile justice system