Re-validation of the Nonviolent Offender Risk Assessment Instrument: Preliminary Findings

1. Re-validation of the Nonviolent Offender Risk Assessment Instrument:Preliminary Findings

2. Current Instrument

4. Refined Risk Assessment Instrument:Significant Factors in Assessing Risk Relative Degree of Importance Offender Age Prior Felony Record Offense Type Not Regularly Employed Male Offender Prior Adult Incarcerations Prior Arrest w/in Past 18 Mos. Additional Offenses Never Married by Age 26

5. Risk Assessment Outcomes for Nonviolent Offenders * Not Recommended for Alternative Recommended for Alternative N=6,062 N=6,141 N=6,418 N=6,413 N=6,981 N=7,060 N=6,704 N=6,204 * Offenders recommended by the sentencing guidelines for prison or jail incarceration

6. Study Methodology

7. Identification of Offenders for the Study • Offenders were identified from the sentencing guidelines database • Selection criteria: • Felony fraud, larceny, and drug offenders • Sentenced in FY2005 and FY2006 (most recent that can be used) • Recommended for incarceration by the sentencing guidelines (jail or prison) • Meet risk assessment eligibility requirements • No worksheet errors Status: Complete

8. Offenders Meeting Selection Criteriaby Most Serious Offense Total = 12,442

9. Selection of Study Sample (based on approved design) • Staff drew a sample of 1,799 offenders who met the selection criteria • Staff selected cases based on a stratified random sampling technique to increase the likelihood of including offenders with juvenile adjudications of delinquency • Criminological studies have shown that juvenile record and the age of first contact with the juvenile justice system are often correlated with subsequent offense behavior as an adult Status: Complete

10. Composition of the Sample Total sample: 1,799 offenders For the analysis, the sampled cases were weighted to reflect each subgroup’s actual proportion in the population

11. Selection of Study Sample (based on approved design) • A large sample was preferred, as some cases were eliminated in subsequent stages • For some offenders, supplemental data revealed a prior conviction for a violent felony • Some offenders were still incarcerated • Some offenders had died • For one case, available data were insufficient to include the offender • The approved strategy is similar to the original risk assessment study completed in 1997

12. Virginia Criminal History Records • Staff requested and received criminal history records (“rap sheets”) from the Virginia State Police • These only reflect criminal arrests and convictions within Virginia • Records were provided in database format • Staff examined the data to remove duplicate records and records incorrectly matched to offenders in the sample, and to identify offenders for whom no rap sheet was found Status: Complete

13. Virginia Criminal History Records • For much of this data (25,439 arrest records, or more than 2/3), the VCC offense code was missing (only statute or text description was available) • Staff researched cases and filled in VCC offense codes with the best available information • Having offense identifiers is helpful in the analysis phase • For 5,307 of the 36,025 arrest records, there was not a court disposition • Staff used other criminal justice databases to identify and fill in convictions wherever possible Status: Complete

14. Out-of-State Criminal History Records • Sentencing Commission staff completed the necessary forms and procedures to request out-of-state criminal history records from the FBI • Request was reviewed by a FBI special board and approved • Sentencing Commission received out-of-state rap sheets in two forms: paper copies and PDF (image) files on disc • For the 15 states that do not participate in the FBI’s electronic rap sheet system, these records came on paper (532 rap sheets) • For the remaining states, the records came in PDF (image) files Status: Complete

15. Out-of-State Criminal History Records • Since none of these records were in database format, staff examined the rap sheets • Needed information was recorded on a specially-designed data collection form • This information was then automated and added to existing databases • These records were used to supplement prior record, if necessary, as well as to identify recidivism activity Status: Complete

16. Dates of Release from Incarceration • For offenders in the sample who received a prison sentence, staff requested and received data on release dates from the Department of Corrections • For offenders who received a jail sentence, staff analyzed the Local Inmate Data System (LIDS) to identify the appropriate date of release • For offenders who received a straight probation sentence, the release date was assumed to be the sentence date, unless the offender was still being held on other charges • Using these release dates, offenders were then tracked for recidivism activity Status: Complete

17. Recidivism Measures • As with prior nonviolent offender risk assessment studies, the official measure of recidivism is 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

18. Analytical Approach • Two analysts work largely independently of one another using two different statistical techniques • Staff will discuss and reconcile differences in the two statistical models to develop an improved final model • Staff have developed preliminary models Status: Ongoing

19. A total of 131 cases had to be excluded from the analysis

20. For the analysis, the sampled cases were weighted to reflect each subgroup’s actual proportion in the population Composition of Sample after Cases Excluded Before Weighting Composition of Actual Population After Weighting

21. Preliminary Findings

22. Offender Characteristics – Demographics Age Sex Race Total = 1,662 Analysis is based on the sample weighted to reflect the population of offenders eligible for risk assessment

23. Offender Characteristics – Prior Record Prior Person Felonies Prior Property Felonies Prior Drug Felonies Total = 1,662 Analysis is based on the sample weighted to reflect the population of offenders eligible for risk assessment

24. Offender Characteristics – Prior Record Prior Juvenile Record Prior Incarcerations Total = 1,662 Analysis is based on the sample weighted to reflect the population of offenders eligible for risk assessment

25. Criminal History Records Offenders with Arrests/Charges Outside of Virginia Offenders with Arrests/Charges in Virginia Only Total = 1,662

26. Criminal History Records More than half (302 of 558, or 54%) of the out-of-state records have been examined in detail to determine the specific states in which offenders have charges or arrests 1 1 1 5 17 1 2 2 16 1 4 4 10 3 2 2 15 3 1 1 Maryland 58 Wash DC 41 5 5 24 44 1 2 2 14 1 12 Federal 50 2 5 18 Alaska 1

27. Type of Disposition Received Median Sentence: 6 months Median Sentence: 18 months Total = 1,662 Analysis is based on the sample weighted to reflect the population of offenders eligible for risk assessment

28. Three-Year Recidivism Rates New conviction is measured as a new arrest within three years of release that ultimately resulted in a conviction 1,509 of the 1,662 offenders could be tracked for the full three years Analysis is based on the sample weighted to reflect the population of offenders eligible for risk assessment

29. Cumulative Recidivism Rate (New Felony Conviction within Three Years)by Month of Follow-Up Total = 1,509 Analysis is based on the sample weighted to reflect the population of offenders eligible for risk assessment

30. Recidivism Rate (New Felony Conviction within Three Years)by Offense Group Total = 1,509 Analysis is based on the sample weighted to reflect the population of offenders eligible for risk assessment

31. Recidivism Rate (New Felony Conviction within Three Years)by Juvenile Record Total = 1,509 Analysis is based on the sample weighted to reflect the population of offenders eligible for risk assessment

32. Recidivism Rates (New Felony Conviction within Three Years)by Offender Characteristics Age Sex Total = 1,509 Analysis is based on the sample weighted to reflect the population of offenders eligible for risk assessment

33. Recidivism Rate (New Felony Conviction within Three Years) Recommendation of the Current Risk Assessment Instrument (as scored) Total = 1,509 Analysis is based on the sample weighted to reflect the population of offenders eligible for risk assessment

34. Recidivism Rate (New Felony Conviction within Three Years) Recommendation of the Current Risk Assessment Instrument For Offenders Who Received Points on the Marital or Employment Factors Total = 963 Analysis is based on the sample weighted to reflect the population of offenders eligible for risk assessment

35. Scoring of Employment Record on Current Risk Assessment Instrument • Staff identified offenders in the study for whom an automated Pre/Post-Sentence Investigation (PSI) record was available • Staff further analyzed offenders who did not receive points on the employment factor on the current risk assessment tool • The PSI revealed that nearly 36% of those offenders had not been regularly employed during the two years prior to arrest and, therefore, should have received points on the risk assessment instrument

36. New Felony Offenses Committed by Recidivists (N=408) Analysis is based on the sample weighted to reflect the population of offenders eligible for risk assessment

37. Preliminary Risk Assessment Model:Significant Factors in Assessing Risk Relative Degree of Importance

38. Work Plan • Staff will continue analysis and will present the final model to the Commission in November 2011 • If the Commission approves the new instrument and recommends its adoption, it will be included in the 2011 Annual Report