Larceny and Fraud Study Proposed Methodology

Background

Embezzlement Study The Commission conducted a study of felony embezzlement cases to examine the relationship between the amount embezzled and sentencing outcomes The Commission analyzed a sample of felony embezzlement cases sentenced under truth-in- sentencing laws between January 1, 1995, and June 30, 1997

Embezzlement Study The primary data source was Pre/Post-Sentence Investigation (PSI) reports, specifically the narrative section describing details of the offense − Dollar amount − Duration of the embezzlement act − Type of victim − Offender’s relationship with the victim 4

Analysis revealed a relationship between dollar amount embezzled and whether or not the offender received a sentence of more than six months Percentage of Embezzlers Receiving Incarceration >6 Months by Amount Embezzled Embezzlement Study

Commission approved a modification to Section A of the Larceny guidelines to increase the likelihood that offenders who embezzle larger amounts will be recommended for incarceration more than six months (Section C) Embezzlement Study

Analysis conducted only on those cases resulting in probation or a jail sentence of up to 6 months revealed a correlation between the amount embezzled and the sentence outcome Type of Disposition by Amount Embezzled Embezzlement Study

Commission approved a modification to Section B of the Larceny guidelines to increase the likelihood that offenders who embezzle larger amounts will be recom- mended for a jail sentence of up to 6 months (versus probation without incarceration) Embezzlement Study

Analysis of cases resulting in prison terms revealed that, in over half of the upward departures, judges cited a large dollar amount as the reason for the lengthier sentence Commission approved a modification to Section C of the Larceny guidelines to increase the length of sentence recommended for offenders who embezzle larger amounts Embezzlement Study

The Commission conducted a study of larceny and fraud cases to examine the relationship between the amount of money or property stolen and sentencing outcomes The Commission studied a sample of felony larceny and fraud cases sentenced in CY1998 and CY1999 Sample excluded embezzlement because it had been examined in the previous study Certain other offenses were also excluded, such as motor vehicle theft and forging public record Larceny and Fraud Study

Study sample − 200 grand larceny − 600 other larceny and fraud Supplemental data collected on factors of interest that were not contained in the automated data − Narratives from the Pre/Post-Sentence Investigation (PSI) reports − Court records 51 cases had to be dropped (cases actually involved motor vehicle theft or the wrong VCC was used to identify the offense) Final sample was 749 cases (309 larceny; 440 fraud) Larceny and Fraud Study

Data Collection Form Sample Case

Data Collection Form Sample Case

Larceny and Fraud Study Dollar Value of Money or Property Stolen in Felony Larceny Cases 14

Based on the results of the analysis, the Commission could consider adding a factor to the sentencing guidelines to account for the value of money or property stolen in larceny/fraud cases Factors gathered through supplemental data were tested to try to improve the predictive ability of the guidelines model Larceny and Fraud Study

Although many variations of the factors were tried, models with factors that were statistically significant were only marginally better than the existing guidelines model − The best models involved both dollar amount and a factor related to restitution and/or victim type − Adding such factors would have added a layer of complexity for users when scoring Larceny and Fraud Study Commission took no action 16

Proposed Methodology for Study

Offenders will be identified from the Sentencing Guidelines database Total = 21,568 Larceny and Fraud Study Proposed Methodology Identification of Offenders for the Study: Felony Sentencing Events with Larceny or Fraud as the Most Serious Offense FY2011 – FY2013* 18 * FY2013 data is incomplete

A large sample is preferred, as some cases will be eliminated in subsequent stages ― Supplemental data may reveal a conviction for an excluded offense ― Wrong VCC ― Available data may be insufficient to include the offender Strategy is similar to the original Larceny/Fraud Study in Selection of Study Sample: Larceny and Fraud Study Proposed Methodology 19

Sample will be based on a stratified random sampling technique to under-sample grand larceny cases and over-sample other types of larcenies − To ensure adequate number of cases for non-grand larceny in the sample Sample will include embezzlement − Length of time since previous study − Judges frequently cite dollar amount when sentencing above the guidelines Selection of Study Sample: Larceny and Fraud Study Proposed Methodology 20

Number of Cases Grand Larceny200 Embezzlement600 Other Larcenies400 Fraud300 Total1,500 For the analysis, the sampled cases will be weighted to reflect each subgroup’s actual proportion in the population Selection of Study Sample Larceny and Fraud Study Proposed Methodology 21

Code SectionDescription § Shoplift, alter price tags >= $200 § (A)Receive stolen goods-$200 or more § Receive stolen firearm § Conversion by fraud of property titled to other, >=$200 § Goods on approval, fail to pay or return goods-$200 or more § Bailee, fail to return animal, auto, etc. - $200 or more § Fail to return leased personal property-$200 or more § (i)Grand larceny - $5 or more from person § (ii)Grand larceny - $200 or more not from person § (iii)Larceny of firearm, regardless of value, not from person § Altering, defacing, removing, possessing serial no. > $200 § Larceny of animals (dog, horse, pony, mule, cow, steer, etc.) § Larceny of animals and poultry worth less than $200 § Larceny of bank notes, checks, etc. worth $200 or more § (A)Larceny $200 or more with intent to sell or distribute § (B)Sell etc. stolen property aggregate value $200 or more § Special commissioner, fail to account for money-$200 or more § Embezzlement, $200 or more § Embezzlement by public officer § Fraudulent entry by financial officer Identification of Offenses for the Study Larceny and Fraud Study Proposed Methodology 22

Code SectionDescription § Forging - Coins or bank notes § Forgery § Uttering § Possess forged bank notes or coins-10 or more § Obtain money by false pretenses >=$200 § Obtain signature, writing by false pretenses § Bad checks, $200 or more § Bad checks, two or more w/in 90 days, >=$200 § (B)False statement to obtain property/credit-$200 or more § (D)Identity Fraud - Financial loss greater than $200 § False statement to obtain utilities, TV, $200 or more § False statement to obtain hotel/motel service, etc., >=$200 § (1,a)Theft of credit card / numbers § Forgery/uttering of credit card § (1)Credit Card Fraud >= $200 over 6 month period § Receive goods from credit fraud-$200 or more § Airline/railroad ticket-obtain at discount price by fraud § Fail to perform construction in return for advances, > $200 § Fraudulently obtaining welfare asst. - Value $200 or more § Unauthorized use of food stamps - Value $200 or more §43-13Intent to defraud funds not used to pay labor/supplies $200+ Identification of Offenses for the Study Larceny and Fraud Study Proposed Methodology 23

Dollar value of money or property stolen Type(s) of items Damage of items Insurance coverage for items Location of offense Duration of offense Number of victims Type of victim(s) Offender relationship to victim Money/items recovered Status of restitution at time of sentencing Restitution ordered at sentencing Larceny and Fraud Study Proposed Methodology 24 Supplemental Data Collection

Pre-Sentence/Post-Sentence Investigation (PSI) Reports − About 35% of cases will have a PSI Commonwealth’s Attorneys’ files Victim Impact Statements Court records Probation Office records Larceny and Fraud Study Proposed Methodology 25 Data Sources

October 2013 – June 2014 Data collection June 2014 – August 2014 Data analysis September 2014 Present preliminary results November 2014 Present proposal for guidelines revision (if supported by data) Larceny and Fraud Study Proposed Work Plan Annual Report