1. An Evaluation of the D.C. Voluntary Sentencing Guidelines
Frederick H. Weisberg, Chairman
Barbara Tombs-Souvey, Executive Director
D.C. Sentencing Commission
The National Association of Sentencing Commission Annual Conference August 28, 2017

2. Sentencing in the District of Columbia
1997
National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act
Formation of the Truth in Sentencing Commission
1998
DC Advisory Commission on Sentencing is created
1999
Report to Council: Criminal Sentencing Practices in the District of Columbia
2000
Report to Council: Sentence Recommendations to the Council of the District of Columbia
Sentencing Reform Amendment Act
2003
Advisory Commission recommends adoption of voluntary sentencing guidelines
2004
The District launches the Voluntary Sentencing Guidelines as a pilot project
2006
Voluntary Sentencing Guidelines become permanent
(see slide)

3. Purpose of the Evaluation
Identify the impact of the Guidelines
Sentencing trends and practices
Types and lengths of sentences imposed
2. Determine if Guidelines are achieving their statutory goals:
Certainty
Consistency
Adequacy of punishment
Identify any areas for improvement
Examine the impact of Guidelines on sentencing practices and trends
Types and lengths of felony sentences imposed
Determine the extent to which the Guidelines are achieving their D.C. mandated goals of punishment
Certainty
Consistency
Adequacy
Identify any areas of the Guidelines that may need to be revisited

4. Methodological Challenges
Pre- and Post-Guideline Analysis
1. Data from three distinct sentencing structures
Pre-Guideline Indeterminate Pre August 5,2000
Pre-Guideline Determinate August 5, June 13,2004
Guideline sentences June 14,
2. Lack of length of stay data for Pre-Guideline Indeterminate
Comparing Criminal History data across three sentencing
structures
4. Missing/Unreliable data
Involved data from three distinct sentencing structures
Pre-Guideline Indeterminate - Offenses committed before August 5, 2000, and sentenced in the years 1999 through 2002
Pre-Guideline Determinate - Offenses committed on or after August , and sentenced in the years 2000 through 2002
Guideline - Offense committed on or after June 2004, and sentenced in the years 2010 through 2015
Length of stay data for pre-guideline indeterminate sentences
Criminal History comparisons
Missing/Unreliable data

5. Sentencing Guidelines Basics
Voluntary
Felony Offenses
Dual Grids
Master
Drug
Vertical Axis
Offense Severity Group
Horizontal Axis
Criminal History Score
Multiple Sentence Options
(grids in next slide)
Voluntary
Dual Grids – Master & Drug
Vertical Axis – Offense Severity Group
Master Grid 1-9
Drug Grid 1-4
Horizontal Axis – Criminal History Group
A to E
Colors / Shades:
Prison Sentence available in every grid box
Short Split sentences available in green grid boxes
Probation sentences available in yellow grid boxes

6. The Basics of the Voluntary Guidelines
(see previous slide)

7. Pre- and Post-Guidelines Comparisons
I. Offender Demographics
Similar across sentencing structures
90% Male
90% Black
40% individuals sentenced were between years of age
(see slide)

8. Pre- and Post-Guidelines Comparisons
II. Types of Offenses Sentenced
Homicide, Property, and Sex offenses
Remained fairly steady
Violent and Weapon offenses
Number increased
Drug Offenses
Significant decline
Proportion of sentences for Homicide, Property, and Sex offenses
remained steady
Proportion of sentences for Violent and Weapon offenses
increased

9. Pre- and Post-Guidelines Comparisons
Drug Sentences Imposed
(see chart)
Drug sentences
decreased significantly

10. Pre- and Post-Guidelines Comparisons
III. Sentence Types Imposed
Minimal change in the likelihood of receiving a prison sentence between Pre-Guideline and Guideline structures
Change in the likelihood of receiving a prison sentence between Pre-Guideline Indeterminate and Determinate sentencing structures
Likelihood of receiving a prison sentence
very little change
Change in sentencing structure from indeterminate to determinate had a greater impact on the likelihood of receiving a prison sentence than the implementation of the Guidelines

11. Pre- and Post-Guidelines Comparisons
Sentence Types Imposed Cont.
Carrying a Pistol Without a License (CPWL)
One exception
Prison less likely under the Guidelines vs. Pre-Guideline Determinate
Sentences 27% shorter under Guidelines
Impact of recent ongoing court challenges to District’s gun laws
District of Columbia v. Heller
Carrying a pistol without a license (CPWL) was the only offense for which a prison sentence was less likely under the Guidelines than Pre-Guideline determinate sentencing structure
CPWL sentences were also 27% shorter under Guidelines
Impact of recent ongoing court challenges to District’s gun laws
District of Columbia v. Heller

12. Pre- and Post-Guidelines Comparisons
IV. Sentence Lengths Imposed
Comparison between Pre-Guideline Determinate and Guidelines only
Pre-Guideline Indeterminate data issue
Sentences 18% shorter under Guidelines vs. Pre-Guidelines Determinate
Violent offenses:
Decrease by 31% (on average 18 months)
Shift in types of violent offenses sentenced
Drug offenses:
Decreased on average 6 months
Exceptions: Property and Sex Offenses
Prison Sentences were 18% shorter under Guidelines than Pre-Guidelines Determinate
Exceptions: Property and Sex offenses
Violent offenses:
Decrease by 31% (18 months)
Shift in types of violent offenses sentenced
Violent offenses showed more sentences for attempts than completed
Less armed offenses sentenced
Drug offenses:
Attempted distribution of cocaine and heroin
Decreased on average 6 months

13. Pre- and Post-Guidelines Comparisons
V. Criminal History
Shift from an unstructured to structured way of counting prior convictions
Points assigned for prior convictions
Pre-Guidelines:
likelihood of receiving a prison sentence increased by 20% for each increase in criminal history category
Guidelines:
likelihood of receiving a prison sentence increased by 40% for each increase in criminal history category
Shift from unstructured to a structured way of incorporating criminal history
Incorporation of points for prior convictions
Pre-Guidelines likelihood of receiving a prison sentence increased by 20% for each criminal history category
Under Guidelines the likelihood of receiving a prison sentence increased by 40% for each criminal history category

14. Pre- and Post-Guidelines Comparisons
Criminal History Cont.
(see chart)
Under pre-Guideline determinate sentencing, sentence length increased by 21% for each increase in criminal history category
Under Guidelines the sentence length increased by 34% for each criminal history category

15. Sentencing Under the Guidelines
(see chart)
Overall decrease in the number of cases, counts, and offenders sentenced
Decline in felony sentences imposed
Drug offenses accounted for much of decline
76% decline in drug offenses sentenced

16. Sentencing Under the Guidelines
I. Demographics
Females sentenced between 2010 – 2015
Decreased by 45%
Under 22 years of age
27.6% of offenders sentenced
Ages 41 – 50
Decreased from 20.9% in 2010 to 9.5% in 2015
Females Sentenced declined 45% between 2010 – 2105
Related to decrease in Drug offenses
Individuals under 22 years of age accounted for 27.6% of individuals sentenced
Individuals declined from 20.9% in 2010 to only 9.5% in 2015
Also related to decline in Drug offenses sentenced.
Drug offenses sentenced fell from 58.6% to 23.6% for this age group

17. Certainty in Sentencing
Certainty is defined as:
Individuals who commit offenses in a prison only box under the Guidelines will receive a prison sentence within the recommended sentencing range
Any exception to a prison sentence would be the result of judicial discretion or due to special circumstances or compelling reasons to depart from the recommended sentence type and range
78.5% of all counts sentenced received a prison sentence
Prison was imposed in:
97.8% of prison only boxes
82.8% short split boxes
54.8% of probation boxes

18. Certainty in Sentencing Cont.
Master Grid
Prison was imposed for 78.5% of counts sentenced
Prison sentences imposed:
97.8% in prison-only boxes
82.8% in short split boxes
54.8% in probation boxes
Offense Severity Group likelihood of prison increases
Criminal History Score sentence length increases
78.5% of all counts sentenced received a prison sentence
Prison was imposed in:
97.8% of prison only boxes
82.8% short split boxes
54.8% of probation boxes

19. Certainty in Sentencing Cont.
Drug Grid
Different from Master Grid
Prison accounted for 47.8% of sentences
Probation accounted for 31.8% of sentences
Evaluation of offense severity groups with multiple sentencing options
D1: prison accounted 70% of sentences
D2: equally likely to receive either a prison or non-prison sentence
D3 and D4: were more likely to receive a non-prison than prison sentence
Sentence Type
Unlike the Master Grid, slightly less than half (47.8%) of counts received prison sentences
31.8% of counts on the Drug Grid received probation sentences
Function of the number of Grid Boxes with multiple sentencing options
Prison sentences were imposed for armed drug offenses (D1) in70% of the counts sentenced
Sentences imposed for D2 offenses were equally likely to receive either a prison or non-prions sentence
Drug offenses on D3 and D4 were more likely to receive a non-prison than prison sentence
Especially in the lower CH categories

20. Consistency in Sentencing
Consistency is defined as:
Controlling for criminal history and severity of the offense, individuals should receive similar sentence types and lengths
In a limited number of cases, some variation is permitted by the Guidelines and sentence imposed is still considered compliant
Some variation in sentences is expected given the various types of offenses sentenced within a single offense severity group
78.5% of all counts sentenced received a prison sentence
Prison was imposed in:
97.8% of prison only boxes
82.8% short split boxes
54.8% of probation boxes

21. Consistency in Sentencing Cont.
Master Grid
Sentence length for Master Grid Offenses increased as expected given OSG and CH score but the average sentence in each grid box varied
In 30 out of 36 grid boxes had a mean sentence within the middle 50% of the box
30 out of 36 grid boxes have a mean sentence within the middle 50% of the range in the box

22. Consistency in Sentencing Cont.
Master Grid
Sex offenses are the exception
Consistently shorter sentences than other offenses in M2
Consistently longer sentences than other offenses in M6
Sex offenses are sentenced differently
Receive shorter sentences than other offenses on M2
Longer sentences than other offenses on M6

23. Consistency in Sentencing
Drug Grid
38.8% of grid boxes the mean sentence was in the middle 50% of the range in the box
44.4% of grid boxes the mean sentence was in the lower 25% of the range in the box
Impact of criminal history on repeat drug offenders is different than for other types of repeat offenders
Sentence Length
15 out of the 18 Grid Boxes on the Drug Grid demonstrate sentences that cluster around the mean sentence length
Length of prison sentence increase as severity and criminal history category increased.
However, the location of the means sentence varied between the middle 50% and lower 25% of the recommended range
The impact of criminal history for repeat drug offender is different than for other types of repeat offender

24. Consistency in Sentencing Cont.
Drug Grid Cont.
Drug Grid revised in 2011
Additional OSG and increased sentencing options
Included Attempted/Possession of Liquid PCP
Greater variation in sentencing
More grid boxes
Multiple sentencing options
More flexibility in sentencing
Restructuring did result in two statistically significant findings:
Length of prison sentences declined by 13% for individuals age 22-30
There was no change in the likelihood of the age group being sentenced to prison versus a non-prison sentence
This age group represented 30.3% of individuals sentenced for drug offenses
The average length of prison sentence imposed declined by 19% for cases disposed of by jury trials
There was no difference in lengths of prison sentences for pleas or bench trials
The larger number of grid boxes on the Drug Grid with multiple sentencing options provides for more flexibility in sentencing, which also results in greater variation in the types of sentences imposed

25. Adequacy of Punishment
Adequacy of punishment is defined as:
The sentencing range and options recommended by the Guidelines provide for adequate punishment of the individual sentenced
Departures from the Guidelines should be limited
Upward or downward departures should only be expected when there are substantial and compelling reasons to impose a sentence type or length different than recommended by the Guidelines
78.5% of all counts sentenced received a prison sentence
Prison was imposed in:
97.8% of prison only boxes
82.8% short split boxes
54.8% of probation boxes

26. Adequacy of Punishment Cont.
Guideline Departures
Sentencing ranges
Very wide
Overlap among grid boxes
Dispositional and durational departures: 7.1% of all counts ( )
Dispositional departures: very rare
Durational departures:
4.1% above the range
8.1% below the range
No relationship between a grid box and the likelihood of a departure
Problem Area: only 26.9% of all departures had departure reasons provided
Guidelines Departures
Dispositional and durational departures accounted for 7.1% of all counts sentence
Including 11(c)(1)(C) – where both parties agree to sentence outside the recommended Guideline sentence.
Departure reasons only provided in 26.9% of all departures – problem area
Dispositional departures are very rare – 1.6% of departures
Durational departures showed 4.1% above the range and 8.1% below the range
No Grid box where departure is more likely to occur than a compliant Guideline sentence

27. Achieving Statutory Goals
Overall Guidelines appear to be working as designed
Similar sentences imposed for similar offenses and similar criminal history
Severity of Sentence Offense Severity Group & Criminal History
Sentence Type Imposed Sentencing Options in the Grid Box
Overall, the Guidelines appear to be working as they were designed
- Offenders with similar CH scores receive similar sentences for the same offense
- Severity in sentencing increases as offense severity and criminal history increases
- Sentences for counts on the Master and Drug Grids were more likely to receive prison sentences in prison-only grid boxes
- Suggesting that there was greater consistency and certainty in the types of sentences imposed than in grid boxes with multiple sentencing options.
- Consistency and certainty of sentence length is less apparent on the Master Grid than the Drug Grid
- Partly attributable to greater variety of offense types on the Master Grid
- Although the Guidelines are voluntary judicial compliance is high – consistently over 90% yearly
- Given the high rate of compliance, victims, offenders, and the general public, can generally anticipate likely sentencing outcomes
- Judicial discretion is retained allowing for appropriate sentencing for atypical cases.

28. Achieving Statutory Goals Cont.
Consistently high judicial compliance – over 90% yearly
Judicial discretion is retained
Consistency and Certainty of sentence length:
Less apparent on the Drug Grid than the Master Grid
Overall, the Guidelines appear to be working as they were designed
- Offenders with similar CH scores receive similar sentences for the same offense
- Severity in sentencing increases as offense severity and criminal history increases
- Sentences for counts on the Master and Drug Grids were more likely to receive prison sentences in prison-only grid boxes
- Suggesting that there was greater consistency and certainty in the types of sentences imposed than in grid boxes with multiple sentencing options.
- Consistency and certainty of sentence length is less apparent on the Master Grid than the Drug Grid
- Partly attributable to greater variety of offense types on the Master Grid
- Although the Guidelines are voluntary judicial compliance is high – consistently over 90% yearly
- Given the high rate of compliance, victims, offenders, and the general public, can generally anticipate likely sentencing outcomes
- Judicial discretion is retained allowing for appropriate sentencing for atypical cases.

29. Areas for Further Research
Overall purpose of sentencing in D.C.
Feedback from practitioners
Role and impact of Criminal History
Modifications to the Guideline sentencing ranges
Placement of short-split and probation only grid boxes
Offense rankings for specific offenses
Impact of case disposition type
Obtain additional data
Input from judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, the primary users of the Guidelines
Revisit the overall purpose of sentencing in the District of Columbia
Examine the role of Criminal History in determining the Guideline sentence
Consider modifications to the Guideline sentencing ranges
Re-evaluate the placement of short-split and probation boxes on the grids
Consider adding presumptive non-prison boxes to the grids
Reassess the ranking of specific offenses on the Master Grid
Examine the placement of Escape and BRA on the Master Grid
Examine the impact of how a case is disposed
Further research regarding the use of Mandatory Minimums in sentencing
Request/Obtain additional data.

30. For more information:
Website: Phone: (202) Fax: (202)
(audience questions)