1. Review of Guidelines Worksheet Structure - Research Proposal

2. 2 Sentencing Guidelines Design Conviction No Prison Prison Section C: Prison Sentence Length Recommendation Probation Jail Section A: Prison In/Out Recommendation Section B: Probation/Jail Recommendation

3. 3 Prison v. Jail Sentences  The definition of what constitutes a prison (state-responsible) sentence versus a jail (local- responsible) sentence has changed several times since 1990.

4. 4 Prison v. Jail Sentences Prison - 1 yr. or more Jail - 12 mos. or less 1990200219921994199619982000 Prison - more than 2 yrs. Jail - 2 yrs. or less Abolition of parole Prison - 1 yr. or more Jail - less than 1 yr. Prison* - 1 yr. or more Jail* - 12 mos. or less * policy of Virginia Department of Corrections Prison - more than 6 mos. Jail - 6 mos. or less Structure of current guidelines

5. 5 Current Sentencing Guidelines Structure Conviction No Yes Section C: Sentence Length Recommendation - Incarceration > 6 months Probation Incarceration Up to 6 months Section A: Incarceration > 6 months Yes/No Recommendation Section B: Probation or Incarceration up to 6 months Recommendation

6. 6

7. 7 Current Sentencing Guidelines Structure  The existing sentencing guidelines structure has been out of sync with the definition of a prison sentence since 1998.  The Commission has never formally reviewed the impact of this inconsistency.  Judicial practices related to the imposition of jail versus prison sanctions have not been fully explored since the change in definition occurred.

8. 8 Truth-in-Sentencing/No Parole System  Under the truth-in-sentencing/no-parole system, felons must serve at least 85% of the effective sentence no matter where they are physically housed. There is no longer a difference between jail and prison in the percent of sentence served by felons.  There may be different factors, however, that judges consider when deciding whether to sentence an offender to a jail versus prison term.

9. 9 Research Proposal  Staff proposes performing exploratory analysis to examine: the impact of the inconsistency between the structure of the guidelines and the definition of a prison sentence, the differences in jail versus prison sanctioning decisions, and the feasibility of simplifying the guidelines while maintaining statistical power of the sentencing models.

10. 10 Research Proposal  Study the possibility of revising worksheets to reflect current definition of a prison inmate: Section A- In/Out (Incarceration 1 Year or More) Section B- Prob. or Incarceration up to 12 Months Section C- Sentence Length (1 Year or More)  Study the possibility of reducing the number of worksheets from 3 to 2: Section A- Incarceration In/Out Section B- Sentence Length  Driven by the data

11. 11 Data Source(s)  Sentencing analysis utilizes the Pre/Post- Sentence Investigation (PSI) data system.  PSI information is collected and maintained by the Department of Corrections (DOC). Probation and parole officers prepare PSIs and submit to DOC central office.

12. 12 Data Source(s)  A PSI, however, is not completed on every felon convicted in circuit court. Cases that do not result in a prison term or term of supervised probation will not have a PSI. There is a new mini-PSI option (2006 General Assembly) that will reduce the amount of data reported.

13. 13 Data Source(s)  When a pre-sentence report is not ordered, there is a considerable time lag between sentencing and preparation of the post-sentence report.  Due to delay in submission of post-sentence reports, data for a given year will be incomplete for a lengthy period.

14. 14 Supplementing PSI data  Without supplementing the data, the data does not fully represent all felony cases sentenced in circuit court. Certain cases are more likely to go without a PSI (e.g., larceny). Potential for bias exists.  Since 1985, PSI data has been supplemented.  Method of supplementing data has evolved.  Today, sentencing guidelines data are used to identify felony cases that do not have a PSI in the system.

15. 15 Research Proposal – Work Plan  With the Commission’s approval, staff would conduct this exploratory analysis over the summer.  Staff would report back to the Commission at the September 2006 meeting.