Technical Violator Risk Assessment

1
Technical Violator Risk Assessment

• This presentation will probably involve audience
  discussion, which will create action items. Use
  PowerPoint to keep track of these action items
  during your presentation
• In Slide Show, click on the right mouse button
• Select Meeting Minder
• Select the Action Items tab
• Type in action items as they come up
• Click OK to dismiss this box
• This will automatically create an Action Item
  slide at the end of your presentation with your
  points entered.

• Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission

2
Legislative Directive (Budget Language) - 2003

• The Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission
  shall
• Develop, with due regard for public safety,
  discretionary sentencing guidelines for
  application to felony offenders determined by the
  court to be in technical violation of
  probation/post-release supervision.
• Determine recidivism rates and patterns for these
  offenders.
• Evaluate the feasibility of integrating a risk
  assessment instrument into these discretionary
  sentencing guidelines.
• Provide findings to the 2004 Session of the
  General Assembly.
• - Chapter 1042 of 2003 Acts of Assembly

3
Status Summary

• Phase I Guidelines
• Phase II
• Data Collection
• Analysis
• Independent analysis
• Reconciliation
• Risk Assessment Instrument

4
Data Collection

• Not enough information
• available
• Parole cases
• 1st offender revocation
• New crime violation
• Not found in violation
• Misdemeanor cases

• Sample
• Started with guidelines data (528 cases)
• Supplemented with 420 additional cases
• Overall
• 830 cases completed
• Method 1 use 637 cases
• Method 2 use 755 cases
• 118 excluded from sample
• Data Sources
• Revocation database
• Revocation letters
• Criminal history rap sheets

5
Analysis

• Risk assessment is conducted on cases recommend
  for incarceration only
• Independent analysis done by 2 researchers using
  2 different methods
• Reconciliation process
• Results confirmed
• Risk assessment instrument

6
Risk Assessment

• The goal is to produce an instrument that is
  broadly accurate and provides useful additional
  information to decision makers.
• No risk assessment research can ever predict a
  given outcome with 100 accuracy.
• Individual factors by themselves do not place an
  offender in a high-risk group.
• The presence or absence of certain combinations
  of factors determine the risk group of the
  offender.

7
Method 1 Model

• Number of Cases 637
• Number of Cases Recommended for Incarceration
  442
• Follow-up Time 18 months
• Recidivism Measures
• New Crime Arrest 41.2
• New Arrest Leading to Conviction 32.5

8
Preliminary Model 1 Factors by Relative
Importance

• Under 30
• 30 to 37
• 38 to 48
• over 48

Yes / No
Yes / No

• None
• Alcohol abuse/reported or observed abuse
• Drugs other than Cocaine or alcohol
• Cocaine

Yes / No
9
Method 2

• Number of Cases (of 755 cases)
• Number of Cases Recommended for Incarceration
  559
• Follow-up Time Varies
• Recidivism Measures
• New Crime Arrest 50.8
• New Arrest Leading to Conviction 37.4

10
Preliminary Model 2 Factors by Relative
Importance
White/Nonwhite

• 14 to 19
• 20 to 29
• 30 to 39
• 40 to 49
• 50 and up

Yes / No
Yes / No
Yes / No

• None
• 1 Request
• 2 Requests

11
Whats Next

• Reconciliation process continues
• Evaluate other measures including time to new
  arrest resulting in a conviction
• Design of the risk assessment worksheet
• Recommendation for Commission action at November
  15 meeting
• Findings in 2004 Annual Report