Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing Justice Reinvestment in Pennsylvania

1. Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing Justice Reinvestment in Pennsylvania Drug & Alcohol Conference: Treatment, Recovery & the Criminal Justice System April 14, 2011

2. Sentencing & Corrections Reforms in Pennsylvania Sentencing & Corrections Data: • 1990: 60% of sentences included incarceration; 2000: 46% of sentences included incarceration; steady at 44% since 2006. • DOC admissions represent approximately 14% of criminal incidents reported to the Commission, and approximately 12% of the individuals sentenced (2004-2008); sentences represent 71.5% of DOC admissions (2010). • Fewer serious offenders, but with longer sentences; greater number of less serious offenders, but with shorter sentences… Average minimum sentence (DOC) 1990 = 28.5 mo; 2009 = 29.1 mo Average maximum sentence (DOC) 1990 = 71.7 mo; 2009 = 67.8 mo

3. Sentencing & Corrections Reforms in Pennsylvania • Changes in disposition and duration of sentences reflected in key populations: • replacement of jail with CIP for targeted drug offenders • increases in sentences for targeted violent offenders

4. Sentencing & Corrections Reforms in Pennsylvania • DOC growth fueled by: • Increase in arrests & convictions (70% between 1990-2009) • 1990 -- 84,559 sentences (62,519 criminal incidents) • 2007 -- 141,145 sentences (97,483 criminal incidents) • Drug violations major driver • 1997 -- 17.3% of sentences; 13.9% of DOC court admissions • 2007 -- 21.9% of sentences; 17.2% of DOC court admissions • Increase in length of stay • 1980 -- time served was 102% of minimum term • 2002 -- time served was 133% of minimum term • Recommitment of parole violators • 2010 -- 28.5% of DOC admissions

5. Sentencing & Corrections Reforms in Pennsylvania

6. Sentencing & Corrections Reforms in Pennsylvania Pennsylvania’s 2008 Reforms: • Acts 2008-81-84: • Promote coordinated sentencing and parole policies • Enhance information, transparency, predictability and resource utilization • Encourage inmates and parolees to abide by conditions and rules (county & state), and to participate in programming that has been demonstrated to be effective in reducing recidivism, including appropriate drug and alcohol treatment programs • Prioritize the use of incarceration, rehabilitation and other criminal justice resources for offenders posing the greatest risk to public safety (review short mins) • Take into account available research related to risk of recidivism, minimizing the threat posed to public safety and factors maximizing success of re-entry

7. Sentencing & Corrections Reforms in Pennsylvania Pennsylvania’s 2010 Reforms (enacted & re-introduced): • Act 2010-95 (SB1161, PN2241): • Commission to adopt empirically-based risk assessment instrument; incorporate into sentencing guidelines • Determine appropriate candidates for alternative sentences; target incapacitation of serious and violent offenders • Identify those who require more thorough assessment • SB 100, PN 85 (Session of 2011): • HR12 recommendations (CIP/SIP eligibility for lowest category of drug trafficking; broaden SIP eligibility) • Project HOPE (probation violators) • DOC pre-release eligibility; Safe Community Reentry Program • FUNDING: PCCD ($50M CIP); PBPP ($15M Reentry); PCS ($2M Reforms); AOPC ($2 Problem-solving courts)

8. Sentencing & Corrections Reforms in Pennsylvania Reforms to advisorysentencing guidelines: • Better sorting of offenders at sentencing • Current guidelines will continue to provide starting point for sentencing, considering issues of punishment and accountability (retribution) • Risk screening (static risk factors) as part of the guidelines will add formal consideration of risk • Identify high risk violent offenders (incapacitation) • Identify low risk offenders (dispositional or durational departures) • Target offenders for program participation (CIP, SIP, BC) • Focus expanded risk & needs assessment (dynamic risk factors, available resources) to further inform sentencing decision • D&A evaluation for RIP/D&A • Enhanced risk-based PSI

9. Sentencing & Corrections Reforms in Pennsylvania Development of Parole guidelines: • Complement (to the degree possible) internal decisional instrument used by PBPP; recognize different circumstances with county sentences • Retain predictive model; balance concerns of public safety and correctional resources; more presumptive for low risk/low severity. • Continued focus on institutional behavior; dynamic factors (risk); programming and services to address needs; institutional behavior; re-entry/community supervision. Documentation of non-weighted factors.

10. Sentencing & Corrections Reforms in Pennsylvania Justice Reinvestment… • Better information • Earlier in the process • Retribution and risk at sentencing (process and outcomes) • System-wide resource utilization (cost-benefit analysis) Front-loading investments… • Research & development • Individual and aggregate information (flow) • Community-based programming & supervision

11. Justice Reinvestment in Pennsylvania Mark H. Bergstrom, Executive Director Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing E-mail: mhb105@psu.edu URL: http://pasentencing.us Capitol Complex University Park Campus 408 Forum Building 009C Brumbaugh Hall P.O. Box 1045 P.O. Box 1200 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1045 State College, PA 16804-1200 Phone: 717.772.2150 Phone: 814.863.4368 Fax: 717.772.8892 Fax: 814.863.2129 April 14, 2011