2017 Report to the Legislature

Transcription

1 Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing 2017 Report to the Legislature Harrisburg Office: 408 Forum Building Capitol Complex Harrisburg, PA Phone: Fax: Pennsylvania s Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Program URL: January 2017 Hon. Sheila A. Woods- Skipper Chair Hon. Jill E. Rangos Vice Chair Mark H. Bergstrom Executive Director The Commission is an agency of the General Assembly affiliated with The Pennsylvania State University. 1

2 COMMISSION MEMBERS President Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper, Chair Judge Jill E. Rangos, Vice Chair Members selected by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate Arthur L. Haywood, III Senator (D) Montgomery/Philadelphia Counties John C. Rafferty, Jr. Senator (R) Berks/Chester/Montgomery Counties Members selected by the Chief Justice of Pennsylvania Rita Donovan Hathaway Judge Westmoreland County Daniel J. Milliron Judge Blair County Jill E. Rangos Judge Allegheny County Members selected by the Speaker of the House of Representatives Brandon P. Neuman Representative (D) Washington County Todd Stephens Representative (R) Montgomery County Members selected by the Governor of Pennsylvania Rachel E. Lopez, J.D., LL.M. Assistant Professor of Law Thomas R. Kline School of Law David A. Strouse, Esq. District Attorney Clinton County Mark B. Sheppard, Esq. Defense Attorney Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP Sheila A. Woods-Skipper President Judge Philadelphia County Ex officio Members Leo L. Dunn, Esq. Chairman PA Board of Probation and Parole Jennifer Storm PA Victim Advocate John Wetzel Secretary PA Department of Corrections

3 Pennsylvania s Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Program 2017 Report to the Legislature Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing The Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing would like to acknowledge the tremendous assistance provided by the staff at the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, and the Pennsylvania State Police in the preparation of this report.

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary... 2 Legislative Background... 3 Eligibility for RRRI... 3 Sentencing to RRRI... 4 Parole of the RRRI Offender... 4 Legislative Reports... 4 Offenders Sentenced to RRRI... 5 RRRI Offender Characteristics... 6 Offenders Released Under RRRI... 9 Recidivism Sample Type of Recidivism Certification Status Time to Failure Summary and Conclusion Appendices Appendix A. Failure Rates for Arrest and Technical Violations

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing s fourth Legislative Report on the Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive (RRRI) Program. The RRRI Program is designed to enhance public safety by encouraging eligible non-violent offenders to participate in programs intended to reduce recidivism. Those offenders who successfully complete the program serve a reduced minimum sentence. This report examines three major issues: 1) whether RRRI eligible offenders are receiving RRRI sentences; 2) whether certified RRRI offenders are being released at their RRRI minimum sentence; and 3) how the recidivism rate of RRRI offenders compares to non-rrri offenders. Major findings from the report are as follows: About 26% of the offenders sentenced to the Department of Corrections since November of 2008 received a RRRI sentence. The RRRI statute requires the imposition of a RRRI minimum sentence for eligible offenders; however, based upon information reported to the Commission, a large percentage of offenders who appeared eligible did not receive a RRRI minimum sentence. The majority of RRRI offenders (80%) were certified as fulfilling their programming upon release from prison. About 9% were decertified, and 11% were pending certification. While only a minority of RRRI offenders were released at the expiration of their RRRI minimum sentence, a majority (64%) were released before the expiration of their regular minimum sentence. Thus, the RRRI Program appears to reduce the amount of time these offenders serve in prison. Short minimum sentences, resulting in the inability of offenders to complete their programming, appear to be a major reason that offenders could not be released at the expiration of their RRRI minimum sentence. About 56% of the RRRI offenders received a RRRI minimum sentence of one year or less. While a majority of certified RRRI offenders (85%) were granted parole at their initial parole review, about 15% were refused parole. The most frequent reasons for parole refusal were unacceptable compliance with institutional programs (81%), negative institutional behavior (66%), lack of remorse/refusal to accept responsibility (54%), and high level of risk (53%). There was no difference in the overall recidivism rates of RRRI offenders and non-rrri offenders after six months and one year; however, there was a statistically significant difference in the overall recidivism rate after two years. After two years, RRRI offenders were less likely than non-rrri offenders to recidivate (45% vs. 47%). For future reports the Commission would like to explore whether additional data can be collected to provide a more accurate assessment of the number of eligible offenders and whether all eligible offenders are receiving RRRI sentences. In addition, we would like to clarify the parole denial reasons for RRRI offenders who are certified by the Department of Corrections, especially related to institutional conduct. 2

6 This is the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing s fourth Legislative Report on the Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive (RRRI) Program. In this report we provide information on: 1) offenders eligible for and sentenced to RRRI; 2) offenders released with a RRRI sentence; and 3) findings from a recidivism study on RRRI offenders. LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND The Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive is a program designed to enhance public safety by providing eligible non-violent offenders the opportunity to participate in programs intended to reduce recidivism. Offenders who successfully complete the program serve a reduced minimum sentence. The RRRI Program, which became effective on November 24, 2008, was part of a broader correctional reform package signed by Governor Rendell on September 25, 2008 (Act 81 of 2008). The legislation s stated purpose for RRRI was to create a program that ensures appropriate punishment for persons who commit crimes, encourages prisoner participation in evidence-based programs that reduce the risks of future crime and ensures the openness and accountability of the criminal justice process while ensuring fairness to crime victims (61 Pa. C.S. 4502). ELIGIBILITY FOR RRRI Act 81 of 2008 required that offenders receiving the Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive must meet certain eligibility criteria (61 Pa. C.S. 4503). Act 122 of 2012 made three changes to the RRRI eligibility criteria. First, any sex offense included in Megan s Law (as amended by the Adam Walsh Act) was added to the list of ineligible offenses for RRRI. Second, it clarified that RRRI shall be used even if a mandatory minimum sentence is otherwise provided by law. Third, it removed misdemeanor 3 simple assault as an excluded offense for RRRI eligibility. 1 Section 4503 currently defines an eligible offender as a defendant or inmate who will be committed to the custody of the department of corrections and who: Does not demonstrate a history of present or past violent behavior. Has not been convicted of an offense involving a deadly weapon or of an offense under the Firearms and Other Dangerous Articles Statute (18 Pa. C.S. Ch. 61). Has no current or prior conviction or juvenile adjudication for a personal injury crime as defined in the Crime Victims Act (P.L. 882, No. 111), except for misdemeanor 3 simple assault (18 Pa. C.S. 2701). Has no current or prior conviction or juvenile adjudication for the following: o incest (18 Pa. C.S. 4302) o open lewdness (18 Pa. C.S. 5901) o internet child pornography (18 Pa. C.S. Ch. 76 Subch. C) o any offense that requires sex offender registration (42 Pa. C.S. Ch. 97 Subch. H) o certain drug trafficking offenses subject to a mandatory sentence (18 Pa. C.S (a) (1) (iii), (a) (2) (iii), (a) (3) (iii), (a) (4) (iii), (a) (7) (iii), or (a) (8) (iii)) o certain drug offenses committed with firearms (42 Pa. C.S ) Is not awaiting trial or sentencing for other charges involving an ineligible offense. 1 These changes have had minimal impact on the number of eligible RRRI offenders. Most sex offenses requiring registration were already considered ineligible under the Crimes Victim Act and very few offenders are sentenced to state prison for M-3 simple assault. According to sentences reported to the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing in 2015, only four offenders were sentenced to state prison with M-3 simple assaults. 3

7 SENTENCING TO RRRI The RRRI statute requires the sentencing judge to make the determination whether an offender is eligible for the RRRI incentive. The district attorney can elect to waive the eligibility requirements upon notification to the victim, though the court has the right to refuse the waiver. 2 For those offenders deemed eligible for RRRI, the court imposes three sentences: the regular minimum and maximum sentences, and a RRRI minimum sentence (61 Pa. C.S. 4505). The RRRI minimum sentence is based upon a percentage of the regular minimum sentence: for minimum sentences three years or less, the RRRI sentence is three-fourths of the minimum sentence; for minimum sentences over three years the RRRI sentence is five-sixths of the minimum sentence. For determining the RRRI minimum sentence, total confinement for multiple offenses (42 Pa. C.S. 9757), and place of confinement (42 Pa. C.S (f)) apply. After a RRRI offender has been sentenced to the Department of Corrections (DOC), the DOC utilizes validated assessment tools to determine the needs and risks of the offender. Based upon these assessment tools, a program plan is developed for the offender that is designed to lower the risk of recidivism. PAROLE OF THE RRRI OFFENDER The offender is paroled upon expiration of the RRRI minimum sentence upon the following conditions (61 Pa. C.S. 4506): The DOC has certified that it conducted an appropriate assessment of the offender s needs and risks. The DOC has certified that a program plan designed to reduce recidivism was developed for the offender. The DOC informed the offender that he or she must successfully complete the program. The offender has successfully completed his or her program plan. The offender has maintained good conduct. The offender s reentry program is adequate. Conditions and requirements for parole have been established for the offender. Notice was provided by the Board of Probation and Parole to the sentencing judge and district attorney. The DOC certifies that the offender continues to be RRRI eligible. There is no reasonable indication that the offender poses a risk to public safety. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS Act 81 of 2008, which provided for the RRRI Program, included a mandate that the Department of Corrections, Board of Probation and Parole, and the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing monitor 2 According to sentences reported to the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing in 2015, ineligibility is waived by the DA in less than 2% of cases (n=47), and the judge authorizes the DA waiver in less than 1% of cases (n=32). 4

8 and evaluate the RRRI Program to ensure that the goals and objectives of the legislation are being fulfilled. Act 95 of 2010 revised the reporting requirement so that the Department of Corrections provides a report in even numbered years, and the Commission on Sentencing provides a report in odd numbered years (61 Pa. C.S. 4510). The Department of Correction s report is to include: (i) The number of offenders determined by the department to be eligible offenders under this chapter and the offenses for which the offenders were committed to the custody of the department. (ii) The number of prisoners committed to the custody of the department who were subject to a recidivism risk reduction incentive minimum sentence. (iii) The number of prisoners paroled at the recidivism risk reduction incentive minimum date. (iv) Any potential changes that would make the program more effective. (v) The six-month, one-year, three-year, and five-year recidivism rates for prisoners released at the recidivism risk reduction incentive minimum sentence. (vi) Any other information the department deems relevant. The Commission s report is to include: (i) Whether the goals of this chapter could be achieved through amendments to parole or sentencing guidelines. (ii) The various options for parole or sentencing guidelines under subparagraph (i). (iii) The status of any proposed or implemented guidelines designed to implement the provision of this chapter. (iv) Any potential changes to the program that would be likely to reduce the risk of recidivism of prisoners and improve public safety. (v) Any other information the Commission deems relevant. OFFENDERS SENTENCED TO RRRI The RRRI Program became effective for offenders sentenced to the Department of Corrections on or after November 24, Based upon data received from the Department of Corrections, as of May 31, 2016 there have been 80,459 offenders sentenced to the Department of Corrections, and 26% of these offenders had a RRRI sentence (n=21,206). Offenders eligible for RRRI. The RRRI statute mandates that if the judge determines the defendant is an eligible RRRI offender, a RRRI minimum sentence shall be imposed in addition to the regular minimum sentence. Under the current reporting system, it is difficult to determine the true number of eligible offenders. The Commission s Sentencing Guideline Software (SGS Web) automatically computes RRRI eligibility taking into account both current and prior conviction offenses reported to the Commission. 3 3 Currently, SGS Web, calculates a RRRI minimum for all offenders sentenced to state prison. The only exclusions to the calculation of a RRRI minimum sentence are if the offender has an ineligible current offense in the judicial proceeding, has a prior conviction or adjudication for a violent or personal offense in the Prior Record Score detail, or has indicated that there is something in the offender s past or present history that makes the offender RRRI ineligible. The SGS Web user may override ineligibility if the District Attorney has waived the offender s ineligibility and the judge has authorized the DA s waiver. Due to 5

9 In addition, user input is required to indicate whether the offender is RRRI ineligible due to prior offenses, behavior, mandatories, etc. For 2015, about 42% of the offenders sentenced to the Department of Corrections were indicated as eligible for RRRI based on the combination of the program s calculation and user input. Of those apparently eligible offenders, only 55% received a RRRI sentence. 4 It is unclear whether the discrepancy is data entry error or whether statutorily eligible offenders are not receiving RRRI sentences. While the program captures both current and prior ineligible offenses, judges may be making determinations of ineligibility due to a history of present or past violent behavior (61 Pa. C.S. 4503) on other bases such as ineligible charges pending in other jurisdictions or prior violations of protection from abuse orders, and so forth. Although SGS Web specifically asks users whether the offender is ineligible for RRRI, the program defaults to indicate no, so it is possible that the responses do not accurately indicate eligibility. (Very few cases have an answer of yes for this field.) For future reports the Commission will explore the desirability of including additional fields in SGS Web to indicate reasons for RRRI ineligibility or to otherwise more accurately capture eligibility. While additional information would greatly assist with the assessment of RRRI, the Commission also recognizes the administrative concerns associated with additional data collection. We also plan to investigate other avenues for obtaining further information on these offenders, such as going into the field to look up cases or surveying judges on RRRI eligibility determinations. RRRI OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS Table 1 provides information on the characteristics of RRRI offenders who were admitted to the Department of Corrections from November 28, 2008 through May 31, The majority of RRRI offenders were male (83%), white (59%), and had an average age of 33 years. Most RRRI offenders were convicted of drug (47%), theft (23%), DUI (11%), and burglary (10%) offenses, and had an average minimum sentence of 19 months. 5 Based upon the RST assessment tool used by the Department of Corrections to determine the offender s risk for future criminal activity, most RRRI offenders were at a medium risk of recidivism (50%). Based upon the TCU score used to assess substance abuse, 50% had a serious problem with drugs and/or alcohol. A majority of RRRI offenders were recommended for 1 or 2 treatment programs while incarcerated. The most commonly recommended programs were Therapeutic Community (32%), Violence Prevention (30%), Outpatient Treatment (14%), Thinking for a Change (8%), and Batterers Intervention (7%). Judges in all 67 counties have sentenced offenders to RRRI, with the highest percentages coming from Philadelphia (13%), Lackawanna (5%), Berks (4%), Delaware (4%), Montgomery (4%), and Lancaster (4%) counties. RRRI eligible offenders not receiving RRRI minimum sentences, on November 30, 2011, a field was added to SGS Web indicating if a RRRI minimum sentence was imposed. 4 In 2016, the Department of Corrections reported that among RRRI eligible offenders, 69% received a RRRI sentence (Bucklen, Kristofer, Nicolette Bell and Dean Lategan. (2016). Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive 2016 Report. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections). In part, this difference is due to the information available to each agency to calculate RRRI eligibility. 5 The minimum sentence for the RRRI offender is the original minimum sentence imposed, not the RRRI minimum sentence. 6

10 Table 1. Offenders Sentenced to RRRI (N=21,106) Number Percent Number Percent Gender RST Assessment Score Male 17, Low 5, Female 3, Medium 10, Race High 5, White 12, Missing Black 6, TCU Assessment Score Hispanic 2, None 5, Other Low 4, Age Medium under 21 1, High 10, , Missing , Recommended Programs , Therapeutic Community 6, >50 1, Violence Prevention 6, Mean 33.3 Outpatient Treatment 2, Offense Category Thinking for a Change 1, Drug 9, Batterers Intervention 1, DUI 2, Other 1, Theft/Forgery/Fraud 4, Regular Minimum Sentence (in months) Personal year or less 8, Burglary/Trespass 2, <2 years 7, Weapon/Firearm <3 years 2, Other 1, <4 years 1, <5 years years or more Mean

11 Table 1 (continued). Offenders Sentenced to RRRI (N=21,206) Number Percent Number Percent County Adams Lackawanna Allegheny Lancaster Armstrong Lawrence Beaver Lebanon Bedford Lehigh Berks Luzerne Blair Lycoming Bradford McKean Bucks Mercer Butler Mifflin Cambria Monroe Cameron Montgomery Carbon Montour Centre Northampton Chester Northumberland Clarion Perry Clearfield Philadelphia 2, Clinton Pike Columbia Potter Crawford Schuylkill Cumberland Snyder Dauphin Somerset Delaware 1, Sullivan Elk Susquehanna Erie Tioga Fayette Union Forrest Venengo Franklin Warren Fulton Washington Greene Wayne Huntingdon Westmoreland Indiana Wyoming Jefferson York Juniata Out of State

12 OFFENDERS RELEASED UNDER RRRI The RRRI statute requires that RRRI offenders be released at the expiration of their RRRI minimum sentence upon certain conditions being met, including certification that they successfully completed their programming. There have been 17,454 offenders sentenced to RRRI since November 24, 2008 and released by December 31, Table 2 shows that at the time of their release, about 80% of these offenders were certified, 9% were decertified, and 11% were pending certification. The most common reason for decertification was adjustment misconduct (42.3%), followed by program non-compliance (12.2%). Table 2. Offenders Released under RRRI (N=17,454) Certification status at time of release: Number Percent Certified 13, Decertified 1, Pending 1, Reasons for Decertification: Adjustment Misconduct Program Non-Compliance Inmate Refused RRRI Release Served Maximum Sentence Incurred New Ineligible Charges Other Among certified offenders, a majority (64%) of offenders were released prior to the expiration of their regular minimum sentence (Figure 1). About 36% were released after the expiration of their regular minimum sentence. Table 3 and Figure 2 provide more detailed information on the release of certified RRRI offenders. This table indicates that while only about 12% were released at the RRRI minimum, 28% were released within a week of the expiration of their RRRI minimum, 39% within a month, and 55% within three months. 9

13 Table 3. Release of Certified RRRI Offenders (N=13,978) Number Percent Released prior to Regular Minimum Released at RRRI min. 1, Released 1 week or less after RRRI min. 2, Released >1 week to <1 month after RRRI min. 1, Released 1 month to <3 months after RRRI min. 2, Released 3 months to <6 months after RRRI min. 1, Released 6 months to <9 months after RRRI min Released 9 months <12 months after RRRI min Released >=12 months after RRRI min Subtotal 8, Released after Regular Minimum Released at Regular min Released 1 week or less after Regular min Released >1 week to <1 month after Regular min Released 1 month to <3 months after Regular min. 1, Released 3 months to <6 months after Regular min. 1, Released 6 months to <9 months after Regular min Released 9 months to <12 months after Regular min Released >=12 months after Regular min Subtotal 5, Total Released 13,

14 While a majority of certified RRRI offenders were released before their regular minimum sentence, 36% were not released until after their regular minimum sentence. Two possible explanations for this are: 1) offenders being sentenced to short minimum sentences, and 2) offenders not meeting the required conditions for parole. The Department of Corrections and the Board of Probation and Parole indicate that the combination of short minimum sentences and the inability of offenders to complete their required programming make it difficult for offenders to be certified and released by the expiration of their RRRI sentence. Our findings support this. Table 4 shows the length of the regular and RRRI minimum sentences imposed. About 7% of the offenders had a RRRI minimum sentence of six months or less; 56% had a RRRI minimum sentence that was one year or less. Table 4. Regular and RRRI Minimum Sentence Imposed (N=13,978) Length Regular Minimum RRRI Minimum Number Percent Number Percent <=6 months >6 months-1 year 5, , >1-<2 years 5, , <3 years 1, <4 years <5 years >=5 years Total 13, , Figure 3 shows that the percentage of certified RRRI offenders who were released by the RRRI minimum sentence imposed. The percentage of offenders released before their regular minimum sentence increases with the RRRI minimum sentence imposed. Only 48% of RRRI offenders sentenced to one year or less in prison were released before their regular minimum sentence. This increases to 82% of offenders sentenced to less than two years in prison, and 88% of offenders sentenced to two years or more in prison. 11

15 In addition to short minimum sentences, some certified RRRI offenders may not meet the required conditions for parole. The RRRI statute states that offenders shall be released at the expiration of their RRRI minimum sentence upon meeting certain conditions such as: successful completion of their programs, maintaining good conduct, having adequate home plans, and not posing a public safety risk. The Board of Probation and Parole provided the Commission with information on parole decisions for this report. Of the 13,978 RRRI certified offenders identified by the Department of Corrections, we received parole information for 12,018 offenders (80%). Of the 12,018 matched offenders, 85% were granted parole at their initial parole interview and 15% were refused parole. 6 The most frequent reasons for not granting parole were unacceptable compliance with institutional programs (81%), negative institutional behavior (66%), lack of remorse/refusal to accept responsibility (54%), and high level of risk (53%). These reasons for not granting parole are not mutually exclusive and most offenders who were refused parole had multiple reasons listed. Presumably some of the listed reasons, standing alone, would not justify refusal to parole under 61 Pa. C.S However, this subpopulation only included offenders certified by the DOC; they all successfully completed their institutional programming and maintained a record of good conduct, or else they would have been decertified by the DOC. For future reports, the Commission will attempt to clarify the parole denial reasons linked to institutional conduct for those RRRI offenders who are certified by the DOC. RECIDIVISM Sample. As part of the RRRI evaluation, we conducted a recidivism study to examine whether there were differences in the recidivism of RRRI offenders compared to non-rrri offenders. For the analysis we used data from the Department of Corrections and compared offenders who received a RRRI sentence with a group of offenders who were eligible for RRRI but not sentenced. For both groups we used offenders who were sentenced after November 24, 2008 and released prior to December 31, This allowed all offenders to be tracked for a minimum of two years. A matching procedure was conducted in order to determine which offenders would comprise the comparison group so that it would be as comparable as possible to the RRRI group. We matched the RRRI group with the comparison group on the following factors: gender, race, age, county, current conviction offense, maximum sentence, risk assessment score, prior arrests, and prior personal arrest. 7 However, after matching, we still had significant differences, though they were not as great as prior to matching. 8 Table 5 shows that the RRRI group was more likely than the comparison group to be female, to have shorter maximum sentences and lower risk assessment scores. The final sample consisted of 8,169 RRRI offenders and 8,169 non-rrri comparison group offenders. 6 DOC inmates are initially interviewed for parole 3-4 months before the expiration of their minimum sentence. If an inmate is refused parole, a subsequent interview is scheduled within 6 months to a year. If a RRRI inmate is refused parole at their initial interview, it is unlikely that they will be released at the expiration of the RRRI minimum. 7 In order to control for differences between these groups we used propensity score matching. Propensity score matching allows us to control for significant differences between groups to determine the true treatment effect. The propensity score is computed using logistic regression and is the predicted probability of being sentenced to RRRI controlling for multiple offender characteristics. Cases are then matched on their propensity score ranging from 0 and 1. In this analysis we used one to one matching without replacement meaning each offender sentenced to RRRI is matched with only one RRRI eligible offender and each RRRI eligible offender could only be matched once. 8 There was no significant difference in the mean of the estimated propensity score between these two groups after matching. 12

16 Table 5. Recidivism Sample Description (N=16,338) Number Percent Number Percent RRRI Non RRRI RRRI Non RRRI RRRI Non RRRI RRRI Non RRRI Gender *** Maximum Sentence *** Male 7,140 7, <2 years Female 1, <5 years 4,862 4, Race >=5 years 3,293 3, White 4,173 4, RST Assessment Score *** Other 3,996 4, Low 1,859 1, Age Med 4,151 4, <25 years 1,816 1, High 2,159 2, years 4,044 4, Number of Prior Arrests >40 years 2,309 2, ,643 1, County 2-4 2,149 2, Urban 1,734 1, >=5 4,377 4, Semi-urban 4,004 4, Prior Personal Arrest Rural 2,431 2, No 3,435 3, Offense Category Yes 4,734 4, Drug 4,597 4, Theft 2,561 2, Personal Other * Significant at.05 level ** Significant at.01 level *** Significant at.001 level Type of recidivism. We examined recidivism with respect to both a technical violation resulting in a return to prison and the commission of a new offense resulting in an arrest. We received technical violation data from the Department of Corrections and arrest data from the State Police. Table 6 shows the recidivism rates for the sample after six months, one year, and two years. For all three tracking periods, the recidivism rates for the RRRI offenders were slightly lower than the comparison, non-rrri offender group, and significantly lower after two years. After two years, about 45% of the RRRI group recidivated and 47% of the non-rrri group recidivated. When looking at the type of recidivism, there was no meaningful distinction between the rate of arrests or technical violations between the RRRI and non-rrri groups (30% vs. 31% and 15% vs. 16% respectively). Thus, for the recidivism analysis we combined both arrests and technical violations together into a measure of total recidivism. 13

17 Table 6. Recidivism rates of Matched Sample for RRRI (N=16,338) Follow-up time 6 Months 1 Year 2 Year RRRI (N=8,169) Non RRRI (N=8,169) Arrest Technical Total recidivism Arrest Technical Total recidivism Arrest Technical Total recidivism ** Certification status. The RRRI statute provides that the Department of Corrections determine that the offender has successfully completed the treatment program and is certified for release under the RRRI minimum sentence. Though most offenders in our sample (78%) were certified at the time of release, 10% had their certification status pending, and 12% had been decertified. Figure 4 shows the recidivism rates by the offenders certification status. Among the RRRI offenders, those who were decertified had the highest recidivism rates, followed by the certified offender, with offenders released pending certification having the lowest recidivism rates. This was true with respect to both arrests and technical violations. As these differences were significant, we included the certification status in our recidivism analysis. 14

18 Time to failure. Figure 5 shows the cumulative recidivism rate of offenders either recommitted to prison after a technical violation or re-arrested for a new crime within two years. This figure depicts the differences in the recidivism rates of RRRI offenders by certification status and non-rrri offenders. The recidivism findings were: 1) decertified RRRI offenders are most likely to fail, 2) pending RRRI offenders are least likely to fail, and 3) certified RRRI offenders are less likely to fail than non-rrri offenders. (See Appendix A for survival analysis failure rate tables). 15

19 CONCLUSION This is the fourth report by the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing on the Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Program, which became operational on November 24, In this report we provided information on the admissions, releases, and recidivism of the RRRI offender. First, we examined how many offenders were eligible for and sentenced to RRRI. The RRRI statute mandates that if the judge determines the defendant is an eligible RRRI offender, a RRRI minimum sentence shall be imposed in addition to the regular minimum sentence. Under the current reporting system, SGS Web, it is difficult to determine the true number of eligible offenders. We found that 42% of the offenders sentenced to the Department of Corrections were indicated as eligible for RRRI, and of those eligible offenders, only 55% received a RRRI sentence. It is unclear whether the discrepancy is unreported disqualifiers or whether statutorily eligible offenders are not receiving RRRI sentences. While the program captures both current and prior ineligible offenses, judges may be making determinations of ineligibility due to a history of present or past violent behavior (61 Pa. C.S. 4503) on other bases such as charges pending in other jurisdictions or prior violations of protection from abuse orders, and so forth. For future reports the Commission will explore the desirability of including additional fields in SGS Web to indicate reasons for RRRI ineligibility or to otherwise more accurately capture eligibility. Second, we examined how many RRRI offenders were released at the expiration of their RRRI minimum sentence. We found that most offenders were certified (80%) by the Department of Corrections as fulfilling the requirements for release by successfully completing their programming and maintaining good conduct, though some offenders were released pending certification (11%) or were decertified (9%). Of certified RRRI offenders, we found a minority (12%) were released at the RRRI minimum, though 28% were released within one week of the expiration of their RRRI minimum. Further, while a minority of RRRI offenders were released at their RRRI minimum sentence, a majority (64%) were released before the expiration of their regular minimum sentence. Having a better understanding of why RRRI offenders are not being released at the expiration of their RRRI minimum sentence would help determine whether modifications to the legislation or implementation of RRRI would be beneficial. We have identified two possible explanations why certified RRRI offenders are not being released at the expiration of their RRRI minimum sentence. The first explanation is that a large percentage of the offenders have short minimum sentences. We found that about 56% of the RRRI offenders receive a RRRI minimum sentence of one year or less making it difficult for offenders to complete their prescribed programming in time to be released under their RRRI minimum sentence. The second explanation for offenders not being released at their RRRI sentence is that they do not meet the required conditions for parole. The RRRI statute states that offenders shall be released at the expiration of their RRRI minimum sentence upon meeting certain conditions such as: successful completion of their program, no misconducts, adequate home plans, and not being a risk to public safety. We obtained parole information from the Board of Probation and Parole and found that while a majority (85%) of certified RRRI offenders are granted parole at their initial parole interview, 15% of offenders were refused parole. The most frequently cited reasons for refusal were unacceptable 16

20 compliance with institutional programs (81%), negative institutional behavior (66%), lack of remorse/refusal to accept responsibility (54%), and high level of risk (53%). However, this subpopulation only included offenders certified by the DOC; they all successfully completed their institutional programming and maintained a record of good conduct (or else they would have been decertified by the DOC). For future reports, we would like to clarify the parole denial reasons for those RRRI offenders who are certified by the DOC. Lastly, we examined the recidivism rate of RRRI offenders compared to a group of offenders eligible for RRRI, but not sentenced. There was no difference in the overall recidivism rates of RRRI offenders and non-rrri offenders after six months and one year, however, there was a significant difference in the overall recidivism rate after two years. After two years, we found RRRI offenders were less likely than non-rrri offenders to recidivate (45% vs. 47%). We also looked at the recidivism rates of RRRI offenders who were pending certification and those who were decertified. We found decertified offenders to have the highest recidivism rate, and those pending certification to have the lowest recidivism rate. This held true for both arrests and technical violations. The finding that decertified offenders do the worst upon release is not surprising as the most common reason for decertification is having adjustment issues, such as prison misconducts. Overall, the finding that most offenders were being released before the expiration of their regular minimum sentence indicates that the RRRI Program is achieving some success in reducing the amount of time these offenders serve in prison. Further, we found a significant difference in the overall recidivism rate of RRRI offenders compared to non-rrri offenders after two years. For future reports we would like to explore whether additional data can be collected to provide a more accurate assessment of the number of eligible offenders and whether all eligible offenders are receiving RRRI sentences. In addition, we would like to clarify the parole denial reasons for RRRI offenders who are certified by the DOC. 17

21 APPENDICES 18

22 Appendix A. Failure Rates for the Recidivism Sample - Both Rearrest and Technical Violation RRRI Pending RRRI Certified RRRI Decertified Exposure Risk Set Arrested Proportion Risk Set Arrested Proportion Risk Set Arrested Proportion Risk Set Non RRRI Arrested Proportion Months N N Failure N N Failure N N Failure N N Failure * 3554 * 391 * 4361 * * This number represents the number of offenders w ho w ere not removed from the 'at risk' group and 'survived'. 19

23 Staff Executive Unit Mark H. Bergstrom Executive Director Rhys Hester Deputy Director Data Management Unit Carol A. Zeiss Manager Linda M. Bell SGS Web Support Caroline F. Pierce Data Management Analyst Robert E. Probst Lead Data Input Specialist Qing Zhang Data Management Analyst Research and Analysis Unit Leigh A. Tinik Manager Administrative Support Unit Jodi R. Ripka Fiscal/Office Manager Catherine W. Dittman Staff Assistant Susan M. Shaffer* Staff Assistant Outreach and Policy Support Unit Diane E. Shoop, Ph.D.* Manager Ryan S. Meyers Sentencing Policy Specialist Helene Placey* Sentencing Policy Specialist Carrie L. Peters Sentencing Policy Specialist Nancy Xavios* Sentencing Policy Specialist Haiou Hu Data Analyst Melissa R. Parks Data Analyst *located in Harrisburg Office

24 Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing PO Box 1200 State College, PA State College Office 204 East Calder Way Suite 400 State College, PA Harrisburg Office 408 Forum Building Capitol Complex Harrisburg, PA Phone: Fax: Phone: Fax: