Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing
Adams County Bar Association Conference
Risk Assessment at Sentencing
Risk Assessment at Sentencing
Commission’s Sentencing-Related Risk Mandates

Adoption of sentencing guidelines
• Guidelines shall address criminal behavior, by
specifying a range of sentences of increased
severity for offenders who pose a substantial risk
to public safety.

Adoption of risk assessment instrument
• The Commission shall adopt a sentence risk
assessment instrument for the sentencing court
to use to help determine the appropriate
sentence within the limits established by law for
defendants who plead guilty or nolo contendere
to, or who were found guilty of, felonies and
misdemeanors.
• An empirically based worksheet which uses
factors that are relevant in predicting recidivism.
2
Risk Assessment at Sentencing
Criminal Justice Applications:

Actuarial risk assessment
• A statistical method of estimating the risk of a
particular event’s occurrence; measures the
characteristics of offenders that are predictive of
criminal behavior.
• Used for different purposes (e.g., offender
liberty, public safety, institutional security,) at
different stages (e.g., pretrial release,
sentencing, classification, parole, community
supervision) and analyzing different outcomes
(e.g., failure to appear, misconducts, recidivism).
3
Risk Assessment at Sentencing
Risk-Need-Responsivity Model

Risk principle – criminal behavior can be reliably
predicted and that treatment /intervention should
focus on higher risk offenders.

Need principle – highlights the importance of
criminogenic needs in the design and delivery of
treatment.

Responsivity principle – treatment/intervention
should be provided in a manner that maximizes an
offender’s ability to learn, with a focus on
individualized cognitive behavioral treatment.
RNR Model (Andrews, Bonta & Hoge, 1990)
4
Risk Assessment at Sentencing
Risk Assessment Categories

1st Generation – professional judgment.

2nd Generation – actuarial risk assessment instrument; rely
primarily on static factors; can reliably differentiate lower risk
offenders from higher risk offenders.

3rd Generation – risk-needs assessment instrument; include
dynamic risk factors (e.g., present employment, criminal
friends, family relationships, etc.); addresses changes in
circumstances and identifies needs to be targeted.

4th Generation – risk-need-responsivity (RNR) assessment
instrument; include identification of offender strengths, assess
responsivity factors and non-criminogenic needs; integrate
systematic intervention and monitoring (e.g., Level of
Service/Case Management Inventory).
5
Risk Assessment at Sentencing
Risk Assessment Categories at Sentencing in Pennsylvania

First generation risk assessment (professional judgement) is required at
sentencing in Pennsylvania:
•
•
•
•

Second generation risk assessment (actuarial instrument) is better:
•

“… the sentence imposed should call for confinement that is consistent with the
protection of the public…” (42 Pa.C.S.§9721(b))
“… shall be accorded weight in favor of an order of probation: (9) The character
and attitudes of the defendant indicate that he is unlikely to commit another
crime.” (42 Pa.C.S.§9722)
“… total confinement of the defendant is necessary because: (1) there is undue
risk that during a period of probation or partial confinement the defendant will
commit another crime;” (42 Pa.C.S.§9725)
“… the court may, if it determines that 25 years of total confinement is
insufficient to protect the public safety, sentence the offender to life
imprisonment without parole.” (42 Pa.C.S.§9714(a)(2))
Actuarial risk assessment instruments were better at predicting criminal behavior
than professional judgement. (Bonta & Andrews, 2007)
Third & Fourth generation risk assessments at sentencing (RNR PSI)
6
Risk Assessment at Sentencing
Authorized Uses of Risk Assessment at Sentencing

Adoption of risk assessment instrument
• May be used to help determine the appropriate sentence
within the limits established by the law.
• May be used as an aide in evaluating the relative risk that
an offender will reoffend and be a threat to public safety.
• May be incorporated into the sentencing guidelines.
• May be used to determine whether a more thorough
assessment is necessary and to order a presentence
investigation report.
• May be an aide to help determine appropriate candidates
for alternative sentencing, including recidivism risk
reduction incentive, state and county intermediate
punishment programs and state motivation boot camp.
7
Risk Assessment at Sentencing
PACDL Testimony… Preliminary Risk Assessment


“… we do believe that certain risk assessment data, with a strong
needs assessment and responsivity capacity, can be of significant use
concerning reentry programs upon the conclusion of an individual’s
sentence and in determining eligibility in alternative sentencing. Both
can reduce our prison population”
“… studies only measure risk in the aggregate and cannot precisely
predict behavior as applied to an individual.”
ProPublica… Machine Bias

“In some jurisdictions, such as Napa County, CA, the probation
department uses risk assessments to suggest to the judge an
appropriate probation or treatment plan for individuals being
sentenced.”

“We have a dearth of good treatment programs, so filling a slot in a
program with someone who doesn’t need it is foolish.” (Napa County
Superior Court Judge Mark Boessenecher)
8
Risk Assessment at Sentencing
Commission’s Risk-Related Mandates

Leading proposals for incorporating risk assessment into
the sentencing guidelines…
• Identify need for additional offender information when:
•
Negotiating pleas or sentencing offenders with
- High risk (public safety concerns)
- Low risk (resource utilization, program efficacy)
• Order RNR PSI to:
•
•

Determine individualized RNR (HR/HN, HR/LN, LR/HN, LR/LN)
Support dispositional or durational options within the selected
range of the sentencing guidelines (DOC vs jail; BC, SIP, CIP;
probation) or as aggravated/mitigated sentence.
Rejected proposals often criticized…
• Use risk score as aggravating/mitigating factor
• Expand sentence ranges based on risk score
9
Risk Assessment at Sentencing
Commission Research & Development

Risk Assessment Research Project
•
Phase I – Development of Initial Risk Tool
•
•
•
•
Phase II – Development of Risk Assessment Tool
•
•
•
•
Levels 1-5 (all offenders)(200k+)
Risk of any offense; Risk of an offense against a person
Interim Report 1; Special Report (Removing Demographic
Factors)
Phase III – Beta Testing and Additional Analysis
•
•
•
•
•
Level 3 & 4
Risk of any offense
Interim Reports 1-8; Special Report (Juvenile Record)
Pilot Counties (Allegheny, Blair, Philadelphia, Westmoreland)
Analysis of arrest vs. conviction; External review of instrument
Investigation of RNR PSI Report (Roundtable; NCSC)
Deployment of SGS Web Risk Assessment Module
Phase IV – Public Hearings & Adoption
•
•
•
•
•
Initial Adoption & Publication
Public Hearings
Final Adoption & Submission
Review by General Assembly (90 days)
Implementation
10
Risk Assessment at Sentencing
Risk Assessment Variables

Independent Variables – variables that change or are
changed
•
•

Dependent Variable – variable that is the primary concern
of the study
•

Recidivism (re-arrest)
Controlled Variables – variables that are held constant
•

CJ: Number of prior OTN’s; Prior Offense type; Current offense;
Prior record score; multiple current convictions; prior juvenile
adjudication
Demographic: Age; gender
Race; County
Omitted Variables – absence of an independent variable
that is correlated with both the dependent variable and one
or more independent variables (aka – Rumsfeld principle)
•
Known unknowns, Unknown knowns, and Unknown unknowns
11
Risk Assessment at Sentencing
Overall Recidivism Rates
Recidivism Rate for 1, 2, 3 year follow-up
53%
60%
44%
50%
40%
30%
28%
20%
10%
0%
1 year
2 year
3 year
years follow-up
12
Risk Assessment at Sentencing
Overall Recidivism Rates
Offense
Gravity
Score
Prior
Record
Score
13
Risk Assessment at Sentencing
Overall Recidivism Rates
14
Risk Assessment at Sentencing
Sentences Reported (2014)
15
Risk Assessment at Sentencing
Example case (John Doe)
Current conviction(s):
Burglary (no house/person)
OGS 6
Criminal Conspiracy
OGS 5
Criminal history:
PWID Marijuana (F) (Juv)
Simple Possession (M) (ARD)
False ID to Law Enf. (M3)
PRS 2
Sentence recommendation:
OGS 6/PRS 2
9-16 months
Level 3
Standard range
recommendations:
CIP, Jail, BC, DOC
16
16
Risk Assessment at Sentencing
ANY REARREST SCALES
OGS 1
OGS 2
OGS 3
OGS 4
OGS 5
OGS 6
OGS 7
OGS 8
OGS 9-14
Any
0-13
Any
0-12
Any
0-18
Any
0-11
Any
0-17
Any
0-15
Any
0-13
Any
0-11
Any
0-10
N
15328
12119
41322
R2
Gender
0.0687
0.087
Male=1
0.0919
Male=1
Female=0
Female=0
Scale
County
Age
ns
ns
9547
6347
3099
7089
0.1386
Male=1
0.1115
Male=1
0.1455
Male=1
0.1341
Male=1
Female=0
Female=0
Female=0
Female=0
Female=0
<21=5
<21=5
<21=5
<21=4
<21=5
<21=5
<21=4
<21= 4
<21=4
21-25=4
26-29=3
21-25=4
26-29=3
21-29=3
30-39=2
21-25=4
26-29=3
21-25=4
26-29=3
21-25=3
26-39=2
21-25=3
26-39=2
21-25=3
26-29=2
30-39=2
30-39=2
30-39=2
40-49=1
30-39=2
30-39=2
40-49=1
40-49=1
30-49=1
40-49=1
>49=0
40-49=1
>49=0
40-49=1
>49=0
>49=0
40-49=1
>49=0
40-49=1
>49=0
>49=0
>49=0
>49=0
All other =1
All other=1
ns
none=0
1=1
2-3=2
4-5=3
6-7=4
>7=5
Prior Offense
Type
16144
0.1308
Male=1
21-25=4
26-29=3
Current offense
Prior Arrests
5447
0.1117
Drug=1
Personal=0 Property Fel.=1
All other=1
none=0
1=1
2-3=2
4-7=3
>7=4
Drug=1
All other =0
none=0
1=1
2-3=2
4-5=3
6-7=4
>7=5
Drug=1
Property=1
All other =1
Personal Misd.; Personal Misd.,
Sex =0 Sex =0
Sex=0
none=0
none=0
none=0
1=1
1=1
1=1
2-7=2
2-3=2
2-3=2
>7=3
4-5=3
4-5=3
6-7=4
>5=4
>7=5
Drug=1
Drug=1
Personal,
All other =1 Drug=0
All other =1
Sex =0 All other=1
0=0
0=0
1=1
1=1
2 to 3 = 2
2-3=2
4 to 7 =3
4-7=3
over 7 =4
>7=4
Sex, Murder=0
0=0
1-3=1
>3=2
Property=1
Public order=1
Public adm=1
Public adm=1
Public adm=1
Public adm=1
Public adm=1
Personal=1
Current multiple
convictions
ns
ns
Yes =1
No =0
Yes =1
No =0
Yes =1
No =0
Yes =1
No =0
Yes =1
No =0
ns
ns
PRS
ns
ns
Yes =1
No =0
ns
Yes =1
No =0
ns
Yes =1
No =0
Yes =1
No =0
Yes =1
No =0
Yes=1
ns
Yes=1
ns
Yes=1
Yes=1
ns
ns
ns
No/
unknown=0
No/
unknown=0
Prior juv. Adjud
No/
unknown=0
No/
unknown=0
17
Risk Assessment at Sentencing
OFFENSE AGAINST A PERSON REARREST SCALES
Scale
N
R2
Gender
County
Age
Current offense
Prior Arrests
OGS 1
Personal
0-9
15328
0.0549
Male=1
Female=0
<21= 3
21-25=2
26-39=1
>39=0
Personal=1
All other =0
ns
Prior Offense
Type
Current multiple
convictions
PRS
Prior juv. Adjud
OGS 2
Personal
-1 - 10
12119
0.0669
Male=1
Female=0
<21=4
21-25=3
26-39=2
40-49=1
>49=0
ns
no=0
yes=1
NO Drug=0
Drug= -1
OGS 3
Personal
-1 - 12
41322
0.0649
Male=1
Female=0
<21=4
21-29=3
30-39=2
40-49=1
>49=0
Personal=1
All other =0
none, 1 =0
2-3=1
4-7=2
>7=3
NO Drug=0
Drug= -1
Public order=1 Public order=1 Public order=1
Public adm=1
Public adm=1
Personal = 1 Personal = 1
Personal=1
ns
Yes =1
No =0
ns
Yes =0
No =1
Yes =1
No =0
ns
OGS 4
Personal
0-6
5447
0.0635
Male=1
Female=0
<21=3
21-29=2
30-49=1
>49=0
ns
no=0
yes=1
OGS 5
Personal
0-9
16144
0.0721
Male=1
Female=0
<21=5
21-25=4
26-29=3
30-39=2
40-49=1
>49=0
ns
no=0
yes=1
OGS 6
Personal
0-7
9547
0.0741
Male=1
Female=0
<21=3
21-29=2
30-49=1
>49=0
ns
no=0
yes=1
OGS 7
Personal
-1 - 7
6347
0.0571
OGS 8
Personal
0-5
3099
0.0634
ns
<21=3
21-29=2
30-49=1
>49=0
ns
<21=3
21-29=2
30-49=1
>49=0
All other=1
Personal=1
Drug=0
All other =0
no=0 ns
yes=1
NO Drug=0
Drug= -1
OGS 9-14
Personal
-1-6
7089
0.0678
ns
<21=3
21 -29=2
30-49=1
>49=0
ns
0=0
1 -5 =1
>5=2
NO Drug=0
Drug= -1
Public order=1
Public adm=1 Public adm=1
Personal=1
Personal=1
Personal=1
Personal=1
Personal=1
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
Property=1
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
18
Risk Assessment at Sentencing
Example case (OGS 6/PRS 2)
Any
John Doe
Offense
Male
1
25 years old
4
Three prior arrests (criminal dockets)
2
Prior public admin offense
1
Prior personal offense
0
Current conviction offense
1
Multiple current convictions
1
Prior juvenile adjudication
1
RISK SCORE
(Mean Risk Score)
(Typical Risk Scores)
Risk of any offense: HIGH
11
(7.6)
(5 - 10)
Offense Against
a Person
1
2
1
1
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
5
(4.0)
(3 - 5)
19
Risk of an offense against
a person: Typical
19
Risk Assessment at Sentencing
Contact Information
Mark H. Bergstrom, Executive Director
Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing
204 East Calder Way, Suite 400
State College, PA 16801-4756
Phone: 814.863.4368
Fax:
814.863.2129
E-mail: [email protected]
Nancy Xavios, Executive Director
Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing
408 Forum Building
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1045
Phone: 717.772.4144
Fax:
717.772.8892
E-mail: [email protected]
URL: http://pasentencing.us
October 28, 2016
20