Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07151/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07151-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

c 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 1 of 91
Prepared for the 

National Institute of Justice 

Authored by 

Brian J. Ostrom, Project Director 

Fred Cheesman 

Ann M. Jones 

Meredith Peterson 

National Center for State Courts 

Neal B. Kauder 

VisualResearch, Inc. 

Library 

National Center for State Courts 

300 Newport Aye. 

Wiftiarnsburg, VA 23 1 87-8798 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 2 of 91
Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 1 

Chapter 1 

Introduction ..... .:.............................................................................................................. 4 

Chapter2 , 

The Path to Reform ......................................................................................................... 10 

Chapter 3 

The Design ofTIS,Guidelines in Virginia ........................................................................ 21 

Chapter 4 

The Impact 0fTI.S on Prison Population in Virginia ........................................................ 37 

Chapter 5 

The Impact ofTIS on Judicial Compliance ...................................................................... 44 

Chapter 6 

Estimating Preventable Crime Under TIS ........................................................................ 52 

Chapter 7 

Assessing the Impact ofTIS on Recidivism ...................................................................... 61 

Chapter 8 

Conclusion ............................................................................................................ : ......... 79 

Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 83 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 3 of 91
Acknowledgements 

This project benefited greatly from the advice and guidance of many individuals. 

First and foremost, we wish to thank everyone associated with the Virginia Criminal 

Sentencing Commission (VCSC). Their cooperation and participation enabled us 

to gather the data and information required to complete this study. In particular, we 

gratefully acknowledge the support of the Honorable Ernest I? Gates, Chairman of 

the VCSC, and Richard I? Kern, VCSC Executive Director. This project drew heavily 

on the insight and knowledge of the VCSC st&. Meredith Farrar-Owens helped 

immensely with the design and interpretation of the recidivism study. National Center for State Courts project staff also thank Carolyn Williamson, James C. Creech, 

Jody T. Fridley, and Ann A. Jones for their willingness to meet and assist the evaluators throughout the life of the study. 

George Allen (Governor 1994-1998), Frank Atkinson (General Counsel to the Governor), and Richard Cullen (Attorney General) all graciously made time to participate in project interviews. Their candor and willingness to answer detailed questions 

were important for documenting how and why sentencing reform occurred in Virginia. In addition, several officials from the Department of Corrections helped staff 

during the study of the Offender Notification Release Program (ONRP). Patrick 

Gurney, Classification and Records Manager, was instrumental in helping project 

staff reach representatives from throughout Virginia's correctional field units. 

We also wish to acknowledge the considerable contribution of our National Center 

for State Courts colleagues Neil LaFountain and Margaret Fonner for their assistance 

with data analysis and project administration. This publication also benefited from 

the careful editing of David Morrill. The graphic design and report publishing was 

provided by Lorraine Hoff. 

Finally, the support of the National Institute of Justice must be recognized. In particular, the encouragement and monitoring provided by Jordan Leiter and Janice 

Munsterman brought the project to a happy conclusion. The National Center for 

State Courts and the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission thank NIJ for recognizing the need to document and evaluate the major shifis in sentencing practice 

and policy that have occurred in Virginia. 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 4 of 91
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Reform and nuth-inSentencing in Virginia 

Truth-in-sentencing (TIS) is the most prominent sentencing reform movement of 

the 1990s. The primary objective of TIS is to more closely align the sentence imposed by the judge with the actual amount of time served in prison by restricting or 

eliminating parole eligibility and good time. In many instances, these reforms are 

accompanied by significant increases in the penalties for violent offenders. TIS is 

based on a “just deserts” philosophy in which sentence length varies directly in proportion to the severity of the offense and allocates penalties as a deserved punishment rather than as a means for rehabilitation and treatment. 

This report is the result of an 18-month partnership project funded by the National Institute of Justice to evaluate the development and impact ofTIS in Virginia. 

The successful completion of this project required both intimate knowledge of the 

process underlying the changes to Virginia sentencing law and the capacity to conduct the evaluation in an appropriate and impartial manner. For this reason, a partnership was developed to bring together the historic and institutional knowledge of 

the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission (VCSC) and an objective, third-party 

evaluation team from the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). 

The evaluators view the purposes and features of sentencing reform in Virginia 

as given, and no value judgments are made about the goals of TIS. No effort is 

made to advocate specific sentencing structures and strategies. As such, the purpose of this evaluation is to (1) analyze the approach used in Virginia to develop 

and implement one of the nation’s pioneering efforts in TIS, including the abolition of parole and the initiative to increase prison sentences for violent offenders; 

(2) critically evaluate the analyses conducted to forecast the impact ofTIS on sentencing outcomes and prison population; and (3) begin the process of conducting 

an evaluation of the impact of Virginia’s sentencing reforms on recidivism among 

violent offenders. With the exception of the recidivism analysis, all analyses referred to in this report were conducted by the VCSC. The role of the NCSC was to 

evaluate the work of the VCSC. 

Central findings include: 

I TIS became effective in Virginia on January 1, 1995. Virginia’s sentencing reforms 

abolished parole, reduced good time allowances to ensure that inmates serve a 

minimum of 85% of their imposed sentence, and increased prison sentences for 

violent and repeat offenders. 

I Virginia, a long-time proponent of structured sentencing, implementedTIS through 

a revision of the state’s existing voluntary system of sentencing guidelines. The 

benefit of the sentencing guideline approach is that it allows for a more accurate 

assessment of the likely impact of changes in sentencing and/or parole policy. 

Executive Summary 1 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 5 of 91
Guidelines systems are arguably the most cost-effective means of providing rational structure, relevant data, and the ability to accurately monitor and forecast 

sentencing outcomes. 

a Along with the federal government, Virginia is one of eight states that have abolished parole and implemented TIS legislation that requires almost all violent and 

nonviolent offenders to serve 85% of the imposed sentence. Under TIS, violent 

and repeat offenders receive sentences two to six times longer than previously. The 

amount of time served by nonviolent offenders was not changed by the move to 

TIS. Judge-imposed sentences for nonviolent offenders are lower under TIS, but 

the time served in prison remains the same because sentences are no longer reduced dramatically by parole and good time allowances. 

a Under TIS, offenders are expected to serve an average of 89.7% of the judicially 

imposed sentence. Although parole was abolished for all offenders convicted after 

January 1, 1995, parole remains in effect for individuals incarcerated prior to TIS 

reform. The parole grant rate (for eligible offenders) has dropped from 46% in 

1991 to 5% in 1998. 

a The judicial sentencing recommendations under Virginia’s TIS guidelines remain 

voluntary, but are usually followed by judges. Currently, judicial compliance rates 

are equal to or exceed overall pre-TIS guideline compliance rates of 78%. 

a Jury trial rates, predicted by some to rise as a result ofTIS, have fallen steadily over 

the past 12 years. The most significant drop came at the time when bifurcated 

trials and TIS were implemented. Jury trials currently make up less than 3% of 

felony dispositions. 

a Analysts in Virginia forecast that more than 26,000 violent and 94,000 nonviolent felonies are expected to be averted between 1995 and 2005 by the passage of 

TIS-a proposition that was important for building institutional support for sentencing reform. Evaluators found that while analytically complex, the methods 

employed for determining preventable crime were conceptually sound and conservative in their estimates. 

w Prison population under TIS has been lower than originally forecasted. Evaluato.rs 

cite several possible reasons for these overestimates, including lower-than-expected 

crime rates and inaccurate estimates of new admissions to prison. 

a A deterrence effect is one way for TIS to reduce recidivism in Virginia. The Offender Notification Release Program (ONRP) is designed to educate inmates leaving Virginia prisons specifically about TIS reforms. All inmates leaving the prison 

system are given a type of “exit interview” during which they are informed about 

the abolition of parole and the old good conduct credit system. Each departing 

inmate receives a wallet-sized “notification card” that contains the possible sentencing consequences of being arrested and convicted of a new felony offense. 

2 Truth-in-Sentencing in Krginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 6 of 91
As part of a long-term recidivism analysis, project staffhave established baseline recidivism rates for the offender population released from prison prior to the introduction 

ofTIS. Half (49.3%) ofall offenders released from prison in 1993 were re-arrested 

for any new crime within three years. The number of persons who recidivate drops 

quickly as the measure of recidivism becomes more conservative (e.g., of those 

released from prison, 22% were reconvicted of a new felony). 

Recidivism, if it does occur, is likely to happen sooner rather than later. For those 

who recidivate, the average time until first re-arrest for any crime was about 12 

months, and 75% recidivate within 19 months. 

Property offenders have the highest rares of recidivism, followed by drug offenders, then violent offenders. There is some evidence of offense specialization for 

property and drug offenders: 75% of those re-arrested for a property offense were 

originally incarcerated for a property crime and 59% of those re-arrested for a 

drug offense were originally in prison for a drug crime. 

Executive Summary 3 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 7 of 91
Introduction 

Reform and Wuth-in-Sentencing in Virginia 

Strategies for reducing violent crime dominated Virginia politics during the 1993 

gubernatorial race. George Allen, the republican candidate, made the elimination of 

parole and the institution of harsher punishment for violent offenders the centerpiece of his campaign. After winning the election, Allen established the Sentencing 

and Parole Abolition Commission, which moved quickly to recommend that Virginia establish Truth-in-Sentencing (TIS) through a major restructuring of the state’s 

existing system of sentencing and parole. Determining the exact dimensions of sentencing reform occupied the political process throughout the first nine months of 

the Allen administration, and at a special session of the General Assembly in September, 1994, Virginia’s legislature passed the most significant and comprehensive sentencing reforms in the state’s history. 

These reforms, which became eRective on January 1,1995, were designed to achieve 

three objectives: 

Increase prison terms for violent and repeat offenders; 

m Abolish parole; 

m Reduce allowances of “good time” to ensure that inmates serve 85% of their imposed sentence. 

The abolition of parole and the restructuring of good time were accomplished by 

statute. In addition, the legislature created the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission (VCSC) to oversee the development, implementation, and maintenance of 

TIS guidelines. It became the responsibility of the VCSC to “retool” Virginia’s existing guidelines so that violent and repeat offenders would now receive significantly 

harsher penalties. But the purse strings were not completely loosed. The legislative 

mandate to the VCSC also required that the demand for prison space under the new 

“hard time for hard crime” sentencing strategy be fiscally responsible. The VCSC used 

a reasoned and innovative approach to both increase incarceration periods for violent 

offenders and keep control over prison expenses under the new TIS guidelines. 

. 

What is Truth-in-Sentencing? 

Truth-in-sentencing policies are designed to ensure that the amount of time an 

offender actually serves in prison is closely aligned with the original judicially imposed sentence.’ Many states seek to achieve this goal by significantly restricting or 

’Although the term mth-in-sentencingcame to prominence in the 1990s, jurisdictions began 

moving in that direction in the early 1980s. The first TIS law was passed in Washington State 

in 1984. Congress mandated TIS at the federal level with the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, 

which established a sentencing commission as an independent agency to recommend prescriptive sentencing guidelines, to eliminate parole, and to require that inmates serve at least 

85% of their sentence (good time would be limited to 54 days per year). Discretionary parole 

Truth-in-Sentencing in Erginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 8 of 91
eliminating parole eligibility and good-time credits. The precise definition of “significant restrictions” has been strongly influenced by the federal government. Under 

the 1994 crime bill,’ Congress authorized incentive grants to states for construction 

or improvement of correctional facilities to “free conventional prison space for the 

confinement of violent offenders, to ensure that prison cell space is available for the 

confinement of violent offenders, and to implement truth-in-sentencing laws for 

sentencing violent offenders.” To qualify for the TIS grants, states must require that 

violent offenders will serve at least 85% of the imposed prison sentence. 

The 85% rule has become so commonplace that in 1998 27 states (including 

Virginia) qualified for the federal grant program3 Though eligible for TIS Incentive 

Grants, many of these states have indeterminate sentencing systems; serving 85% of 

the minimum term in a sentence of 5 to 20 years would satisfy the TIS requirements 

of the federal legislation. A more conservative definition of TIS calls for sentences 

imposed in a guidelines or determinate sentencing structure where the 85% calculation can be made on a definite or “fixed” sentence. States also differ in the scope of 

TIS legislation. In many states TIS applies only to violent offenders. The federal 

government and eight states, including Virginia, apply an 85% TIS requirement to 

all felony offenders. This definition reflects the philosophy of TIS that all offenders 

serve a prison term that is closely aligned with the original sentence. 

Proponents argue that TIS policies restore public confidence in the criminal justice system and further such concepts as predictability, proportionality, deterrence, 

victims’ rights, and consistency in the sentencing process. TIS is deeply rooted in the 

determinate sentencing philosophy that dominated the 1980s. Generally, the determinate model holds that the authority to set sentence length resides with the court 

and that sentences should be served in full. Only modest reductions in sentence 

length based on satisfactory behavior while incarcerated (good time) are acceptable. 

The determinate model is based on a “just deserrs” philosophy in which sentence 

length varies directly in proportion to the severity of the offense and, to a lesser 

extent, prior criminal history. The “just deserts” model emphasizes allocating scaled 

penalties as a deserved punishment rather than as a means for rehabilitation and 

treatment.* This philosophy contrasts with indeterminate models that split authority over final sentence length between the court and the department of corrections. 

Under an indeterminate system, the court typically sets a minimum sentence in conjunction with a statutorily determined maximum sentence, with the actual release 

date determined by the parole board.5 

Opponents claim that TIS reforms are simply the latest in a long line of ill-conrelease was first abolished in Maine in 1975 (inmates in Maine currently serve 50 to 67% of 

their sentences based on good-time accrual). For more on state and federal reform efforts, see 

Ostrom, Kauder, Rottman, and Peterson (1998) and Greenfeld, Beck, and Gilliard (1 996). 

*Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. 

3Ditton and Wilson (1999). 

4V~n Hirsch (1976). 

5Wilkins, Newton, and Steer (1993). 

Introduction 5 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 9 of 91
ceived “get tough on crime” policies. This camp argues that some discretionary release mechanism should be retained by a paroling authority and that, in the long 

term, incarcerating offenders for longer periods of time simply wastes resources and 

will have little positive effect on public safety. The National Council on Crime and 

Delinquency (NCCD), for example, holds that the main factor for deciding release 

time should be an updated assessment of the inmate’s risk to the community-determined once a specified fraction of the custodial term has been served. NCCD also 

supports retaining the possibility of parole for serious offenders given maximum 

terms or life sentences.6 Critics also contend that TIS leads to creative, if not deceptive, charging and sentencing practices. Disparity may result from selective 

prosecutorial charging practices, or if pleas in certain jurisdictions are obtained by 

threatening to charge a particularly harsh statutory provi~ion.~ 

The optimal design of a just and equitable sentencing system that also makes 

efficient use of public resources will long be argued. People will continue to disagree 

as to whether particular sentencing policies are good or bad. What can’t be argued is 

that the implementation of TIS in Virginia has had a substantial impact on judicial 

sentencing practices and corrections policies. 

Evaluating the Virginia Experience 

with nuth-in-Sentencing 

Early in 1997, the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission (VCSC) agreed to 

participate in a systematic evaluation of Virginia’s new TIS reforms to be conducted 

by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). To answer the fundamental question, “What impact did the implementation ofTIS have on sentencing in Virginia?” 

the evaluators examine sentencing in Virginia from 1980 through the first three 

years ofTIS reform (January, 1995, to January, 1997). The evaluation findings cover 

three distinct aspects of sentencing reform in Virginia and incorporate both a process 

and outcome orientation. 

First, the evaluation focuses on the process by which the new TIS system was 

developed. In so doing, we define TIS and clarib precisely what TIS was meant to 

accomplish in Virginia, For the judiciary, the cornerstone of the 1993 sentencing 

reforms was a major redesign of the existing sentencing guidelines. Prior to reform, 

Vi1 ginia employed a set of voluntary, descriptive guidelines that, in combination 

with existing parole policies, ensured that the sentence imposed would be very different from the sentence actually served. Under TIS, parole was abolished and new 

guidelines were configured to more closely align imposed sentences with actual time 

served. This section examines the deliberations of the Governor’s Commission and 

the legislative committees responsible for implementing the ultimate design of sentencing reform in Virginia. Specific questions addressed in Chapters 2 and 3 include: 

‘National Council on Crime and Delinquency (1992). 

7T~nry ( 1996). 

6 Trzth-in-Sentencing in Virginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 10 of 91
How has sentencing reform evolved in Virginia since 1980? Where does TIS fit wihn 

the historical context of sentencing reform in Virginia? what features characterized 

Virginia’s sentencing guideline system prior to TIS? What operational and political factors contributed to the adoption or rejection of specific reform components 

-and policies? 

What is the precise design of TIS in Virginia? What is the current status of parole 

and good time in Virginia? How are violent and nonviolent offenders treated under 

Virginia‘s TIS? How were the new guidelines and sentencing ranges developed? 

Second, the evaluation analyzes the effect of the TIS reforms against a set of explicit and implicit standards. The Governor and the Virginia legislature believed 

that judicial compliance with the new TIS guidelines would have two specific results: 

1) relatively little change in the actual time served by nonviolent offenders; and 

2) a need for more prison space due to significant increases in prison sentences for 

violent offenders. Also, they hoped that longer prison sentences for violent and repeat offenders under TIS would reduce violent crime and lead to fewer victims and 

lower costs of crime. VCSC staff conducted numerous analyses to estimate the costs 

associated with the implementation ofTIS as well as the benefits of crime prevented 

under the new system. This stage of the evaluation assesses the outcomes of TIS 

against the expectations of the system designers. In addition, the methods used by 

theVCSC to forecast the potential impact ofTIS on sentencing practices and corrections resources are reviewed and critiqued. Specific questions addressed in chapters 

3,4, and 5 include: 

What is the impact of TIS on prison population? What techniques were used to 

forecast prison population under TIS? What was the estimated impact of TIS? 

How accurate was the forecast? 

What is the impact ofTIS on judicial compliance? How is judicial compliance measured? Has judicial compliance changed with the introduction of TIS? How does 

compliance in jury sentencing compare with compliance in nonjury sentencing? 

How much new crime is prevented by the harsher penalties under TIS? How did 

Virginia estimate the level of preventable crime under TIS? What is the estimated 

“cost of crime” avoided through extended incarceration of violent offenders? Is 

there a beneficial “incarceration effect?” 

Third, this evaluation includes the first half (or baseline) of a recidivism analysis 

for use in assessing the impact ofTIS. The full recidivism study will be designed to 

compare recidivism of inmates released one year prior to the inception of the new 

sentencing laws with that of inmates released under TIS. However, because it is still 

too early to conduct an effective evaluation of the impact of TIS on the rate of 

recidivism ofviolent offenders, only the first halfwill be completed during this evaluation. At this stage, the NCSC, in close collaboration with the VCSC, has examined 

the background characteristics and prior conviction histories of offenders released 

from Virginia prisons in 1993. Records were then examined to determine whether 

offenders had been re-arrested or re-convicted within three years of their release from 

Introduction 7 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 11 of 91
prison. Multiple measures of recidivism are calculated and discussed. 

In addition, this stage of the evaluation also examines the creation and implementation of a recent VCSC innovation, the Offender Notification Release Program 

(ONRP), which was implemented early in 1997. The ONRP is intended to enhance 

the specific deterrent effect of the tougher sentencing laws by informing inmates 

what their likely sentence will be if they commit other crimes after their release. 

Specific questions addressed in chapters 6 and 7 include: 

What were the patterns of recidivism prior to the implementation ofTIS? How is 

recidivism calculated and measured? How was the necessary data gathered? What 

is the rate of recidivism for offenders released prior to the 1994 reforms? 

rn What is the design and purpose of the ONRP? How does Virginia attempt to 

educate inmates about to exit state correctional facilities about TIS reforms? How 

has the ONW been implemented by the Department of Corrections? 

In summary, the purpose of this evaluation is (1) to analyze the approach used in 

Virginia to develop and implement one of the nation’s pioneering efforts in TIS, 

including the abolition of parole and the initiative to increase prison sentences for 

violent offenders; (2) to critically evaluate the analyses conducted by the VCSC to 

forecast the impact ofTIS on sentencing outcomes and prison population; and (3) to 

begin evaluating the impact of Virginia’s sentencing reforms and Offender Notification Release Program (ONRP) on recidivism among violent offenders. 

Who Benefits from this Evaluation? 

The evaluators view the purposes and features of sentencing reform in Virginia as 

given, and no value judgments are made about the goals ofTIS. No effort is made to 

advocate specific sentencing structures and strategies. As such, the general objectives 

of this evaluation are (1) to increase our knowledge about the various sentencing 

policy alternatives considered in Virginia and (2) to clari@ the outcome of particular 

choices. The knowledge gained from this approach is primarily designed to benefit 

Virginia policymakers and practitioners interested in an objective analysis of the 

development and implementation of the new sentencing reforms in their state. However, given the ongoing interest in sentencing reform elsewhere, especially in TIS and 

abolition of parole, there is considerable national interest in Virginia’s experience. 

Additionally, an understanding of how sentencing’reform operates in practice may 

help others advocate policies in sync with their objectives. Hence, this evaluation has 

been designed and written to chi@ how sentencing reform efforts could be improved if initiated in other states. 

Because many policymakers agree with the objectives of TIS, it is easy to overlook 

how outcomes might differ from intent. Desired objectives are not the same as workable solutions. For example, other states contemplating TIS reforms may benefit from 

a description and analysis of how Virginia (1) determined its new sentencing ranges 

under TIS, preserving historical time-served amounts for nonviolent offenders while 

increasing time served for violent offenders; (2) estimated the probable impact of its 

8 Twth-in-Sentencing in Virginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 12 of 91
sentencing reforms on avertable crime and the need for additional prison space; and 

(3) is measuring the impact ofTIS on recidivism. Sound analysis will help policymakers 

evaluate more accurately whether a sentencing policy alternative will, in fact, accomplish the desired outcome. 

VCSC/NCSC Evaluation Partnership 

The evaluation focuses on the process of sentencing reform in Virginia and critically examines the primary analyses and impact assessments conducted on behalf of 

the Governor’s Commission as well as the legislative committees involved in sentencing reform. The majority of these analyses were conducted by the Criminal Justice 

Research Center (CJRC) within the Department of Criminal Justice Services. Several key staff of the CJRC, including the director Richard Kern, accepted permanent 

positions at the VCSC when it was established officially on January 1, 1995.8 The 

studies referenced and reviewed in this evaluation were collected from the files held 

at the current VCSC and were found in their original formats as printouts, graphical 

presentations, and various types of information and report packets (sometimes termed 

“fugitive” research and analysis). 

The successful completion of this project required both intimate knowledge of the 

process underlying the changes to Virginia sentencing law and the capacity to conduct the evaluation in an appropriate and impartial manner. For this reason, a partnership was developed to bring together the historic and institutional knowledge of 

the VCSC with an objective, third-party evaluation team from the NCSC. The partners believe that the best (and arguably only) way to ensure that this evaluation had 

access to the necessary data and program documentation underlying Virginia’s implementation process was to involve the VCSC and its staff throughout the evaluation 

process. VCSC involvement included identifying the fundamental issues that drove 

sentencing reform; assisting in gaining access to and preparing databases; clarifying 

any data problems, details, and nuances; and providing evaluators with other relevant information that affected Virginia’s sentencing reform efforts. Ongoing communication between the NCSC and the VCSC helped close important gaps in the 

evaluation. At the same time, while cooperation between the VCSC and the evaluators was critical during certain stages, the evaluation team also acted independently. 

The NCSC evaluation team was given a free hand to design and conduct the evaluation and, as a consequence, bears responsibility for the evaluation results. 

‘Given the considerable overlap of key staff at the CJRC (prior to 1995) and at the VCSC 

(after 1995), this evaluation uses the shorthand of VCSC to refer to research and analysis 

conducted by both the CJRC and the VCSC. 

Introduction 9 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 13 of 91
CWAPTEW TWO 

The Path to Reform 

Virginia has been actively involved in sentencing research and reform since the 

early 1980s. Initially driven by concern over sentencing disparity, Virginia has been a 

consistent innovator and strong proponent of the sentencing guideline concept. The 

new TIS guideline structure is better understood when presented in the context of 

earlier reform efforts. In reviewing sentencing reform in Virginia over the past two 

decades, this chapter also underscores the critical importance of relevant data and 

effective staff to explain how decisionmahng during the 1994 reform process could 

be both informed and fast. One fundamental, though often under-appreciated, component of rational sentencing reform is the creation and maintenance of a sentencing 

database. Virginia policymakers recognized that detailed and accurate information 

on past sentencing practices greatly enhances a state’s ability to design and implement a specific set of sentencing reforms-and accurately estimate the possible impacts and associated cost. In addition, staff must have the capacity to knowledgeably 

assess and explain the expected differences between alternative reform packages. The 

rapidity with which the new TIS system was developed and approved by the legislature (as compared to many other states adopting TIS policies) was directly related to 

the extensive VCSC staff experience with sentencing-related research prior to 1994. 

Early 1980s-Beginnings of Reform in Virginia 

In 1982, Governor Charles S. Robb appointed the Task Force on Sentencing to 

study current sentencing policies and to recommend changes if appropriate. This 

study followed a series of newspaper articles and reports claiming the inconsistency 

and disparity of sentencing decisions in Virginia. The Task Force issued a final report 

in 1983, concluding that variation in the use of incarceration and length of prison 

terms for similarly situated offenders did exist across Virginia.’ These differences 

were found to be partially attributable to such factors as offender race, socioeconomic status, and location of the court. Based on these conclusions, the task force 

recommended that the Supreme Court of Virginia take steps to improve statewide 

consistency in sentencing through the development of historically based (or “descriptive”) sentencing guidelines.” The guideline concept did not have unequivocal 

support among the Virginia judiciary. In the absence of judicial oversight of the 

study methods and procedures, many judges were reluctant to accept earlier findings 

of unwarranted sentencing disparity. Concern centered on the belief that disparity 

studies conducted by the Governor‘s Task Force and the Richmond Times-Dispatch 

’Governor‘s Task Force on Sentencing (1983). 

lo Similar findings/conclusions had been reached in several other states (Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Washington, Michigan), all of which established sentencing guidelines as a possible 

remedy for disparate sentencing $ecisions. 

10 Truth-in-Sentencing in Virginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 14 of 91
were based on a nonrepresentative sample of cases and that n,ot enough factors were 

used to develop a rigorous statistical analysis of sentencing practices.” At this point 

the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference ofVirginia decided that a more 

comprehensive profile of sentencing in Virginia was necessary before appropriate 

sentencing guidelines could be developed. 

- 

1984-1985 Building a Database 

In 1984, the Secretary of Public Safety authorized the development of a fully automated Pre-sentence Investigation (PSI) system for collecting detailed information on 

almost all felony convictions. At that time, no database existed in Virginia to capture 

the offense and prior record information needed to conduct a comprehensive analysis 

of sentencing. Initially, this database would provide information for a statewide disparity study and, if required and appropriate, would serve as the basis for descriptive sentencing guidelines. Descriptive guidelines are based on actual past sentencing practices 

of judges. Suggested sentences under this style of guideline reflect a careful analysis of 

the sentences actually imposed by judges for particular combinations of offense and 

offender characteristics. The goal is to eliminate the atypical or unusual sentence (e.g., 

the high and low extremes at both ends of the sentencing spectrum). 

A key to understanding statewide sentencing practice is having valid and reliable data on 

past sentencing outcomes. VCSC staffindicate that the lack ofsuch data made many judges 

wary ofprevious sentencing disparity studies as well as the process ofguideline development 

in other states. Since Viiginia‘s guidelines were to be purely descriptive, their qdty and 

appropriateness would be tied directly to the data that underlie their development. 

Pre-and post-sentence investigation (PSI) reporting formats were redesigned to 

measure 212 objectively coded offense and offender variables.12 Critical to the success of Virginia’s PSI database was the adoption of standard codes for probation and 

parole officers to record offense-specific information. These Virginia Crime Codes 

(VCCs) are a nine-digit alpha-numeric offense identification system based on the 

Code of Wrginia and include approximately 1,300 misdemeanor and felony crimes. 

This new system replaced the use of “free format” descriptions (i.e., unstructured, 

longhand attempts to describe the nature of past and current convictions). The VCC 

database is maintained by the sentencing commission and is updated annually to 

reflect changes in statute or the addition of new laws. The VCC database includes 

the following information on each crime in the Code of Wrginia: 

w a unique Virginia Crime Code (VCC); 

a concise offense description, guided by the elements of the offense; 

the Code of Virginia section corresponding to the VCC; 

the statutory penalty range; 

the State Police and Department of Corrections NCIC code corresponding to the VCC. 

I’ “Justice For All,” (1983). This study examined sentences handed down for robbery cases 

and found the existence of unwarranted sentencing disparity 

”Roughly 20,000 new cases have been added to the PSI database each year since 1985; the 

current system contains about 200,000 cases. 

The Path to Reform 11 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 15 of 91
The PSI system and the establishment of the VCC coding system is particularly 

noteworthy for this evaluation because this rich source of information underlies almost all sentencing guidelines data analysis, research, and monitoring from 1983 to 

the present. Given the importance of the VCC system and PSI database, the state 

should be cognizant of at least two related issues. First, consideration should be given 

to developing a unique offender identifier to be used consistently across Virginia's 

numerous criminal-justice-related data systems. Such an identifier would ease significantly the effort and cost associated with merging the PSI database with additional sources of data. For example, without a unique identifier, it is currently difficult to supplement PSI data with criminal history information for analysis related to 

recidivism, juvenile justice, or risk assessment. Second, the VCSC must be diligent 

and clear in communicating their rationale for maintaining the PSI database. One 

method of preserving the PSI database is by initiating and supporting efforts to improve efficiency through automation and quality control. Otherwise, efforts to scale 

down or even eliminate the PSI data collection citing the ongoing expense required 

to collect, edit, and sustain the system may surface. As compared to nonguideline 

states, an advantage for Virginia (and other states that have developed and maintained guidelines) is the substantial collection of reliable data sources. The lesson 

learned is that any meaningful attempt at structured guidelines development must 

be accompanied by improvements in existing data systems. 

1986-1987 Statewide Disparity Study 

In April of 1986, the Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court appointed the 

Judicial Sentencing Oversight Committee to oversee a statewide study of judicial 

sentencing practices within the Commonwealth. The study uncovered evidence of 

unwarranted sentencing disparity; statistical analysis showed that a variety of extralegal factors influenced sentencing outcomes, including offender race and gender, 

type of criminal defense attorney, jury vs. bench trial, and level of offender education.I3 The influence of these factors was also found to vary according to offense 

type, sanction (i.e., probation, jail, prison), and geographical area of the state. According to VCSC staff, these findings would later be the primary impetus for moving 

forward in sentencing guidelines development. 

During 1987, the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference of Virginia 

voted to present the results of the disparity study to all circuit court judges during a 

series of regional meetings. The outcome in each region was a vote by the circuit 

judges recommending the implementation of voluntary sentencing guidelines. Unlike other states considering guidelines as a way to curtail rising prison populations 

or as means for implementing non-incarcerative sentences, Virginia's sole purpose 

for guidelines development was to reduce unwarranted sentencing disparity. 

On the basis of the findings from the disparity study, the Chief Justice appointed 

a new committee to oversee the development of sentencing guidelines. Although a 

l3 Judicial Sentencing Guidelines Oversight Committee (1987). 

12 Truth-in-Sentencing in Vi'rginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 16 of 91
departure from the practice in most other states where sentencing commissions 

include representation from each branch of government, this committee was comprised solely of judges.14 The general belief of the Virginia committee was that sentencing is a judicial function; and since the guidelines were to be voluntary, only the 

judiciary needed to be involved in their development. 

1987-1988 Guidelines Developed 

The Judicial Sentencing Guidelines Committee (JSGC) was responsible for all 

policy decisions regarding sentencing guidelines development and operation. The 

first step was to operationally define “appropriate sentence length” so that the effectiveness of the guidelines could be measured. The JSGC determined that the sentencing guidelines ranges would encompass the middle 50% of historical sentence 

lengths and that a judicially imposed sentence was defined as appropriate if it fell 

within this range and “inconsistent” (and possibly disparate) if it fell below or above 

this mid-range. Therefore, the highest 25% and the lowest 25% of all historical 

sentences fell outside the guidelines ranges. The basic.characteristics ofVirginia’s first 

set of descriptive sentencing guidelines included: 

Use of a judicial sentencing worksheet as opposed to a sentencing grid; 

Presentation of eight specific offense groups (i.e., assault, burglary, drugs, fraud, 

homicide, larceny, robbery, sexual assault) with individual sets of scoring factors 

and worksheets; 

A bifurcated worksheet design beginning with an inlout decision (prison v. no 

prison), followed by length of incarceration, if appropriate; 

Presence on the worksheets of only legally relevant offense- and offender-related factors 

found to be statistically significant in the analysis of historical sentencing practices; 

Recommendation of “effective time sentences” defined as the length of the judicially imposed sentence minus any suspended time; 

Strictly voluntary sentencing guidelines where judicial compliance would not be 

mandated and there would be no opportunity for appellate review based on a 

challenge to the guidelines. 

Because Virginia’s guidelines were to be descriptive of historical patterns across the 

commonwealth and based on legally defensible criteria, VCSC staff analyzed the PSI 

database to determine normal sentencing practice as well as the specific offense and 

offender-related factors significant in predicting judicial sentences. Thus, no “normative” adjustments were made to the observed sentencing patterns to enhance (or 

reduce) the recommended punishment for specific crimes and only statistically significant offense- and offender-related factors were used to create the guidelines. In 

this manner, the influence of extralegal factors (e.g., race, gender, identity of the 

judge or judicial circuit, method of adjudication) was reduced so that those factors 

would no longer exert a systematic influence in sentencing decision^.'^ 

‘* Kauder and Osrrorn (1998). 

l5 Judicial Sentencing Guidelines Oversight (1989) 

The Path to Refirm 73 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 17 of 91
In developing the pilot guidelines, VCSC staff used three statistical procedures to 

analyze PSI data on 33,573 felony cases sentenced between February, 1985, and 

June, 1987. All felony convictions resulting in probation and/or a suspended sentence, a jail term, or a prison term were examined. The results of this comprehensive 

analysis were used to design a sentencing guidelines framework consisting of three 

worksheets: 

Worksheet A: used to determine whether a person would receive a prison or a 

nonprison sentence; 

Worksheet B: used to determine whether a person would receive probation or jail 

(if nonprison sentence indicated on Worksheet A); 

Worksheet C: used to determine the length of a prison sentence (if prison sentence 

indicated on Worksheet A). 

Eight sets of offense-specific guideline worksheets were formulated and a manual 

was created to explain their application.” 

Worksheets A and B were designed using multiple discriminate function analysis. 

In keeping with a bifurcated design, this analysis was used to determine the factors 

influential in judicial decisions of whether or not an offender was to be incarcerated. 

A second statistical technique called “probit” was used in the initial pilot guideline 

development to refine the proportional weights of the factors for Worksheets A and 

B. This technique allows one to compare each specific factor’s importance in the 

sentencing decision. For example, assume that the coefficient (i.e., the numerical 

representation of a factor’s “importance” in a sentencing decision) for “use of a firearm” was the same as that for “serious injury of a victim.” This indicates that judges 

have historically given about the same weight (sentence outcomes have been equally 

influenced by these two offense factors) for firearm use as they have for serious victim 

injury when considering whether or not someone should go to prison. 

. 

The offense- and offender-related characteristics linked to the length of prison 

sentence (Worksheet C) were uncovered using ordinary least squares multiple regression (OLS). Coefficients associated with each factor in the analysis translate roughly 

into months of incarceration. For example, a drug offender who scored “6l”on 

Worksheet C under the factor “Counts of Primary Offense” implies that the historic 

sentence for a drug offender convicted of four counts of selling drugs was about 61 

months (five years) longer than a person convicted of one count of selling drugs, all 

other factors being equal.” The factors found to be statistically significant, and their 

relative impact, were critical elements for future guidelines development, and, eventually, the establishment of the current TIS guidelines. 

Interviews with VCSC staff and a review of published and unpublished source 

materials document the analytical process for guideline worksheet development. The 

“The most recent version ofVirginia Sentencing Guidelines still employs these three worksheets, 

but now apply them to 12 categories of offenses. See, Virginia Criminal Sentencing Comrnission (1998b). 

Judicial Sentencing Guidelines Oversight Committee (1989). 

64 Truth-in-Sentencing in Virginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 18 of 91
research staff responsible for conducting the disparity analysis and pilot guidelines 

development operated in a team environment supervised by a project director with 

previous experience in sentencing guidelines development and other criminological 

research. Individual researchers were responsible for different segments of the guideline development, while results were checked independently through blind repeat 

analyses using the same data. This process verified findings across analysts with the 

results and any inconsistencies being reported during regularly scheduled staffmeetings. Researchers were well qualified to conduct the analyses, possessing advanced 

degrees in social science and criminal justice research and statistics, while also having 

various levels of previous applied research experience. Evaluators note that guideline 

development in Virginia benefited greatly from comprehensive data sources, adequate 

resources, and staff expertise. 

1988-1990 Sentencing Guidelines Pilot Study 

Virginia’s judiciary voted to pilot test the voluntary guidelines before recommending statewide implementation. Six judicial circuits (out of a possible 3 1) representing 

a mix of rural and urban courts were selected as pilot sites. A judge from each of these 

six circuits sat on the Judicial Sentencing Guidelines Committee (JSGC), which 

provided policy oversight during the process. After a series of regional training seminars, guidelines went into effect in July, 1988, with a plan to pilot the system for one 

year. Judges in the pilot sites were asked to consider the guidelines in almost all 

felony cases, explain any reasons for departure, and return the completed forms for 

monitoring and evaluation. 

Because the purpose of the first set of guidelines was to reduce disparity, the JSGC 

directed staff to evaluate the effects of guidelines on sentencing consistency and neutrality. Consistency was defined as the extent to which similarly situated offenders 

who committed similar crimes received similar sentences. The JSGC chose to measure the effect of the guidelines on consistency by judicial compliance: the percentage of sentences that were within sentencing guidelines ranges before and after guidelines were implemented. Compliance rates were examined in pilotand nonpilot sites 

to provide a comparative control group. As shown in the bar chart, compliance rates 

(percentage of judicial sentences that fell within recommended ranges) during the 

pilot program ranged from 74% to 88% depending on the offense group, and ranged 

from 70% to 82% depending on the pilot site. Overall, the average compliance rate 

was 78%, with departures more likely to be mitigated (15%) than aggravated (7%). 

Neutrality, or impartiality, was assessed by examining whether variation in sentence length was explained by differences in legally relevant factors (e.g., offense 

severity, prior record) and not by extralegal factors such as race or gender. Neutrality 

was measured by applying the same statistical techniques used for guidelines development to determine which extralegal factors, if any, exerted influence in sentencing 

decisions in both pilot and nonpilot sites. Using consistency and neutrality as a framework for evaluating the existence of sentencing disparity has been documented in 

Voluntary Sentencing Guidelines Compliance Rates 

January to September, 1989 

By Olfense 

Sexual Assault - 74% 

Drugs S-~ 76% 

Fraud - 77% 

Assault - 78% 

Robbery 79% 

Larceny - 80% 

Burglary 82% 

Homicide 88% 

By Circuit 

Circuit 12 - 70% 

Circuit 29 - 76% 

Circuit 19 - 78% 

Circuit 21 :- 78% 

Circuit 4 80% 

Circuit 16 - 82% 

Total - 78% 

The Path to Reform 15 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 19 of 91
Voluntary Sentencing Guidelines 

Percentage of Sentences within Guidelines Ranges, 

past sentencing literature, and both terms still appear as meaningful performance 

indicators in this area." January to September, 1989 

I Non-pilot circuits 

[7 Piht circuits 

78% 

- Assauft 

55% 55% 

I Before 

Guidelines 

After Before 

Guidelines Guidelines 

A year-long pilot study revealed that judges were using the guidelines, complying 

with guideline recommendations, and that the guidelines effectively reduced unwarranted disparity. As an example, the top bar chart shows the percentage of sentences 

for assault and burglary within the guidelines ranges in the pilot and nonpilot sites 

both before and after guidelines were introduced. For both offenses shown, the compliance percentage is notably higher in pilot sites than nonpilot sites. An illustration 

of the extent to which neutrality was achieved is depicted in the bottom bar chart. 

Following the introduction of guidelines, the influence of extralegal factors in explaining variation in sentence length for prison-bound burglary offenders was reduced substantially in the pilot sites (10% of explained variance was accounted for 

by-extralegal factors in pilot sites as compared to 54% in nonpilot sites after guidelines implementation). 

82% 

/ 

50% 

The evaluation also attempted to measure judicial perception and attitudes toward 

the pilot guidelines. A survey conducted during the pilot program found strong acceptance of the voluntary guidelines among participating judges."The survey showed 

90% of judges believed the guidelines had increased consistency in sentencing, while 

affecting judicial discretion minimally or not at all. Almost all judges (3 1 of 32 judges 

After 

I 

Guidelines 

surveyed) felt that having the guidelines available as a reference tool was preferable to 

not having guidelines. The same number said that the guidelines should be expanded 

Pmportion of Sentence Decision Accounted for by Legal and 

m-Legal Factors, Burglary Cases Sentenced to Prison 

I Legal factors 

0 Extra-legal factors 

Pilot Sites 

36% iM Before 

Guidelines 

i90 10% 

After 

Guidelines 

Non-Pilot Sites 

statewide. The one judge who did not want to see guidelines expanded also indicated 

he did not believe in the existence of unwarranted sentencing disparity.'' 

1991-1 993 Statewide Voluntary Guidelines 

After viewing the results of the pilot study, the JSGC, with the approval of the 

Chief Justice, recommended that the sentencing guidelines be implemented statewide. Virginia's circuit judges voted to adopt the sentencing guidelines statewide 

effective January, 1991. The sentencing guidelines were monitored and adjusted an- 5A% -, ._ 

nually over the next three years to reflect current judicial practice. Interviews with 

commission members and staff reveal that a key to program acceptance by the judiciary was the descriptive and voluntary nature of the guidelines. In addition, the 

comprehensive and yearly re-analysis of felony conviction and sentencing data to 

ensure that the guidelines were based on current trends in judicial sentencing was 

unique to Virginia. Although many states make adjustments (largely normative ones) 

to their sentencing guideline grids and/or worksheets to reflect the changing purposes 

Before After 

Gu,delines "Ostrom and Kauder (1998), pp. 22-23; Westing (1982); Bureau of Justice Assistance (1996). 

l9 Interviews with VCSC staff indicate that some judges in nonpilot sites requested and received guideline manuals and worksheet copies during the pilot study period. Judges were 

provided manuals at the direction of the Oversight Committee and the chief justice, since rhe 

system was viewed as a valuable decision aid that was only voluntary in nature. The existence 

and use of these manuals may have had contaminating effects on the study results, although 

staffconversations with several judges indicate that there was no reason to believe guidelines 

were being used systematically in nonpilot sites. 

zo Judicial Sentencing Guidelines Oversight Committee (1989). . 

16 Tmth-in-Sentencing in Virginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 20 of 91
or goals of sentencing, no state has kept and maintained such an exhaustive analytical approach to the guideline revision process as Virginia.” 

The earliest years of guidelines development in Virginia (1985-1988) were supported almost entirely by Bureau of Justice Assistance grants that were later replaced 

by state general fund monies. Late in 1990, Virginia’s legislature passed House Joint 

Resolution 46 encouraging the use of sentencing guidelines statewide and appropriated money for a full-time sentencing committee staff. Over the last ten years, staff 

size has ranged from five to ten full-time employees (in addition to occasional grantfunded or temporary staff designated for special projects). Although other states have 

seen staff size grow in more recent years, this level of staff commitment was unusual 

during the mid- and late-1980s. States currently have, on average, five to six employees assigned to staff a sentencing commission and to maintain a guidelines system, 

although several states also use those positions for nonguideline-related activities.” 

Virginia provides one instance where federal seed or start-up money was used to 

initiate a long-term project, later supported by state revenue based on a proven need! 

and commitment to the program. 

1994: Introducing Truth-in-Sentencing 

and Parole Abolition 

At the time of Governor Allen’s election in November, 1993, judges in Virginia were 

using judicially controlled voluntary sentencing guidelines with an average compliance 

rate of 76%.23 Though the judiciary was satisfied that the guidelines were accomplishing their intended purpose (to reduce unwarranted disparity) and with the design of 

the guidelines (voluntary and descriptive), there was rising concern about large differences between judicially imposed sentences and the amount of time an offender actually served in prison. Public opinion in Virginia was strongly negative toward the perceived leniency of the parole boards release decisions during the early 1990s.** Fear of 

crime was heightened by media coverage showing violent crime rates at record highs. 

As the gubernatorial race was heating up in late 1993, both candidates increasingly 

stressed specific crime and public safety issues in their respective platforms. Mary Sue 

Terry, the Democratic candidate, focused on gun control, specifically, a five-day waiting period for handgun purchases. The Republican candidate, George Allen, made 

parole abolition and TIS his primary public safety, if not his overall, campaign theme. 

When the campaign season began, Allen was well behind in pre-election polls, but he 

won the race by a wide margin. One of his first major actions after taking ofice was the 

signing in January, 1994, of an anticrime package and the creation of the Commission 

on Parole Abolition and Sentencing Reform.25 

”Part of this commitment can be attributed to sufficient hnding levels during different phases 

of guidelines development. This also allowed guidelines staff to conduct numerous training 

seminars and to provide ongoing presentations and technical assistance for judges, probation 

officers, and attorneys. 

22 Kauder, Ostrom, Peterson, and Rotcman (1997). 

23 Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission (1 995). 

24 Survey Research Laboratory (1993). 

25 “Governor Allen Signs Sweeping Anticrime Package,” (1994). 

The Path to Reform 17 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 21 of 91
Allen charged this commission with “developing a plan to abolish parole, establish 

truth-in-sentencing, and ensure that violent and repeat criminals stay in prison for 

much longer periods of time.”26The commission had 32 political appointments, and 

was cochaired by former U.S. Attorney General William l? Barr and Former U.S. 

Attorney of the Eastern District of Virginia, Richard Cullen. The commission was 

staffed administratively by an additional 18 persons representing the executive branch, 

the attorney general’s office, and several private consultants. This administrative body 

provided general policy direction for the Criminal Justice Research Center (CJRC) 

within the Department of Criminal Justice Services, the group responsible for the 

research and impact analyses associated with commission recommendations. The 

Research Center was headed by Richard I? Kern, who was also serving simultaneously 

as executive director for the existing JSGC. 

At about this same time, the democratically controlled general assembly created 

their own study group called the Sentencing and Parole Reform Commission. The 

legislative commission, which was also receiving analytical and staff support from 

the CJRC, was exploring a broad menu of po.tentia1 reforms. What distinguished the 

two commissions early on was the predetermined decision by the Governor’s commission to implement TIS and abolish parole. 

In the summer of 1994, the Governor announced a special session of the General 

Assembly to be convened in the fall for the sole purpose of considering sentencing 

reform legislation. As the legislative session neared, the Governor’s commission and the 

legislative commission solidified their respective reform packages. The Governor‘s package became known as Proposal X, while the legislative package was referred to as Proposal A. Policy stances formed and split along party lines, between the executive and 

legislative branches, and by other competing special interest groups (including prisoner 

advocacy groups, the NRA, victims groups, the NAACC etc.). The political wrangling 

was intense as all seats of both General Assembly houses were up for election within a 

year of the special sentencing and parole reform legislative session. Despite the rhetoric, 

the final recommendations from each commission were often quite similar. Both agreed 

to retain certain elements of VirginiaA pre-reform sentencing system, includmg: 

A Sentencing Commission and the use of voluntary sentencing guidelines; 

No appellate review of sentencing guidelines departures; 

Jury sentencing. 

While there was also substantial agreement about the basic structure of sentencing 

reform (e.g., abolishing discretionary parole release, curtailing good time, the proportion of imposed sentence to be served, and increasing time served for violent 

offenders), there were important differences in the details.” The following table depicts the main features of Proposals X and A and compares those features to the 

system that was operating in 1994. The differences and similarities of the proposals 

are analyzed and discussed in the next chapter. 

26 Governor’s Commission on Parole Abolition and sentencing Reform (1994). 

27 “Parole Abolition Sentencing Reform Proposals” (1994). 

18 Tmtb-in-Sentencing in Virginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 22 of 91
Proposals for Sentencing Reform, 1994 

Existing System ---- Kmmission 'structure Seven-member commttee, 

L----- Judges only ~- 

Sentencing Guidelines Voluntary descriptive, 

based on historical judge 

"effective time" sentencing 

Proposal X (Executive) Proposal A (Legislative) 

Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, members 

members from all branches from all branches 

Voluntay, based on Voluntary, normative 

histoncal time-served, adjustments (increases) 

normative increases to be recommended 

part of onginal reform 

1 

by commission 

package and legislation 

1 Worksheets Requested Required Required I 

Average Time Served 21% - 47% of sentence 85%-100% of sentence 100% of sentence, plus 

extended time for dangerous 

offenders _l_ll~ -I__--_pp------- 

/Departures/appeals No wntten reasons/No appeal Written reasonsiNo appeal Written reasondNo appeal 

L--- 

Jury sentencing Bifurcated sentencing, Bifurcated sentencing, Sentencing guidelines 

jury receives no jury receives no also provided to jury 

sentencing guidelines sentencing guidelines 

Multiple levels/300 days 

per year average ays per year extended term possible 

~T~--------- Flat rate up to 54 None, application to 

I 

~ 

I_ 

Parole Discretionary & mandatory Abolished Abolished 

i- 1 Parole Supervision All on parole supervision Mandatory supervision Long-term communrty 

-7 

upon exiting prison for 6 months to 3 years supervision to follow ~~--~ 

Pnson bed space Forecast vanable Forecast more predlctable Forecast more predictable 

Sentencing Guidelines Framework for Ttuth-in-Sentencing 

The NCSC evaluation team believes that one of the best design decisions made by 

policymakers in Virginia was the retention of sentencing guidelines. The benefit of 

the sentencing guideline approach is that it allows for a more accurate assessment of 

the likely impact of a change in sentencing and/or parole policy. Guidelines systems 

are arguably the most cost-effective means of providing rational structure, relevant 

data, and the ability to accurately monitor and forecast sentencing outcomes. 

Eight states (Ohio, Virginia, Arizona, North Carolina, Delaware, Kansas, Minnesota, and Mississippi) and the federal government have abolished parole and implemented TIS legislation that requires almost all violent and nonviolent offenders to 

serve 85% (75% in Delaware) of the imposed sentence. All but two states (Arizona 

and Mississippi) introduced TIS into a sentencing guidelines system or developed 

guidelines in conjunction with TIS reform. For example: 

rn North Carolina's sentencing reforms received considerable attention in 1994, when 

parole was abolished, good time restricted, and a comprehensive community corrections plan developed. The North Carolina Sentencing Commission implemented 

grid-based presumptive sentencing guidelines, increased sentences for violent offenders, and developed a structured system to divert nonviolent and most drug 

offenders into alternative or intermediate sanction programs. 

The Path to Reform 19 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 23 of 91
Oklahoma established aTruth-in-Sentencing Policy Advisory Commission in 1995 

and proposed sentencing matrices (guidelines) and an 85% time-served minimum. 

In conjunction with TIS, Oklahoma proposed two other major reform components, which could free the prison space needed to accommodate the prisoners 

who would now serve virtually the entire imposed sentence. The Pre-Adjudication 

Act provides services to substance-abusing offenders at the “front end of the system, and the Community Correction Act increases and enhances a continuum of 

sentencing options at the community level. The Oklahoma commission also recommended abolishing jury sentencing as part of its overall TIS reform package. 

Kansas established mandatory guidelines in 1993 and abolished parole releases 

replacing post-supervision periods with a set 24- or 36-month supervision period. 

Good time can be earned by participating in programs, but cannot reduce a sentence by more than 15%. Good time earned is further added to any period of postrelease. The Kansas grids contain border boxes that allow presumptive prison sentences to be replaced by explicit correctional/treatment programs only if readily 

available to the offender. 

However, the creation of a sentencing commission and the enactment of structured 

sentencing guidelines is not a requirement for TIS. For example: 

Mississippi enacted legislation in 1995 that abolished discretionary parole and 

requires inmates to serve 85% of their imposed sentences without the introduction of sentencing guidelines. No adjustments were made to existing sentencing 

ranges-judges still set a fixed term within the existing statutory ranges for particular felony classes. 

In Arizona, TIS requires offenders to serve 85.7% of their imposed “presumptive” 

sentence. For most offenses, sentence lengths were “rolled back” to reflect the historical time served. However, offenders deemed to be “dangerous and repetitive” 

did not have their sentence ranges adjusted. These offenders will serve longer periods of incarceration as a result of delayed release eligibility.28 

The major problem for states without guidelines is the reduced ability to estimate 

future prison bed space needs. The ability to forecast is particularly important in the 

context of a major reform like TIS. Many commentators argue that the 85% rule 

(with or without sentencing guidelines) will have greater impact on punishment and 

the use of prison resources than other sentencing reform measures, including mandatory minimums and three-strikes legislation, because 85% policies are usually applied to all eligible offenders, regardless of prior criminal history.” 

The following timeline begins in 1985 and provides an overview of the major poliv 

initiatives leading up to the initiation of TIS in 1335. 

28National Institute of Corrections (1995a). 

29National Council on Crime and Delinquency (1995). 

20 Tmth-in-Sentencing in Krginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 24 of 91
CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 25 of 91
The Design of TIS 

Guidelines in Virginia 

This chapter reviews the major policy issues and sentencing guideline design considerations raised during deliberations over sentencing reform. Numerous data analyses 

were conducted on behalf of the Governor’s Commission as well as the legislative 

committees responsible for modifying statutes to codify the intended reforms3’ The 

primary targets of reform were (1) abolishing parole and (2) establishing TIS (including lengthier incarceration for violent felons). In addition, many other topics 

were examined including the expanded role of alternative sanctions, the relationship 

between age and recidivism, and mandatory minimum sentencing. The most pertinent studies are reviewed in the following three sections.. 

1)Abolition of Parole 

The Structure of Parole Prior to TIS: Virginia‘s system of parole came under fire 

in the early 1990s. A commission was appointed by the General Assembly in 1990 

to “determine specific reasons for Virginia’s low parole rate,” and make suggestions 

for reform.3’ This move was motivated at least in part by severe overcrowding in 

Virginia’s prisons. Just three years later, the’parole board was being closely scrutinized on charges of undue leniency. 

w Optionsfor Parole and Good Time Reform: This debate focused on three basic 

issues: (1) Should Virginia modify or completely eliminate discretionary release?; 

(2) Should parole and good time reform apply to both violent and nonviolent 

offenders?; and (3) Should post-release supervision be maintained? 

2) Truth-in-Sentencing (Incorporating Longer Sentences for Violent Offenders) 

Sentence Eme Served us. Sentence Time Imposed: A necessary first step was to 

determine the average difference between the judicially imposed sentence and the 

actual time served in prison for violent and nonviolent offenders. 

Shiftngfiom ‘Effective Time”to “Time Served”Sentencingfor Nonviolent Offenders To accommodate TIS and ensure that nonviolent offenders would serve the 

same amount of time post-reform as pre-reform, the guideline recommendations 

for nonviolent offenders were modified to reflect historical time served. 

w Normative Sentence Enhancementsfor Eohnt Offenders: Violent offenders were targeted to receive and serve substantially longer sentences under TIS. The definition of 

30 The Criminal Justice Research Center performed the majority of these analyses, most of 

which have not been published ocher than for the intended audience. These studies were collected from the files held at the current VCSC and were found in their original formats as 

printouts, graphical presentations, and various types of informat-ion and report packets (sornetimes termed “fugitive” research and analysis). 

3’ “Report of the Joinc Legislative Audit and Review Commission on Review of Virginia’s Parole Process to the Governor and General Assembly of Virginia” (1992). ‘ 

CHAPTER THREE 

The Design of TIS Guidelines in Wrginia 21 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 26 of 91
(1) “violent offense” was expanded to include some burglary crimes and (2) “violent offender” to include the entire criminal history including juvenile delinquency 

adjudications. 

3) Related Analyses 

a The Relationship Between Offender Age ana’ Crime: Considerable debate took 

place over whether the incapacitation of young violent offenders during their “crime 

prone years” would end a likely cycle of recidivism and as such should be an explicit purpose of TIS reform. 

Mandatory Minimum Sentences under TIS: Issues of incorporating mandatory 

minimum sentences within the rational framework of TIS guidelines were explored. 

ExpandAlternative PunishmentlTreatment Options: Included in the comprehensive reform package was the legislative goal of using a risk assessment instrument 

to identify and divert at least 25% of incarceration-bound drug and property offenders into alternative sanction programs. 

Because of the analytical complexity and evaluation techniques applied, review of 

the projected and actual impact of TIS on (1) correctional population and prison 

bed space needs (Chapter 4), judicial compliance (Chapter 5), and preventable 

crime (Chapter 6) are discussed separately. 

0%. 

Virginia Parole Grant Rate, 19911998 The Structure of Parole Prior to TIS 

Changing public perception about Virginia’s discretionary release policies is linked 

........-. ~~ ..-....... ~ .......................... -- to the 1994 gubernatorial campaign where the parole system was blamed for increased crime and waning public confidence in the criminal justice system.32 One of 

George Allen’s first actions as governor was to appoint a new parole board. As can be 

seen in the adjacent trend chart, the impact was immediate: the parole grant rate fell 

eligible for mandatory parole six months prior to the expiration of their sentence. The , I , , 1 / 1 , 1, / 1 / 1 / / 1 , 1 , 1, , , , /I 

32 Survey Research Laboratory (1993). 

331n 1998, three years after parole was abolished for new offenders, the parole grant rate‘for 

offenders convicted prior to 1995 again dropped off. With only a few months of data, it is 

difficult to assign a reason for the steep decline in the grant rate, except to point out that many 

less serious offenders from the pre-1995 period have already been paroled, leaving a higher 

proportion of serious offenders in the parole-eligible pool. 

22 Truth-in-Sentencing in Krginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 27 of 91
prior to the 1994 reforms continue to earn good conduct allowance according to the 

good time system in effect before parole reform. Each prisoner is assigned a good 

conduct allowance class, which determines the accrual rate for good conduct credit 

(i.e., Class I earns 30 days for 30 served: Class I1 earns 20 for 30: Class I11 earns 10 

for 30; Class IV earns 0 for 30). Full good conduct allowance is counted toward the 

mandatory release date and half of the good conduct allowance is credited toward 

discretionary parole eligibility. 

Once the Department of Corrections determines that an offender is eligible for 

parole, the case is reviewed by the Parole Board. The parole review process consists of 

an interview and recommendation by a parole examiner, after which each of the 

boards five members reviews the case individually. A consensus of three members 

(four in first degree murder cases) is required to grant parole. If the offender is released, the board sets the conditions of parole, which may include residence in a 

halfway house, day reporting, intensive supervision, electronic monitoring, and/or 

drug testing. For offenders released on mandatory parole, a minimum of six months’ 

post-release supervision is required. 

Criticism of the inconsistencies in parole decisionmaking led the Parole Board to 

introduce,a system of parole guidelines in 1992.34 These guidelines were an attempt 

to structure parole decisions and base them on objective factors (e.g., present offense, 

prior criminal record, personal and social history, community resources) as well as 

subjective factors (e.g., changes in motivation and behavior, impressions gained during interview^).^^ The guidelines were intended to increase consistency and accountability, give guidance to staff, make systematic use of experience, increase openness, 

handle the increasing number of decisions, and make better prediction^.^' 

Virginia‘s parole guidelines considered four factors: felony risk, time served, institutional behavior, and “auxiliary” information. To determine felony risk, the guidelines 

incorporate a risk assessment tool based on prior record, prison conduct, and offender characteristics (e.g., age, substance abuse, education). Each of these felony 

risk factors is scored and the sum of all factors provides an indicator of felony risk, 

which places the offender in one of four risk categories: low, medium low, medium 

high, or high. To ensure appropriate punishment, consistency, and fairness, the guidelines compare time served by the offender to the average for the governing offense. 

The wide range of “average” time served for offenses is divided into four time-served 

categories: low, medium low, medium high, and high. Also, the guidelines take into 

account any disciplinary infractions that have occurred in the last year. Finally, awiliary information such as special needs of the offender and input from the victim 

and the inmate’s family is considered. These voluntary parole guidelines continue to 

be used to assess parole-eligible offenders. 

34 Joint Legislative Audi; and Review Commission (1992), p. 88. 

35 Ibid. 

36 Center for Effective Public Policy, quoted in Virginia Parole Board presentation materials. . 

The Design of TIS Guidelines in Erginia 23 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 28 of 91
Options for Parole and Good mme Reform 

Options for sentencing and parole reform were considered and introduced by both 

the legislative commission and the Governor‘s Commission. Each group confronted 

three basic issues: (1) Should Virginia modify or completely eliminate discretionary 

parole release?; (2) Should parole and good-time reform apply to both violent and 

nonviolent offenders?; and (3) Should post-release supervision be maintained? 

Decision 1: Should Virginia modifi or completely eliminate discretionary 

parole release? 

Many states have enacted legislation requiring offenders to serve a flat percentage 

(usually 85%) as part of a TIS reform package. Other states require a variable percentage based on characteristics of the offense or offender, such as prior record. For 

example, in Arkansas, the percentage of time that offenders must serve ranges from 

33% to 70% according to the seriousness of the offense and whether the offender is 

a habitual ~ffender.~’ Another option used by some states was to modify release 

policy by requiring offenders to serve a clearly articulated minimum sentence before 

becoming eligible for parole. New Hampshire, for example, has retained an indeterminate sentencing structure, but requires offenders to serve 100% of the minimum 

sentence imposed before becoming eligible for parole.38 The legislative commission 

considering parole and sentencing reform met several times to consider these issues. 

The final recommendation was to abolish parole entirely. 

The Governor’s Commission reached the same conclusion at its first meeting in 

February 1994. The Governor asked the commission to remember that “parole 

must be replaced by a system that deters crime by making punishment certain and 

predictable.” Thus, it was a foregone conclusion that the Governor’s Commission 

on Parole Abolition and Sentence Reform would recommend the elimination of 

discretionary release. 

Reform of good-time policies presented a similar set of options. All good conduct 

allowance could be eliminated, or the current system could be modified. Virginia’s 

good time credit allowance system was a complicated four-level structure, malung it 

difficult to reliably calculate release eligibility. Moreover, the system was considered 

overly generous, allowing the average inmate to receive, on average, 300 days for 365 

~erved.~~Modification of the good time system could mean simply reducing the number of good time levels or restricting offenders to a flat number of days per year. 

Another option was to retain good time but not apply it to parole eligibility. Finally, 

good time allowance could be incorporated up front by the judge, thereby reducing 

the upper range of a sentence. 

The two commissions reached different conclusions on good time reform. After 

testimony and input from prison officials, “awareness of the difficult task corrections 

officials face on a daily basis, coupled with the responsibility to maintain discipline 

37 Kauder, Ostrom, Peterson, and Rottman, (1997). 

38 National Institute of Corrections (1 995b), p. 4. 

39 Governor‘s Commission on Parole Abolition and Sentencing Reform (1994), p. 41. 

24 Truth-in-Sentencing in Erginid 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 29 of 91
and order” led the Governor‘s commission to recommend replacement of the good 

conduct allowance system with a flat rate of 54 days a year that must be earned by the 

~ffender.~’ The legislative commission chose to eliminate good time altogether, stating that “the beneficial effect of good time credits on correctional management appears to be arg~able.”~‘ 

Decision 2: Should Parole and Good Time Reform Apply to botb Violent and 

Nonviolent offenders? 

According to a 1995 survey by the National Institute of Corrections, 16 states 

have eliminated discretionary parole release for all offenders.42 However, several states 

have opted to eliminate discretionary parole only for targeted offenders.43 In Virginia, both commissions recommended that parole and good time reform policies 

should apply to all offenders. The governor’s commission considered retaining the 

current parole system for nonviolent offenders, but ultimately rejected it for three 

reasons. First, the commission considered TIS an important reform in and of itself, 

and as such, equally useful to judges and juries whether incarcerating violent or nonviolent offenders. Second, because most nonviolent offenders sentenced to prison in 

Virginia face incarceration after several previous convictions, the commission felt 

that they should be required to serve the full sentence imposed. Third, the commission questioned the efficacy of a system that combined real-time sentences and parole-eligible sentences for different offenders. Such a new two-tiered system-much 

like the existing system it was replacing-would be both difficult to administer and 

confusing to the public. 

Decision 3: should post-rehase supervision be maintained? 

In recommending the elimination of parole, Virginia joined a number of states 

that have eliminated or limited parole release. Of the states that have abolished parole, only Maine has eliminated post-release supervision entirely.44 Most states recognize the role a period of supervised release serves in helping the offender reintegrate 

into the community successfully. For example, Minnesota incorporates a supervised 

release period into the guidelines sentence where two-thirds of the sentence must be 

served in prison and one-third is served on supervised release.45 North Carolina requires all violent offenders to serve a nine-month period of post-release supervision, 

with a five-year period required for sex offender^.^^ 

40 Ibid. 

41 Commission on Sentencing and Parole Reform (1995), p. 9. 

42 Arkansas, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington (National Institute of Corrections, Status of Parole, 1995a, p. 6). 

43 South Carolina has abolished parole eligibility for violent offenders. In Georgia, a constitutional amendment eliminates parole eligibility for offenders convicted of certain violent crimes. 

New York has eliminated parole for second-time felons convicted of a violent felony (as defined by the legislature). 

44 Bureau of Justice Assistance (1996). 

45 Kauder, Ostrom, Peterson, and Rottman (1997), p. 19. 

46 Ibid., p. 23. 

The Design of TIS Guidelines in Virginia 25 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 30 of 91
In Virginia, both commissions recommended that some type of post-release supervision be retained. The Governor’s Commission called for a mandatory period of 

supervision for six months to three years following release, the exact length of which 

would be determined by the sentencing judge. The legislative commission’s plan 

suggested that offenders receive an extended maximum term beyond the minimum 

term imposed by the sentencing judge. Once the offender has served the mandatory 

term, “clearly prescribed release criteria or other risk assessment tools” would be used 

to evaluate the offender’s fitness to return to society. The legislative commission suggested that a judicial entity (i.e., a public safety commission) determine whether the 

offender must serve the extended term.47 In addition to this extended term, the 

legislative commission recommended a period of post-release supervision for all released inmates. 

In addition, the Governor‘s Commission recommended that transitional policies 

be developed for inmates as they approach their release dates. These programs would 

provide for a “gradual step-down’’ within the correctional facilities, including work 

centers or drug treatment facilities. This recommendation was similar to legislation 

in effect in other states that provides transitional periods for inmates prior to release. 

For example, in Ohio, offenders can be transferred from incarceration to community 

sanctions. Ohio felons serving ten years or less are eligible for judicial release and, if 

release is granted, the court can place the offender in any community-control sanction for up to five years. The percentage of time served before becoming eligible for 

judicial release is determined on a sliding scale according to the original sentence 

length.48 In Delaware, judges may sentence offenders to more than one level of punishment, allowing offenders to “flow down” from more to less severe sanction^.^' 

1994 Special Session Legislation 

The final TIS legislation incorporated the recommendations ofthe Governor’s Commission regarding three major issues: parole, good time, and release supervision. Parole 

was abolished and replaced with a period of post-release supervision similar to supervised probation. Good time accrual was bounded by a maximum of 4.5 sentence credits (54 days per year) to be earned through program participation and adherence to 

applicable rules and requirements. TIS legislation allows judges to impose a suspended 

term of six months to three years for each felony count in addition to the term of 

incarceration. This additional suspended term is imposed in conjunction with a sixmonth to three-year period of post-release supervision (the length of the additional 

term and the post-release supervision need not be the same). The additional term is 

imposed if the offender does not adhere co the conditions of post-release supervision 

(essentially the same as traditional probation).50 Judges can continue to suspend a portion of the imposed sentence and place the offender on probation after incarceration. 

*’ Commission on Sentencing and Parole Reform (1995), p. 10. 

48 Kauder, Ostrom, Peterson, and Rottman (1997), p. 25. 

49 Ibid., p. 6. 

5” Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission (1995a). 

26 Truth-in-Sentencing in Virginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 31 of 91
As a result of theTIS reforms, the caseload of the parole board has declined steadily 

since 1996. The parole board decisions are now limited to those offenders whose 

crimes were committed prior to January 1, 1995, and certain conditional release 

decisions. Geriatric prisoners sentenced after January 1, 1995, can be considered for 

conditional release by the parole board after serving a minimum of five years (offenders over 65) or ten years (offenders over 60) of the sentence imposed.5’ As in other 

states that have abolished discretionary parole, the parole board no longer retains any 

role in supervising offenders after release, either on post-release supervision or parole. In mid- 1996, the parole board support staff was reorganized under the Community Corrections division of the Department of Corrections, which supervises all 

offenders released from Virginia prisons. 

Truth-in-Sentencing (Incorporating 

Longer Sentences for Violent Offenders) 

All structured sentencing systems provide judges with guidance concerning the 

appropriate sanctioning ranges for a particular set of case circumstances. Some sysrems provide only minimal guidance whereas others set rigid criteria for determining 

a sentence. Since 1986, Virginia has used a very detailed set of factors (which are 

different for each major offense group) to score a sentencing guidelines case. When 

determining sentence length, the score serves as the midpoint for a sentencing range 

that sets parameters for judicial compliance. Outlining how the ranges evolved from 

the previous guidelines system is important for understanding the current TIS guidelines system.52 

Prison Time Served vs. Sentence Imposed 

The basic tenet of TIS legislation is to more closely align imposed sentences with 

time served. Felony offenders in Virginia are now required to serve at least 85% of 

their prison sentence behind bars. Prior to the 1994 sentencing reforms, many argued that the combination of parole eligibility and good time credits meant that 

time served was typically much less than the judicially imposed sentence. However, 

the exact amount of time served by offense and offender type was not generally 

known. One reason for this lack of information was that an acceptable time served 

percentage had not been established in Virginia. The main reason, though, was the 

inherent complexity of the calculation to determine eligibility for discrecionary release. As discussed earlier in this chapter, multiple good-time accrual rates, parole 

guidelines and risk assessment, and subjective impressions of rehabilitation made it 

difficult to determine consistently, and with confidence, the amount of time offend51 “Sentencing and Parole Reform”, p. 33. 

52 Individuals interested in the precise structure and content of the guideline scoring system 

and the ranges of sentence recommendations should see the Virginia Sentencing Guidelines 

Manual (1 998). The Virginia sentencing guidelines incorporate individual case circumstances 

that vary widely in terms of the nature of the offense, victim injury, extent and seriousness of 

prior record, and prior terms of incarceration or legal restraint. All of these factors are used on 

the guideline worksheets when determining a sentence recommendation. 

The Design of TIS Guidelines in Krginia 27 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 32 of 91
ers would serve in prison. It was simply very dificult, if not impossible, to articulate 

the entire release eligibility process. Both democrats and republicans acknowledged 

the inadequacy of a system in which actual time served could not be more easily 

determined or predicted. 

Despite the inherent dificulties, a necessary first step was to determine the actual 

relationship between judge-imposed sentences and time served. A database was thus 

created from the Offender Based State Correctional Information System (OBSCIS) 

maintained by the Department of Corrections. Controlling for. offense and prior 

prison commitments, the average sentence and time served for offenders released 

from prison between 1988 and 1992 was calculated.53 The table below estimates the 

average percent of sentence served under TIS (1995-1997) compared to the actual 

time served for selected offense groups prior to TIS (1988-1992).54 During the years 

prior to TIS, offenders in Virginia prisons typically served between 20% and 48% of 

their imposed sentences.55 

1988-1992 

Average Percent of 

Imposed Average Sentence Sentence Time Sewed %Ned 

Estimated Time Served (in years) in Prison by Mrginia Felons, Before and After TIS 

1995-1997 

Estimated 

Average Average Percent of 

Imposed Estimated Sentence 

Sentence Time SeNed SeNed 

__ - - - - I __ - Violent Offenses 

P degree murder 352 103 293% 

2nd degree murder 16 7 57 341 

-- 

_- - _I __ ___ 

- - - - __ - - - - __ - - 

Rapefsodomy 92 44 478 ___ ________^ -_ 

Robbery 13 8 44 319 

Malicious wounding 83 28 337 

-- -__I_--_ ____I_ 

. .-.. ..-. . ._._ .. __ 

49.6 45.9 92.6% ~ 

21 19.0 90.3 

~ ~. . -. . ”. __- ___ .i 

. .~- .. 

15.3 13.8 89.9 i .. .-I.-.-_._._ ~ 

9.8 8.9 90.8 

5.6 5.1 90.3 

Voluntary manslaughter 6 6 22 333 55 89 4 

Aggravated sexual battery 5 6 2.6 46 4 43 899 1 

PropertyIDrug Offenses 

-I-_--___ II___ __I_ - ~ __ 

- - - -- - - - - -- - -_ _- - - - __ __ 

-_ - - - - I - 

30 89 7% 

37 89 4 

__ 

Sale Burglary Involuntary schedule manslaughter 1/11 drugs - 68 74 2 - - - - - 22 169306~4~ 21 23 89 ____ 0 

__ 

- - - - - - _- - - - _- ___ ______ 

- __ - - _- I___ -_____ -___-__- 

- -_ - -_I__ -_I__ - _- __ __ _ - - ___~___ - Possession schedule 1/11 drugs 5 4 14 259 14 88 9 - -- - _-_--I_ - - ___- I___ - __ - Larceny 44 14 89 4 - - __ - 

13 295 - __ _ 

Sale marguana 44 09 205 18 16 88 3 

Fraud 43 12 279 16 14 89 4 

- -- I ~- 

- - - - -I__ _______- ~ __ - - --- __ 

53 The number of prior prison commitments is the only recidivism measure that statutorily 

affects parole eligibility OBSCIS contains a variable called “felon term indicator” or “FTI.” 

The FTI number equates to the number of times a person has received a prison commitment 

54 Although offenders in Virginia prisons were serving significantly less than their imposed 

sentence, the proportions were not far from the national average: felons sentenced in 1994 

served between 32% and 55% of their sentences. See US Department of Justice (1994). 

55 Joint Subcommittees on Public Safety of the House Appropriations and Senate Finance 

Committees (199 4). 

28 Truth-in-Sentencing in Virginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 33 of 91
The results of this analysis were fundamental to the Governor’s Commission’s efforts 

to garner support for TIS. 

Among all felons released ?om state prisons, those who bad been convicted of first 

degree murder served an average of only 29% of their terms. . . those convicted of 2“* 

degree murder actually served slight4 more, averaging 34% of their terms.. . . Of all 

ofense categories, no group served, on average, as much as halfof the sentence the 

circuit court judge thought he or she was imposing.. . .j6 

The commission interpreted these findings as evidence of “across-the-board leniency:” 

What is apparent is the absence of truth-in-sentencing in Erginia at any level. Early 

release is not confined toparticular vpes of crime for which one may suppose ofenders 

to be more amenable to treatment or Less prone to recidivate. Ifanything, the across-tbeboard leniency indicates a pervasive philosophy favoring rehabilitation of criminals 

rather than incapacitation.. .j7 

The right half of the table shows the expected average time served and the expected proportion of prison sentence served for felons sentenced between 1995 and 

1997, the first three years ofTIS. It is estimated that compliance with the “85% rule” 

now in place in Virginia will translate into offenders serving between 88% and 92% 

of their imposed sentences.j8 The actual length of imposed prison sentence reflects 

two crucial TIS guideline design considerations. First, the guideline ranges for nonviolent crimes were reduced from “effective time” to historical “time served.” Second, the guideline ranges for violent offenses were targeted for significant normative 

increases from past “effective time.” 

Shifting From “Effective 77me” to 

sc17me Served?? Sentencing for Nonviolent Offenders 

As discussed in Chapter 2, specific sentence recommendations on the pre-TIS 

guideline worksheets were chosen based on careful analysis of past sentencing practices. The sentence ranges captured the middle 50% of past-time-served amounts for 

groups of similarly situated offenders. The highest 25% and lowest 25% of sentences 

being deemed “inconsisteni‘ (and possibly disparate) were excluded. Hence, the sentencing worksheet recommendations reflected historical “effective sentences” (i.e., 

the typical judicially imposed sentence for different groups of similarly situated offenders). Most importantly, these effective sentences under the pre-TIS guidelines 

would be reduced by parole and good time policies. 

In conjunction with parole abolition, the Governorls Commission decided to transform the sentencing recommendations of the guidelines from historical “effective 

sentencing” to historical “time-served” sentencing (Worksheet C).” No change was 

56 Governor‘s Commission on Parole Abolition and Sentencing Reform (1994), pp. 21-22. 

57 Ibid., p. 22. 

58 Actual time served figures reflect variation in average good time accrual rates by offense. 

59 The design and purpose of each worksheet is discussed in more detail in Chapter 2. See the 

Virginia Sentencing Guidelines Manual (1998) for the most current version of the worksheets 

used to determine the sentencing recommendation for all crimes covered by the guidelines. 

The Design of TIS Guidelines in Virginia 29 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 34 of 91
made to the guidelines with respect to the determination of the historical prison/no 

prison decision (Worksheets B and C): the rate at which offenders received a prison 

versus a nonprison sentence would remain consistent with past practice.“ In addition, 

the number of guideline worksheet offense groups was expanded from 8 to 12.6’ 

The move from effective sentences (pre-TIS) to time-served sentences (post-TIS) 

did riot greatly change the amount of time nonviolent offenders would actually serve 

in prison. The difference rested on the proportion of the imposed sentence that 

would actually be served in prison (i.e., 85% under TIS). Public acceptance of the 

Governor’s plan hinged on claribing why recommended sentences for nonviolent 

offenders under TIS would sometimes appear substantially lower than in the past: 

under the previous system, prison sentences were often reduced dramatically by parole and good conduct allowance credits, while under the new system, the judge’s 

imposed sentence will be served in full (with the offender eligible for only 54 days or 

15% good time credit). Therefore, judicial-imposed sentences for nonviolent offenders tend to be lower under TIS, but the amount of time actually served in prison 

remains about the same. 

The following table compares the guideline sentence ranges recommended under 

the previous parole system to those recommended under the TIS time-served guidelines for two typical nonviolent sentencing scenarios. Guideline sentence recommendations are calculated with great specificity depending on a variety of offense and offender factors. The TIS sentencing guidelines recommend a midpoint sentence (in 

months) with an accompanying range that encompasses 50% of past-time-served 

amounts for a group of inmates that were situated similarly in terms of offense and 

offender characteristics. This normative decision mirrors practice under the previous 

guideline system where the guideline ranges covered 50% of past effective sentences. 

Sentencing Recornmendations-Comparing TIS to Previous Guidelines 

Offense Scenario 

Sell Schedule I or I/ Drug: 

1 count, no additional offenses, 

no prior record 

Grand Larceny from Person: 

2 counts, prior record for grand 

larceny, on probation at time of 

offense 

“Effective” Sentence 

Recommended Under 

Prior Guidelines (betae 1N95)- 

4 yr. 11 mo. 

(3 yr. - 7 yr. 2 mo.) 

5 yr. 

(2 yr. 9 mo. - 7 yr. 3 mo.) 

TIS Offense or 

Offender Enhancement 

No enhancement 

No enhancement 

‘%ne &Ned” Sentence 

Recommended Under TIS 

Guidelines (afier 1/1/95) 

1 yr. 

(7 mo. - 1 yr. 4 mo.) 

1 yr. 8 mo. 

(11 mo.- 2 y. 6 mo.) 

m During a September 1998, interview, former Governor George Allen Sentencing and Parole Aboiition‘Chairman Richard Cullen, and former Allen CKief Legal CounselFrank B. 

Atkinson stressed that having a system of sentencing guidelines in place meant that policymakers 

and researchers would not have to start from scratch when devising the sentencing ranges 

under TIS. In addition, circuit court (felony) judges were accepting of the use and purpose of 

sentencing guidelines. 

larceny, burglary dwelling, burglary structure, kidnapping, drugs, fraud, and miscellaneous. 

The 12 guideline offenses include murdedhomicide, sexual assault, rape, robbery, assault, 

Judicial Sentencing Guidelines Committee (1994). 

30 Tmth-in-Sentencing in Virginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 35 of 91
Similarly, in the case of violent offenses, some recommended sentences may appear lower under the new system, but, if followed, the resulting length of stay in 

prison will be significantly longer under the new system (as the previous table shows, 

for example, in the cases of robbery and malicious wounding). 

Violent Offenders: Normative Sentence Enhancements 

During the September, 1994, Special Session, the General Assembly acted to enhance 

sentence recommendations for certain categories of crimes beyond the level of historical 

time served. These “normative” adjustments were made for violent crimes or in cases 

involving a prior violent adjudication or conviction. The process began with VCSC st& 

determining sentences imposed and actual time-served amounts for violent offenders 

who entered or left the system between 1988 and 1992. Historical time-served amounts 

formed the basis for normative sentencing adjustments. However, prior to enhancement, 

these historical sentences were increased by 13.4% to incorporate the projected award of 

sentence credits that might be earned under the new system. 

For the crimes of first degree murder, second degree murder, rape in violation of 

code 18.2-61, forcible sodomy, object sexual penetration and aggravated sexual battery, the recommended prison sentence was enhanced by: 

125% for offenders without prior convictions for violent crimes; 

rn 300% for those with a criminal record that has at least one violent prior felony 

conviction or juvenile adjudication with a statutory maximum penalty of less than 

40 years, hereafter referred to as a Category I1 criminal record; and 

rn 500% for those with a criminal record that has at least one violent prior felony 

conviction or juvenile adjudication with a statutory maximum penalty of 40 years 

or more, hereafter referred to as a Category I criminal record. 

For the crimes of voluntary manslaughter, robbery, aggravated malicious wounding, malicious wounding, any burglary of a dwelling house or statutory burglary of a 

dwelling house or any burglary committed while armed with a deadly weapon or any 

statutory burglary committed while armed with a deadly weapon, the recommended 

prison sentence was enhanced by: 

rn 100% for offenders with no prior violent convictions; 

rn 300% for Category I1 records; and 

500% for Category I records. 

For the crimes of manufacturing, selling, giving or distributing, or possessing with the 

intent to do any of the former, of a Schedule I or I1 controlled substance, the recommended 

prison sentence was not enhanced for those without a prior violent crime, but was increased 

by 200% for Category I1 and 400% for Category I records. For any guidelines offense not 

listed above, the recommended prison sentence was not enhanced for those without a prior 

violent crime, but enhanced 100% for Category I1 and 300% for Category I records.63 

63 Although the percentage enhancements mentioned here are based on normative policy decisions, there was also empirical support for increasing time served for certain groups of violent and repeat violent offenders. This research is discussed in Chapter 3. 

The Design of TIS Guidelines in Virginia 31 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 36 of 91
Time Served in Virginia Prisons 

and the Effect of TIS Enhancements 

First Degree Murder 

Category II 

49.6 Prior Record .PA 

Category I 

Life Pnor Record I '- 

Second Degree Murder 

Categoiy I 

Prior Record 39 2 

Basic Case 11.2 

.-_-_19 

22.4 

Category I 

14.8. Prior Record 11 1 

Forcible Sodomy 

Basic Case 

Category II 

Prior Record 

Category I 

Prior Record 

Robbery with Firearm 

- 12 

Category II 

Prior Record 10.8 

29.6 Category I 

Prior Record I 16.2 

1988-1992 Time %Ned 

Projected Under TIS 1 d Expected Actual Under TIS 

The Impact of Enhancements on Guideline 

Recommendations and Actual 7ime Sewed 

Legislation that codified the enhancements to historical time-served amounts specified which offenses (both current and prior record) were to trigger increases. However, individual case circumstances vary widely in terms of the nature of the offense, 

victim injury, extent and seriousness of prior record, and prior terms of incarceration 

or legal restraint. All of these factors are used on the guideline worksheets when 

determining a sentence recommendation. The table below illustrates the recommended 

guideline ranges for two violent sentencing scenarios. 

Sentencing Recommendations - Comparing TIS to Previous Guidelines 

'Effective" Sentence "Time Sewed" Sentence 

Recommended Under TIS Offense or Recommended Under ns 

Offense Scenario Prior Gudelines (before Iilws)' Offender Enhancement Guidelines (&er 1/1/95) 

Robbery of residence: 11 yr. 8 mo. Violent offense 5 yr. 5 mo. 

Firearrr use, no injury, 

no prior record 

Rape: 30 yc 6 rno. Violent offense 27 yr. 

Fiream use, prior record, 

indecent liberties and prior record 

15 yr. 3 mo. - 15 yr. 10 mo.) enhancement (3 yr. 5 rno. - 6 yr. 7 rno.) 

(14 yr. - 41 yr.) enhancement 

enhancement 

(15 y. 1 mo.- 32 yr. 5 mo.) 

While it is difficult to summarize how the normative enhancements affect each 

individual case, it is possible to examine past historical time-served amounts before 

TIS with projected and expected actual time-served amounts following TIS. The projected time-served amounts reflect the estimates used by policymakers during the 

1994 reform process of what average judicially imposed sentences would be under 

TIS. Expected actual time-served amounts are based on sentences actually imposed 

by judges between 1995 and 1997. These figures are illustrated in the adjacent bars 

for both a basic case and for cases involving Category I or I1 prior records.65 

As the bars show, both the projected and expected actual time-served amounts 

under TIS are greater than past practice (1988-1992). However, the original projections of time served under TIS that informed the 1994 Special Session do not hlly 

track with expected actual time served based on sentencing practice during the first 

three years ofTIS ( 1995-1997).66 Offenders convicted of first degree murder, second 

degree murder, and robbery with a firearm are all expected to serve more time than 

was originally projected by the governor's commission. On the other hand, offenders 

convicted of rape are expected to serve slightly less time while an offender with a 

forcible sodomy conviction is expected to serve the projected time. The results also 

vary by Category I or I1 prior record enhancements, with some offense groups expected to serve less time than anticipated (Category I1 prior record for first degree 

64 Judicial Sentencing Guidelines Committee (1794). 

65 A basic case is a case with no aggravating circumstances - no multiple counts, no additional 

offenses, no weapon use, and no prior record. Category I and I1 case definitions are explained 

earlier in this section. 

(*The divergence between projections and expected actual time served amounts are due primarily 

to differences in the rate at which judges were expected to comply with guideline recommendations 

and the rate at which they actually comply. See Chapter 5 for an analysis of judicial compliance. 

32 Tmth-in-Sentencing in Virginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 37 of 91
murder and Category I for Robbery with a Firearm) and some serving more than 

projected (Category I1 for Second Degree Murder). Rape offenders are expected to 

serve slightly less time for a basic and Category I case and about 60% less for a 

Category I1 case as compared to the projected time served. Despite these differences, 

rapists are still expected to serve more than double the time under TIS as compared 

to the old system.” 

Related Analyses 

The Relationship Setween Offender Age and Recidivism 

A major concern of the Governor‘s Commission on Parole Abolition and Sentence 

Reform was the increase of young violent offenders. According to studies provided 

by the Department of Criminal Justice Services, most “criminal careers” begin around 

age 14 and peak by age 21, with “retirement” by the late 20s or early 30s. The most 

prevalent age of arrest for violent crime (e.g., murderlmanslaughter, robbery) was 

18. This was particularly troubling to the commission given that recent increases in 

violent crime were occurring at a time when the most crime-prone age group (14 to 

21) was at a ten-year low. Staff also conducted analyses to show the connection between age and time served and the likelihood of being recommitted to prison. As 

shown on the right, young offenders convicted of violent crime who spend less than 

three years in prison are more likely to be recommitted to prison as compared to 

older offenders or young offenders who spend more than three years incarcerated. 

The VCSC discussed specific strategies to target and “incapacitate” young violent 

offenders through their most crime-prone years. Although the commission elected 

not to use offender age as an explicit scoring factor within the guidelines structure, 

they felt that m’uch the same effect could be achieved by adding the number of prior 

juvenile adjudications into the calculation of prior record. Hence, sentence enhancements tied to prior record would apply more quickly to younger offenders with any 

history of serious criminal activity. Prior to TIS reform, an offender’s juvenile record 

was not scored on a guidelines worksheet. 

Mandatory Minimum Sentences Under TIS 

Mandatory minimum sentencing laws have existed in Virginia for almost 30 years 

and are currently in effect for 45 discrete felony offenses. The TIS sentencing guidelines make recommendations for almost 95% of Virginia’s felony offenders, includ67 The reasons for these time-served variations may well be a function of data limitations and 

noncomparable sample sizes for the different subgroups of offenders. For example, projected 

time-served amounts were estimated on larger, more general, groups of offenders. The current 

time-served figures are calculated on individualized offender groups that have actually been 

sentenced under the new TIS system. Combining the more serious offender groups with specific offense and offender factors reduces the size of the samples that can be analyzed in a 

comparable way. Judicial compliance with the guidelines may also impact time-served figures. 

This can be seen with the rape category, where compliance is lower than all other offense 

groups (most departures in rape cases are mitigated sentences). This compliance issue has been 

addressed in an ongoing fashion by the VCSC, with revised worksheets attempting to better 

model the specific circumstances (e.g., victim age, relationship, etc) in rape cases. 

Percent of Offenders Recommitted to Prison by Age 

and Length of Original Prison Stay 

Age admitted to prison 

32.1% 

25.6% 18-19 1 

20-21 I_ 24.2% 

17.9% 

22-24 ~~~~ 

25-29 m51:F 

11.8% 

11.4% 30-34 

Length .. of original prison stay 

I Less than 3 years 

I More than 3 years 

40t n;g 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 

% of offenders recommitted to prison 

The Design of TIS Guidelines in Virginia 33 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 38 of 91
ing offenses for which mandatory minimum terms apply.68 In these cases, the mandatory minimum penalty supersedes the guideline re~ommendation.~’ An offender 

convicted of a crime that carries a mandatory minimum penalty must receive at least 

the specified minimum sentence, which cannot be suspended in whole or in part. 

However, prosecutors often avoid charging offenders with offenses that carry mandatory minimums. An offender who has cooperated in the prosecution of other cases 

may not be charged with the mandatory minimum offense or a lengthy mandatory 

minimum may be used as a bargaining chip in plea negotiations. For example, sex 

offenses are among the hardest of cases to successfully prosecute, and certain concessions are sometimes made to ensure a felony conviction with accompanying prison 

time. The VCSC estimates that applicable mandatory minimums are charged in 

only about 50% of sex offense cases.” 

. 

In 1996, the General Assembly requested that the VCSC study the effects of mandatory minimum felony sentences on the use of prison beds and to identify deviations from the guidelines necessitated by the existence of mandatory minimum laws. 

The commission developed a computer program to estimate the sentence expected 

under the new TIS guidelines for all offenders affected by provisions of mandatory 

minimums. Six categories of mandatory minimum offenses were analyzed by the 

commission: injury to law enforcement officer, sale of drugs to minors, firearm use 

in felonies, sexual assault (subsequent conviction), violent sexual assault (subsequent 

conviction), and habitual traffic offender. The six categories ofoffenses cover 99% of 

the total number of convictions which carry a mandatory minimum. The VCSC 

determined that in most cases, the guidelines sentence must be adjusted upward to 

satisfy mandatory minimum requirements. 

Mandatory Minimum Penalties Impact Analysis Results, 1995 

Offense 

Average Guidelines 

Sentence Increase 

Under Mandatofy Estimated percentage of 

Minimum (months) new prison admissions 

injury to Law Enforcement Officer 1.9 

Sale of Drugs to Minor Three Years Junior 27.8 

Use of Firearm in the Commission of Certain Felonies 3.1 

Sexual Assault, Subsequent Conviction 19.7 

Subsequent Violent Felony Sexual Assauk 0 

Habiiual Traffic Offender 3.9 

.2% 

.1 

5.1 

.3 

.2 

3.9 

With respect to required prison space, the VCSC determined that the impact of 

mandatory minimums needed to be evaluated in terms of the application of the law 

as well as the severity of the penalty. For example, while the presumptive sentence 

increase (relative to the guideline recommendation) is much greater for sexual assault 

than habitual traffic, the VCSC study determined that the widely used habitual 

. Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission (1996), p. 46. h9 Oklahoma and Utah have repealed mandatory minimum penalties as part of sentencing 

reform. See Ostrom, Kauder, Rottman, and Peterson (1998). 

’O Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission (1996), p. 54. 

* 

34 Truth-in-Sentencing in Erginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 39 of 91
traffic offender mandatory minimum had far greater impact on prison use than sexual 

assault mandatory penalties. The total number of mandatory minimum convictions 

for 1995 is shown below. 

Of 21,756 Felony Convictions-l,605 Carried a Mandatory Minimum Penalty 

Offense 

Third Conviction for aViolent Felony 

Violent Sexual Assault, subsequent conviction 

Drug Kingpins 

Sexual Assault subsequent conviction 

Firearm Use Dunng Felony 

Drug Crimes w/Firearm 

Assault Law Enforcement Officer 

Homicide (vehicular) 

Traffic (habtual offender) 

All other Offense 

Mandatory Number of 1995 

Minimum Penalty Convictions , 

Life 

10 years to lie 

20 years 

5 to 20 years 

3 to 5 years 

2 to 5 years 

6 rnos to 2 years 

1 year 

1 year 

0 

0 

5 

0 

613 

22 

56 

9 

886 

14 

Most of Virginia’s mandatory minimums were enacted when parole was in effect. 

When the General Assembly abolished parole and the earlier system of good time, 

felons who formerly served between 20 and 50% of their sentences will now serve at 

least 85% of their imposed prison term. The General Assembly has chosen not to 

amend the general criminal statutes that delineate mandatory minimum penalties. 

As a result, the actual penalty, as measured by time served, for felonies with mandatory minimum provisions occurring after January 1, 1995, has increased significantly. 

Use of Alternative PunishmentfIPeatment Options 

One of the legislative requirements included in the comprehensive reform package 

of 1994 was the goal of diverting 25% of prison-bound offenders to alternative sanctions. At the time sentencing reforms were being debated, policymakers were concerned about the rising prison population and that a significant share of the state 

budget was being spent on corrections. In Virginia, as elsewhere, there was a great 

deal of interest in identifying effective ways to punish nonviolent felons in a more 

cost-efficient fashion. Alternative sanctions or so-called intermediate punishments 

have been developed to address this need. However, many have raised the concern 

that alternative punishments may be applied to the unintended offender population-those who otherwise would receive probation (Le., net widening). Also, there 

is the issue of whether the use of intermediate sanctions, in lieu of traditional incarceration, is effective in protecting public safety. Given these issues and concerns lawmakers drafted language (Code ofWrginia 517-235) that charges the VCSC to accomplish the following: 

Prepare guidelines for sentencing courts to use in determining appropriate candidates for alternative sanctions; 

Develop an offender risk assessment instrument for use in all felony cases, based 

on a study of Virginia felons, that will be predictive of the relative risk that a felon 

will become a threat to public safety; 

The Design of TIS Guidelines in Krginia 35 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 40 of 91
Apply the risk assessment instrument to nonviolent felony offenders and, with 

due regard for public safety needs, examine the feasibility of achieving the goal of 

placing 25% of such offenders into alternative sanction programs. 

The VCSC has interpreted its directive from the legislature as the diversion of 

25% of nonviolent offenders into other means of punishment than incarceration. 

Decisions about diversion are to be guided by the score obtained from a risk assessment instrument, prepared at the time of the pre-sentence investigation report for 

use by the sentencing judge. 

The VCSC has developed and is currently pilot testing a risk assessment tool to be 

used by judges at the time of sentencing to identify the best canldates for diversion 

based on past recidivism. The use of the risk assessment instrument is expected to 

remain voluntary, Over the next 18 months, the NCSC and VCSC will expand their 

partnership to include a comprehensive evaluation of risk assessment and diversionary, 

policies that are now being implemented. The evaluation will have three goals: 1) to 

evaluate the methods used to develop the risk assessment instrument; 2) to evaluate the 

use, workload implications, and effectiveness of the instrument; and 3) to establish a 

methodology and baseline database to conduct a complete impact evaluation. 

The intended goals of risk assessment can only be accomplished if adequate resources 

and programs exist for offender diversion. Virginia currently uses boot camp, detention center, intensive supervision, day reporting, and electronic monitoring as alternative sanction options. On July 1, 1998, roughly 500 persons were in the detention, 

diversion, and boot camp programs, up from 300 persons the same month in 1997. In 

1998, however, there were more than 700 offenders on facility waiting lists. 

36 Truth-in-Sentencing in Krginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 41 of 91
CHAPTER FOUR 

The Impact of TIS on Prison 

PopuIation in Virginia 

The impact of TIS legislation on Virginia’s correctional resources was a source of eady 

concern to lawmakers. During the 1994 Special Session, the Virginia General Assembly 

passed legislation requiring the VCSC to estimate the impact of d proposed sentencing 

legislation on correctional resource needs.” The comprehensive sentencing reform package 

included the following features with the greatest potential to affect correctional populations: 

rn All felony offenders must serve at least 85% of their prison sentence; 

Violent offenders will serve substantially longer prison sentences (two to six times 

longer in many cases); 

rn Juvenile adjudications of delinquency for felony-level crimes are now scored as 

part of an offender‘s prior criminal record; 

rn Lotal jails will now house offenders receiving sentences of six months or less rather 

than 24 months or less; 

rn The VCSC was charged by statute” to develop for judges’ use a fisk assessment instrument that would be predictive of the relative risk that an offender poses to public safety. 

The goal was to use this instrument to identi@ and divert to community corrections 

up to 25% of nonviolent felons who would otherwise be incarcerated. 

This chapter describes the specific techniques used by the VCSC to estimate the impact 

of TIS on future correctional populations in Virginia and compares the forecasted impact 

to actual impa~t.7~ It is worth noting that the Virginia General Assembly went on to adopt 

a very sensible constraint when TIS was implemented in 1995: All proposed sentencing 

legislation in Virginia must be accompanied by a “Commission Prison Impact Statement.” 

A bill will die in the legislature unless the necessary hds are appr0priated.7~ 

. 

§30-19.1:5 ofthe Code ofKrginiu. 

72 517-235, paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of the Code of Virginia. 

73 Following the 1994 reforms, Virginia joined the ranks ofother states (e.g., Kansas, Minnesota, 

North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington) where enabling legislation required explicit consideration by the sentencing commission of the impact of sentencing guidelines on correctional resources, Tonry (1997). When reviewing state sentencing commission performance through the 

early nineties, Tonry (1991, 1993) maintained that a necessary condition for success was the 

legislative requirement that “sentencing policy be meaningfully related to correctional resources.” 

Tonry asserted that the ability of Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington to hold their prison 

populations within capacity for extended periods after guidelines implementation was attributable to their “resource constraint” policies, Tonry (1997). Success, though, has not necessarily 

been long-lived. Prison populations in Minnesota and Washington rose rapidly following 1993- 

legislated increases in penalties provoked by sensational crimes in each state. 

’* Similarly, the sentencing commission in North Carolina has made skillful use of “impact 

statement$ on a number ofoccasions to dissuade legislators from enacting punitive legislation 

that would have taxed correctional resources well beyond their current capacities. North Carolina has successfully managed to constrain the growth of its state prison system by expanding 

the use of intermediate sanctions and community corrections for less serious offenders and still 

increasing sentences for the most serious offenders, Wright (1998). Effective management was 

possible in North Carolina because “the sentencing structure is effectively predicting the correctional resources that the State will need and is directing serious felons and misdemeanants 

to longer prison terms while sending less serious felons to non-prison punishments” (p. 13). 

The Impact of TIS on Prison Population in Krginia 37 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 42 of 91
Estimating the Impact of Truth-in-Sentencing 

on Correctional Populations 

Forecasting basics 

Estimating the effect ofTIS on the need for prison space in Virginia required forecasts of the correctional population incorporating different sets of assumptions. In general, forecasts may be qualitative, quantitative, or a blend of both appro ache^.^^ Qualitative forecasting methods generally use the opinions of experts to predict future events 

subjectively. Such methods are used when historical data are either not available or of 

questionable validity. Quantitative forecasting techniques analyze historical data to predict future values for a variable of interest (e.g., prison population). 

Quantitative forecasting models can be grouped into two varieties-univariatemodels 

and causalmodels. Univariate models prelct future values based solely on past values 

of the time series.76 When a univariate model (e.g., exponential smoothing, decomposition methods, Box-Jenkins models) is used, historical data are analyzed to identify 

and extrapolate patterns in the data to produce forecasts. For example, past levels of 

prison population are used to forecast future levels of prison population. Univariate 

forecasting models are most usefd and accurate when conditions are expected to remain relatively constant or the time frame of the forecast is short. However, these 

models are less useful when it comes to forecasting the impact of changes in 

Causal forecasting involves identifying variables that are related to the variable 

being forecast. Once these causal variables are identified, a model is developed thar 

describes the relationship between all the variables. For example, information on the 

number of new admissions to prison, expected sentence length, and parole grant 

rates could be used to forecast future levels of prison population. Causal models are 

better suited than univariate models for assessing the impact of policy alternatives on 

the future values of the variable of interest. This approach to modeling is often employed to produce forecasts with longer time horizons because it can incorporate 

theoretical or other assumptions about future events. 

One type of causal model that has seen extensive application to court and correctional policy modeling and alternatives forecasting is the simulation Stochastic-process sirnulation (also called discrete event orMonte-Carlo simulation) refers to the 

use of mathematical models to study systems that are characterized by the occurrence 

of discrete, random events. These individual events are represented by random vari75 Bowerman and O’Connell (1993). 

76 A time series is a chronologically ordered sequence of observations on a particular variable. 

77 Bowerman and O’Connell(1993). 

Simulation is an activity whereby one can draw conclusions about the behavior of a given 

system by studying the behavior of a corresponding model whose cause-and-effect relationships 

are the same as (or similar to) those of the original system, Gottfried (1984). Sohare to develop 

simulation models has become increasingly available and progressively easier to use. Simulation 

models historically were often developed from scratch using a programming language such as 

FORTRAN or C++, though these were generally eclipsed by programming languages designed 

specifically for simulation such as SLAM and SYMSCRIPT. Increasingly, PC-based sohare 

such as @Risk and the PC-version of SLAM are becoming available to develop simulation models, See, e.g., Gamer, Lubia, and Kempinen (1989); Flango and Ostrom (1996). 

38 Truth-in-Sentencing in Virginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 43 of 91
ables whose values are generated by a computer.*This approach synthesizes the randomness that is present in a real system, allowing the behavior of the original system 

to be reproduced artificially. 

Given the VCSC’s need to examine numerous alternatives to implementing TIS, 

the commission opted to develop a stochastic-process computer simulation forecast 

model (Criminal Justice Research Center @fisk). The model was developed to simulate judicial decisionmalung and the demand for prison beds specifically within the 

context of the new TIS guidelines. The program has the flexibility to model a wide 

variety of alternative sentence ranges and recommendations. There are numerous 

interrelated components of the simulation program: Criminal justice system admissions, guidelines emulation, judicial compliance, rates of earned sentence credits, 

recidivism rates, and the offender-mix distribution. In addition, the model can accommodate anticipated changes in the crime prone “at-risk” age groups within the 

admissions module of the program. The simulation model is programmed using the 

Excel spreadsheet program” and the @Risk software pacI&e.” 

CJRC @Risk Simulation Model 

There are two central elements to simulating state prison population: stock population (i.e., the number of inmates imprisoned at the beginning of the simulation) 

and new admissions. The stock population was defined as the number of inmates in 

Virginia prisons just prior to sentencing reform and the abolition of parole in January, 1995. It was assumed that the stock population of prisoners sentenced prior to 

the 1994 reforms would gradually decline over time at a rate largely determined by 

the Parole Grant Rate (PGR). The higher the PGR, the faster the rate at which the 

stock population will decline. 

The @Risk model begins to estimate the number of new admissions by generating 

a Length-of-Stay (LOS) for different categories of hypothetical offenders during each 

month of the forecast period.*’ This step differentiates the pool of new admissions 

into offender groups and assigns an average sentence to the offenders in each group. 

The generated LOS is then used to determine how many months each specific group 

of offenders will remain in prison. The LOS generated for each hypothetical offender group (sentenced before and after reform) was then used to model the LOS 

for all offenders admitted during a particular month. Admissions during a particular 

month are described as a monthly admissions cohort. 

~ 

The model uses special counting cells called queuing cellr to keep track of the 

contribution that each category of offender from each monthly admissions cohort 

makes to the prison population for all subsequent months in the forecast time horizon. For all months after the hypothetical offender has exited the system (because of 

parole release or sentence completion), the offender’s monthly admissions cohort 

79 Microsoft Excel Version 4.0. 

@Risk Version 3.0. 

Creech (1997). 

The Impact of TIS on Prison Population in Krginia 39 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 44 of 91
adds nothing to the queuing cells. This process is repeated for every monthly admissions cohort. After the last month in the forecast time horizon is reached, the contributions of each admissions cohort to the prison population of each month are summed 

and a forecast of prison population for each month is produced. A variety of summary statistical measures (e.g., mean, standard deviation, percentiles, minimum, 

maximum, etc.) are produced as part of the process. 

Initial valihtion. A prerequisite to using simulation to model policy alternatives is 

that the simulation model be validated.82 This is typically accomplished by inputting 

historical data for the model parameters, using the model to generate forecasts for a 

time period that has already passed, and then comparing the accuracy of the posthoc forecasts to the actual numbers. If the forecasts of historical data are accurate 

according to pre-established criteria, the model is considered valid. 

The historical approach to validation was not used because the type of historical data 

needed for the simulation were not available (e.g., compliance with the TIS guidelines, 

rate of attrition of the stock population, etc.). Instead, the model was validated by 

comparing the forecasts produced by the CJRC @Risk model with forecasts derived 

from a second model. This alternative model, the NCCD Prophet simulation model, 

was being used by the DOC to forecast how the stock population (on hand when TIS 

reform was expected to be implemented in January, 1995) could be expected to exit.83 

In this “prospective” validation, the two models were found to produce similar results 

when they incorporated similar assumptions. While validation with historical data would 

have provided a less assailable assessment, the prospective method employed represented an informed attempt to address the essential step in model building of model 

validation, especially given the limitations of their data. 

Estimating the Effect of TIS on 

Correctional Populations Using Simulation 

To prospectively assess the possible impact of TIS on the state-responsible prison 

population, it was necessary to produce two different types of forecasts. The first assumed that the sentencing status quo would continue throughout the forecast time 

horizon (called a basehe forecast). This assumption implies that the “effective time” 

sentencing guidelines in use prior to reform in 1994 would continue to be used during 

the entire forecast time horizon. The second forecast was based on the assumption that 

sentencing reform and abolition of parole would occur as articulated by the Governor’s 

Commission. The difference between the baseline (no reform) and Governor’s Commission (Proposal X reform) forecasts of prison population represents the expected 

impact of sentencing reform and parole abolition on prison population. 

Baseline forecasts were produced by the DOC using the NCCD Prophet Model. 

The @Risk model was used to produce the forecasts of prison population under 

82 Gottfried (1984). 

83 The NCCD model used a truncated exponential distribution to determine LOSS for the 

stock population. This is a common assumption in queuing models and has empirical support 

in a variety of situations, Greenberg (1 979). 

40 Truth-in-Sentencing in Virginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 45 of 91
Proposal X. Stock prison population for both models was assumed to decline at a rate 

that was determined by the parole grant rate incorporated in the forecast. Further, 

both models used the same new commitment admissions forecasts developed by the 

DOC (using Box-Jenkins models). Parole violators in both models were included 

with other new commitments using the 1994 levels of parole revocation. 

The Proposal X forecasts incorporated the normative adjustments in LOS for specified violent offenses as well as other changes in LOS for nonviolent offenders brought 

on by the move to time-served guidelines. It was assumed that inmates under Proposal X would serve, on average, 88.2% of their total sentence. In addition, the 

Proposal X forecasts reflected the change in the definition of state responsible inmates from any prisoner sentenced to more than two years to any prisoner sentenced 

to more than six months. It was also assumed that Proposal X would take effect in 

January, 1995. 

The need for prison beds was forecast using two different assumptions about the 

parole grant rate: 41.6 % and 15%. The 41.6% parole grant rate is the five-year 

average over the period 1988 to 1992. The 15% figure was a “best-guess” estimate of 

the future PGR made by the Parole Commission. This estimate was requested when 

officials observed the PGR declining sharply following Governor Allen’s election in 

1993. The trend lines here show the state-responsible prison population forecasts for 

both PGR assumptions. The baseline and Proposal X forecasts under both scenarios 

indicate that between June, 1995, and June, 2005, prison population in Virginia will 

approximately double.84 Not surprisingly, the relationship between the expected impact of the baseline and the Proposal X forecasts on correctional population is contingent upon the assumptions made about the PGR. 

Assuming a 41.6% PGR, the Proposal X forecast for June, 2005, exceeds the baseline 

forecast by 2,929. On the other hand, assuming a 15% PGR, the baseline forecast 

exceeds the Proposal X forecast by 3,733. The reason that the baseline forecast is 

higher under the 15% PGR is that the model assumes all inmates will serve 85% of 

their historical “effective rime” senrence. Under these PGR assumptions, both scenarios show the expected impact of Proposal X on prison population to be relatively 

modest, resulting in either a 5% increase over the baseline forecast if one assumed a 

PGR of41.6%, or a 6.7% decrease assuming a PGR of 15%. Therefore, the ultimate 

impact of Proposal X was shown to be largely dependent on the PGR. 

One point of agreement between the forecasts is the rapid, almost explosive growth 

in prison population expected between 1995 and 2005. Both forecasts clearly implied that prison capacity would need to expand greatly over the next decade. A nonobvious result, assuming that the sharp decline in the PGR following Governor Allen’s 

election would continue indefinitely, is that the adoption of all TIS reforms would 

actually reduce expected prison population relative to the status quo. 

Prison Population Forecast - 

Comparison of The Commission’s Plan with Forecast Based 

on a 15% Parole Grant Rate Amended Bill (1993 - 2005) 

Confined Population 

60,000 

50,000 

40,000 

30,000 

20,000 

10,000 

0 

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 

Forecast Based on 

41.6% Parole Grant Rate (1993 - 2005) 

Confined Population 

60,000 

50,000 

40,000 

30,000 

20,000 

52,064 

49,135 

Baseline 41 6% PGR 

i0,ooo 1 

0- 

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 

Prepared by: Criminal Justice Research Center, DCJS 

84 Criminal Justice Research Center (1994). 

The Impact of TIS on Prison Population in Virginia 41 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 46 of 91
Actual 8 Forecasted Prison Population, 1995-1997 

Actual 8 Forecasted Prison Admissions, 1995-1997 

1996 m,:;,““ 

11,543 

61 1997 

I Forecast 

0 Actual 

The Impact of TIS on Corrections, 1995-1997 

Forecast u Actual. Both the baseline and Proposal X forecasts predicted that prison 

population would expand rapidly and significantly between 1995 and 2005. The 

bars to the left compare actual and forecasted prison population for 1995-1997: the 

forecasts exceed the actual population each year. The difference was marginal for 

1995 (2.2%) but for 1996 (10.3%) and 1997 (20.8%), it was quite large. Contrary 

to expectations, the net increase in prison population between 1995 and 1997 was 

only 5% (compared to a forecasted increase of 24%). Indeed, there was no growth at 

all in prison population between 1996 and 1997.85Clearly the forecasts were in error. 

The source offorecast error. Errors in simulation typically result from three sources:86 

(1) the data, (2) an invalid model (resulting from improper specification or changes 

in the system being modeled), and (3) implementation of the model (especially programming errors). The second and third sources of error were minimized, if not 

eliminated, by the pre-implementation validation of the model (at least initially). In 

this case, it appears that an inaccurate estimate of the admissions stream was the 

source of error. The bar charts here compare the actual and forecasted admissions 

(new commitments plus parole violators) and show that the forecasts substantially 

exceeded the actual admissions for every year (by 22% for 1995,24% for 1996, and 

33% for 1997). Contrary to expectations, the net increase in prison admissions between 1995 and 1997 was only 14% (compared to a forecasted increase of 24%). 

At least two reasons can be identified for the inaccurate admissions forecasts: (1) 

declining arrests for violent crime and (2) slower than expected growth in total arrest~.~’ As seen in the trend lines on the next page, the violent crime rate for selected 

offenses declined for each crime type over the last five years. From 1993 to 1997, 

murder and robbery rates decreased by 13%, rape by l8%, and assaults by 3%. 

These unforeseen drops followed increases for each offense group during the late 

1980s and early 1990s and contributed significantly to an overestimate of prison 

admissions.88 

In addition to the inaccurate admissions forecast, two other potential sources of error 

could come from invalid specification of the model. First, if the stock prison population 

(not affected by TIS) is actually declining at a rate different than the assumed PGR, then 

the prison population forecast will be inaccurate. As seen in the following table, data on 

parole rates since the implementation of TIS suggest thar the VCSC estimate of a postimplementation PGR of 15% was reasonably accurate. However, with respect to the 

baseline forecast, it is questionable whether a PGR of 15% would have been sustained 

indefinitely for all offenders sentenced under “effective time” guidelines. 

Department of Public Safety (1997). 

86 Gottfried (1984). 

87 Department of Public Safety (1 997). 

gg One might also speculate that the drop in violent crime rates is in part the result of the 

extended incapacitation of violent offenders incarcerated since the implementation of TIS 

(Marvel1 and Moody, 1994; Spelman, 1994; Levitt, 1996), though it is certainly controversial 

and difficult to prove this hypothesis (Austin and Irwin, 1993). 

42 Truth-in-Sentencing in Krginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 47 of 91
Violent Crime Rates in Virginia, 1985-1997 

(per 100,000 population) 

40 - 

30 - 

20. 

10- 

Discretionary Parole Decisions, 1995-1998 

Fiscal Year Caseload Granted Grant rate 

1995 19,643 2,810 14 3% 

1996 21,589 3,853 17 8% 

1997 16,461 3,208 19 5% 

1998 14,031 2,373 16 9% 

Second, while the simulation approach employed by the VCSC was appropriate 

given the types of policy alternatives it was required to evaluate, the method used by 

the original @Risk model to estimate the LOS of each admission cohort incorporates 

an assumption that is unrealistic at face value. Specifically, the assumption in question is that the LOS of all admissions of the same category admitted during the same 

month will serve identical LOSS. A more commonly used and realistic approach 

would generate a unique LOS for each hypothetical admission. While the sentencing 

guidelines narrow sentencing variability for specified classes of offenders, they do not 

totally eliminate such variability. The initial @Risk model has been revised several 

times, and this feature (Le., using one LOS for all members of each admissions category of each monthly admissions cohort) was changed so that LOS sampling occurred independently for each admission. The latest version of @Risk avoids problems of sampling strategy by using actual sentences for all admissions in a queuing 

model framework. 

Prison expansion. The forecasts produced by the VCSC were not used by the DOC 

for planning in general and for facilities expansion in particular. Since 1987, Virginia 

has projected the size of its future prison and jail populations through a process 

known as “consensus foreca~ting,”~’ which combines technical forecasting expertise 

with the judgment and experience of professionals working in all areas of the criminal justice system. Based on forecasts produced in this manner, Virginia expanded its 

prison capacity throughout the latter half of the 1980s and early 1990s. The recent 

downturn in admissions has resulted in these forecasts missing their mark by a wide 

margin. As a consequence, the amount by which inmate population exceeds the 

design capacity of the prison system declined from 52% to 37% between 1997 and 

1998. Although prison population still exceeds [echnical capacity, Virginia currently 

plans to lease as many as 3,290 prison beds to other states. 

Both estimates (i.e., by CJRC and by DOC) clearly overestimated the expected 

prison population, in part because both used the same inaccurate admissions forecast. 

This inaccuracy related to assumptions and overestimates of the number of state-responsible inmates being held at local jails. However, the CJRC model accomplished its 

primary objective in that it effectively demonstrated that TIS Sentencing Guidelines 

could be implemented without causing unmanageable pressure on the state-responsible prison population. In sum, the methodology employed by the CJRC to accomplish this fairly complex demonstration was comprehensive and conceptually sound. 

Rape 

89 Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission (1997). 

10 ’I 

Murder 61 

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 

0- 

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 

Robbery 

75 

50 

25 i 

04 0.1 I I I I I I I t I I 

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 

2oor 150 

Assault 

50 

lD0 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 

The Impact of TIS on Prison Population in Krginia 43 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 48 of 91
The Impact of TIS on 

Judicial .Compliance 

The primary goal of Virginia's sentencing guidelines is to establish rational and 

consistent sentencing standards subject to the state's TIS laws.'O A common measure 

of sentencing guideline system performance is the extent to which sentences adhere 

to or are in compliance with, the guideline recommendations. High levels of statewide judicial compliance indicate that sentences are being meted out consistently, 

Likewise, concern with unwarranted sentencing disparity is reduced when compliance is high. In addition, compliance and departure analyses provide an empirical 

look at judicial satisfaction with the effect of guidelines on judicial discretion. One 

interpretation is that high compliance rates, especially in a voluntary setting like 

Virginia, indicate judicial acceptance and approval of the sentencing recommendations. In contrast, low compliance rates may indicate that judges are dissatisfied with 

the limits being placed on their discretion. Departures become the way judges inform policymakers that the guidelines place undue constraint on discretion and do 

not allow for appropriate or flexible sentencing decisions. 

This chapter examines the effect on judicial compliance following the implementation 

ofTIS le&lauon in Virginia. Judicial compliance with theTIS guidelines is voluntary;" 

judges may depart from the guidelines and impose a sentence that is either more or less 

severe than recommended. When a judge elects to sentence outside the guideline range, 

the judge must submit a reason why to the commission. The first step in OUT assessment 

of judicial satisfaction with the sentencing guidelines is to define judicial compliance. 

Next, guideline compliance in the years just prior to reform (1991-1994) is compared 

with compliance following the passage ofTIS legislation (1995-1998). The chapter concludes with a review of the most frequently cited reasons for departure.'* 

Defining Compliance 

The VCSC examines compliance with Virginia's guidelines using three general 

measures: dispositional, durational and overall compliance. These alternative measures allow the commission to gain perspective on which elements of the guidelines 

are functioning well and which have gained less acceptance among the judiciary. 

"This statement reflects the stated goals of the Commission throughout the Commonwealths 

experience with guidelines. See, for example, Report ofthe Ad Hoc Committee on Sentencing 

Guidelines (1985), p. 1 and Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission (1998). 

9' Judges use the guidelines as a reference but may choose to sentence outside them in particular cases. While compliance with guideline recommendations is voluntary, completion of guidelines worksheets is now mandatory as stipulated in § 19.2-298.0 1 of The Code of Virginia. 

Also, in cases when judges choose to sentence outside the guidelines recommendations, judges 

must, pursuant to § 19.2-298.01(B), provide written explanations for the departures (Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission, 1995 Annual Report, p. 6). 

92 All compliance analysis reviewed in this chapter was originally conducted by VCSC. See 

Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission (1 998). 

44 Truth-in-Sentencing in Virginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 49 of 91
Dipositionalcompliance is defined as the rate at which judges sentence offenders 

to the same type of disposition recommended by the guidelines as follows: 1) probation/no incarceration, 2) incarceration up to six months, or 3) incarceration over six 

months. Because the recommendation as to the type of disposition is the foundation 

of the sentencing guideline system, the commission believes dispositional compliance is an important measure. The rate of dispositional compliance in FY1998 was 

83% and has remained largely stable since the introduction ofTIS in 1995. 

Durationalcompliance is defined as the rate at which judges sentence offenders to 

terms of incarceration that fall exactly within the recommended guideline range. In 

Virginia, the measure of durational compliance considers only those cases for which 

the guidelines recommend an active term of incarceration and the offender receives 

an incarceration sanction of at least one day in jail. Durational compliance among 

FY1998 cases was 76% and has varied by specific type of offense since the implementation ofTIS. This result indicates that judges more often agree with the recommended type of sanction (dispositional compliance) than they do with the recommended sentence length in incarceration cases. 

Overall compliance measures the extent to which Virginia‘s judges concur with 

recommended type of disposition and length of incarceration. Overall compliance 

is the combination of sentences found to be in strict and generalcompliance. For a 

case to be in strict compliance, the sentence must meet both dispositional and 

durational criteria. General compliance is less exacting and “results from the 

commission’s attempt to understand judicial thinking in the sentencing process, 

and is also meant to accommodate special sentencing circumstance^."^^ For a case 

to be in general compliance with the sentencing guidelines, it must meet one of 

the following three criteria: 

Compliance by rounding provides an allowance in instances when the active sentence handed down by a judge or jury is “very close” to the sentencing guideline 

recommended range. For example, a judge is considered in general compliance 

with the guidelines if he sentenced an offender to a two-year sentence based on a 

guideline recommended range that goes up to one year eleven months. 

Time served compliance is intended to accommodate judicial discretion when a 

judge sentences an offender to pre-sentence time served in a local jail when the 

guidelines call for a short jail sentence. Even though the judge does not sentence 

an offender to post-sentence incarceration time, the commission typically considers this type of case to be in general compliance. 

Compliance due to alternative sanctioning arises most often in habitual traffic offender cases as the result of amendments to the law effective July 1, 1997. The 

change allows judges, at their discretion, to suspend the mandatory minimum 12- 

month incarceration term in habitual traffic felonies and sentence these offenders 

to a Boot Camp, Detention Center, or Diversion Center Incarceration program. 

93 Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission (1 998), p. 23. 

The Impact of TIS on Judicial Compliance 45 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 50 of 91
Sentencing Guidelines Compliance Rates, 

Before and After TIS 

Compliance 

For cases sentenced since the effective date of legislation, the commission considers 

either mode of sanctioning to be in general compliance with the sentencing guidelines. 

100% 

75.4% 

25% :-1 0% 1992 Jun J993 Feb 1994 Mar 1995 Nov 1996 Oct 1998 Mar 

Mitigation 

20% 1 

0% 5%L Jun Feb Mar Nov Oct Mar 

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1998 

Aggravation 

0% I I, 

Jun Feb Mar Nov Ocl Mar 

1992 1993 1994 1995 1396 1998 + 

ter Incarceration 

46 Truth-in-Sentencing in Virginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 51 of 91
Overall Compliance and Departure 

Overall compliance has remained relatively high since the inception of sentencing 

guidelines in 1991. The overall compliance rate has ranged from 72 to 76% and 

currently sits at 75% (between 1/95 and 3/30/98 for 42,269 cases). BecauseVirginia‘s 

sentencing guidelines are designed to accommodate judicial discretion (they remain 

voluntary and there is no mandate to adhere to the guideline recommendations), the 

commission does not view the attainment of 100% compliance as an ultimate goal. 

The rate at which judges sentence offenders more severely than the sentencing guideline recommendation, known as the “aggravation” rate, has ranged from a low of 9% 

(just prior to the implementation ofTIS) to the current level of 13%. The rate at which 

judges sentence offenders to sanctions below the guideline recommendation, or the 

“mitigation” rate, has dropped slightly since the introduction of TIS, declining from a 

high of 17% to a current level of 11%. Isolating the departure cases between 1995 and 

1998, 53% of the departures are cases of aggravation of the sentencing guideline recommendation, while 47% are cases of mitigation. These patterns of compliance and 

departure have been stable since the TIS guidelines were instituted. 

Examining sentencing guidelines compliance rates by the 12 primary offense 

groups reveals that compliance is neither consistent, nor the departure pattern 

uniform, across the offense groups. The bars to the right show post-TIS compliance rates range from a high of 82% for larceny cases to a low of 62% for sexual 

assault cases. In general, higher rates of compliance were found for property crimes 

than the person offense categories-larceny, fraud, drugs, burglary (other than 

dwellings) all had compliance above 70%. The sentences for person offense groups 

(assault, burglary of a dwelling, homicide, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and sexual 

assault) all had compliance rates below 70%. 

Overall compliance within offense groups has not changed much as a result ofTIS 

legislation, although the changes that have occurred are more pronounced in the 

crimes against the person categories. Under TIS, the person offense groups (including burglary of a dwelling and burglaries with weapons) receive statutorily mandated 

midpoint enhancements that increase the guideline recommendation by a minimum 

of 100- 125%.94 Further midpoint enhancements are applied in cases where the offender 

has a violent prior record, resulting in a sentence recommendation up to six times longer 

than historical time served by violent offenders convicted of similar crimes under the old 

parole laws. Undoubtedly, midpoint enhancements affect compliance rates, and the impact is likely not uniform across pdeline offense groups. However, it is currently impossible to disentangle the role played by differential midpoint enhancements in overall 

compliance. 

Departures under TIS guidelines (measured by mitigation and aggravation rates) differ 

significantly across offense groups. The table below shows that property crimes, fraud, 

and burglaries of other structures (nondwellings) exhibit a marked mitigation pattern 

among the departures, while drug and larceny offenses reveal patterns of aggravation. 

94 sl7.1-805 of Code ofviwinia. 

TIS Sentencing Guidelines Compliance Rates 

January 1995 - March 1998 

Larceny - 82% 

Fraud :-79% 

Drugs -175% 

Burglary Structure - 72% 

Assault - 68% 

Burglary Dwelling -1 67% 

Homicide -1 65% 

Robbery 1- 64% 

Kidnapping - 63% 

Sexual Assault - 62% 

Rape - 62% 

Pre-TIS Sentencing Guidelines Compliance Rates 

January 1991 -March 1994 

Fraud - 80% 

Drugs - 77% 

Larceny 175% 

Burglary -1 72% 

Robbery - 68% 

MurderlHominde 1-1 68% 

Assault - 68% 

Sexual Assault - 66% 

Rape - 58% 

The Impact of TIS on Judicial Compliance 47 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 52 of 91
Departures from the burglary of dwelling guidelines resulted in a mitigation rate 

much higher than the other property offenses and similar to the rates of mitigation 

among several of the person crime categories. The violent offenses of rape and robbery, and to a lesser extent assault and kidnapping, demonstrated strong mitigation 

patterns. In fact, in more than one-fourth of the rape cases and over one-fifth of the 

robberies, judges sentenced below the guideline recommendation. Despite the midpoint enhancement for violent current offenses and violent prior records, the guidelines offense groups of homicide and sexual assault showed stronger aggravation patterns from the guidelines than any other crime categories. To a certain degree, the 

aggravation patterns for homicide and sexual assault offenses may reflect judicial 

sentencing for “true” offense behavior in cases where a plea agreement resulted in a 

less serious charge at con~iction.’~ 

TIS Guidelines Departure Rates by Offense, 1995-1998 

Total Cases 

Mitigation Rate Aggravation Rate Examined 

Assault 

Burglary/Dwelling 

BurglaryiOther Structure 

Drug 

Fraud 

Kidnapping 

Larceny 

MurdedHomicide 

Robbery 

Sexual Assault 

Rape 

17.7% 

19.8 

15.5 

10.2 

15.4 

19.5 

7.1 

12.6 

29.0 

21.9 

11.4 

14.0% 

13.5 

12.2 

15.1 

5.9 

17.7 

10.5 

22.3 

8.8 

14.5 

26.8 

2,001 

2,313 

1,585 

17,415 

5,903 

21 5 

10,864 

61 0 

468 

1,928 

938 

With some notable exceptions, the implementation of TIS has not had a pronounced effect on compliance or departure rates (mitigations or aggravations). Furthermore, a majority of sentences fall within the guideline recommendations (;.e., 

for the case types listed, between 62% and 82% of the sentences complied with the 

sentencing guidelines). The fairly high compliance rates may be, in part, an artifact 

of the evolving nature of the sentencing guidelines. The VCSC updates the sentencing guidelines annually and continually fine-tunes the sentencing worksheets.” This 

occurs by continually analyzing PSI data, completed guideline worksheet data, and 

other information that comes before the commission. Some decisions to modify 

guideline worksheets are strictly data driven (as is the case with setting the ranges), 

95 Offense scoring under Virginia’s sentencing guidelines is based solely on the conviction 

offense, and unlike the United States Sentencing Guidelines, does n3t score the real offense 

behavior in instances where a charge reduction occurs. Virginia’s guidelines do, however, account for elements of the crime such as victim injury and use of a weapon. Aggravation rate 

for violent offenses, then, may reflect the desire on the part of judges to impose sentences 

more closely in line with the actual offense committed rather than the offense to which the 

offender plead guilty. 

96 Virginia’s sentencing guidelines are based on a continuing analysis of judicial sentencing decisions in the Commonwealth. This is done to ensure that judges are provided with guidelines that 

reflect both historical sentencing decisions and changes in more recent sentencing decisions 

(Judicial Sentencing Guidelines Committee, 1993, p. 7). 

48 Tmth-in-Sentencing in Virginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 53 of 91
and some are more qualitative (as is the case with increasing time-served amounts for 

targeted offenders). However, most changes are a combination of quantitative and 

qualitative input. For example, a relatively high departure for sexual assault cases 

caused the commission to conduct a more in-depth study of convicted sex offender~.~’ As a result of this study, age of the victim was added to the sentencing worksheet 

for sexual assault cases as a sentence enhan~ement.’~ 

Judicial Departure Reasons 

Compliance with the TIS guidelines, as with its predecessor (the guidelines in place 

under the parole system) is voluntary. However, following the 1994 reforms, judges 

were required to articulate and submit reasons for sentencing outside the guideline 

recommendations. “The opinions of the judiciary, as reflected in their departure reasons, are highly relevant to the Sentencing Commission as it deliberates on revision 

recommendations. Unlike their counterparts in many other states using sentencing 

guidelines, Virginia’s judges are not limited by any prescribed or standardized reasons 

for departure set forth by the commission; they are free to depart for any reason they 

find compelling and must only communicate thar reason to the commission.”” 

VCSC staff state that recommendations for revisions to the guidelines, submitted 

to the General Assembly each December in the commission’s annual report, draw on 

the opinions of the judiciary reflected in departure reasons. As a consequence, the 

commission is active in encouraging judges to provide specific reasons for departure. 

One important result is that, over time, judges are now more likely to give a reason 

for their mitigated or aggravated sentences. “No reason cited” went from being the 

most common departure reason for both mitigation and aggravation (ranked number 1) at the end of 1995 to one of the least (ranked 9 of 10 for mitigation and 

ranked 10 of 10 for aggravation) during the period 1995-1998. 

During the first three years of TIS, mitigation cases reveal that the most commonly cited reasons for departure were that an alternative sanction or community 

punishment”’ was imposed (21.2%) and that the offender had good rehabilitation 

potential’” (1 6.7%). For aggravated sentences, the most commonly cited reasons 

TIS Guidelines Reasons For Departure 

January 1995 - March 1998 

10 Most Frequent Mitigating Reasons 

Alternative sanction ~

21.2% 

Good rehabilitation potential -16.7% 

Plea agreement - 10.3% 

Cooperative with authorities - 10.3% 

Weak caselevidence -7.3% 

Age of offender = 5.5% 

Sentenced by another court = 5% 

Minimal prior record = 4.8% 

No reason cited = 4.7% 

Facts of the case 4.4% 

10 Most Frequent Aggravating Reasons 

Criminal lifestylelorientation - 13.8% 

Previous same oifense - 12.4% 

Plea agreement -12.2% 

Factsofthecase -11.5% 

Recommendation too low - 7.9% 

Jurylcommunity sentiment -7% 

Trueheal offense behavior = 5.4% 

Drug amountipuri = 4.6% 

Sentencing consistency 4.2% 

No reason cited 3.5% 

97 The “Convicted Sex Offender” study found that three-fourths of all convictions in the sample 

involved a sexual assault on a child under 18 years old, and almost half ofthe victims were under 13. 

98 Recommendation 4: The sentencing guidelines for sexual assault offenses should be amended 

by adding a factor to sections A and B to increase the total worksheet score in cases involving 

victims who are under the age of 13 at the time of the offense. This modification significantly 

increases the likelihood that sexual assault offenses involving victims under 13 will be recommended for prison, and, in the cases that will not result in a prison recommendation, this 

modification ensures these offenders will receive a jail term. These recommendations do not 

apply to rape, forcible sodomy and object penetration (Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission (1996), p. 79). 

99 Virginia’s Sentencing Commission Annual Report (1996), p. 20. 

loo Detention Center Incarceration, Diversion Center Incarceration, Boot Camp Incarceration, intensive supervised probation, day reporting, and the drug court programs are examples 

of alternative sanctions available to judges in Virginia. 

For instance, judges may cite the offender’s general rehabilitation potential or they may cite 

more specific reasons such as the offender’s progress in drug rehabilitation, a strong work record, 

the offender’s remorse, a strong family background, or restitution made by the offender. 

The Impact of TIS on judicia[ Compliance 49 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 54 of 91
were the overall criminal lifestyle/orientation of the-offender (13.8%) and that the offender had previously been convicted for the same offense (12.4%). The charts on the 

previous page list the ten most frequently cited judicial reasons for sentence departure. 

Jury Compliance 

Virginia is one of only six states where the defendant in a noncapital case has the 

option of having his guilt determined by jury and, if convicted, sentenced by that same 

jury.Io2 Virginia’s original sentencing guidelines were developed from the Pre-Sentence 

Investigation database which included sentencing decisions made by juries. Thus, the 

statistical analyses used to create the TIS guidelines also factored in jury sentences. 

Virginia juries have typically handed down sentences more severe than the sentencing guidelines recommendations. In fact, since the implementation of TIS, a 

jury sentence was more likely to exceed the guidelines than fall within the guideline 

range. Some speculate that many potential jurors are unaware of Virginia’s move to 

TIS and do not realize that 85% of the imposed term will be served. This concern 

gains credence because Virginia juries are not allowed, by law, to receive any information regarding the sentencing guidelines to assist them in their sentencing decision. “Differing opinions have arisen regarding the instruction of juries during the 

sentencing phase of a trial. Some have argued that juries should be instructed as to 

the abolition of parole and the 85% time-served requirement so that they may make 

their sentencing decisions based on how much time an offender will serve. Others 

support the longstanding Supreme Court opinion that juries should not be informed 

of the parole eligibility of the defendant and should not concern themselves with 

what happens after the sentencing (Jones v. Commonwealth, 1952).”’03 

July Trial Rate in Virginia, 1986-1998 Since 1986, as seen in the trend line to the left, the overall rate of jury adjudicated 

cases in Virginia has been declining. Criminal justice professionals offer three possible explanations for the downward trend. First, starting in 1987, data and analysis 8% 1 i on felony sentencing became available in reports released by the commission documenting the longer sentences imposed in cases adjudicated by juries. Second, when 

the General Assembly enacted provisions for a system of bifurcated jury trials in 

1994, jurors were presented for the first time with information on the offender’s 

prior record to assist in the sentencing decision. Third, the abolition of parole and the 

implementation ofTIS in 1995 occurred within a context where jurors are still forbidden by law from receiving any information on the sentencing guidelines. It is not 

surprising that criminal defense attorneys are increasingly reluctant to steer their clients 0% 

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 toward a jury trial. 

Io* TheVirginia General Assembly enacted provisions for a system of bifircated jury trials that 

became effective beginning July 1, 1994. In bifurcated trials, the jury establishes the guilt or 

innocence of the defendant in the first phase of the trial, and then, in a second phase, the jury 

is presented with information on the offender’s background and prior record to assist jurors in 

making a sentencing decision. 

IO3 Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission (1997), p. 37. 

50 Truth-in-Sentencing in Wrginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 55 of 91
Since the implementation of TIS, the overall compliance rate of jury sentences 

with the sentencing guidelines has been 43% compared to 76% in nonjury trials. 

The majority of the departures have been aggravations (Le., 45% aggravations for 

jury trials and 12% aggravations for nonjury trials). There has been virtually no 

difference in the rate of mitigated sintences for jury and nonjury trials since the 

implementation ofTIS. 

In Virginia, judges are permitted by law to reduce a jury sentence they feel is 

inappropriate. More often than not, however, they do noi amend the sanction. For 

example, just after the implementation of TIS, judges modified about 29% of jury 

sentencing cases. In cases modified when the jury was outside the guideline range, 

nearly half (45%) were cases where the final sentence was still outside the guidelines 

recommendation. Judges brought a high jury sentence into compliance with the guideline recommendation in onbfour out of ten modzjications. Unlike overall compliance 

and departure rates, judicial modification patterns appear to have changed since the 

implementation of TIS. Specifically, 86% of judicial modifications after TIS were 

made to jury sentences outside the guideline recommendation compared to 69% of 

judicial modifications in the last year of the old parole system. 

Compliance rates in states with sentencing guidelines range from 75-100%. Comparing compliance rates across states is only useful for portraying differences in how 

guideline systems have been developed or modeled. A 100% compliance rate (in 

North Carolina) simply means judges are bound statutorily to adhere to guideline 

recommendations. States with lower compliance rates may have drawn narrower sentencing ranges, or may measure compliance differently depending on the purposes 

of monitoring. 

To the extent that the goal of sentencing guidelines is to structure judicial discretion, not to eliminate it, then some level of departure is to be expected-if not encouraged-in order to account for atypical cases. This perspective differentiates sentencing guidelines from mandatory sentencing. In Virginia, the majority (between 

72-76%) of prison sentences handed down by judges pre- and post-TIS have complied with sentencing guidelines. The consistently high level of overall compliance 

indicates that guidelines were developed and statistically modeled in a fashion consistent with past sentencing practices. In addition, a compliance rate in the 70-80% 

range shows that judges are reasonably satisfied with guidelines recommendations. 

The most recent figures (updated June 1999) show overall compliance at a high of 

78%. Commission staff speculate that the recent increase in compliance may be 

related to media reporting of compliance rates by name of judge. 

It is important to note that patterns of judicial compliance vary when examined 

for individual case types. Thus, it would appear that targeting adjustments to the 

sentencing guidelines for specific case types and circumstances (e.g., rape sexual assault, robbery) would be a reasonable way for the VCSC to maintain or increase 

compliance rates. In fact, it is an ongoing strategy of the VCSC to target individual 

offenses or specific scoring factors for revision on the worksheets. 

Guideline Compliance Rates Comparing 

Judge and Jury Sentences 

(January 1995 - March 1998) . 

Aggravation 45% 

I Jury 

I Judge 

I 

0% 2d% 40% 6d% 80% , 

Tbe’lmpact of TIS on Judicial Compliance 51 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 56 of 91
Estimating Preventable 

Crime Under TIS 

Virginia legislators wanted to know how the extended incapacitation of violent 

offenders under TIS would effect crime rates. Specifically they asked for information 

on how Virginians would benefit from locking up violent offenders for longer periods of time. Implementing the governor‘s proposed sentencing reforms would require spending a larger share of the public treasury on housing violent offenders. 

Under normal circumstances, imprisoned offenders do not pose a threat to the general public. But is the cost associated with giving certain offenders lengthier sentences justified through a reduction in the amount of crime they might otherwise 

commit if they had been released earlier? Is there a beneficial “incapacitation effect” 

associated with TIS? 

This chapter reviews two VCSC studies that estimate the “benefits of incarceration” in terms of the amount and value of crime prevented by sentencing reform. 

Estimate of preventable crime and recidivism under TIS: How much new crime is 

prevented when certain offenders serve longer sentences? 

Estimate of the cost of crime prevented under TIS: What is the benefit (or cost 

savings) to society from having fewer victims of crime? 

There is no generally accepted method for determining the amount of crime prevented through longer prison sentence~.’~~ Much of the literature on this subjectIo5 

focuses on ways to measure and calculate a theoretical criminal career parameter 

lambda (A), which is the frequency (average annual rate) of offending by active offenders (sometimes referred to as an individual offending frequency). Given knowledge of h for a particular category of inmate (based on offense seriousness, prior 

record, and other offender characteristics) and the expected Length-of-Stay, Ti, for 

that inmate, the number of offenses prevented by incarceration of that inmate would 

be equal to h(Ti). The total number of preventable crimes (C) for N offenders of a 

particular category could be estimated as 

N 

c=p7; I 

A findamental unresolved issue with this approach to estimating the number of 

crimes prevented by incapacitation is how to measure rates of offending.’o6 For example, controversy remains as to whether offending patterns vary with the age of the 

offender’” or remain relatively constant over the offender’s active criminal career.”18 

IO4 See, e.g., Gottfredson, and Hirschi (1986); Blurnstein, Cohen, and Farrington (1988); 

Zimring and Hawkins (1988). 

See, e.g., Cohen (1978); Horney and Marshall (1991). 

Cohen (1986); Visher (1986); Horney and Marshall (1991); Marvel1 and Moody (1994). 

IO7 Gottfredson and Hirschi (1986). 

lo* Blumstein, Cohen, and Farrington (1988). 

52 Truth-in-Sentencing in Erginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 57 of 91
Moreover, the information required to determine rates of offending for various classes 

of offenders would likely be significant. Indeed, given these basic concerns, some reject 

h: entirely as a useM construct.’09 

The staff of the VCSC opted to develop a methodology for counting “preventable” offenses that avoided the uncertainties associated with the measurement of h 

by actually counting the number of offenses that occurred between the inmates’ 

actual release date and the later release date proscribed by Proposal X.”’ The VCSC 

study was designed to identify preventable convictions based on an analysis of offenders released from prison between 1986 and 197 1 who recidivated with a new 

felony (nondrug) conviction between 1986 and 1993. Crimes committed by offenders released prior to 1986 were excluded from the study. 

The study of preventable crime produced by the VCSC included: (I) developing a 

framework to estimate “preventable” recidivism, (2) compiling a comprehensive database to study preventable recidivism (1986-l993), (3) developing a projection of 

preventable recidivism for 1995-2005, and (4) forecasting preventable crime from 

1995 through 2005. For purposes of this analysis, recidivism was measured by a new 

felony (nondrug) conviction. Measuring recidivism in this way provides a conservative estimate of preventable crime because felony convictions are only a fraction.of 

the number of crimes actually committed.”’ 

* 

Step One: Developing a Framework to 

Estimate Preventable Recidivism 

The study began by estimating recidivism that would have been prevented between 1986 and 1973 by the extended incapacitation ofviolent offenders. A sample 

was drawn consisting of offenders who would have been subject to normative sentence adjustments (due to the nature of their current offense and/or prior criminal 

record) under the Governor’s plan (Proposal X) and who were released from prison 

during the period 1986 to 199 1. Because the last release dates for this offender group 

occurred at the end of 199 1, and subsequent criminal activity was tracked through 

1973, all offenders in the sample were monitored for a minimum of two years following release. 

To identify any felony convictions that occurred after the offender’s release, each 

case in the sample was tracked using the Pre/Post-Sentence Investigation (PSI) database. First, a revised release date was calculated to approximate the date the offender 

would have been released had Proposal X been in effect at the time of the offender’s 

original conviction. The new release dare was calculated using the midpoint value of 

the recommended sentence range under the Proposal X sentencing guidelines for 

each offense type. 

“Preventable” offenses were identified based on whether they occurred after the 

offender’s actual release and prior to the Proposal X release date. These offenses were 

IO9 See, e.g., Gottfredson and Hirschi (1986). 

’‘I For a more complete discussion of measuring recidivism, see Chapter 7 

Criminal Justice Research Center (1994). 

Estimating Preventable Crime Under TIS 53 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 58 of 91
considered preventable because they presumably would not have occurred if the offender was still incarcerated. New felony convictions occurring after the Proposal X 

release date were not considered preventable. Felony drug offenses were not considered preventable because the nature of the drug trade is such that “replacement” 

effects would have almost certainly occurred. 

Step 2: Compiling a Comprehensive Database to Study 

Preventable Recidivism (1986-1993) 

Producing a distribution of historical time-served amounts under the pre-TIS guidelines (by offense type) for offenders who would be affected by the normative sentence adjustments. 

In this step, the necessary data were identified and assembled. This included: 

Calculating a recidivism rate for this affected group of offenders by determining 

the percentage of offenders in this category released from prison or jail who subsequently were convicted of a new felony (nondrug) offense (r). 

Calculating the average number of preventable felony convictions (using the PSI 

database) per recidivist offender in the affected sample (0. 

Deriving two additional distributions showing the time across all recidivist offenders from (1) release date to a new violent felony offense and (2) release date to 

a new nonviolent (nondrug) felony offense resulting in conviction. 

Step 3: Forecast of Preventable 

Felony Convictions (1995-2005) 

VCSC staff began by forecasting the number of offenders who would be convicted 

of offenses subject to the normative sentence adjustments under Proposal X. The 

forecasts were produced by an ARIMA (Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving Average) model using monthly data on convictions for the targeted offenses from 1985 

through 1993. Monthly forecasts were produced for the period from January 1995 

through December 2005. 

A release date for each offender in the forecast was determined using the average 

historical time served for the offender’s offense class (derived from the distribution of 

historical time served assembled in Step Two). An estimate of the total number of 

offenders released each month in the forecast horizon was produced (Rj, where j 

represents the month of release) by summing (across offense type) the forecasted 

number of offenders (xij, where i represents the offense type and j represents the 

month) convicted of offenses subject to the normative sentence adjustments under 

Proposal X who were expected to be released during month j 

Rj =Ai xij , 

The recidivism rate (r, derived in Step Two) was applied to the forecast of offenders expected to be released during each month of the forecast horizon. The product is 

an estimate of the number of offenders released for normatively adjusted offenses 

54 Truth-in-Sentencing in Krginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 59 of 91
who will recidivate with a new felony (nondrug) conviction (Dj), for every month in 

the forecast horizon, where 

Dj-rRj 

The number ofpreventable felony convictions per month (produced by the recidivist offenders affected by Proposal X) was estimated (Cj). The estimate was produced 

by taking the product of the number of preventable felony convictions per recidivist 

offender (6 calculated in Step 2) and the forecast of the number of recidivist offenders released each month of the forecast horizon (Dj) as follows 

Cj=fDj 

At this stage, the forecast of these preventable felony convictions must be distributed across the months after the offenders’ release to simulate the pattern in which 

these offenders actually recidivate following their release from prison. To this end, 

preventable convictions were first disaggregated into violent and nonviolent preventable offenses and then by new offense type. This was accomplished by applying the 

proportion of preventable violent convictions (pv) to the forecast of preventable total 

felony convictions per month (Cj). Thus, the number of preventable violent felony 

offenses that resulted in conviction per month (Vj) was equal to 

Vj= pv(Cj) 

while the number of preventable nonviolent felony convictions per month (Pj ) was 

equal to 

Pj=(l-pv)( Cj) 

Once the number of violent and nonviolent preventable convictions for each month 

between 1995 and 2005 was estimated, the next step was to distribute these convictions across time using the two distributions calculated in Step 2 (the time from release 

date to either (1) a new violent felony offense or (2) a new nonviolent (nondrug) 

offense that resulted in conviction). This step produced estimates of both the number 

ofviolent [Nv(j)] and nonviolent [Np(j)], preventable offenses (resulting in conviction) 

expected to occur each month between 1995 and 2005. 

In summary, the specific types of iolent and nonviolent offenses expected to be 

committed by recidivist offenders were estimated using proportions derived from 

historical data (Step Two). The result was a forecast of the number of preventable 

r 

felony offenses (by offense type) expected to result in conviction during each month 

between 1995 to 20O5.lI2 These offenses were then distributed across future months 

. 

‘I2 If rhe (historically derived) proportion of preventable violent felony offenses accounted for 

by murder was represented by p(I), for rape by p(2), for robbery by p(3), and for assault by 

p(4), then the number of preventable murders occurring during month j would be equal to 

p(I) N,fi), the number of preventable rapes would be equal to p(2) Nv6), the number of 

preventable robberies would be equal to p(3) Nu6), and the number of preventable assaults 

would be equal to p(4) N”0). Similarly, if the (historically derived) proportion of preventable 

Estimating Preventable Crime Under TIS 55 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 60 of 91
Forecast of Preventable Felony Crimes 

Under the Commission’s Plan (1995 - 2005) 

From 1995-2005 an estimated I I9,9@ fe/ony crimes 

would be prevented under the Commission’s Plan. 

100,000 

80,000 

60,000 

40,000 

20,000 

0 

1 

Violent Crimes 

26,078 

15 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 

based on historical recidivism patterns. The final result was the number of both 

violent and nonviolent preventable offenses (resulting in conviction) expected to 

occur each month between 1995 and 2005. 

Step 4: Forecast of Preventable Crime (1 995-2005) 

The number of reported crimes always exceeds the number of criminal convictions. During this step, the estimated number of preventable felony convictions was 

used to estimate the overall reduction in reported felony offenses attributable to TIS. 

The ratio of the number of index crimes”3 reported to the police to the number of 

convictions for index crimes between 1991 and 1993 was calculated. For example, 

during this period, there were 6.7 rapes reported to the police for every rape conviction. These ratios were then applied to the forecast of the number of preventable 

convictions for each index offense category to produce estimates of future preventable index crime reported to the police. For example, if the ratio of the number of 

rapes reported to the police to the number of convictions for rape is designated as rp, 

then number of preventable rapes in month j [Pr (j)] is estimated to be equal to 

Pr (j) = rp p(2) Wj), 

where 

p(2) = proportion of preventable violent felony offenses accounted for by rape 

Nv(j) = the number of preventable offenses (resulting in conviction) in month j. 

Using this methodology, the CJRC estimated that there was an average of 12 felony 

offenses reported for each felony conviction (across all index offense categories, reported over a multiyear period). This average reported offense-to-conviction ratio 

implies that for every future preventable felony conviction there would be an additional 12 index crimes prevented (and thus not reported) due to the extended incarceration of offenders under Proposal X. 

The trend lines here show the forecast (1995-2005) ofpreventable reported felony 

crimes under Proposal X. More than 26,000 violent and 93, 89 1 nonviolent felonies 

were expected to be prevented by the implementation of Proposal X between 1995 

and 2005.“* 

Conclusions 

The methodology for estimating preventable crime just described is analytically complex and makes numerous interrelated behavioral assumptions. As a consequence, the 

nonviolent felony offenses accounted for by burglary was represented by p(5), for arson by 

p(G), and for motor vehicle theft byp(7), then the number of preventable burglaries occurring 

during month j would be equal to p(5) NpC;), the number of preventable arsons would be 

equal to p(6J N,G), and the number of preventable robberies would be equal to p(7) N,W. ‘I3 Murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, arson, and motor vehicle theft. 

Note that the Criminal Justice Research Center also developed a more comprehensive estimate of the cost of recidivism in Virginia (Criminal Justice Research Center, 1994a) which also 

included law enforcement, correctional and judicial, as well as victim, costs of all (Le., not just 

preventable) felony recidivism in 1993. These were estimated to total $670 million in 1994. 

56 Tmth-in-Sentencing in Virginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 61 of 91
accuracy of the estimates may be affected by potential sources of statistical error and 

possible challenges to the assumptions. First, while not a criticism, the choice of study 

period constrains the results. Forecasted recidivism for the years 1995-2005 is based on 

the patterns and experience-of an earlier period of time (1986-1993) that may no 

longer be representative. Falling crime rates and record employment levels her 1993 

may indicate a change in many criminal careers. Second, primary results, such as the 

number of violent felony convictions prevented by Proposal X are calculated by combining many separate estimates. Each estimate contains potential measurement error"' 

that is exacerbated when the individual estimates are combined. Third, the manner in 

which repeat crimes were distributed across time (i.e., using average time to recidivism) 

could be challenged as unrealistic. 

On the other hand, the estimates were produced quickly using a carefully conceived method designed to make the most out of available data. The approach avoided 

attempts to measure complex, theoretically challenging quantities such as h through 

expensive and time-consuming longitudinal research. In addition, there are several 

reasons to believe that these estimates met a basic goal of producing conservative 

estimates of preventable crime. Several other studies on this subject use much higher 

ratios to estimate the actual number of crimes committed by an offender compared 

to each felony conviction. Zedlewski (1987), in his analysis of the costs and benefits 

of confinement, cited a Rand Corporation survey of inmates in California, Michigan, and Texas that found the average number of crimes committed per year by an 

offender was 187, with a median of 15 crimes per year. DiIulio (1990), in a survey of 

425 Wisconsin inmates, found the average number of crimes committed per year to 

be 141, with a median of 12 crimes per year. 

Estimated Cost Savings Resulting 

from Preventable Crime 

The primary benefit of prevented crime under TIS is that there are fewer victims 

of crime. The legislature asked the VCSC to estimate the "costs of crime" avoided by 

individuals who did not become crime victims due to the extended incapacitation of 

violent offenders under Proposal X. As in the case of preventable crime, there is no 

widely accepted method to make such a determination.'16 Miller, Cohen, and 

Wiersema contend that the costs of crime to victims are mainly (1) out-of-pocket 

expenses such as medical bills and property losses; (2) reduced productivity at work, 

home, and school; and (3) nonmonetary losses-such as fear, pain, suffering, and 

lost quality of life. While some of these losses are tangible and easily quantified, the 

'I5 For example, the ratio of reported felonies to convictions for each offense type ignores the 

lag relationship between reported offenses and convictions (i.e., convictions must follow the 

reported crime though not necessarily during the same year) which obviously causes some 

measurement error. 

'I6 See, e.g., Haynes and Larson (1984); Zedlewski (1987); Zimring and Hawkins (1988); 

Baird (1993); Levitt (1996); Miller, Cohen, and Wiersma (1996); Block (1997). 

Estimating Preventable Crime Under TIS 57 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 62 of 91
intangible losses (such as quality oflife) may also be valued in dollar terms,’” though 

there is less agreement on the best method for accomplishing this. The CJRC drew 

on data provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Virginia State 

Police, National Council on Compensation Information, Jury Verdict Research, Inc., 

and the National Fire Incident Reporting System, to develop “a very conservative” 

estimate of the costs of crime (to victims) that would be prevented (or avoided) 

under TIS. 

The CJRC’s approach drew extensively on the methods used by Miller and Cohen, 

and their associates, in a series of studies designed to measure the cost of crime.”* 

CJRC identified and measured victim cost of crime by focusing on the following 

victim “cost centers:””’ 

Medical Costs were derived from the Detailed Claims Information (DCI) database of the National Council on Compensation Insurance. This database longitudinally tracks medical costs for injured persons. The injury distribution from National Crime Victims Survey (NCVS) was then applied to the cost figures. 

rn Mental Health Costs associated with psychological injury were computed using a 

study of 391 South Carolina victims (women) of violent crimes. The rate of injury 

was then applied to “won” jury verdicts for emotional distress and severely disabling psychological injury. The rate that “psychological injury” occurs (as measured by the PSI database) is roughly the same for both men and women - 33.5%. 

rn Emergency Response Costs were estimated at $144.00 per injury based on the 

National Medical Care Utilization and Expenditure Survey, 1980. This figure likely 

understates considerably the current costs of emergency response. 

rn Productivity Losses were estimated in the short and long terms. Short-term estimaces were based on lost work days reported in the NCVS, combined with data 

on average daily earnings for those who work. For students (victims under age 19), 

the estimated value of lost school days (daily cost per pupil) was used. For longterm estimates, injury codes (ICDs) for victims of violent crimes were used in 

conjunction with reported hospital status times. 

Program Administration Costs were defined as the administrative costs of health 

and disability insurance. These were estimated by multiplying the costs of health 

and disability insurance by the percent reimbursed. 

rn Lost Quality of Life was estimated using two approaches: willingness-to-pay and 

jury awards for pain and suffering. 

rn Willingness-to-pay, typically assessed by means of a survey instrument,I2’ measures the 

amount that people are willing to pay for day-to-day safety and to maintain their 

existing quality of life (defined across such dimensions as cognitive, mobility, sensory, and cosmetic that may be diminished by crime). 

‘I7 Cohen (1988). 

”* Miller (1990); Miller, Cohen, and Rossman, (1994); Miller, Cohen, and Wiersema (1996). 

Chabotar (1987). 

Mitchell and Carson (1989). 

58 Tmtb-in-Sentencing in Erginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 63 of 91
Jury awards for pain and suffering are also used to estimate the lost quality of life 

resulting from crime. These are a function of medical care, productivity costs, 

category of injury, and mental health care related to emotional distress. Jury awards 

are based on a standard of compensation that has been defined by the courts as 

“one which permits the jury to award a “fair” and “reasonable” amount that compensates for pain and suffering. This was measured by examining actual amounts 

awarded by juries. Data were taken from Jury Verdict Research, Inc., which collects award information on virtually all personal injury cases in civil proceedings. 

The company claims that it can predict court awards within + or - 7%. 

Results of Cost Analysis 

The study of preventable crime under Proposal X forecasted compensatory damages by crime type based on the relationship between medical cost and productivity 

losses and jury awards. For example, the estimated cost (or value of a statistical life) 

for a murder was calculated as follows: 

Medical ................................................... $6,467 

Emergency Service ......................................... $520 

Productivity ........................................... $656,192 

Total Monetary ................................... $663,179 

Mental Health ..................................................... 0 

Quality of Life ..................................... $1,7 15;9 18 

Total Cost ........................................ $2,379,097 

Based on the preventable crime and victim cost analyses, the commission estimated 

that the value of crime prevented by the implementation of Proposal X between 

1995 and 2005 would yield a cumulative savings to victims and society of $2.7 

billion. The trend line here shows the estimated victim costs (1989 dollars adjusted 

for inflation) associated with forecasted preventable violent and nonviolent crime, 

respectively, under Proposal X, 1995-2005. 

Conclusions 

The cost analysis, based on a highly regarded methodology developed by Miller, 

Gohen, and their associates, incorporated a number of elements designed to keep the 

estimates conservative. First, the cost estimates did not include a number of preventable crimes because cost data were not available. In addition, certain cost centers suggested by Miller, Cohen, and Wiersema”’ were absent from the CJRC’s estimates (e.g., 

socialhictim services) due to a lack of data, while others (e.g., mental health cost estimates) are based on estimates that likely understate the true costs. Finally, lost quality 

of life is the largest cost component in the estimates and also the most difficult to 

measure. The use of both willingness to pay and jury awards are conservative and 

’” Miller, Cohen, and Wiersema (1996). 

Estimated Victim Costs’ Associated With Preventable 

Crime Under The Commission’s Plan, 1995-2005 

Violent Crime 

$ Millions 

2500 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

associated with preventable violent cnme 

is estimated at $2.3 billion 

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 

Non-Violent Crime 

$ Millions 

500. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

crime is estimated at $4400 million 

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 

* 1989 dollars adjusted for inflation. 

Estimating Preventable Crime Under TIS 59 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 64 of 91
reduce concern over this source of measurement error. As a consequence, it appears 

that the CJRC approach produced an estimate that can be viewed as a lower-limit to 

the costs of crime to victims avoidable by the implementation of TIS in Virginia. 

Additional analyses using the cost-savings estimates may have been useful to 

policymakers. While a comprehensive benefit-cost analysis of preventable crime would 

be extremely difficult, a more limited comparison df the costs associated with extended incarceration of offenders with the cost savings to victims and society could 

have been attempted. Extended incarceration, while increasing correctional costs, 

reduces court and law enforcement expenditures associated with arrests for preventable crimes. These additional savings to government, along with the savings to victims and society, could be compared to the costs of extended incarceration and used, 

for example, to justify new prison construction. While officials laid the groundwork 

for such a comparison, it was never actually conducted. 

60 Truth-in-Sentencing in Virginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 65 of 91
CHAPTER SEVEN 

Assessing The Impact 

of TIS on Recidivism 

A fundamental issue in evaluating Virginia’s new TIS policies is their impact on the 

amount of new crime being committed in the Commonwealth. Although the major 

objective of TIS reform was to ensure more certain punishment and longer prison 

terms for violent offenders, policymakers also raised the difficult issue of “what impact 

the new sentencing system may be having on Virginia’s crime rate.’”’’ Have the new 

laws helped to deter some persons from committing new crime because of the knowledge of tougher penalties under TIS? Does incarcerating violent offenders for longer 

periods of time under TIS help reduce the chances that they will commit new crimes 

when they are eventually released from prison? This chapter examines one critical aspect of the relationship between sentencing reform and the crime rate in Virginia: Has 

TIS helped reduce the level of offender recidivism in Virginia? Criminological research 

shows that a relatively large share of crime is committed by a small pool of known and 

repeat offenders. IfTIS policies are successful in reducing offender recidivism, then it is 

likely that these policies will help reduce the crime rate generally. 

As a first step in assessing what, if any, impact TIS is having on the level of offender 

recidivism, this chapter establishes the recent historical baseline of crime in Virginia. 

The second section discusses a new initiative-the Offender Notification Release 

Program-designed to inform offenders being released from prison about Virginia’s 

new sentencing laws. The final part of this chapter reviews the design of a long-range 

recidivism study and analyzes the pattern of recidivism for offenders released from 

prison prior to !he implementation of TIS. 

The Current Level of Crime in Virginia 

Between 1993 and 1997, reported crime in Virginia declined. The overall rate of 

“index crime’’’23 in Virginia (per 100,000 population) dropped by over 8% from 

4,210 in 1993 to 3,870 in 1997. While there was a slight increase in four of the 

index crimes between 1996 and 1997, the rates of all eight index crimes have declined over the past five years. 

rIndex Crimes in Virginia, 1993-1997 

1 

I 

I 

I Rate per 100,000 population Percent Change 

1993 4.210 

1994 4,108 -2 4 

1995 4.063 -1.1 I 

1996 3,971 -2.3 

1997 3,870 -2.5 

-_________-__...I . - - - 

”’ Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission (1997), p. 73. 

aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson. 

Index crimes are defined as murderlnon-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, 

Assessing the Impact of TIS on Recidivism 67 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 66 of 91
Index Crime in Virginia by Crime Type, 1993-1997 

Percent 

Change 

1993 __ 1994 1995 1996 1997 1993-1997 __ - - - - - -- - - -_ 

Murder/ Non-Negligent Manslaughter 8 9 8 7 7 -14 7 

-_ I I __ __^_____ ______ _-____- ~ ____I_ 2 

Forcible Rape 33 29 27 26 26 -19 2 

-14.1 

Aggravated Assault 193 192 197 183 185 -4 0 

Burglary ma 645 602 582 562 -17 0 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_ _- - ._ -Robbety 144 134 133 122 124 

- I -- - I -_ 

The cause of this decline is difficult to interpret. On one hand, the decline in the 

rate ofviolent crime in Virginia is in line with a pattern observed nationally. The rate 

of index crime in the United States has fallen from 5,483 in 1993 to 4,923 in 1997 

sparking a debate over why and how long this trend will last. On the other hand, the 

implementation ofTIS in Virginia and a drop in the state crime rate raises the possibility that the two events are related. The issue of whether the drop in Virginia's 

crime rate can be attributed to sentencing reform or some other combination of 

initiatives is complex and requires considerable longitudinal data that are simply 

unavailable at this time. The following sections of this chapter take important first 

steps in addressing this issue by examining an innovative new approach to reducing 

future offender recidivism and establishing baseline recidivism measures for offenders released from prison prior to the TIS reforms. 

Offender Notification Release Program 

A deterrence effect is one way for TIS to reduce recidivism in Virginia. It may be 

that knowledge of the tough new penalties deters some previous offenders who would 

otherwise have broken the law again from committing new crimes, or at least certain 

types of crime. The criminological literature refers to this concept as specific deterrence: the degree to which the threat or actual application of punishment will deter 

an individual who has committed a crime from engaging in crime again.'24 The 

Offender Notification Release Program (ONRP) was developed in 1996 as a joint 

effort of the VCSC and the Department of Corrections (DOC) to educate inmates 

leaving Virginia prisons specifically about the TIS reforms. The program provides 

exiting inmates an overview of the sentencing system since the abolition of parole 

and the institution of tougher sentencing laws for violent and repeat offenders. On 

average, a returning violent offender sentenced under the new guidelines should 

expect to serve two to six times longer than under the state's old law. 

This concept is distinct from general deterrence, which is the degree co which knowledge of 

criminal penalties deters members of the general population, not just those convicted of crimes, 

from engaging in criminal behavior. General deterrence effects are very hard to measure because of the difficulty of assessing the depth of knowledge people have of criminal punishments and what, if any, impact this knowledge has in preventing them from committing 

crime. At this time, the VCSC is not undertaking any study of general deterrence under TIS. 

62 Truth-in-Sentencing in Virginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 67 of 91
The program has two purposes: 1) to inform inmates abouc to re-enter society of the 

changes in Virginia’s sentencing and parole laws, and 2) to reduce the likelihood of recidivism. A number of criminological studies of &e deterrent value of new punishment 

initiatives have produced mixed results, with some researchers concluding that many 

offenders were unaware of the change in sanctions designed to influence their behavior. 

From a theoretical perspective, the VCSC and the DOC believe that the deterrent 

value of specific punishments under TIS might be increased if the targeted population 

(released inmates) is adequately informed of the new sanctions for future misconduct. 

As part of the offender notification program, all inmates leaving the prison system 

are given a type of “exit interview” where they are informed about the abolition of 

parole and the old good conduct credit system. Each departing inmate receives a wallet-sized “notification card that contains the possible sentencing consequences of being arrested and convicted of a new felony offense. The program became operational 

statewide in January, 1997. Virginia’s ONW is the first of its kind in the nation. 

The ONRP Process 

Each correctional facility in Virginia has a supply of white and yellow cards that 

indicate the amount of time an offender can expect to serve if convicted of a new 

murder, rape, robbery, or aggravated assault after release from prison. White cards 

are given to inmates with a nonviolent record and the yellow cards are given to 

inmates with a violent record. The two cards show different expected time-served 

amounts because sentences are increased for offenders with violent prior records. 

The time is compared with the average time served under the previous sentencing 

laws that allowed for early release on parole. The next page shows the front and back 

of the ONRP cards (redrawn from the originals). 

The Community Release Unit located within the DOC Division of Operations 

determines which card the inmate will receive based on a review of the inmate’s 

record. This review is triggered in part on a form obtained from the Court and Legal 

Services Unit that predicts a release date based on good time and parole eligibility 

(for those offenders serving sentences under the old parole system). The record review helps to determine if the inmate has any outstanding charges to answer, other 

sentences to serve, or whether the inmate will be transferred out-of-state for similar 

reasons. In addition, the review identifies whether the inmate has a history of violence and therefore should receive a yellow card. All correctional facilities have been 

provided with a comprehensive list of all violent offenses. A “Notification of Release 

Post/Probation Supervision” form is then faxed to the facility indicating which card 

is to be assigned. 

After the institution receives the DOC release information, correctional staff review the inmate’s on-site records to make sure the correct card is assigned. Officials 

are required to give the card to the inmate as close to the day of release as possible. 

ONW cards are handed out to inmates convicted of felonies who are classified as 

state responsible (those given state prison sentences of six months or more). This 

Assessing the Impact of TIS on Recidivism 63 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 68 of 91
ONRP White Card - Front 

WARNING: Virginia has abolished parole and imposed much lowr prison sentences on criminals with aast records. 

I Virginia has made big changes in the way we sentence convicted criminals. Put simply, IF YOU 

COMMIT AVIOLENT CRIME IN VIRGINIA IN THE FUTURE, YOU WILL LIKELY BE SENT 

BACK TO PRISON FOR A VERY LONG PERIOD OF TIME. 

I There is no more parole. The entire sentence imposed by the judge or jury will be served, with 

good time credits limited to five weeks per year at most. 

I Most importantly of all, should you commit a burglary or any other violent crime you will serve 

FAR MORE HARD TIME than under the old system. The back of this card shows some examples of the ACTUAL PRISON TIME you will face if you are convicted in Virginia. 

I We expect you to obey the laws and build a productive life after release. But we want you to 

understand the very serious consequences if you commit future violent crimes in Virginia. 

ONRP White Card - Back 

Actual Prison Xme to Serve Under Virginia’s Guidelines 

These recommendations can be increased based on your prior record and the facts of the case. 

Type of Conviction 

First Degree Murder 

Serious Assault 

Robbery 

Rape 

Old system New No Parole System 

11 Years 

1.5 Years 

2 Years 

5 Years 

28 Years - Life 

3 Years - 9 years 

5 Years - 14 Years 

13 Years - 33 Years 

ONRP Yellow Card - Eack 

Actual Prison Time to Serve Under Virginia’s Guidelines 

These recommendations can be increased based on your prior record and the facts of the case. 

Type of Conviction 

First Degree Murder 

Serious Assauk 

Robbery 

Rape 

Old System New No Parole System 

11 Years 

1.5 Years 

2 Years 

5 Years 

50 Years - Life 

6 Years - 9 years 

9 Years - 14 Years 

22 Years - 33 Years 

64 Truth-in-Sentencing in Virginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 69 of 91
includes persons at work release centers but excludes those in local jails and the state 

boot camp (boot camp is considered a probation sentence). 

DOC Response 

The Director of DOC informed all regional directors, wardens, and superintendents of the ONRP implementation, stating: 

“Issuing warning cards is a serious matter for all Department of Corrections employees. The cards are designed to inform all inmates of the consequences of committing future violent crime in Virginia. Inmates must be aware that in Virginia, 

they are likely to serve a much longer sentence for committing a violent crime. 

Staff responsible for issuing the cards need to explain the card to the inmate. 

Counseling staff should also spend time explaining the consequences of change in 

the sentencing guidelines prior to the inmate being released. When issued properly, the warning card can act as a deterrent to committing a future violent crime.” 

(DOC memorandum porn Ron Angelone, Director, December 9, 1936) 

The director assigned the manager of DOC Classification and Records to oversee 

implementation and training for the ONRP program. Each institution, field unit, 

and work release center was required to send at least one representative to a training 

session conducted by officials from the VCSC. Training occurred at four regional 

locations with an average attendance of 30 people. Training sessions were short, with 

attendees being given general program information and working through some hypothetical release scenarios. 

The NCSC evaluation team interviewed a number of individuals who work for 

DOC about the implementacion of the ONRl? Support for the offender notification 

concept was strong, with several recommendations made to enhance the overall effectiveness of this program: 

Provide a video tape explaining the ONRP to inmates. Several DOC managers at 

local facilities suggested a video tape to ensure a consistent and accurate explanation 

of the system. Inmates currently view videos on other matters, and those interviewed 

feel that an ONRP video could be easily integrated into existing release procedures. 

Provide ongoing training. Managers indicate the need for ongoing training on 

program goals and how best to administer the card. In particular, a process should 

be developed to inform new correctional officers of the program. 

Make it easier to get ONRP cards. Officials at one institution have found it difficult to keep an adequate supply of ONRP cards. They mentioned having to ask 

for cards from a nearby institution when their own supply ran out. 

Review the card more than once with exiting inmates. Officials at several institutions stated that inmates were busy thinking of other things upon release, including living arrangements, transportation from the facility, personal finances, etc. 

The ONRP card was seldom a high priority as offenders prepared to leave prison. 

Officials mentioned a strategy of reviewing the card several days prior to release 

and again at release to increase awareness of Virginia’s new sentencing laws. 

Assessing the Impact of TIS on Recidivism 65 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 70 of 91
The VCSC and other policymakers are interested in determining whether the 

ONRP increases the potential deterrent effect ofVirginia’s sentencing reforms among 

offenders being released from prison. This issue will be examined as part of a broader 

two-phase study ofoffender recidivism in Virginia. The first phase establishes a baseline 

recidivism rate for a cohort of offenders who were released from prison before TIS 

and the ONRP went into effect (the cohort is composed of offenders released in FY 

1994). The second phase of rhe study (funds permitting) will begin at a yet-to-bedetermined date and examine recidivism rates for offenders released after the implementation of sentencing reform. 

Recidivism in Virginia 

To determine whether TIS and ONRP policies have affected offender recidivism, 

project staff have established baseline recidivism rates for the offender population 

released from prison prior to the introduction of reform in January, 1995. The longrange plan is to compare the recidivism rate of offenders released pre-TIS (phase 

one) with the recidivism rate of offenders released post-TIS (phase two). The VCSC 

is now deliberating on when the second phase, measuring recidivism for those released after exposure to TIS and the ONW, should begin. 

Sampling Methodology 

The baseline recidivism rate was developed by examining recidivism among a sample 

of offenders released from the Virginia Department of Corrections in FY1993. The 

sampling frame was prepared as follows: 

Offenders appearing on the release file who died in prison or were executed during 

FY1993 were excluded (53 cases). 

Offenders who had previously been released from prison for the current incarceration term (parole violators) were excluded (1,722 cases). The results of the analysis, therefore, reflect recidivism among offenders after their first release from prison 

for the current term of incarceration. 

Offenders imprisoned for offenses other than completed or attempted person, property or drug crimes (offenses such as habitual traffic, weapons, arson, gambling, 

conspiracy to commit a felony) were excluded (1,742 cases). Over half (54%) of the 

offenders excluded in this step were convicted of habitual traffic offenses and were 

imprisoned under Virginia’s 12-month mandatory minimum penalty law. 

Offenders admitted prior to January 1, 1985, were excluded, since these cases 

predated the statewide standardization of the Pre-/Post-Sentence Investigation (PSI) 

report (243 cases). The PSI system will serve as the source of extensive prior record 

and socio-demographic data for the offenders included in the study sample. The 

offenders excluded in this step comprise less than 3% of released offenders remaining at this stage. Their exclusion affects a larger portion of the violent offense 

groups than the property and drug groups: 42% of the remaining murderers and 

26% of the remaining kidnappers were admitted to prison prior to 1985, compared to less than 1% of drug offenders. 

66 Truth-in-Sentencing in Virginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 71 of 91
A disproportionate stratified random sample of 1,400 cases was drawn from the 

sampling frame (N= 8,089). 

Offenders convicted of crimes against the person (murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, forcible rape/sodomy, robbery, assault, sexual assault offenses) were oversampled 

relative to their proportion in the sampling frame to comprise 50% of the sample 

cases (as seen in the table below). Within the person crime category, sampling was 

performed using proportionate stratification by offense group to ensure that the person offense groups are represented in the sample in the same proportions as they 

appear in the sampling frame. Offenders convicted of property offenses (burglary, 

larceny and fraud/forgery) and drug crimes have been undersampled relative to their 

proportion in the sampling frame to comprise the remaining 50% of the sample. As 

with the person offenses, property and drug cases were sampled using proportionate 

stratification by offense group, such that the offense groups are represented in the 

sample in the same relative proportions as in the sampling frame. 

Sampling Design 

ACTUAL SAMPLE 

. Wrthin 

PERSON ~ 

MurderiHomicide 98 0063 

Manslaughter ~ 0 047 33 I 

Kidnapping ~- 0 042 30 r--------------------------------- 

Eoora ble_RapelSodor)?y-~ll~-O~~~~- -0073-----i;l/ 

Robbery 480 0308 0 308 216 

Sex Offenses 

----- 

Once the sample was drawn, matching the sample cases to the automated PSI 

report data base was attempted, first by social security number (SSN) and offense, 

and, for cases unmatched by SSN, by CCRE (Central Criminal Records Exchange) 

number and 0ffen~e.I~~ Overall, 69.5% of the sample cases were matched successfully resulting in the ability to track 973 released inmates for evidence of recidivism. 

Comparispn of the matched and unmatched sample cases reveals no significant differences 

by offender race, gender, age at release, and number of prior prison terms served. However, 

five significant differences between matched and unmatched cases (p<.05) exist by offense 

group, judicial circuit, year of admission and number of prior Virginia felonies served. Postsampling weighting was applied to ensure that the data set of matched cases accurately reflects 

the same distributions for offense. 

Assessing the Impact of TIS on Recidivism 67 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 72 of 91
Due to incompatibility of data systems, the Virginia State Police agreed to provide 

hard copies of criminal history rap sheets from the Virginia Central Criminal History information system for each of the 973 offenders in the sample. Next, a trained 

coder examined each rap sheet and recorded the recidivism data elements over a 

three-year period that began with their release from prison. Data collection forms 

were optically scanned, errors were detected and corrected, and a data file was prepared by VCSC staff. 

Defining Recidivism 

Numerous definitions of offender recidivism have been employed to measure the 

frequency and extent of repeated contact with the criminal justice system. There is no 

single or "correct" definition of recidivism; the choice depends on the issue of interest. 

Potential definitions include re-arrest for any new crime, re-arrest for a specific type of 

new crime (e.g., identical offenses, felony offenses) re-convictions for any or for specific 

types of new crime, re-incarcerations, time to new arrest, etc. In addition, recidivism 

measures are used to analyze deterrence and incapacitation effects generally as well as to 

assess the risk posed by individual offenders. For example, sentencing guideline systems always include prior criminal record in the sentencing calculation and will typically impose a harsher sanction on offenders who have recidivated. Project staff gathered the following information on 30 factors relevant to measuring different aspects 

of recidivism. 

Re-Arrest Measures 

Any new arrest - yeslno 

Date of 1st non-felony arrest 

Date of 2nd non-felony arrest 

Date of 1st felony arrest 

Date of 2nd felony arrest 

Number of misdemeanor arrests 

Number of felony arrest events 

Number of felony arrests - person 

Number of felony arrests - property 

Number of felony arrests - drug 

Number of felony arrests - other 

Arrests outside VA - yeslno 

All arrests outside VA - yeslno 

Re-Conviction Measures 

Any conviction - yeslno 

Date of 1st non-felony conviction 

Sentence for 1st non-felony conviction 

Date of 2nd non-felony conviction 

Sentence for 2nd non-felony conviction 

Date of 1st felony conviction 

Sentence for 1st felony conviction 

Date of 2nd felony conviction 

Sentence for 2nd felony conviction 

Number of misdemeanor convictions 

Number of felony conviction events 

Number of felony convictions - person 

Number of felony convictions - property 

Number of felony convictions - drug 

Number of felony convictions - other 

VCC code of conviction offense 

Returned as technical violator 

From this extensive set of information, four different measures of the frequency of 

offender recidivism and the extent of penetration of a new criminal act into the 

justice system were calculated: 

Any new arrest 

Any new felony arrest 

Any new conviction 

Any new felony conviction , 

68 Tnrth-in-Sentencing in Virginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 73 of 91
Basic ‘‘qdty of data” issues are associated with both re-arrest and re-conviction measures. 

w The most inclusive measure-“any new arrest”-is commonly used by researchers to 

gauge recidivism and includes apprehensions for most crimes including misdemeanors 

and felonies. In Virginia, however, not every arrest will show up in the Virginia Central 

Criminal History (CCH) information system. For example, arrests for drunk in public, vagrancy, and other local ordinance violations that are not usually subject to jail 

time will not be included on the rap sheet. Consequently, recidivism as measured by 

any new arrest will result in some undercounting. On the other hand, the use of arrest 

may also overcount recidivism because some people who are arrested are released without being charged or ultimately found to be innocent by the court. 

w Recidivism measurement that relies on conviction is also subject to questions of 

interpretation. One issue emerges due to plea bargaining: How does one count a 

criminal event that is originally charged as a felony but is subsequently reduced to 

a misdemeanor or even dropped entirely? Moreover, conviction measures often 

result in some undercounting because case dispositions are not always reliably and 

fully documented in case records. 

Project staff believe these potential concerns only minimally affect the results of 

the analysis. 

Measuring Recidivism in Virginia: 

A Multivariate Statistical Approach 

A two-stage approach is used to conduct a preliminary analysis of recidivism for 

offenders released from prison prior to the implementation of TIS. In this section, 

the statistical technique of logistic regression is used to analyze the extensive set of 

defendant-related variables in the recidivism database discussed above. The goal is to 

determine which of the many potentially important factors do the best job of “explaining the likelihood of recidivism. Once the most influential factors are identified, the next section employs a graphical analysis to illustrate the association among 

many of the most significant factors and the various measures of recidivism. 

The Statistical Model. 

Whether an individual released from prison will recidivate with a new arrest or a new 

conviction is very difficult to predict with any degree of certainty. However, it is 

possible to reasonably estimate the probability of recidivism by examining the statistical relationship between the characteristics of the person being released and their 

observed pattern of recidivism. The likelihood of recidivism is known to be influenced by factors such as age, race, gender, type of offense, and offense history 

(Gendreau, Little and Goggin, 1996).Iz6 The following table shows the eleven variables that were included in the current study because of their strong potential to 

predict recidivism. 

Iz6The Gendreau, Little, and Goggin study provides a convenient distillation of much of our 

cumulative knowledge of the factors associated with adult recidivism and provides justification for many of our choices of predictor variables. They used meta-analytic techniques to 

Assessing the Impact of TIS on Recidivism 69 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 74 of 91
Predictors of Recidivism 

Variable Name 

Age 1 =age 14 -21 

Measurement 

Levels 

2=age22-24 

3 =age 25 - 29 

4 =age 30 - 34 # 5 =age 35 -39 

6 =age 40 t 

-- _- 

.- __ __.__- .___ 

Race 0 = Non-White 

Means or Standard 

Percentages Deviation __ ._ -_ - - Explanation 

from incarceratlon 2=17 6% 

Age at release 1=10 5% 

3=23 1% 

4=19 5% 

5=14 9% 

6=14 4% -- __ ._ - -_ - Race of released 0=34 7% 

1=65 3% 

Sex 0 = Female Gender of 0=11 4% 

inmate - _______ -________.________ i__ _______ 1 = Whrte - . - - ___ 

I 

1 1 = Male released inmate 1=88 6% 

Incarceration Offense 1 = Person Type of offense 1=19 3% - - - _I - - - - I - - - __ - - ________. ___ ____ __ ______

2 = Property for which inmate 2=45 2% 

3 = Drugs was institdionalized 3=35 2% 

inmate was 

institutionalized 

__ ___ __ 

LOS Months Number ofmonths 20 23 16 63 

I __ -_ I - -_ - - - __ - I __ - - _I 

Legal Status 0 = No legal status Whether inmate 0=56 5% 

1 = Legal Status had an official 1=43 5% 

legal status with 

the court (e g , 

probation or parole) 

at the time of the 

incarceration offense 

Specialization Number of Number of times 71 2 61 

convictions prevlously convlcted 

I - __ -I_ I__ I - ___ __ __ 

of offense of the 

same type as the 

incarceration offense 

I 

I 

_ __ - ____I - ~_____ d 

Felony Events Number of felony Number of pnor 122 1 65 

sentencing events (to incarceration offense) 

Number of felonies Number of prior felony 

- _ - - __ - - sentencings for felonies 

conwtions resulting 

in incarceration 

__ 

Felonies Served 

i 33 67 

Mysdemeanors Number of Number o? fior 4 82 6 49 

- -_ - - __ - __ 2 

misdemeanors misdemeanor 

convictions 

Juvenile Record 0 = No Juvenile Whether inmate has 0=62 2% 

I 

I Adjudications a history of juvenile 1=37 8% 

1 =At Least One adludications I 

Juvenile Adjudication 

_ - - ____ - - - __ -- - . ___ - __ __ I _. - 

__ - _ - - __ -I I __ - -_ I______ ___ - l___l___l___~- ___ 

determine which variables were the best predictors of adult offender recidivism. One hundred 

and thirty-one studies produced 1,141 correlations with recidivism. They found significant “mean 

effect sizes” for age, race, gender, and adult criminal history (in this study measured by criminal 

specialization, number of prior felony sentencing events, number of prior felony convictions 

resulting in incarceration, and number of misdemeanor convictions). Their meta-analysis also 

provides further confirmation of prior narrative reviews (e.g., Gottfredson, 1987) which identified these variables as significant and potent predictors of recidivism. Gabor (1986), Gottfredson 

and Gottfredson (1985), Gottfredson (1987), and Wilbanks (1987) review studies that found 

juvenile record, type of incarceration offense, length of the prison term, and legal status at the 

time of the incarceration offense to be important predictors of adult recidivism. 

’*’ Means are reported for variables measured with continuous scales while percentages are 

reported for nominal scale variables. 

”* Standard deviations are reported for variables measured with continuous scales. 

70 Truth-in-Sentencing in Krginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 75 of 91
A statistical model is developed to compare and contrast how these multiple defendant-related characteristics interact to explain recidivism. Such an analysis is necessary to control simultaneously for the influence of this set of factors (called independent or predictor variables) on the likelihood of recidivism. This statistical technique enables one to discern the unique contribution of each of the individual independent variables in explaining variation in recidivism rates (called the dependent 

variable). The multivariate analysis technique used in the present study is logistic 

regression, appropriate for use with dichotomous dependent variables. All four measures of recidivism, the four dependent variables, are dichotomous because they each 

have only two values: “one” if the inmate recidivated in the manner described or 

“zero” if they did not. 

The results of the regression analysis and the variables that are statistically significant in explaining each type of recidivism are displayed in the table on the next page 

The entries in the table are the regression coefficients (called logits in logistic regression) for each independent variable. The coefficients indicate the relative influence , 

of each independent variable on the probability that an inmate will recidivate in the 

manner prescribed. A positive coefficient indicates that larger values of the independent variable are associated with an increased probability of recidivism, while a negative coefficient indicates a diminished probability of recidivism. 

Overall Significance. 

The last row of the table shows the overall success of each model in correctly 

distinguishing whether an offender will recidivate (i.e., the percentage of cases correctly predicted by the model).’*’ This percentage is compared to the ‘‘null hypothesis”, defined as the most frequent outcome within each measure of re~idivism.’~’ 

Notice that the regression model predicting new arrests (within three years of release) 

considerably improves on our ability to identify the offenders most likely to recidivate over chance alone (66% vs. 51%). In addition, the ability of the regression 

models to improve on chance when classifying inmates as recidivists or nonrecidivists 

diminishes as criteria for recidivism becomes more stringent. While the models improved on the probability of correctly classifying inmates (relative to chance) by 15 

percentage points when the criteria was simply a new arrest, improvement declined 

to seven percentage points when the criteria was stiffened to a new felony arrest. Our 

ability to improve on chance when classifj.ing inmates as having a new conviction 

IZ9The primary measures of ‘goodness of fit’ are displayed at the bottom ofthe table. The most 

frequently used indicator in logit is called the ‘-2 log likelihood.’ Based on this measure, the 

models are significant. In this case, the -2 log likelihoods are Chi-square variates with .16 

degrees of freedom (because there are 16 explanatory variables in this model). It is the analog 

of the F-statistic in linear regression and tests the hypothesis that all of the Coefficients are 

equal to zero. The table shows that each model meets the standard of significance, thereby 

leading to a rejection of the null hypothesis, indicating that each model fits their particular 

measure of recidivism well. 

I3’That is. in about 39% ofthe cases in our samole. the offender wasarrested for a new felonv 

.- 

offense, meaning that in about 61% of the cases there was no new felony arrest. Therefore, the 

null hypothesis or best guess would be.to predict no new felony arrest and be right about 61% 

of the time. 

Assessing the Zrnpuct of TIS on Recidivism 71 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 76 of 91
was between 3-4 %, while the model provided no improvement on the ability to predict 

new felony convictions. These results are not unexpected since the ability to predict can 

be expected to decrease as the probability of the phenomenon being predicted decreases. 

The Individual Factors. 

Essentially the same independent variables are significant in explaining recidivism 

for a “new arrest,” “new felony arrest,” and “new conviction.” These defendant characteristics include Age,’31 Race, Gender, Incarceration Offense,’32 Number of Prior 

Felonies Served,133 Number of Prior Misdemeanors, and whether the inmate had a 

Juvenile Record. 

The model describing “new felony convictions” varied from the other three in that 

Gender, Juvenile Record, and Prior Misdemeanors are not significant, but the Number of Prior Felony Sentencing Events is significant. In predicting the likelihood of a 

“new felony conviction,’’ measures related to offense seriousness and prior felony 

sentencing history emerge as most significant. The independent variables LOS, Legal Status, and Specialization were not related to probability of recidivism for any of 

the measures, nor was there ever a difference in the probability of recidivism for drug 

offenders relative to person offenders. 

Logistic Regression Results 

Variable Name New Arrest New Felony New New Felony 

Age :135 

Measures of Recidivism134 

Arrest Conviction Conviction 

22 - 24 -0.675** -0.619’* -0.423 -0.431 

25 - 29 -0.782*** -0.878*** -0.424 -0.648** 

30 - 34 -0.903*** -0.763*** -0.289 -0.482 

35 - 39 -1.361*”* -1.342*** -0.689** 1 :151’** 

40 + -1.450*** -1.490*** -1.199*** 1.658*** 

Race -0.876*** -0.958*** -0.711’** -0.657*** 

Gender 0.866*** 0.598** 0.821*** 0.390 

Incarceration Offense :? 

Property 0.382* 0.462** 0.375* 0.529** 

Drugs 0.311 0.221 -0.054 0.228 

LOS -0.001 -0.001 -0.005 -0.001 

Legal Status -0.019 -0.004 0.151 -0.004 

Specialization -0.009 0.006 -0.014 -0.020 

Felony Events 0.011 0.024 0.022 0.129’* 

Felonies Served 0.526**’ 0.328*** 0.313*’ 0.234* 

Misdemeanors 0.050*” 0.037*** 0.055 0.020 

Juvenile Record 0.324*’ 0.308*’ 0.335** 0.231 

Constant -0.405 -0.547 -1.297*** -1.478*** 

-2X LLR 1112.468*** 1092.48P 1054.1 22*’* 885.607*** 

%Corr~Cbssified (% NuU) 66% (51%) 68% (61%) 69% (65%) 77% (77%) 

* Significant at the .lO level @<.lo) 

13’. Inmates aged (35-37) and (40 +) were always less likely to recihvate than inmates aged (14-2 1); 

inmates aged (25-29) were less likely to recidivate than inmates aged (14-21) for d the measures except 

“new convictions;” and inmates aged (22-24) and aged (30-34) were less likely to be arrested or arrested 

for a felony offense than inmats aged (14-21), but not to be convicted or convicted ofa felony offense. 

l3* Property offenders were always more likely to recidivate than Person Offenders. 

‘33 The more times an inmate had been incarcerated for Felony offenses, the more likely they were to 

recidivate. 

‘34 Within three years after release. 

135 Compared to Age 14-2 1. 

136 Compared to Current Offense: Person. 

** Significant at the .05 level (m.05) **‘ Significant at the .01 level (w.01) 

72 Truth-in-Sentencing in Virginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 77 of 91
As another means of interpretation, this section graphically summarizes the results 

of an analysis that examined the bivariate relationships between many of the offender characteristics found to be significant in the preceding multivariate analysis. 

' 

Half (49.3%) of all inmates released from Virginia prisons in 1993 were re-arrested 

for any new crime within three years. The number of persons who recidivate drops 

quickly as the measure of recidivism becomes more conservative (e.g., of those released from prison, 22.4% were reconvicted of a new felony). 

Overall Recidivism Rates Across Four Measures 

The analysis covers 962 offenders released from prison in 1993, 

recidivism was tracked for a period of three years. 

Rearrested - 49.3% 

Re-arrested - Felony 1- 39.6% 

Reconvicted -35.4% 

Reconvicted - Felony - 22.4% 

In general, males are more likely to be re-arrested and more likely to be reconvicted than females, and nonwhites have higher rates of recidivism than whites. 

Recidivism Rates by Gender 

Re-arrested 

Re-arrested - Felony 

Reconvicted 

Reconvicted - Felony 

Recidivism Rates by Race 

Re-arrested 

Re-arrested - Felony 

Reconvicted 

Reconvicted - Felony 

46% 

I Whites 

26% I Blacks 

Assessing the Impact of TIS on Recidivism 73 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 78 of 91
Recidivism, if it does occur, is likely to happen sooner rather than later. For those 

who recidivate, the average time until first re-arrest for any crime was 12.6 months, 

with 75% recidivating within 19 months. As shown in the bottom area chart, for 

those inmates re-arrested for a felony, 56% come back within one year. 

For Those Who Recidivated, Average Time From Release to Re-Arrest 

15% 

-- Mean Median Recidivated within: 

Time to first re-arrest 12.6 rno 9.9 mo 19.1 mo 

Time to first felony re-arrest 13.6 rno 10.2 mo 21.5 mo 

For Those Who Recidivated, Time to Re-Arrest 

Rearrested for any Crime 

60% within 12 months 

3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 

Months 

Re-arrested for Felony 

................................ 

..................... 15% 

............................... 10% 

5% 

0% 

3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 

Months 

94 Tuuth-in-Sentencing in Virginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 79 of 91
~-__--_I 

!Measuring 

LI--.- Recidivism in Virginia: A Descriptive -Portrait] - 

Inmates released for property and drug offenses are more likely to recidivate as 

compared to violent (person crimes) offenders. However, regardless of the original 

offense, the percent of inmates recidivating stair-steps downward based on the recidivism measure used (re-arrest, felony re-arrest, reconviction, or felony reconviction). For example, the bar chart shows that 42% of inmates originally incarcerated 

for a violent crime were re-arrested for any crime, 32% were re-arrested for a felony, 

28% were reconvicted, and 16% were reconvicted of a felony. 

Four Measures of RecidivismOriginally 

Incarcerated for 

New arrest - 42% 

New conviction - 28% 

Person 

1 

New felony arrest - 32% 

New felony conviction -16% 

New arrest -52% 

Property New felony arrest - 44% 

New conviction - 41 % 

New felony conviction - 27% 

New arrest - 50% 

Drug New felony arrest - 38%

New conviction - 32% 

New felony conviction - 20% 

I I I I 

0% 20% . 40% 60% 

Assessing tbe Impact of TIS on Recidivism 75 

-. 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 80 of 91
w One issue raised during the debate over TIS reform was whether offenders who 

recidivate tend to follow a consistent criminal path (i.e., do violent offenders who 

recidivate tend to commit additional violent crime?). The analysis shows that while 

violent offenders had lower recidivism rates overall, those who were re-arrested were 

most likely arrested for a violent crime (32% were re-arrested for a violent crime compared to 13% for property crime, 14% for drug crime). Likewise, persons released for 

property crime were most likely to be re-arrested for another property crime (74%) and 

drug offenders were most likely re-arrested for another drug crime (59%). 

Are persons released from prison likely to be re-arrested for the same type of felony offense 

for which they were originally incarcerated? 

Originally 

Incarcerated for 

New Person - 32% 

New Drug - 14% 

New Other - 16% 

Person 

I 

New Properly = 13% 

New Person - 44% 

Property New Propetty 74% 

New Drug - 28% 

New Other - 57% 

New Person - 25% 

Drug New Property = 13% 

New Drug -1 59% 

New Other - 27%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 

76 Truth-in-Sentencing in Virginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 81 of 91
Examining the release cohort by offense, those originally incarcerated for larceny 

had the highest recidivism rates, both in terms of re-arrest (47%) and reconviction 

(30%). Larceny was followed by burglary, fraud, assault, and drugs. Released inmates least likely to be re-arrested or reconvicted were those incarcerated for kidnapping, sex offenses (not including serious sexual assaults), manslaughter, and murder. 

Two Measures of Recidivism 

Originally 

Incarcerated for I New felonyarrest 

I New felony conviction 

t 

Murder 

Manslaughter 

Kidnapping 

Rape 

Robbery 

Assault 39% 

17% Sex Menses 

Larceny 47% 

Fraud 

Drugs 

I 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 

Assessing the Impact of TIS on Recidivism 77 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 82 of 91
Recidivism Rates Across Four Measures by Age 

Re-Arrested for a New Crime 

Age upon prison release 

14-21 64% 

22-24 

25-29 

30-34 

35-39 

40t 

Reconvicted for a New Crime 

14-21 

22-24 

25-29 

30-34 

35-39 

40t 

Re-Arrested for a New Felony Crime 

14-21 55% 

22-24 

25-29 

30-34 

35-39 

40t 

Reconvicted for a New Felony Crime 

m Age at time of release from prison is strongly related to recidivism: younger offenders recidivate at higher rates than old offenders. Released offenders less than 21 

years of age had a 64% recidivism rate for any new crime, roughly 14 percentage 

points higher than those ages 22-34. Offenders who were less than 21 years of age at 

time of release were three times more likely to be reconvicted of a new felony crime 

when compared to older offenders (those over the age of 40). 

The frequency of past criminal behavior is a good indicator of future criminal 

behavior. Data were examined that measured the number of prior felony sentencing 

events an offender had 6efDre their incarceration for the released offense. Offenders 

with a history of felony convictions were much more likely ro recidivate across all 

four measures. The relationship between criminal history and recidivism was even 

more pronounced when examining the seriousness of past criminal behavior. Seriousness was defined as the number of prior felony convictions that resulted in a 

period of incarceration. For those who had served no prior periods of incarceration, 

44% were re-arrested for any new crime. On the other hand, eight out of ten (79%) 

of those with three prior terms of incarceration were re-arrested for a new crime. The 

bars show a clear stair-step when examining the number of prior incarcerations for 

each recidivism measure. 

Recidivism Rates Across Four Measures: 

Examining Prior Felony Sentences 

Resulting in Incarceration 

Number of prior felony 

sentences resulting in 

incarceration: I None I One 

Re-anestea for a 

New Felony Crime 

- ---____ -- -- 68% 

Reconvicted for a 

New Felony Crime 

The pre-TIS data collected as part of the recidivism analysis will now serve as the 

baseline for measuring recidivism for those released during TIS. 

78 Truth-in-Sentencing in Virginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 83 of 91
CHAPTER EIGHT 

Virginia embarked on a major program of sentencing reform early in 1994. These 

reforms, collectively called “Truth-in-Sentencing (TIS), became effective on January I, 1995, and substantially increased prison terms for violent and repeat offenders, abolished parole (except for those already under sentence), and reduced good 

time allowances so that newly sentenced offenders would be required to serve at least 

85% of their imposed sentence. Virginia was not alone in this regard. The 1994 

federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act authorized incentive grants 

to the states in part for implementation of TIS laws, and by 1999, 27 states had 

adopted the 85% rule. However, Virginia is one of just eight states and the federal 

government that apply TIS to both violent and nonviolent offenders. 

This evaluation traces the evolution of sentencing reform in Virginia since 1980, 

describes how TIS has been designed, discusses its impact on prison population and 

prevention of crime in the state, and begins an analysis of recidivism before and after 

TIS. The knowledge gained through this study is primarily designed to benefit Virginia policymakers and practitioners interested in an objective analysis of the new 

sentencing reforms in their state. However, given the ongoing interest nationally in 

TIS and the abolition of parole, this evaluation has been designed and written to 

clarify how sentencing reform efforts could be improved if initiated in other states. 

Lessons Learned 

Five primary policy implications emerge from this evaluation. The first concerns 

the comprehensive, inclusive, and ultimately effective process of reform used in Virginia. The remaining four implications focus on the rigorous, empirical1y;based strategy used in Virginia to assess the impact of sentencing reform.^ 

1. Managing the process of re$wm. What is most striking to the NCSC evaluation 

team is that since the early 198Os, even in a highly charged political environment, 

sentencing reform has occurred in Virginia through a reasonably well-planned process influenced heavily by data analysis. The initial impetus for reform was based on 

the belief that judicial sentences were widely disparate, resulting in perceived injustices. A 1982 task force recommended the development of historically based descriptive sentencing guidelines. As a result, a statewide database of felony sentencing 

was created, a study ofsentencing disparity was commissioned by the Chief Justice 

of the Supreme Court, and, in 1987-88, sentencing guidelines (entirely voluntary, 

with no appellate review allowed) were developed. These guidelines were pilot tested 

in six judicial circuits between 1988 and 1990. An evaluation of the pilot project 

showed that implementation of the voluntary guidelines had reduced sentencing 

disparity, and that the judges involved believed that consistency and neutrality had 

been improved while sentencing discretion had not been adversely affected. AccordConclusion 79 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 84 of 91
ingly, the guidelines were adopted statewide beginning in 199 1, and were revised on 

an annual basis to continue to reflect the most current sentencing decisions handed 

down by judges and juries. By the 1993 election, guidelines were being used in 

Virginia under judicial control with an average compliance rate of 76%. 

Newly elected Governor Allen moved quickly to convene a Commission on 

Parole Abolition and Sentencing Reform, and the recommendations of that commission, as well as those of a competing legislative commission, were considered at 

a special session of the Virginia legislature in 1994. The result was the enactment 

of TIS legislation that abolished parole, reduced good time credits to a maximum 

of 54 days per year, provided for a period of supervision following release, and 

required felony offenders to serve at least 85% of their imposed prison terms. In 

fact, it is currently estimated that offenders will serve between 88% and 92% of 

the imposed term. The structuring of the guidelines and the 85% requirement 

have achieved the dual legislative and executive goals of dramatically increasing 

prison time for violent offenders while virtually guaranteeing predictability of 

imposed sentences compared to actual time served. 

The Virginia experience highlights the importance of ongoing planning and analysis 

when confronting reform of an emotional and politically charged issue such as sentencing. Sentencing reform did not just happen inVirginia. Reform occurred through 

a ten to twelve year process that included all three branches of government and was 

supported by periodic analyses and evaluations. Regardless of one's philosophical 

belief about the purposes and goals of sentencing, the process worked in that it 

achieved a significant measure of predictability in sentencing, reduced disparity in 

large measure, and, responding to public demand, increased prison time for violent 

and repeat offenders. 

2. Impact of TIS on prison pop&tion. The impact of TIS legislation on Virginia's 

correctional resources was a source of early concern to state lawmakers. The VCSC 

took seriously its charge by the Virginia General Assembly to examine the impact of 

numerous alternatives to implementing TIS by developing a sophisticated simulation 

forecast model (Criminal Justice Research Center @Risk model). The model was designed to simulate judicial decisionmalung and the demand for prison beds specifically 

within the context of the new TIS guidelines. The program has the flexibility to model 

a wide variety of alternative sentence ranges and recommendations. 

The original forecasts proved to be inaccurate because of errors in two basic 

assumptions: (1) declining arrests for violent crime and (2) slower than expected 

growth in total arrests. However, because the simulation model itself was comprehensive and conceptually sound, the basic assumptions could be altered and the 

forecasts re-estimated. The bottom line is that Virginia made the investment in a 

valid simulation model to estimate the impact of sentencing reform on the expensive resource of prison space. 

3. Judi&dcmpke withsmtmangpid.?k Virginia uses compliance rates as a key 

measure of sentencing guideline performance and makes the results public on a regular 

80 Truth-in-Sentencing in Virginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 85 of 91
basis. High levels of statewide compliance indicate that sentences are being meted out 

consistently and, as a consequence, reduces concern over unwarranted sentencing disparity. In addition, high compliance rates, especially in a voluntary setting hke Virginia, 

indicate judicial acceptance and approval of the sentencing recommendations. 

In 1998, compliance rates were 83% in terms of dispositional compliance (type of 

sentence), and 76% in terms of durational compliance (length of sentence). The 

overall compliance rate is 75% for over 42,000 cases sentenced between January, 

1995 and March 30, 1998. The aggravation rate (sentences more severe than the 

guideljnes) is currently 13% (generally homicide and sexual assault cases) and the 

mitigation rate (sentences less severe than the guidelines) is 11% (generally rape 

and burglary cases). Since 1994, judges have been required to articulate their reasons for departure from the guidelines. The most common mitigation reasons 

have been the availability of an alternative sanction or community punishment; 

for aggravation reasons, judges most often cite historic criminal lifestyle and previous conviction for the same offense. 

4. Preventable crime estimates under TIS. Virginia‘s General Assembly wanted to 

know how the extended incapacitation of violent offenders under TIS would affect crime rates. Specifically, they asked for information on how Virginians would 

benefit from locking up violent offenders for longer periods of time. Is the cost 

associated with giving certain offenders lengthier sentences justified through a reduction in the amount of crime they might otherwise commit if they had been 

released earlier? Is there a beneficial “incapacitation effect” associated with TIS? 

Certainly attempting to answer such questions is speculative because there is no 

generally accepted method for determining the amount of crime prevented through 

longer prison sentences. Moreover the analytic techniques are complex and can be 

rather mysterious to the layman. However, the VCSC deserves credit for taking 

on the challenge and attempting to quantify an important aspect of the impact of 

sentencing reform. Other states may wish to build on the thoughtfully conceived . 

approach employed by Virginia. The approach benefits from making the most out 

of available data and producing estimates that are conservative in nature. 

5. Impact on re&&vb. A critical issue confronting Virginia‘s move to TIS was whether 

the reform would reduce the level of offender recidivism in Virginia. Criminological 

research shows that a relatively large share of crime is committed by a small pool of 

known and repeat offenders. If TIS policies are successll in reducing offender recidivism, then it is likely that these policies will help reduce the crime rate generally. 

Other states may wish to consider both Virginia’s efforts to inform inmates exiting 

the prison system about changes in the state’s sentencing laws and the long-term 

strategy for measuring offender recidivism. First, the Offender Notification Release Program (ONRP) was developed in 1996 as a joint effort of the VCSC and 

the Department of Corrections (DOC) to educate inmates leaving Virginia prisons specifically about the TIS reforms. The program provides exiting inmates an 

overview of the new sentencing system that abolishes parole and increases time 

Conclusion 81 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 86 of 91
served for violent and repeat offenders. On average, a returning violent offender 

sentenced under the new guidelines should expect to serve two to six times longer 

than under th'e state's previous guidelines system. 

Second, to determine whether TIS and ONRP policies have affected offender 

recidivism, baseline recidivism rates have been calculated for the offender population released from prison prior to the TIS reforms. The long-range plan is to 

compare the recidivism rate of offenders released pre-TIS (phase one) with the 

recidivism rate of offenders released post-TIS (phase two). The VCSC is now deliberating on when the second phase, measuring recidivism for those released after 

exposure to TIS and the ONW, should begin. 

The NCSC evaluation team believes that one of the best design decisions made by 

policymakers in Virginia was the retention of sentencing guidelines. The benefit of 

the sentencing guideline approach is that it allows for a more accurate assessment of 

the likely impact of a change in sentencing and/or parole policy. Guidelines systems 

are arguably the most cost-effective means of providing rational structure, relevant 

data, and the ability to accurately monitor and forecast sentencing outcomes. 

82 Truth-in-Sentencing in Krginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 87 of 91
Bibliography 

@Risk Version 3.0. Palisade, Inc., Newfield, NY. 

Austin, J., S. Cuvelier, and A. McVey. 1992. “Projecting the Future of Corrections.” 

Crime and Delinquency 38 (3): 285-308. 

Austin, J., and J. Irwin. 1993. Does Imprisonment Reduce Crime? A Critique of “bodoo” Criminoloa. San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. 

Baird, C. 1993. “The ‘Prison Pay’ Studies: Research or Ideology.” NCCD Focus 

(March): 1-7. 

Block, M. 1997. “Supply Side Imprisonment Policy.” In F. Zimring and M. Block, 

Two Views on Imprisonment Policies. Research report. Washington: National Institute 

of Justice. 

Blumstein, A., J. Cohen, and D. Farrington. 1988. “Criminal Career Research: Its 

Value for Criminology.” Criminology 26 (1): 1-36. 

Bowerman, B., and R. O’Connell. 1993. Forecasting and Time Series: An Applied 

Approach. Belmont, Calif: Duxbury Press. 

Bureau of Justice Assistance. 1996. ‘‘National Assessment of Structured Sentencing” (February). 

Chabotar, K. 1987. “Analyzing Costs in Courts.” Washington: National Institute of 

Justice Issues and Practices. 

Cohen, J. 1986. “Research on Criminal Careers: Individual Frequency Rates and Offense Seriousness.” In A. Blumstein, J. Cohen, J. A. Roth, and C. A. Visher, eds., 

Criminal Careers and Tareer” Criminak: bl. 1. Washington: National Academy Press. 

Cohen, J. 1978. “The Incapacitative Effect of Imprisonment: A Critical Review of 

the Literature.” In A. Blumstein, J. Cohen, and D. Nagin, eds., Deterrence andIncapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates. 

Cohen, M. 1988. “Pain, Suffering, and Jury Awards: A Study of the Cost of Crime to 

Victims.” Law and Society Review 22: 537-55. 

Commission on Sentencing and Parole Reform: 1995. “Report of the Commission 

on Sentencing and Parole Reform.” Richmond, VA. 

Creech, J. 1997. “Summary of Inmate Simulations in Virginia.” Working paper, 

Virginia Sentencing Commission, Richmond, VA. 

Criminal Justice Research Center. 1994a. Estimated Costs of Recidivism in Virginia. 

Richmond, VA. 

Criminal Justice Research Center. 1994b. State Responsible Inmate Population Forecasts 1395-2005. Richmond, VA. 

Criminal Justice Research Center. 1994c. Study of Preventable Crime Under the 

Commission? Plan: Review ofMetbodology. Richmond, VA. 

Department of Public Safety. 1997. Inmate Population Forecasts: FYI998 to FY2007. 

Richmond, VA. 

DiJulio, J. 1990. Crime and Punishment in Wisconsin: A Survey ofPrisoners. Milwaukee, WI: Wisconsin Policy Research Institute. 

Bibliography 83 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 88 of 91
Ditton, Paula, and Doris Wilson. 1999. Tmth in Sentencing in State Prisons. BJS 

Special Report (January). 

Flango, V., and B. Ostrom. 1996. Assessing the Needfor Judges and Court Support 

Staff Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts. 

Gabor, T. (1 986). Theprediction ofcriminal behavior: Statisticaldpproaches. Toronto: 

University of Toronto Press. 

Gottfried, B. 1984. Elements ofStochastic Simulation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall, Inc. 

Gottfredson, M., and T. Hirschi. 1986. “The True Value of Lambda Would Appear 

to Be Zero: An Essay on Career Criminals, Criminal Careers, Selective Incapacitation, Cohort Studies and Related Topics. Criminology 24 (2): 213-34. 

Gottfredson, S. (1987). Prediction: An overview of selected methodological issues. 

In D. M. Gottfredson and M. Tonry (Eds.), Prediction and chsz$cation: Criminal 

justice decision making. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 

Gottfredson, S. and Gottfredson, D. (1987). Screening for risk among parolees: 

Policy, practice, and method. In D. P. Farrington and R. Tarling (Eds.), Prediction in 

Criminology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 

“Governor Allen Signs Sweeping Anticrime Package.” 1994. News Release, April 6. 

Governor‘s Commission on Parole Abolition and Sentencing Reform. 1994. “Final 

Report” (August). 

Governor’s Commission on Parole Reform. 1994. “Parole Abolition Sentencing Reform Proposals.” Unpublished working papers. 

Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing. 1983. “A Report to the Governor of Virginia” 

(December). 

Green, E 1998. “For Lease: 3,290 Prison Beds in Virginia.” Richmond Times-Dispatch, July 6, A1 , A5. 

Greenberg, D. 1979. Mathematical Criminology. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. 

Greenfeld, Lawrence A., Allen Beck, and Darrell Gilliard. “Prisons: Population Trends 

and Key Issues for Management.” Criminal Justice Review 21 (Spring 1996). 

Gupta, D. 1994. Decisions by the Number. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

Haynes, I?, and C. Larson. 1984. “Financial Consequences of Incarceration and Alternatives: Burglary.” Crime and Delinquency 30: 529-50. 

Homey, J., and I. Marshall. 1991. “Measuring LambdaThrough Self Reports.” Criminology29 (3): 471-95. 

Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission, “Review of Virginia’s Parole Process,” Commonwealth of Virginia, 1992. 

Joint Subcommittees on Public Safety of the House Appropriations and Senate Finance Committees. 1994. “Felony Sentencing Practice and Time Served.” Unpublished analysis, Virginia Criminal Justice Research Center (May 10). 

Joyce, N. 1992. “A View of the Future: The Effect of Policy on Prison Population 

Growth.” Crime and DelinquenLy 38 (3): 357-68. 

Judicial Sentencing Guidelines Committee. 1994. “Vtrginia Sentencing Guidelines Manual”. 

84 Truth-in-Sentencing in Erginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 89 of 91
Judicial Sentencing Guidelines Committee. 1993. “Voluntary Sentencing Guidelines: Report to the Judicial Conference of Virginia.” 

Judicial Sentencing Guidelines Oversight Committee. 1989. Ihluntavy Sentencing 

Guidelines, Pilot Program Evaluation. 

Judicial Sentencing Guidelines Oversight Committee. 1987. Working papers presented to committee (October). 

“Justice For All.” 1983. Richmond Times-Dispatch. 

Kauder, Neal B., Brian J. Ostrom, Meredith Peterson,-and David Rottman. 1997. 

Sentencing Commission ProJiLes. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts. 

Kramer, J., R. Lubitz, and C. Kempinen. 1989. “Sentencing Guidelines: A Quantitative Comparison of Sentencing Policies in Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Washington.” Justice Quarter4 6 (4): 565-87. 

Levitt, S. 1996. “The Effect of Prison Population Size on Crime Rates: Evidence 

from Prison Overcrowding Litigation.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 1 1 1: 3 19-5 1. 

Marvell, T., and C. Moody. 1996. “Determinate Sentencing and Abolishing Parole: 

The Long-Term Impacts on Prisons and Crime.” Criminology 34 (1): 107-28. 

Marvell, T., and C. Moody. 1994. “Prison Population Growth and Crime Reduction.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 10 (2): 109-40. 

Microsoft Excel Version 4.0. Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, CA. 

Miller, T. 1990. “The Plausible Range for the Value of Life: Red Herrings Among 

the Mackerel.” Journal ofForensic Economics 3 (3): 75-89. 

Miller, T., M. Cohen, and S. Rossman. 1993. “Victim Costs of Violent Crime and 

Resulting Injuries. Health Afairs 12 (4): 186-97. 

Miller T., M. Cohen, and B. Wiersema. 1996. Victim Costs and Consequences: A New 

Look. Research report. Washington: National Institute of Justice. 

Mitchell, R., and R. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington: Resources for the Future. 

National Council on Crime and Delinquency. 1995. “The 1995 NCCD Prison l’opulation Forecast: The Cost of Truth-in-Sentencing Laws.” NCCD FOCUS (July). 

National Council on Crime and Delinquency. 1992. Criminaljustice Sentencing Policy 

Statement. San Francisco. 

National Institute of Corrections. 1995a. State Legislative Actions on Truth in Sentencing: A Review of Law and Legislation in the Context of the Violent Crime Control 

and Law EnforcementAct of 1994. Longmont, CO. 

National Institute of Corrections. 1995b. TIS Law and Indeterminate Sentencing 

in Eighteen States: A Review in the Context of 1995 Congressional Decisions. 

Longmont, CO. 

Ostrom, Brian J., Neal B. Kauder, David Rottman, and Meredith Peterson. 1998. 

Sentencing Digest: Enmining Current Sentencing Issues and Policies. Williamsburg, 

VA: National Center for State Courts. 

“Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Sentencing Guidelines.” 1985. (August 15). 

“Report of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission on Review ofVirginia‘s 

Parole Process to the Governor and General Assembly of Virginia.” 1992. Senate 

Document No. 4. 

I 

/I 

! 

I 

\ 

1, 

‘r 

Bibliography 85 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 90 of 91
“Sentencing and Parole Reform.” 1997. House Document No. 19. 

Spelman, W 1994. Criminal Incapacitation. New York: Plenum Press. 

Survey Research Laboratory Center for Public Service, Virginia Commonwealth 

University. 1993. “A Survey of Virginia Citizens Concerning Violent Crime Issues, 

January 8, 1993.” I( 

Tonry, M. 1997. Intermediate Sanctions in Sentencing Guidelines. Washington: .Bureau 

of Justice Assistance. 

Tonry, M. 1993. “Sentencing Commissions.” In M. Tonry, ed., Crime andjustice: A 

Review ofResearch. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Tonry, M. 1991. “The Politics and Processes of Sentencing Commissions.” Crime 

and Delinquency 37 (3): 307-29. 

Tonry, Michael. 1996. Sentencing Matters. New York: Oxford University Press. 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

1994. Felony Sentences in the United States. Washington. 

Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission. 1998a. 1998Annu~alReport. Richmond, VA. 

Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission. 1997. 1997 Annul Report. Richmond, VA. 

Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission. 1996. 199G AnnulRepoa Richmond, VA. 

Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission. 1995a. 1995Annual Report. Richmond, VA. 

Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission. 1995b. “Sentencing Guidelines Compliance Results, 7/1/93-3/3 1/94.” Unpublished compliance analysis. 

Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission. 1998b. “Viiginia Sentencing Guidhes Manual.” 

Visher, C. 1986. “The Rand Inmate Survey: A Reanalysis.” In A. Blumstein, J. Cohen, 

J. A. Roth, and C. A. Visher, eds., Criminal Careers and “Career” Criminals: EL 2. 

Washington: National Academy Press. 

Von Hirsch, Andrew. 1976. Doing Justice: The Choice ofPunishments. New York: Hill 

and Wang. 

Westing, Peter. 1982. “The Empty Idea of Equality.’’ Harvard Law Review 95: 537. 

Wilbanks, W. (1987). Predicting fdure on parole. . In D. E Farrington and R Tarling 

(as.), Predictin in Criminohg. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 

Wilkins, William W. Jr., Phyllis J. Newton, and John R. Steer. “Competing Sentencing Policies in a ‘War on Drugs’ Era.” Wake Forest Law Review 28 (Summer 1993). 

Wooldredge, J. 1996. “Research Note: A State-Level Analysis of Sentencing Policies 

and Inmate Crowding in State Prisons.” Crime and Delinquency 42 (3): 456-66. 

Wright, R. 1998. Managing Prison Growth in North Carolina Through Structured 

Sentencing. Washington: National Institute of Justice. 

Zedlewski, E. 1987. Making Confinement Decisions. Washington: U.S. Department 

of Justice. 

Zimring, E, and G. Hawkins. 1988. “The New Mathematics of Imprisonment.” 

Crime and Delinquency 34 (3): 425-36. 

86 Truth-in-Sentencing in Krginia 

CA4 No. 15-7151 (11/04/2016)

Appeal: 15-7151 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/07/2016 Pg: 91 of 91