2014 Report to the Legislature

Transcription

1 2014 Report to the Legislature Commission Members Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing Harrisburg Office: 408 Forum Building Capitol Complex Mail: PO Box 1045 Harrisburg, PA Phone: Fax: Pennsylvania s State Intermediate Punishment Program January 2014 URL: Prof. Steven L. Chanenson Chair Hon. Sheila Woods-Skipper Vice Chair Mark H. Bergstrom Executive Director The Commission is an agency of the General Assembly affiliated with The Pennsylvania State University.

2 COMMISSION MEMBERS Professor Steven L. Chanenson, Chair President Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper, Vice Chair Members selected by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate Daylin B. Leach Senator (D) Delaware/Montgomery Counties John C. Rafferty, Jr. Senator (R) Berks/Chester/ Montgomery Counties Members selected by the Speaker of the House of Representatives John P. Sabatina, Jr. Representative (D) Philadelphia County Todd Stephens Representative (R) Montgomery County Members selected by the Chief Justice of Pennsylvania Rita Donovan Hathaway Judge Westmoreland County Daniel J. Milliron Judge Blair County Jill E. Rangos Judge Allegheny County Members selected by the Governor of Pennsylvania Steven L. Chanenson Professor of Law Villanova University School of Law Francis J. Schultz District Attorney Crawford County Royce L. Morris Defense Attorney Dauphin County Sheila A. Woods-Skipper President Judge Philadelphia County Ex officio Members: John E. Wetzel Secretary PA Department of Corrections Jennifer Storm PA Victim Advocate Michael C. Potteiger Chairman PA Board of Probation and Parole The Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing was created in 1978 for the primary purpose of creating a consistent and rational statewide sentencing policy to promote fairer and more uniform sentencing practices.

3 Pennsylvania s State Intermediate Punishment Program 2014 Report to the Legislature Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing The Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing would like to acknowledge the tremendous assistance provided by the staff at the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and the Pennsylvania State Police in the preparation of this report.

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary... 1 Legislative Background... 2 Legislative Reports... 2 Eligibility for SIP... 2 Sentencing Guidelines for SIP... 3 Legislative Changes to SIP... 3 Procedure for Referral to SIP... 4 SIP Program Assessments... 5 The SIP Program... 5 Admissions to SIP... 6 Recidivism Study... 7 SIP Offender Characteristics... 8 What Predicts Whether Offenders Will Complete SIP or Be Expelled Are Offenders who Complete SIP Less Likely to Recidivate than Offenders Released from Prison? Summary and Conclusion Appendices Appendix A Current Sentencing Guideline Rcommendations for State Intermediate Punishment Appendix B The Number of Offenders Eligible, Evaluated, and Sentenced to SIP by Year.. 25 Appendix C. Logistic Regression Models by Year

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The State Intermediate Punishment [SIP] Program is a two-year substance abuse treatment program for eligible offenders sentenced to state prison. The SIP program became effective in May As of July 2013: o o o 17,363 offenders had been sentenced to the Department of Corrections who were statutorily eligible for the SIP Program 4,647 offenders (27%) had been evaluated for the SIP Program Among those evaluated 3,579 offenders (77%) had been admitted to the SIP Program. Of those admitted into the Program: 2,003 offenders (56%) had successfully completed the SIP Program 658 offenders (18%) had been expelled from the SIP Program 918 offenders (26%) were still enrolled in the SIP Program As a result of concerns about the underutilization of SIP, the Commission had recommended that the Legislature review the ineligibility criteria for SIP, as well as allow greater discretion to the sentencing court for SIP consideration. Act 112 of 2012 revised statute to incorporate these recommendations. It is estimated that these changes will result in about a 16-19% increase in the number of offenders eligible for SIP. Judges in 62 of Pennsylvania s 67 counties have sentenced offenders to the SIP program. The majority of offenders approved for SIP were male, white, and had an average age of 35 years. Most offenders were convicted of drug delivery or DUI offenses. Most offenders had previously received substance abuse treatment and were at high or medium risk of re-offending. Offenders were more likely to complete SIP if they were: older, female, not from Philadelphia County, convicted of a drug delivery or DUI offense, had fewer prior arrests, did not use heroin, and had a more serious substance abuse problem. After three years, 38% of the SIP completers recidivated, compared to 71% of those who were expelled and 44% of those who were eligible for SIP but sentenced to prison instead. While offenders who completed SIP were less likely to recidivate than offenders sentenced to prison, this finding was not significant when controlling for other factors. However, offenders who were expelled from SIP were significantly more likely to recidivate that those who completed SIP or those who went to prison. Offenders were also more likely to recidivate if they had been convicted of a property offense [compared to a drug delivery or DUI offense], had a greater number of prior arrests, were male, were younger, had a less serious substance abuse problem, and were from Philadelphia or Allegheny Counties. 1

6 LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND The State Intermediate Punishment [SIP] Program is a two-year, step-down, substance abuse program for offenders sentenced to state prison. The impetus behind the creation of the SIP program was the General Assembly s concern about the link between substance abuse and crime, and the finding that many persons commit crimes while under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. Additionally, the Legislature determined that many crimes are committed by persons who are unable to secure employment because of their substance abuse problem, and committing crime allows these people to secure the necessary funds to purchase their drugs and alcohol. The SIP program was viewed as a way to both enhance public safety and reduce recidivism by punishing offenders for the harm they have brought to their victims, while at the same time offering treatment as a mechanism for offenders to address their substance abuse issues. Toward that end, the General Assembly created the State Intermediate Punishment [SIP] Program via Act 112 of 2004, which was signed into law by Governor Rendell on November 19, 2004, and became effective on May 18, LEGISLATIVE REPORTS By statute, the Department of Corrections and the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing must monitor and evaluate the SIP program, with the Department submitting a report to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees in odd-numbered years and the Commission submitting a report to these committees in even-numbered years. The reports are to include six items [42 Pa.C.S. 9907]: (1) the number of offenders evaluated for the SIP program, (2) the number of offenders sentenced to the SIP program, (3) the number of offenders sentenced to a state prison who may have been eligible for the SIP program, (4) the number of offenders successfully completing the drug offender treatment program, (5) the six-month, one-year, three-year, and five-year recidivism rates for offenders who completed the SIP program and for offenders who were not placed in the SIP program, and (6) any recommended changes for improving the effectiveness of the SIP program. ELIGIBILITY FOR SIP State Intermediate Punishment primarily targets drug dependent offenders who would otherwise be serving an individual or aggregate minimum sentence of confinement in a state facility. Statute mandates that an eligible offender meet the following criteria: The court designates the offender as a person convicted of a drug-related offense, including an individual convicted of 35 P.S (a)(14), (30) or (37) where the sentence was imposed pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. 7508(a)(1)(i), (2)(i), (3)(i), (4)(i) or (7)(i) (relating to drug trafficking sentencing and penalties). The offender must undergo an assessment performed by the DOC which has concluded that the defendant is in need of drug and alcohol addiction treatment. The offender does not demonstrate a history of present or past violent behavior. The offender would be in the custody of the DOC if not otherwise sentenced to State IP. Individuals subject to the deadly weapon-used enhancement under the sentencing guidelines are ineligible for SIP. Victims of personal injury crimes shall be given the opportunity to receive notice of and to provide prior comment on any recommendation by the DOC that the offender participates in SIP. A person who has been convicted or adjudicated delinquent of a crime requiring registration under 42 Pa.C.S. chapter 97, subchapter H (relating to registration of sexual offenders) is ineligible for SIP. 2

7 A person with a current conviction or with a prior conviction within the past ten years of any of the following offenses is ineligible for SIP: 18 Pa.C.S (murder) 18 Pa.C.S (voluntary manslaughter) 18 Pa.C.S (drug delivery resulting in death) 18 Pa.C.S. 2901(a) (kidnapping) 18 Pa.C.S. 3301(a)(1)(i) (arson) 18 Pa.C.S (burglary, house/person present) 18 Pa.C.S. 3701(a)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) (robbery) 18 Pa.C.S. 3702(robbery of motor vehicle) 18 Pa.C.S. 7508(a)(1)(iii), (2)(iii), (3)(iii) or (4)(iii) (drug trafficking) The prosecuting attorney may advise the court that the Commonwealth has elected to waive the eligibility requirements if the victim has been given notice of the prosecutor s intent to waive eligibility and an opportunity to be heard on the issue. The court, after considering victim input, may refuse to accept the prosecutor s waiver of the eligibility requirements. SENTENCING GUIDELINES FOR SIP Act 112 of 2004 also mandated the Sentencing Commission to identify offenders who would be appropriate for SIP consideration. In accordance with its statutory mandate, the Sentencing Commission originally adopted sentencing guidelines that targeted drug dependent offenders who otherwise would be serving a minimum sentence of confinement in a state facility for 30 months or more. A 30-month minimum sentence was determined to be appropriate to ensure that drug dependent offenders who were eligible for the County Intermediate Punishment Program would not be sent to the state system for SIP consideration, and that a distinction be maintained between offenders who are considered appropriate for drug treatment through County Intermediate Punishment versus State Intermediate Punishment. [The guidelines became effective June 3, 2005]. Subsequently, however, the Commission revised the sentencing guidelines that provided for greater emphasis on the recommended place of confinement, rather than sentence length, for targeting the use of State Intermediate Punishment versus County Intermediate Punishment. The revised guidelines, which became effective December 5, 2008, recommend the consideration of State Intermediate Punishment in lieu of incarceration for eligible offenders who are sentenced to confinement in a state facility. [See Appendix A for Sentencing Guidelines text relevant to SIP.] LEGISLATIVE CHANGES TO SIP Historically, only about 27% of SIP eligible offenders have been referred and evaluated for the SIP Program. 1 To address the concern about the underutilization of SIP, the Commission made several recommendations to the legislature that included revising the ineligibility criteria, and providing greater discretion to the judge. Subsequently, the legislature passed legislation that incorporated the following recommended changes to SIP [Act 112 of 2012]: Revised the ineligible offense criteria [effective 7/1/2013] 1 See State Intermediate Punishment Program: 2013 Performance Report by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Also, The Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing states in this current report that since the inception of the program, about 27% of the SIP eligible offenders were referred and evaluated for SIP. 3

8 o o Offenders had been ineligible if convicted of a personal injury offense as defined in the Crime Victims Act [18 P.S ]. This was replaced with a list of specific ineligible offenses to allow for offenders convicted of less serious offenses to be eligible [e.g., simple assault, for which offenders often receive probation] [61 Pa.C.S. 4103] Offenders sentenced under the mandatory drug statute had been eligible for SIP. The revision restricts the eligibility to offenders convicted under the first tier [e.g., 2 to less than 10 grams] [61 Pa.C.S. 4103] Removed the requirement of an agreement of the defendant during the referral process [61 Pa.C.S (a)] 2 [effective 9/4/2012] Removed the agreement of the defendant as a prerequisite for the commitment of an eligible offender to SIP [61 Pa.C.S (d)] 2 [effective 9/4/2012] Estimated impact of legislative changes. Based upon the changes to the eligibility criteria, it is estimated that there would be an increase of 16%-19% in the number of SIP eligible offenders per year, depending upon whether sentence length is considered in the estimate. 3 The actual number of additional offenders per year is estimated to range from about 369 to 994. The lower number [n=369] reflects the number of additional offenders if only offenders who received a minimum sentence of 24 months or greater are included in the estimate. The higher number [n=994] does not take sentence length into consideration. PROCEDURE FOR REFERRAL TO SIP Prior to sentencing an offender to the SIP Program, the court, upon motion of the District Attorney commits the offender to the Department of Corrections [DOC] for comprehensive drug and alcohol and risk assessments. 4 The following information is forwarded by the court to assist the DOC in their evaluation: (a) a summary of the offense for which the defendant was convicted, (b) information about the defendant s criminal history, (c) information about the defendant s history of drug or alcohol abuse, (d) a presentence report, and (e) any other relevant information. The Sentencing Commission has also arranged via the JNET structure to provide the DOC the ability to access the sentencing guideline forms for offenders being considered for the program, which provide additional case, offense, and criminal history information. 5 The DOC evaluation must be based on valid, nationally recognized, instruments that assess drug and alcohol addiction, as well as crime risk assessments. These evaluations are to be conducted by persons skilled in the treatment of drug and alcohol addictions and trained to conduct assessments. The Department s assessment of the defendant s eligibility for the program and treatment recommendation must be provided to the court, the defendant, the District Attorney, and the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing within 60 days of the defendant s commitment to the Department. The court may then 2 The Commission had also recommended that this apply to the district attorney as well, though the legislation did not incorporate this change. 3 The estimates are based upon sentences reported to the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing from May 2005 through December The original legislation provided that there be agreement of the defendant. Act 122 of 2012 removed that provision. 5 JNET (Justice Network) is a secure virtual system for the sharing of offender records and other justice information by statewide approved users. 4

9 sentence the offender to a period of 24 months of SIP. Males sentenced to the SIP program are sent to SCI Chester or to the Quehanna Boot Camp, while females are sent to SCI Cambridge Springs. SIP PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS Treatment recommendations by staff from the Department of Corrections are based on information from the county, an interview with the defendant, and four assessment instruments. Information from the county may include, depending on availability, the Pre-Sentence Investigation, the Criminal Complaint, the Order of Court Sentence, the Affidavit of Probable Cause, and the Inmate Commitment Summary Report. The four assessment instruments used by the Department of Corrections are: (1) the Risk Screen Tool, (2) the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified, (3) the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire, and (4) the Texas Christian University Drug Screen II. The Risk Screen Tool (RST) tool was internally developed, and validated, to determine an offender s risk for future criminal conduct. Higher scores are related to higher rates of recidivism. This tool, which went into effect in 2008, replaced The Level of Service Inventory (LSI-R), which was used previous to the RST. The Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified (CSS-M) measures criminal attitudes and values that have been linked to antisocial behavior. Higher scores on the CSS-M indicate higher levels of criminal attitudes and values. The Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire (HIQ) measures an offender s propensity toward anger/hostility. Research indicates that higher scores on the HIQ are related to a greater predisposition to hostility/anger, which is linked to criminal conduct, including violence. The Texas Christian University Drug Screen II (TCU) is a comprehensive instrument for assessing alcohol and drug use in an offender population. Higher scores on the TCU Drug Screen indicate more serious substance abuse problems. THE SIP PROGRAM There are four phases to the 24 month SIP Program, allowing for a gradual step-down of treatment: Phase I: a minimum of 7 months incarceration in a state correctional institution that includes a minimum of 4 months in an institutional therapeutic community Phase II: a minimum of 2 months in a community based therapeutic community Phase III: a minimum of 6 months in an outpatient addiction treatment facility Phase IV: supervised reintegration into the community for the balance of the 24 months Upon successful completion of the program, the Department notifies the judge, district attorney, and Sentencing Commission. If the offender is expelled from the program, the Department also notifies the judge, district attorney, and Sentencing Commission and then holds the offender in prison or jail until a revocation hearing is scheduled. Upon revocation, the court may sentence the offender to the sentencing options available at the initial sentencing. The Department provides a final report on the offender to the judge, district attorney, defendant, and Sentencing Commission. Under the statute, the Department is given maximum flexibility to administer the treatment program, both as a whole and for individual participants. The Department has the right to refuse to admit a participant to a community-based 5

10 therapeutic community or outpatient addiction treatment facility, and may expel a participant from the program for failing to comply with administrative or disciplinary procedures. ADMISSIONS TO SIP Act 112 of 2004 mandated that the SIP Report provide information on the number of offenders who were eligible, evaluated, and sentenced to SIP, as well as the number who successfully completed the program. Table 1 shows that since the inception of the program in May 2005 through July 2013, there were: 89,100 offenders sentenced to the Department of Corrections and that 19% [n=17,363] were eligible for the program. 6 Of those eligible, 27% [n=4,467] were referred and evaluated for SIP and of those evaluated, 77% [n=3,579] were sentenced to SIP. The DOC reports that the major reason referred offenders are not admitted into the program is due to detainers or other outstanding legal action. 7 Among those sentenced to SIP, 56% completed the program [n=2003], 18% were expelled [n=658], and 26% [n=918] were still enrolled in the program. Table 1. Offenders Eligible, Evaluated,and Sentenced to SIP [May July 2013] NUMBER PERCENT Total DOC Admissions Eligible for SIP Evaluated for SIP Sentenced to SIP Completed Expelled Still Enrolled Figure A shows the percentage of offenders who were eligible, evaluated, and sentenced to SIP by year. [The graph excludes 2005 and 2013 as they were partial years]. The percentage of offenders sentenced to DOC who were eligible for SIP has remained essentially the same, at 19%, since the program began. The percentage of eligible offenders who were evaluated fluctuated somewhat, ranging from a high of 32% in Figure A. Percent of Offenders Eligible, Evaluated, and Sentenced to SIP by Year [ ] Sentenced Evaluated Eligible The criteria DOC used to determine eligibility were: 1) not convicted of ineligible offense, 2) had a minimum sentence of 24 months or longer, and 3) had a TCU drug screen score of 3 or above, indicating AOD dependence. 7 State Intermediate Punishment Program: 2013 Performance Report. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. 6

11 2007 to a low of 22% in The percentage of offenders evaluated who were sentenced to SIP stayed similar throughout the years, averaging 77%, though that percentage did drop during 2012 to 72%. [See Appendix B for the number of offenders eligible, evaluated, and sentenced to SIP by year]. RECIDIVISM STUDY As recidivism reduction was one of the major goals behind the creation of the SIP Program, a focus of this report is a study we conducted to determine whether offenders who attend the SIP Program are less likely to commit future crime than offenders who are sentenced to prison. In our recidivism analysis we compared three groups of offenders: SIP eligible offenders who were sentenced to prison rather than SIP, SIP eligible offenders who were admitted and completed the program, and SIP eligible offenders who were admitted and expelled from the program. Since offenders who were admitted into SIP were divided into completions and expulsion, we first conducted analysis to determine whether there were differences between offenders who completed SIP compared to those who were expelled. Study Sample For the current study we used offenders who were admitted to SIP from May 2005 through December 2010, and completed or were expelled from the program between September 2007 and December For the prison group, we used offenders who were released between September 2007 and December This allowed for a minimum six month tracking period. [While we used a three year tracking period for the recidivism study, we included offenders who could be tracked for six months as this was one of the time periods for which the Legislature requested recidivism rates]. A matching procedure was conducted in order to determine which offenders sentenced to prison would comprise the comparison group so that it would be as comparable as possible to the SIP group. First, the Department of Corrections provided us with a file of offenders admitted to the DOC and who were released under regular parole between September 2007 and December We selected out those offenders who had an SIP eligible offense, had received a minimum sentence of 2 years or greater, came from counties that utilized the SIP option, and had a TCU score of three or greater. Second, we used this group of offenders to further match the comparison group with the SIP group on the following factors: county, age, race, gender, prior arrests, current conviction offense, and TCU Score. 8 The sample consisted of 4,374 offenders, with 2,187 having been sentenced to SIP, and 2,187 sentenced to traditional prison. We used this sample of 2,187 SIP offenders to examine the predictors of program completion. 8 We used propensity score matching to select the sample of offenders sentenced to prison, which provides as comparable a group to SIP offenders as possible. The propensity score is computed using logistic regression and is the predicted probability of being sentenced to SIP controlling for multiple offender characteristics. Cases are then matched on their propensity score ranging from 0 and 1. In this analysis we used one to one matching without replacement meaning each offender sentenced to SIP is matched with only one SIP eligible offender and each SIP eligible offender could only be matched once. We found, however, that even after the matching procedure, there were differences between the two groups. Thus, we controlled for these factors in our analysis. 7

12 SIP OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS Of the 2,187 SIP offenders in our study, 1,776 [81%] successfully completed the program, and 411 were expelled [19%]. 9 The major reasons for expulsion were: escaping or failure to report to a community corrections center or treatment services [31%], behavioral issues [24%], and relapse [17%]. Table 2 provides a description of the offenders who were admitted into the SIP program during the timeframe of our study [completed or expelled between September 2007 and December 2012]. Judges in 62 of Pennsylvania s 67 counties had sentenced offenders to the SIP program, with the highest percentage coming from Philadelphia [18%], Lackawanna [7%], Washington [6%], Dauphin [5%], and Lancaster [5%] Counties. The majority of these offenders were male [79%], white, [66%], and had an average age of 35 years. Most offenders were convicted of drug delivery [49%] or driving under the influence [23%] offenses. Additionally, a large percentage of the offenders had been previously arrested for a drug offense [63%]. The Department of Corrections conducts an evaluation on offenders referred to SIP to determine if they are in need of treatment and would benefit from the program. These reports, which are provided to the Sentencing Commission, contain information on type of substance abuse, age at first use, frequency of use, previous treatment, and current treatment recommendations. The majority of offenders used multiple substances, with the most common substances being alcohol [87%], marijuana [59%], cocaine [42%], crack [41%] and heroin [31%]. However, offenders were more likely to report crack [23%] or heroin [31%] as their most serious substance compared to alcohol [16%] or marijuana [15%]. The percentage of offenders who used alcohol or drugs on a daily basis ranged from 14% [cocaine] to 36% [marijuana]. Offenders reported starting to use alcohol and marijuana at a young age [mean age =15 years], while they were older when they first used cocaine, heroin, and crack, [mean ages = 20, 24, and 23, respectively]. About 76% of the offenders had previously received substance abuse treatment, with an average of about 3 previous treatment episodes. The vast majority of offenders reported having successfully completed at least one type of treatment program in the past. The most common physical problems experienced by the offenders as a result of their drug use were increased tolerance [96%], morning use [72%], blackouts [67%], withdrawal symptoms [48%], and mood swings [42%]. Based upon the RST risk assessment tool used by the Department of Corrections to determine the offender s risk for future criminal activity, half of the offenders [50%] were at medium risk of re-offending, while the remaining offenders were split between high [24%] and low [26%] risk. Based upon the TCU score used to assess substance abuse, most offenders had a serious problem with drugs and/or alcohol [mean score of 6.9 on ten point scale]. With respect to program recommendations, all of the offenders were recommended for the therapeutic community. Other programs that were most recommended were violence prevention [61%], vocational evaluation [22%], Thinking for a Change [13%], and education participation [11%]. 9 These numbers are based upon letters received from the DOC indicating when an offender has successfully completed the program and when an offender has been expelled. 8

13 Table 2. Offenders Sentenced to the State Intermediate Punishment Program [N=2,187] COUNTY NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT Adams 34 2% Tioga 8 0% Allegheny 87 4% Union 10 0% Armstrong 8 0% Venango 66 3% Beaver 21 1% Warren 5 0% Bedford 7 0% Washington 131 6% Berks 11 1% Wayne 2 0% Blair 65 3% Westmoreland 66 3% Bradford 26 1% Wyoming 2 0% Bucks 39 2% York 45 2% Butler 39 2% Cambria 3 0% GENDER Cameron 2 0% Male % Carbon 3 0% Female % Centre 12 1% Chester 32 1% RACE Clearfield 3 0% White % Clinton 7 0% Black % Columbia 1 0% Hispanic 197 9% Crawford 14 1% Cumberland 22 1% AGE Dauphin 112 5% % Delaware 69 3% % Elk 8 0% % Erie 3 0% % Fayette 73 3% 50 and older % Forest 2 0% Mean 34.5 Franklin 73 3% Fulton 12 1% CURRENT CONVICTION OFFENSE Greene 32 1% drugs % Huntingdon 23 1% dui % Indiana 5 0% theft/forgery % Jefferson 35 2% other 185 8% Juniata 5 0% Lackawanna 154 7% PRIOR ARREST Lancaster 113 5% no 156 7% Lawrence 22 1% yes % Lehigh 5 0% Mean number o 5.2 Luzerne 8 0% Lycoming 34 2% TYPE OF PRIOR ARREST Mercer 22 1% Drug % Mifflin 39 2% DUI % Monroe 21 1% Property % Montgomery 70 3% Person % Northampton 12 1% Northumberland 22 1% Perry 1 0% Philadelphia % Pike 2 0% Potter 7 0% Schuylkill 23 1% Snyder 8 0% Somerset 13 1% Susquehanna 2 0% 9

14 Table 2 [cont.]. Offenders Sentenced to the State Intermediate Punishment Program [N=2,187] NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT DRUG TYPE [current] REPORTED PROBLEMS WITH DRUGS [n=1744] Alcohol % Tolerance % Marijuana % Blackouts % Cocaine % Morning use % Crack % Withdrawal symptoms % Heroin % Mood swings % Missing 443 DRUG TYPE [most serious] Alcohol % ASSESSMENT SCORES Marijuana % RST Score Cocaine % High % Crack % Medium % Heroin % Low % Missing 708 DAILY USE OF SUBSTANCE HIQ Score Alcohol % High % Marijuana % Medium % Cocaine % Low % Crack % Missing 219 Heroin % CSS-M Score High % AGE AT FIRST USE [mean] Medium % Alcohol 15 Low % Marijuana 15 Missing 24 Cocaine 20 TCU Score Crack % Heroin % % PREVIOUS TREATMENT % Yes % % No % % Missing % Mean 3.2 Mean 6.9 Missing 542 RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS [n=2040] PREVIOUS TYPE OF TREATMENT Therapeutic community % Inpatient/Residen % Violence Prevention % Intensive Outpatie % Vocational Evaluation % Outpatient % Thinking for a Change % Detox % Education Participation % Employment Preparation 53 3% SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF PREVIOUS TREATMENT Decision Making 121 6% Inpatient/Residen % Missing 144 Intensive Outpatie % Outpatient % Detox % 10

15 WHAT PREDICTS WHETHER OFFENDERS WILL COMPLETE SIP OR BE EXPELLED? Table 3 provides the findings from the bivariate analysis which found the following factors to be related to program completion: gender, race, age, county, offense, prior arrests, drug type, drug use frequency, and scores on the four assessment scales. More specifically: Females [86%] were more likely than males [80%] to complete SIP. White offenders [79%] were more likely than Black [71%] or Hispanic offenders [59%] to complete the program. Older offenders [mean age=35] were more likely than younger offenders [mean age=32] to complete SIP. Offenders from Philadelphia County [29%] were more likely to be expelled from SIP than offenders from other urban [16%] or rural [18%] counties. Offenders convicted of DUI [92%] were more likely to complete SIP than offenders convicted of drug [81%] or property [75%] crimes. Those offenders with fewer prior arrests were more likely to complete SIP. Offenders whose most serious substance was alcohol were most likely to complete SIP, while offenders whose most serious substance was heroin were least likely [90% vs. 77%]. Offenders who had used drugs daily were more likely to be expelled from SIP, particularly when the drug was heroin, crack, or marijuana. Offenders who were assessed to be at low risk [RST Assessment] for recidivism were more likely to complete SIP [96%] than those who were medium [78%] or high [53%] risk. Offenders who scored low on the criminal attitude scale [CSSM Score] were more likely to complete SIP [84%] than those who scored medium [80%] or high [77%]. Offenders who scored low on the anger scale [HIQ] were more likely to complete SIP [83%] than those who scored medium [80%] or high [79%]. Offenders who were assessed to have more serious substance abuse problems [TCU] were more likely to complete the program. 11

16 Table 3. Bivariate Results for Offenders Completing SIP vs. Expelled from SIP [N=2187] Completed Expelled Completed Expelled % % N N TOTAL N OVERALL 81% 19% GENDER ** Male 80% 20% Female 86% 15% RACE *** White 84% 16% Black 77% 23% Hispanic 72% 28% AGE *** % 24% % 24% % 18% % 13% and older 89% 11% AGE [mean] *** COUNTY *** Philadelphia 71% 29% Allegheny 91% 9% Urban 84% 16% Rural 83% 17% OFFENSE *** Drug 81% 19% Driving under the Influence 92% 8% Property 75% 25% Other 68% 32% PRIOR ARRESTS *** No 91% 9% Yes 81% 20% NUMBER OF PRIOR ARRESTS *** PRIOR ARREST TYPE DUI *** No 78% 22% Yes 87% 13% Drug *** No 88% 12% Yes 78% 23% Property *** No 83% 17% Yes 78% 22% Personal *** No 88% 12% Yes 77% 23% DRUG TYPE [most serious drug]*** Alcohol 90% 10% Marijuana 80% 20% Cocaine 86% 14% Crack 79% 21% Heroin 77% 23%

17 Table 3. [Cont.] Bivariate Results for Offenders Completing SIP vs. Expelled from SIP [N=2187] Completed Expelled Completed Expelled % % N N TOTAL N AGE AT FIRST USE [Mean] Missing 184 FREQUENCY OF USE *** Daily 79% 21% Less than daily 85% 15% FREQUENCY OF USE Alcohol # daily 83% 17% less than daily 82% 18% rarely or never 77% 23% Marijuana *** daily 76% 24% less than daily 83% 17% rarely or never 85% 15% Crack ** daily 75% 25% less than daily 82% 18% rarely or never 83% 17% Cocaine daily 80% 20% less than daily 80% 20% rarely or never 82% 18% Heroin *** daily 76% 24% less than daily 79% 21% rarely or never 83% 17% RECEIVED PRIOR TREATMENT Yes 81% 20% No 84% 16% Missing 21 NUMBER OF PRIOR TREATMENTS Missing 542 ASSESSMENT TOOLS RST Score *** Low 95.8% 4.2% Medium 77.5% 22.5% High 52.7% 47.3% Missing 708 CSSM Score** Low 84.2% 15.8% Medium 80.4% 19.6% High 77.3% 22.7% Missing 24 HIQ Score** Low 83.1% 16.9% Medium 80.4% 19.6% High 79.3% 20.7% Missing 219 TCU Score *** Medium 60% 40% High 84% 16% mean *** * Significant at.05 level ** Significant at.01 level *** Significant at.001 level # marginally significant at.10 level 13

18 In Table 4, we show the results of the next level of analysis, which involved several multivariate models that considered the significant factors simultaneously to determine those that best predict successful program completion. Multivariate models are needed in order to determine whether the relationship between two variables is real and important, even after controlling for the other variables. In Model 1, we considered two major legal variables that are utilized at sentencing: offense and prior record. In Model 2, we introduced variables related to substance abuse: the most serious drug used, frequency of use, and extent of substance abuse [TCU assessment score]. In Model 3, we introduced two assessment scales: HIQ [anger scale] and CSSM [criminal attitudes scale]. In Model 4, we introduced four demographic variables: age, gender, race, and county. The findings from these models indicate that offenders with the following characteristics were more likely to complete the SIP Program: Offenders convicted of a DUI or drug offense were more likely than property offenders to complete the program. Offenders who had fewer prior arrests were more likely to complete the program. Offenders who used heroin were less likely than offenders who used crack or cocaine to complete the program. Offenders with more serious substance abuse problems [TCU score] were more likely to complete the program. Offenders who were older were more likely to complete the program. Females were more likely than males to complete the program. Offenders from Philadelphia were less likely than offenders from other urban counties to complete the program. The HIQ Anger Scale, CSSM Criminal Attitudes Scale and race did not predict program completion. The finding for Frequency of Use, with offenders who used drugs daily being less likely to complete the program, approached significance. [See Appendix C for logistic regression model.] 14

19 Table 4. Factors that predict successful completion of SIP [N=2187] Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 3 R 2 =.081 R 2 =.156 R 2 =.159 R 2 =.194 Legal Variables Add Substance Abuse Variables Add Addessment Scores Add Demographic Variables Legal Variables Current Offense [convicted of DUI or drug compared to property] *** *** *** *** Prior arrests [fewer prior arrests] *** *** *** *** Substance Abuse Variables Most serious current drug type [heroin least likely] ** ** ** Frequency of use [daily] * * # TCU [more severe substance abuse problem] *** *** *** Assessment Scores Variables HIQ Anger Scale no no CSSM Criminal Attitudes Scale no no Demographic Variables Age [older] *** Gender ** Race [White compared to Black or Hispanic] no County ** * Significant at.05 level ** Significant at.01 level *** Significant at.001 level # marginally significant at.10 level NOTES: Model 1 includes the two major legal factors: current offense and prior arrests. Model 2 add the substance abuse factors. Model 3 adds the assessment tools used by the DOC. Model 4 adds extra-legal factors: age, gender, race, county. RECIDIVISM: ARE OFFENDERS WHO COMPLETE SIP LESS LIKELY TO RECIDIVATE THAN OFFENDERS RELEASED FROM PRISON? Act 114 of 2004 mandated that the six-month, one-year, three-year, and five-year recidivism rates be provided for offenders who completed the SIP program in comparison to a comparable group of offenders who went to prison. Table 5 shows the recidivism rates for these time periods, as well as the two-year and four-year recidivism rates. We measure recidivism as either a return to prison or an arrest for a new crime. The SIP offender is not released to parole, and thus, cannot be returned to prison for a technical violation. However, since offenders sentenced to prison can be returned for a technical violation, we include those in our calculation for recidivism to avoid them being erroneously included as successes. For all six tracking periods, the recidivism rates for offenders who completed SIP were lower than for those offenders who went to prison. Furthermore, the recidivism rates of offenders who were expelled 15

20 Table 5. Recidivism Rates of Matched Sample PERCENT NUMBER TOTAL NUMBER SIP Prison SIP Prison Completion Expulsion Completion Expulsion [n=1776] [n=411] [n=2187] [n=1776] [n=411] [n=2187] [N=4374] 6 Months *** Recidivated Did not Recidivate Year *** Recidivated Did not Recidivate Year *** Recidivated Did not Recidivate Year *** Recidivated Did not Recidivate Year *** Recidivated Did not Recidivate Year *** Recidivated Did not Recidivate *** Statistically significant at.001 level from SIP were higher than for offenders who either went to prison or had completed SIP. 10 Figure B shows the cumulative recidivism rates of the three groups after three years. [We graph these survival rates after three years, since only 24% of the sample is tracked for four years, and 9% for five years.] 10 We also looked at the recidivism rates with the expulsion removed, and the finding that offenders who completed SIP were less likely to recidivate than comparable offenders who go to prison remained significant for all six time periods. 16

21 Percent Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure B. Cumulative Recidivism Rate after Three Years SIP Expelled Prison SIP Completed Months Though these recidivism rates are based upon a matched sample of SIP and prison offenders, we conducted further analysis to determine whether this finding held when controlling for all variables simultaneously. The analysis also informs us what other variables are related to recidivism. For this analysis we only used offenders who could be tracked for three years to allow for a large enough number of offenders to do the analysis. We first conducted the bivariate analysis on all of our variables to determine which factors should be considered in the model. Table 6 shows that, after three years, offenders were more likely to recidivate if: they were released from prison [44%] or expelled from SIP [71%] than if they successfully completed SIP [38%] they were male [45%] compared to female [37%] they were Black [50%] or Hispanic [49%] compared to white [40%] they were younger [32 vs. 36 years of age] they were from Philadelphia [55%] or Allegheny [57%] compared to other urban [40%] or rural [40%] counties they had a less severe substance abuse problem [6.5 vs. 6.9] they were convicted of a property offense [52%] compared to a drug [43%] or DUI offense [28%] they had a greater number of arrests [6.3 vs. 4.5]. 17

22 Table 6. Bivariate Recidivism Results [N=1,939] [after three years] Success Failure Success Failure Success Failure Success Failure % % N N % % N N Group *** Prior Arrests *** Completed SIP 62% 38% no 73% 27% Expelled from SIP 30% 71% yes 55% 45% Released from prison 56% 44% Number of prior arrests *** Gender ** 0 73% 27% Male 55% 45% % 38% Female 63% 37% % 51% % 65% Race *** % 57% White 60% 40% or more 29% 71% 6 15 Black 50% 50% Mean *** Hispanic 51% 49% Prior DRUG *** Age *** No 66% 34% % 62% Yes 51% 49% % 52% % 43% Prior DUI *** % 34% No 54% 46% and older 77% 23% Yes 63% 37% mean*** County Category *** Prior Personal *** Philadelphia 45% 55% No 60% 40% Allegheny 43% 57% Yes 51% 49% Urban 60% 40% Rural 60% 40% Prior Property Charge *** No 68% 32% TCU *** Yes 49% 51% % 60% % 41% Prior Weapons Charge * 5 63% 37% No 57% 43% % 46% Yes 49% 52% % 34% % 43% % 38% TCU Score [mean]*** Offense *** Drug offense 57% 43% Property 48% 52% DUI 72% 28% Other 38% 62% * Significant at.05 level ** Significant at.01 level *** Significant at.001 level 18

23 Table 7 shows the results of the multivariate analysis, which helps to determine whether the bivariate relationships discussed above are real and important, even after controlling simultaneously for the other variables. Model 1 included two major legal factors: current offense and prior record. Model 2 added the type of sentence: SIP or prison. Model 3 added the TCU assessment score, which is a measure of substance abuse, and Model 4 added four extra-legal factors of age, gender, race, and county, which previous research has often found to be related to recidivism. In the first model we found that offenders who had a greater number of prior arrests, a prior arrest for a property offense, and were convicted of property offenses rather than drug delivery or DUI were more likely to recidivate. In the second model, we added the variable of sentence type, and found that offenders who had been expelled from SIP were more likely to recidivate than those who went to prison. The previous finding that offenders who completed SIP were less likely to recidivate than those sentenced to prison was not found to be significant upon controlling for other factors. Current offense and prior arrests continued to also be significant. In the third model, we added the variable of TCU substance abuse score and found that offenders with a more serious substance abuse problem were less likely to recidivate. The final model, introduced the four legal variables; three of which were significantly related to recidivism: age, gender, and county. Younger offenders were more likely to recidivate; males were more likely to recidivate; and offenders from Philadelphia or Allegheny Counties were more likely to recidivate than offenders from other urban counties. Current offense, prior arrests, type of sentence, and substance abuse level also remained significantly related to recidivism. More specifically, holding everything else constant: 1) the odds of offenders convicted of property offenses recidivating were 70% greater than those who were convicted of DUI and 41% greater than those convicted of drug offenses, 2) for each prior arrest, there was a 9% increase in the odds of recidivating, 3) for each level increase on the substance abuse scale, there was a 14% decrease in the odds of offenders recidivating, 4) the odds of offenders expelled from SIP recidivating were 2.4 times greater than offenders sentenced to prison, 5) for each year increase in age, there was a 5% decrease in the odds of recidivism, and 6) the odds of male offenders recidivating were 38% greater than females; and 7) the odds of offenders from Philadelphia recidivating were 34% greater than for offenders from other urban counties. [see Appendix C for logistic regression model.] 19

24 Table 7. Summary of Multivariate Models Predicting Recidivism after Three Years [N=1,939] Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 R 2 =.102 R 2 =.125 R 2 =.146 R 2 =.200 Legal Variables Add Sentence Type Add Assessment Scores Add Extra legal Legal Variables Current Offense [convicted of property] * * * * Prior arrests [larger number of prior arrests] *** *** *** *** Prior drug offense * * # # Prior DUI offense no no no no Prior personal offense no no no no Prior Property offense ** ** * * Type of Sentence [compared to prison] SIP - completed SIP - expelled [more likely to recidivate] # no no *** *** *** Assessment Scores TCU [substance abuse scale]-higher score less likely to recidivate *** *** Extralegal Variables Age [younger] *** *** Gender [male] * * Race no no County [from Philadelphia or Allegheny County] * * * Significant at.05 level ** Significant at.01 level *** Significant at.001 level # marginally significant at.10 level NOTES: Model 1 includes two major legal factors: current offense and prior record Model 2 adds the type os sentence: SIP completed, SIP expelled, or prison Model 3 adds the TCU risk assessment score. Model 4 adds the extra-legal factors: age, gender, race, county. 20

25 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The SIP program opened in May 2005, and by July 2013, there were 17,363 offenders sentenced to the Department of Corrections who were eligible for the program. Of these, about 27% [N=4,647] were referred and evaluated for SIP. Of those evaluated, about 77% [N=3,579] were sentenced and admitted into the program. Of those admitted into SIP, 56% successfully completed the program, 18% were expelled, and 26% were still enrolled. Due to concerns about the underutilization of SIP, the Commission had recommended several changes to the SIP statute that included revising the ineligibility criteria and providing greater discretion to the judge. Subsequently, Act 112 of 2012 amended the SIP statute to allow offenders convicted of less serious personal offenses [e.g., simple assault] to be eligible for SIP, while restricting eligibility of offenders sentenced under the mandatory drug statute to low level dealers [e.g., 2- less than 10 grams cocaine]. Act 112 of 2012 also removed the defendant agreement requirement as a prerequisite for SIP. It is estimated that the changes in the offense eligibility would result in an increase of 16%-19% in the number of eligible offenders per year. These changes went into effect July 1, 2013, and thus, for the next report we will be able to determine the actual impact of these changes. Though the number of eligible offenders sentenced to SIP has traditionally been low, 62 of Pennsylvania s 67 counties have sentenced offenders to the SIP program. Most offenders sentenced to SIP were male, white, convicted of drug delivery or DUI offenses, had previous substance abuse treatment, used crack or heroin, and were at high or medium risk for recidivism. Offenders were significantly more likely to complete the SIP program if they were older, female, from a county other than Philadelphia, did not use heroin, had fewer prior arrests, were convicted of a DUI offense or drug offense, and had a greater substance abuse problem. Offenders who did not successfully complete the SIP program were significantly more likely to recidivate than those who completed the program or went to prison. While offenders who completed SIP were less likely than those who went to prison to recidivate, this finding was not significant. After three years post release from SIP or prison, 38% of offenders who completed SIP recidivated, compared to 44% of those released from prison and 71% of those who did not complete SIP. The predictors of recidivism were similar to the predictors of program completion. Offenders who were older, female, had fewer prior arrests, convicted of a DUI or drug offenses were less likely to recidivate. The finding that drug offenders, along with DUI offenders, have a lower risk of recidivism than property offenders supports the eligibility provision that offenders convicted of the lowest level of drug delivery subject to a mandatory sentence be eligible for the SIP Program. The findings that offenders with more serious substance abuse problems were more likely to complete SIP and less likely to recidivate indicates that perhaps these are the offenders most motivated to participate in SIP and most likely to benefit from the program. However, it should be noted that those offenders who went to prison and had serious substance abuse problems also were less likely to recidivate. As we do not have information on whether they participated in a prison based drug program, we do not know whether they may have also benefited from such a program. Overall, the findings from our study provide some support for the SIP Program in that offenders who completed the program were less likely to recidivate than comparable offenders going to prison, though it is important to note that this finding was not significant when controlling for other factors that account for lower recidivism. It appears that the Department of Corrections is appropriately identifying offenders who are a risk to the public and/or are not benefiting from the program and expelling them from the 21