Criminal Sentencing Commission Minutes
	November 18-19, 1998 First and Second of Six Meeting Days

MEMBERS PRESENT

MEETING IN BRIEF

Organizational staffing provided by Joe McEniry, Legal Counsel
Minutes prepared by Eric Sponheim, Legal Counsel

1. State Sentencing Commissions. (11/18)
2. Judicial Branch. (11/18)
3. Department of Corrections. (11/18)
4. County Attorneys Association. (11/18)
5. Board of Parole. (11/18)
6. Department of Public Safety. (11/18)
7. County Sheriffs Association. (11/18)
8. Commission Discussion. (11/18)
9. Attorney General. (11/19)
10. State Public Defender. (11/19)
11. Judicial District Department of Correctional Services. (11/19)
12. Prison Ministries. (11/19)
13. Private Criminal Defense Attorney. (11/19)
14. Victims' Rights Group. (11/19)
15. Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning. (11/19)
16. Commission Discussion. (11/19)
17. Written Materials Filed With the Legislative Service Bureau.

COMMISSION BUSINESS

1. Procedural Business.

a. Call to Order. Senator Andy McKean, Temporary Co-chairperson, called the first meeting of the Sentencing Commission to order at 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, November 18, 1998, in Room 118 of the State Capitol.

b. Opening Statements of Co-chairpersons. Temporary Co-Chairpersons McKean and Representative Jeffrey Lamberti each made brief opening statements. Senator McKean noted several reasons for establishing the Commission. These included the fact that there has been no comprehensive review of sentencing in Iowa for 20 years, perceptions of inequities in the system, and a dramatic increase in the size of the prison population and the percentage of the state budget devoted to corrections. He encouraged the Commission to ask whether there are any offenders in prison who could more effectively be sent to community-based correctional facilities (CBCs), and if so, which offenders might be selected for this. Senator McKean also suggested that the Commission consider how well intermediate sanctions are working in Iowa, and whether Iowa should seriously consider a structured sentencing or guidelines system. He emphasized that the Commission has no preconceived answers to these questions, and that the voting/nonvoting distinction between legislative and public members will not prevent the Commission from seeking a consensus of all members. Representative Lamberti concurred that the Commission has no predetermined goals other than to review current criminal penalties. He also indicated an interest in possibly asking the Legislature to consider creating a different structure for the Commission.

c. Election of Co-chairpersons and Adoption of Rules. Senator McKean and Representative Lamberti were nominated and elected as permanent Co-chairpersons of the Commission. The Commission also adopted rules of procedure which are on file with the Legislative Service Bureau.

d. November 18. The meeting recessed for lunch at 12:15 p.m., reconvened at 1:30 p.m., and recessed for the day at 3:30 p.m.

e. Next Meeting. Co-chairperson Lamberti called the second meeting of the Sentencing Commission to order at 8:45 a.m., Thursday, November 19, 1998, in Room 116 of the State Capitol. The meeting recessed for lunch at 12:20 p.m., reconvened at 1:35 p.m., and adjourned at 4:00 p.m.

f. Next Meeting Date. The next meeting of the full Commission was scheduled for Wednesday, January 6, 1999, in Room 116 of the State Capitol.

g. Subcommittee. On November 19, the Commission established a subcommittee on misdemeanor classification, consisting of Judge Johnson, Valorie Wilson, Kip Kautzky, Pam Dettmann, Paul Wieck, Judge Mary Jane Sokolovske, Co-chairperson Lamberti, Representative Richardson, and a representative of the Attorney General's Office. It is scheduled to meet on January 5, 1999, in Room 118 of the State Capitol, at a time to be determined.

2. State Sentencing Commissions.

Overview. Mr. Eric Sponheim, Legal Counsel for the Commission, presented an overview of the structures and processes used by sentencing Commissions in other states. He described how the indeterminate sentencing systems used in every state 25 years ago have changed markedly due to concerns about sentencing disparity, lack of resource restraint, and truth in sentencing. Because of these concerns, over half the states have created sentencing commissions to consider more determinate forms of sentencing. In approximately 20 states, these commissions have continued in existence as oversight agencies to monitor implementation of sentencing guidelines.

Use of Guidelines. Mr. Sponheim briefly described the concept of guidelines, and how guidelines systems differ from state to state. He then summarized some of the known results of the work of other sentencing commissions. He reported that commissions in Minnesota, Washington, and Oregon have sometimes been credited with saving their states millions of dollars by linking sentencing policy with available resources. But he also noted the possibility that sentencing guidelines which are crafted to incarcerate more offenders for longer periods of time could have the effect of adding to prison crowding problems and costing the state money rather than saving it. Concerns about sentencing disparity and lack of truth in sentencing have been addressed through guidelines, he said. It is an open question, however, whether addressing such concerns through guidelines leaves enough flexibility for judges and parole boards to exercise individual discretion. The answer to this type of question, he concluded, depends on the judgments of the policymakers in a given jurisdiction.

3. Judicial Branch.

Overview. Commission member the Honorable J. G. Johnson, District Judge, represented the Judicial Branch. He cautioned, however, that he was speaking only for himself, not for other judges. Judge Johnson listed punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation as goals of sentencing. He stated that the Legislature deals with criminal sanctions based on these goals in a broad policy sense, while judges must apply them to individuals in particular cases. He cautioned the Legislature to consider the possible effects of mandatory sentences carefully before passing them, because the removal of discretion from judges and the Board of Parole has implications for the entire criminal justice system. Since there are also levels of discretion at the arrest and charging stages, a change in the degree of discretion available to judges and the Board of Parole may have unintended consequences of giving greater power to the police and prosecutors.

Misdemeanors. Judge Johnson made several concrete suggestions for reexamining misdemeanor penalties and other policies that have significant, and possibly unintended, effects on the administration of justice. These included:

• Reconsidering penalties that require mandatory driver's license suspension when the offense is unrelated to driving a vehicle.
• Reclassifying certain interference with official acts offenses as simple rather than serious misdemeanors.
• Providing state funding for local jails so that judges could more easily give short jail sentences rather than onerous fines.

4. Department of Corrections.

Overview. Commission member Mr. W. L. Kautzky, Director of the Department of Corrections (DOC), emphasized the importance of making thoughtful decisions about the use of correctional resources. He noted that prison costs approximately $50 per day per offender, and increases severely if federal courts have to intervene because of excessive crowding. To the list of goals for sentencing identified by Judge Johnson, which included punishment, deterrence, or rehabilitation, Mr. Kautzky added incapacitation. Given the expense of prison, however, there is a need to ensure that it is being used for the right offenders. Every 750-bed prison, such as those at Newton and Fort Dodge, costs $35 million to build, he said, and another $15 million a year to operate.

Community-based Corrections. The strength of Iowa's system, Mr. Kautzky said, lies in its continuum of sanctions. He described the Department of Corrections' relationship with the eight judicial district departments of correctional services as a partnership, and noted that community-based corrections usage has increased to 46,000 aggregate felony filings per year, up from 26,000 less than 10 years ago. On any given day, 23,000 offenders are under community corrections supervision.

Despite this increase in community corrections usage, Mr. Kautzky said, and its relatively low incarceration rate compared to most of its neighboring states, Iowa's prison system is growing rapidly, and has been running substantially over capacity since the beginning of the 1990s. Mr. Kautzky explained that DOC does not have a strong research capacity itself, and so to account for the increase he relied on data compiled by the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) of the Department of Human Rights. According to CJJP, Iowa's prison population is projected to grow from 7,429 on June 30, 1998, to 14,000 by the year 2008.

Areas for Review. Mr. Kautzky noted that 4,500 of the offenders currently in prison are in for Class "C" and "D" felonies, and suggested that the Legislature might want to review penalties for these crimes. He also recommended an examination of the state's policy on "good time" reduction of sentences, which presently is awarded almost automatically rather than as an incentive for good behavior. Finally, he expressed the view that the 85 percent service of sentence rule for certain crimes is not yet impacting the size of the prison population significantly, but has the potential to do so in the future. In Mr. Kautzky's view, certainty of punishment is more effective in achieving the goals of sentencing than is the length of the term served, and he advised policymakers to consider this principle in designing a public safety strategy the state can afford.

Growth Factors. In response to questions from other Commission members, Mr. Kautzky stated that no single factor is responsible for the growth in Iowa's prison population since 1990. It is, rather, due to a combination of factors, including an increase in the number of persons admitted to the system, longer sentence terms, and the policies of the Board of Parole. He outlined some of the drug treatment options available in prison, and said he is having a study done to determine how often someone may be kept in prison because they could not obtain substance abuse treatment. He also elaborated on the considerations involved in possibly changing the good time policy. Changing the good time calculation would be desirable on policy grounds, he said, because it would promote greater accountability. But it would require a significant upgrade in the Department's computer system capacity. Mr. Kautzky also suggested that of the 400 new inmates a month, 38 percent are technical violators of probation or parole. This group would, he said, be likely to contain many offenders who could more effectively be placed in a "back-to-custody" facility, rather than prison.

5. County Attorneys Association.

Association Position. Mr. Pat White, Johnson County Attorney and Past President of the County Attorneys Association, said the association opposes sentencing guidelines based on a matrix system because such a matrix would take away judicial discretion. Based on a survey of the association's members, he said the county attorneys believe judges need more authority. The association therefore opposes mandatory minimum sentences. But in Mr. White's view, the present system works well overall, and does not require significant change. If there were to be significant change, it would be necessary to marshal support from all major stakeholders in order to make it work. Despite his opposition to sentencing guidelines, Mr. White said that, given the complexity of the criminal justice system, it is important to have a sentencing commission meeting on an ongoing basis, to analyze data, measure the effectiveness of programs, and plan thoughtfully.

Areas to Consider. Mr. White also made several other specific suggestions for the Commission to consider:

• Putting more resources into community corrections.
• Reclassifying certain serious misdemeanors, such as interference with official acts and driving under license suspension, to simple misdemeanors.
• Using split sentencing.
• Requiring offenders receiving a deferred judgment to pay the costs associated with it.

In response to a question from Co-chairperson McKean, Mr. White conceded that it could conceivably be possible to have sentencing guidelines that preserve judicial discretion, but said he hadn't seen such a system yet. The federal guidelines, he said, are an egregious example of a flawed guidelines system that does not preserve discretion.

6. Board of Parole.

Overview. Commission member Mr. Charles Larson, Sr., Chairman of the Board of Parole, said he is satisfied with the board's role in the current system. The board already uses guidelines to govern its release decisions, and is refining them further based on risk-management studies. It is also working with victims, and may create a victims' advisory committee.

Areas to Consider. Mr. Larson made two principal suggestions for Commission consideration. He suggested a special subcommittee to review the Board of Parole's role in situations under Iowa Code chapter 321J where an OWI offender is supposed to be sent directly to treatment, but there may be a lengthy waiting list. He also suggested it would be worthy of Commission attention to consider other jurisdictions' experience with supervised release. At least for certain violent crimes, supervised release at or near the end of an offender's sentence may be preferable to Iowa's system. Data could be solicited from other jurisdictions, he said, on whether supervised release reduces recidivism. Other promising options which Mr. Larson mentioned were greater use of drug courts, restorative justice, and community service.

Questions. In response to questions, Mr. Larson clarified that the Board of Parole has no role when an offender's sentence has been discharged through good time reduction. A period of supervised release for violent offenders would seem to make sense as a concept, but needs to be examined in light of the experience with it of other states and the federal system. As to whether a lack of treatment programs slows the granting of parole, Mr. Larson said there may be some of that, and promised to obtain additional data.

7. Department of Public Safety.

Sentencing Commission member Mr. Paul Wieck, Commissioner of Public Safety, advised caution in considering change in Iowa's sentencing structure. He described Iowa's current system as a partial indeterminate system that is the product of an initial careful balance of competing objectives. Though incremental changes in the Code over the years do necessitate an examination of the sentencing structure, it should be done with care. He urged the Commission to recognize incapacitation as the primary goal in sentencing, and suggested several specific areas for consideration based upon that goal. These include a comprehensive review of misdemeanor provisions and enhanced penalties for habitual OWI and domestic abuse offenders.

8. County Sheriffs Association.

Sheriff Tim Junker, Butler County Sheriff, outlined the concerns of the County Sheriffs Association. He said violent and repeat offenders should go to prison, but called attention to the overcrowding and funding problems county jails are experiencing. Since all offenders who go to prison or community-based corrections (CBCs) must pass through jails first, counties can have difficulty providing enough jail space when voters are resistant to increasing jail capacity through bond issues. He suggested that presentence investigation reports (PSIs) be completed in a more timely manner, so that offenders do not occupy space in county jails waiting for them to be done. Sheriff Junker also pointed out the problem of offenders occupying space in county jails while waiting for space in a CBC. He said the Sheriffs Association supports truth in sentencing (five years should be five years) and opposes indeterminate sentencing because it lacks truth in sentencing and has adversely impacted county jails.

In response to a question from Senator O. Gene Maddox, Sheriff Junker said the Sheriffs Association is not opposed to regional jails which the state might help fund, so long as they remain under the control of sheriffs. He also indicated a desire that probation violation hearings be held promptly, so that probationers awaiting hearings do not clog county jails.

9. Commission Discussion.

The Commission engaged in a brief discussion period at the conclusion of the first meeting day. Co-chairperson Lamberti invited Commission members to reflect on the process by which they might come up with goals. He also suggested that the change in the Iowa Constitution recently approved by the voters regarding misdemeanors has provided an opportunity to establish a subcommittee to reclassify certain misdemeanors. Co-chairperson McKean agreed that this would be appropriate, since part of the Commission's goals will be long-term and others short-term in nature.

10. Attorney General.

Commission member the Honorable Tom Miller, Attorney General, said that he has an open mind as to the direction the Commission's work should take. He emphasized the importance of proceeding in a bipartisan way, aimed at achieving consensus, and suggested that it would be useful to include the new governor in the process. Noting the dramatic increase in the prison population, with almost a doubling projected by 2007, he invited the Commission to look closely at the inmate population by offense, in order to determine whether there are any significant groups who could be handled through intermediate sanctions without affecting public safety. He also suggested that the constitutional amendment on misdemeanor fines provides an opportunity to review whether some offenses could be classified as simple rather than serious misdemeanors. On the question of "good time," he said the Commission should strongly consider changing the current policy, in order to make sentences more truthful and establish greater trust with the public about the criminal justice system. Attorney General Miller said his office is ready to work with the Commission on this, as well as on misdemeanor reclassification.

In response to questions and comments, Attorney General Miller elaborated on some of his office's crime prevention efforts. Co-chairperson Lamberti welcomed his suggestion of involving the new governor's office, and said it would be up to the Commission as a whole to decide how to proceed on that matter.

11. State Public Defender.

Field Office Comments. Commission member Ms. Valorie Wilson, representative of the State Public Defender's Office, circulated a letter to the 20 field offices of the State Public Defender, asking what the public defenders think of the current system. She reported that their leading concern is the 85 percent service of sentence rule. The problem with mandatory sentences, she said, is that they take away the discretion of the judge. On the whole, judges do the right thing, and bring a human element into sentencing decisions. Ms. Wilson also pointed out the practical difficulties posed by certain mandatory sentences, which can disrupt the plea bargaining process and create needs for more lawyers and more resources. For example, offenders will not plead guilty to a mandatory 25-year sentence for possessing more than five grams of methamphetamine, because of the length of the mandatory sentence. She also pointed out problems with disparity and proportionality, when certain felonies are considered forcible and subject to the 85 percent rule while other, perhaps more serious, felonies are not. Yet another example is that there are now no practical differences between murder-first degree and murder-second degree, because under the 85 percent rule an offender will receive a sentence of 42.5 years, essentially a life sentence.

Imprisonment versus Fines and Fees. Ms. Wilson questioned the tendency to impose mandatory fines and fees on indigent offenders, and proposed elimination of the use of suspension of driver's license penalties for unrelated crimes. But she said public defenders understand that certain offenders need to be in prison, and do not necessarily object to greater truth in sentencing, which would allow them to give their clients a better idea of how much time they are likely to serve for a particular offense. She emphasized that nonviolent offenders could be more effectively dealt with in CBCs rather than prison, and cited drug courts, youthful offender programs, and victim-offender reconciliation programs (VORPs) as examples of programs that work well.

Discussion. During the question period, Commission members discussed whether VORP programs could be made part of a sentencing matrix, and requested any available recidivism statistics from the Polk County Drug Court operated by Judge Linda Reade. In response to a question regarding how Iowa could achieve greater certainty in sentencing without the 85 percent rule, Ms. Wilson drew a distinction between determinate sentencing and truth in sentencing. She suggested the Commission consider a system in which the judge could set both a minimum and maximum sentence. Judge Johnson suggested that the Legislature consider expanding the Youthful Offender Program into rural areas.

12. Judicial District Department of Correctional Services.

Recommendations. Commission member Ms. Dorothy Faust, Director of the Fifth Judicial District Department of Correctional Services, noted that community-based corrections has existed for 20 years in Iowa and that 76 percent of offenders in the criminal justice system are being supervised in community-based programs. She presented four recommendations from the directors of the judicial district departments of correctional services:

• The need for greater implementation of Iowa's continuum of sanctions, by which offenders' supervision level moves upward or downward based on their behavior. Ms. Faust observed that day programming is one potentially effective intermediate sanction that is currently missing in Iowa. She also said there is a need for a continuum of treatment options, and that even expensive treatment is less expensive in the long run than a prison bed.
• The need to perform risk assessments of offenders as they enter the system and periodically thereafter.
• Development of post-incarceration supervision, so that an offender's return to the community is guided by risk-assessment strategies.
• Development of a sentencing policy based on restorative justice principles.

Research Findings. Ms. Faust also summarized the state of the research regarding which intermediate sanctions programs are effective and which are not. According to Ms. Faust, programs effective at reducing recidivism include the following: day reporting, day fines for low-risk probationers, social and job skills training, drug courts, community mentoring by Big Brothers-Big Sisters, and drug treatment. Among programs that are not effective, she mentioned Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) programs, drug prevention classes, boot camps, scared straight programs, shock probation, split sentences, and most intensive supervision programs.

Discussion. During the question period, Ms. Faust emphasized the importance of continuing to perform risk assessments throughout an offender's stay in the system, because an offender's risk may change over time. Commission members also discussed the compatibility of greater use of risk assessment and a more determinate type of sentencing. In response to Co-chairperson McKean's question as to whether there are offenders in prison who could more effectively be dealt with in CBCs, Ms. Faust said she was sure there are, just as there are people in CBCs who should be in prison. Mr. Kautzky suggested that the 1,200 offenders in prison for technical violations of probation or parole would be an obvious group who could potentially be placed in a nonprison facility. As DOC's new computer model comes into use, there will be better coordination between the Department and the CBCs, Mr. Kautzky said. Ms. Faust suggested drug users would be a possible group to consider for placement in a nonprison setting, but pointed out that it requires considerable resources to maintain workable caseloads for effective community supervision. Ms. Priscilla Forsyth expressed concern about possible geographic disparity, if offenders in rural areas are sent to prison because the programs that exist in urban areas are not available to them.

13. Prison Ministries.

Commission member Ms. Kay Kopatich, chaplain at the Iowa Correctional Institution for Women (ICIW), said that long, harsh sentences are counter-productive to rehabilitation. If left too long in prison, offenders become more and more discouraged, and it becomes more difficult for them to readjust to society when they are released. She also said that long sentences weaken family bonds and create another level of victims, namely the offenders' children. She identified the need for more job training and treatment programs in prison, and said that increasingly offenders admitted to ICIW have mental health problems which the facility is ill-equipped to address. She also suggested greater use of community corrections and restorative justice programs.

Rev. Ted Lyddon-Hatten, a Methodist minister in Mitchellville, spoke of the pain of broken relationships and broken social systems. He described the healing service held every Mother's Day at his church for the families of offenders, and pointed out that some of the women transferred in September from Mitchellville went unwillingly and included mothers with children 10-16 years old. Rev. Lyddon-Hatten said that mandatory sentences have made things worse, and that the justice system is broken.

During the question period, Senator Johnie Hammond asked Mr. Kautzky whether it is possible to factor parental responsibility into sentencing. Mr. Kautzky answered that none of Iowa's prisons is equipped to allow incarcerated mothers to have their children there.

14. Private Criminal Defense Attorney.

Commission member Ms. Priscilla Forsyth, a criminal defense attorney from Spirit Lake, called attention to problems with disparity in sentences between rural and urban areas. She said it is not fair for someone in a rural area to go to prison because the alternative programs available in urban areas are not available in rural areas. She questioned whether, with mandatory sentences, there are some offenders in prison who could be better handled in the community instead. She also questioned the proportionality of certain drug sentences, which she said are as severe as those for murder or rape. Ms. Forsyth expressed concern that if sentences are unrealistically long, offenders will not plead guilty and the system, which is based on plea bargaining, will not work. Despite these concerns, she said the justice system is essentially working, with the quality of judges particularly high.

Ms. Forsyth gave several examples of how rural/urban disparity impacts the system. Rural areas lack programs such as youthful offender programs, which may keep offenders out of prison. It is also a problem finding attorneys to defend indigent offenders. She pointed out that the State Public Offender's Office cannot cover the whole state, and that at $45 an hour, it is difficult to find enough private attorneys to handle indigent work. She suggested that different funding sources for indigent defense could possibly be obtained, possibly from BYRNE grants or other federal sources.

During the question period, Commission members discussed the issues involved in license suspension sentences. Senator Robert Dvorsky said that the Sixth Judicial District Intermediate Sanctions Task Force is struggling with these issues too, and noted that there are 57 ways to lose your driver's license in Iowa.

15. Representative of a Victims' Rights Group.

Commission member Ms. Karla Miller, of Trauma Recovery Groups in Iowa City, said that victims want the same things that other citizens want from the criminal justice system: justice and fairness, punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and proportionality. They also want to be treated with respect and integrity. She said that communication with victims is important at every stage of the process in achieving this, and could be improved if county attorneys did a better job at explaining reasons for plea bargains. Ms. Miller suggested increasing the penalties for stalking and enhancing all penalties for repeat offenses. She also urged the Commission to design a system with greater truth in sentencing, so that the time an offender actually serves is close to the length for which they were sentenced. Lack of truth in sentencing, she said, erodes trust in the system. She also suggested that good time be directly tied to good behavior, rather than automatic. Ms. Miller also said sentences should be long enough for offenders who need it to complete treatment, and expressed support for greater usage of CBCs.

16. Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning.

Overview. Mr. Richard Moore, Mr. Clarence Key, and Ms. Lette Prell presented an overview of resources available in the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) to assist with criminal justice planning efforts in Iowa. Mr. Moore described some of the Division's past and present projects, including its involvement in the last significant review of Iowa's sentencing structure, the Toborg Report in 1990. He said one recommendation of the Toborg Report was for Iowa to do a better job of studying the impacts of its sentencing practices. Following this recommendation, CJJP began to project prison populations and report those figures to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau and the public. Mr. Moore said CJJP has been directed by the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Advisory Council to assist the Sentencing Commission to the extent requested by the Commission.

Concerns With System. Mr. Key elaborated on the Iowa Criminal and Juvenile Justice Plan for 1998, developed by CJJP and the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Advisory Council. CJJP and the council support the establishment of the Sentencing Commission, and recommend that it consider a comprehensive restructuring of Iowa's sentencing structure. Reasons for this recommendation, as described by Mr. Key, are: increased complexity of sentencing laws; decreased judicial and Board of Parole discretion; increased lack of proportionality in sentences; irregularities in the current sentencing laws; lack of sentencing options for murderers; potential benefits of sentencing guidelines; potential benefits of restorative justice principles; and potential benefits of establishing a permanent commission to monitor Iowa's sentencing policies and use of correctional resources.

Prison Populations. Ms. Prell described the current status of the use of Iowa's correctional continuum, and said judicial districts should be encouraged to develop plans for using intermediate sanctions. She also reviewed the latest prison population forecast, which projects Iowa's prison population to nearly double to 14,000 by FY 2008. Ms. Prell noted that this projection is substantially larger than the projection from a year ago, because of a record increase of 795 inmates in the prison system in the past year. She said that new prison admissions directly from courts and the admission of offenders whose probation had been revoked contributed about equally to the increase. Other factors contributing to the 14,000 figure included an increase in drug crimes, an increase in driving offenses, and an increase in prisoner length of stay. According to Ms. Prell, if the length of stay were the same as it was in 1990, the projection of 14,000 would have been 3,800 inmates lower. She also said that by 2006, the effect of the 85 percent rule is likely to be felt much more than it is at present. Finally, Ms. Prell described the capacity of CJJP's forecasting model to project admissions to jails and CBCs. She reported that CJJP is working with the federal Bureau of Justice Assistance to improve its capabilities in this area.

Discussion. During the question period, Senator Hammond asked whether CJJP had data on sentencing disparity in Iowa based on race. Ms. Prell replied that a study of such disparity was done for the Equality in the Courts Task Force in 1993. Ms. Prell also elaborated on the limitations of CJJP's ability to make projections because of the lack of timely data from the courts. She said that one of the goals of CJJP's proposed "data warehouse" project would be to make court data available more quickly to be analyzed. Judge Johnson warned that the methamphetamine problem is just beginning to impact the criminal justice system, and Co-chairperson Lamberti acknowledged that the Legislature will feel pressure to take action against it. Senator Maddox asked Mr. Moore about CJJP's capacity to project populations for jails and CBCs, and whether the Commission would need to contract with an outside group. Mr. Moore said that even if an outside group were hired, they would need to rely on CJJP's data. Sheriff Charles Van Toorn asked what the main factor is in increasing length of stay in prison. Ms. Prell replied that length of stay is largely controlled by the Board of Parole. She said that Charles Larson could provide a more complete answer, but speculated that public concern to keep offenders in prison longer might be a factor. Another possible factor might be waiting lists to enter treatment programs.

17. Commission Discussion.

Overview. Co-chairperson McKean began the Commission discussion by outlining three main areas to consider: 1) what the Commission's structure should be; 2) what its goals should be, both short-term and long-term; and 3) what additional information it will need.

Structure. Co-chairpersons McKean and Lamberti said they had open minds as to how the Commission should be structured, and suggested sending a summary of the Commission's first two meetings to the Governor-elect and inviting him or his designee to attend the January 6 meeting of the Commission.

Goals. Commission members agreed that some goals would be short-term and other goals long-term, and decided to begin immediate work on the short-term goal of reclassifying certain misdemeanor offenses. The Commission formed a subcommittee to begin working on this issue. The Commission also decided to invite experts to the next meeting to inform the Commission further about what sentencing commissions have done in other states, and to assist the Commission in identifying goals.

Additional Information. The Commission identified its present information needs as the following: a list of crimes in Iowa and how their penalties compare to other states; how Iowa's treatment services compare to other states; how sentencing guidelines have worked in other states; which offenders, if any, currently in prison could more effectively be dealt with elsewhere without posing a threat to public safety; and a summary of Department of Corrections computer problems with a timetable for their solution.

18. Written Materials Filed With the Legislative Service Bureau.

a. A presentation outline, "State Sentencing Commissions," prepared by Commission Legal Counsel, Eric Sponheim.

b. A compilation of questions and responses to an Iowa County Attorneys Association Questionnaire, distributed by the County Attorneys Association.

c. A brochure listing Iowa County Attorneys Association Legislative Priorities, distributed by the County Attorneys Association.

d. A graph showing actual and estimated average daily institutional population, distributed by the Department of Corrections.

e. A graph showing C-felony time served, distributed by the Department of Corrections.

f. A report entitled "State of Iowa 1998 Inmate Profile," prepared by the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, distributed by Department of Corrections.

g. A report entitled "The Board of Parole Annual Report for 1998."

h. The meeting record of a Workshop on Risk Management for Parole Within the Context of the Iowa Criminal Justice System, held by the Board of Parole and the National Institute of Corrections and distributed by the Board.

i. Written testimony concerning OWI offender sentencing comparison prepared by Mr. Charles Larson, Board of Parole.

j. A one-page listing entitled "Rank Order of Risk Factors for Parole," submitted by the Board of Parole.

k. A summary of remarks made by Mr. Paul Wieck, Department of Public Safety, regarding sentencing in Iowa.

l. A one-page description of Iowa's Corrections Continuum prepared by CJJP and distributed by Ms. Dorothy Faust, community-based corrections.

m. A brochure describing Iowa's Community-Based Corrections System, distributed by Ms. Dorothy Faust.

n. An information packet, dated December 1997, entitled "Outcomes in Community-Based Corrections," distributed by Ms. Dorothy Faust.

o. An Internet document entitled "Myths and Facts About Sexual Assault," from a University of Chicago web site, distributed by Ms. Karla Miller.

p. A presentation outline concerning victim issues in sentencing, distributed by Ms. Karla Miller.

q. A one-page graphic entitled "Expressions of 'Stuckness' from Wounded Life Issues," distributed by Ms. Karla Miller.

r. An information packet concerning restorative justice concepts entitled "Shifting the Paradigm," distributed by Ms. Karla Miller.

s. An information packet entitled "Denial, Thinking Errors and Harmful Habits, Addictions," distributed by Ms. Karla Miller.

t. A listing of tactics to avoid change, distributed by Ms. Karla Miller.

u. An outline of a larger work about domestic violence entitled "Correcting Misconceptions About Domestic Violence," distributed by Ms. Karla Miller.

v. An excerpt from the 1998 Iowa Criminal and Juvenile Justice Plan containing sentencing reform recommendations from the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning.

Comments about this site or page? webmaster@legis.iowa.gov

Please remember that the person listed above does not vote on bills. Direct all comments concerning legislation to State Legislators.

© 1995 Cornell College and League of Women Voters of Iowa

Last update: TUE Feb 2 1999
sw/sam