Data Collection Subcommittee of the Sentencing Commision Minutes
	February 8, 1999

MEMBERS PRESENT

MEETING IN BRIEF

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

1. Procedural Business.
2. Subcommittee Discussion and Recommendation.
3. Action Taken.
4. Written Materials Filed With the Legislative Service Bureau.

SUBCOMMITTEE BUSINESS

1. Procedural Business.

Call to Order. Co-chairperson Senator Andy McKean called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m., February 8, 1999, in Room 19 of the State Capitol.

Others Present. Eric Sponheim, Sentencing Commission staff; Dwayne Ferguson, Legislative Fiscal Bureau; Christina Schaefer, Legislative Fiscal Bureau; Ed Conlow, House Democratic Caucus staff; Roxann Ryan, Iowa Research Council; John Lewis, Iowa Research Council; Patrick Brodeur, Fifth Judicial District; Dick Moore, Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP); Lette Prell, CJJP; Clarence Key, Jr., CJJP; Gene Lutz, University of Northern Iowa; and Keith Crew, University of Northern Iowa.

Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Next Meeting Date. No specific date was set for the next meeting. The Subcommittee did, however, agree to meet again soon to discuss the research proposal being prepared by representatives of the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, the Iowa Research Council, and the University of Northern Iowa.

2. Subcommittee Discussion and Recommendation.

Questions Posed. Co-chairperson McKean opened the meeting by posing a series of questions regarding the Sentencing Commission's data requirements: What information is needed? Who will help get it? What will it cost and who will pay for it? He noted that in some ways this is a daunting task, since the Commission has not yet established a clear policy direction. But he said that a consensus had begun to emerge on the need to determine whether there are people in prison who do not pose an unreasonable threat to public safety, and on the goal of achieving greater usage of intermediate sanctions for those offenders who do not pose an unreasonable threat.

Review of Existing Efforts. Mr. Sponheim summarized the Commission's research efforts up to this point. In December 1998, the Commission requested technical assistance (TA) from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC). Following discussions with NIC Correctional Program Specialist Phyllis Modley, this request led to a visit by Kay Knapp, a nationally recognized consultant, on January 5-6. Ms. Knapp in turn produced a report for NIC, a copy of which is on file with the Legislative Service Bureau. Mr. Sponheim also noted that the NIC is paying for the travel costs for two guest speakers who will be participating in the February 19 meeting of the Commission. These guests are Mr. Robert Johnson, Anoka County, Minnesota, County Attorney, and the Honorable Richard Walker, district judge from Kansas. The Honorable Thomas Ross, district judge from North Carolina, will also be a guest speaker at the February 19 meeting; his travel expenses will be covered by North Carolina's Innovations in American Government grant money from the Ford Foundation. Mr. Sponheim noted that the offer of assistance from NIC, originally estimated at up to $10,000 in value, has not yet been exhausted.

Survey of Intermediate Sanctions. Mr. Sponheim also reported that he is collaborating with Ms. Faust, Mr. Moore, Mr. Key, Jeannette Bucklew (Department of Corrections), and Toni Tassone (Department of Corrections) on a survey of intermediate sanctions usage in Iowa's eight judicial districts. The results of this survey should be available by late March.

Preliminary Discussion. Subcommittee members and others present then discussed the parameters of the Commission's data requirements. Ms. Forsyth suggested that it would be important to look at data on the effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences. Co-chairperson McKean replied that this topic would be included in the more general question of whether there are offenders in prison who are not unreasonable risks to public safety. Ms. Faust pointed out that in some ways data collection simply involves counting: how many offenders come into a given system, what type of offenders are they, and where do they go? Ms. Prell asked whether the Subcommittee wants offender populations by continuum level, and Mr. Moore noted that there is considerable data contained in CJJP's State of Iowa 1998 Inmate Profile. He said that CJJP can already describe the offender populations, in the sense of providing a "snapshot" of who is in prison and why they are there.

Comparisons With Other States. Co-chairperson McKean asked whether there is information available on how Iowa's penalties compare to those in other states. Ms. Prell said it would be possible to put together a national figure for time served for various crimes. Co-chairperson McKean asked specifically about Minnesota, North Carolina, and Kansas, since those three states will be represented at the February 19 meeting of the Commission. Mr. Moore said that comparisons between states tend to present "apples and oranges" problems, because so much depends on definitions. But he said that every state is required to use certain definitions for federal reporting purposes.

Need for Court Data. Mr. Kautzky said that in order to get a complete picture of correctional data, it is necessary to involve the court system, and that the courts were not represented at this meeting. He noted the courts' key role in serving as a funnel for felony filings. There are 102,000 felony filings a year in Iowa, he said, but the number of those that go through the court system depends on many factors, including plea bargaining. Once they go through the courts, it is a matter of counting how many went to prison, how many went to community corrections, and so on. Ms. Faust concurred that there are many decision points in this system. Mr. Moore said that CJJP does collect data from the courts on what the conviction offense was, for all offenses other than simple misdemeanors, and that the Legislative Fiscal Bureau then uses this data in helping to project the fiscal impact of bills. Ms. Forsyth said that it is difficult to define the severity of a crime based merely on the name of the offense, because the actual conduct involved can be so different. Ms. Prell said that defining this further would require looking at individual case files, but Ms. Forsyth suggested that there is a summary available in the presentence investigation report (PSI).

Goals of Sentencing. Ms. Ryan said that in deciding what information to collect, it is important to define the goals of sentencing. Co-chairperson McKean replied that incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation are all important. Mr. Kautzky asked whether Iowa's sentencing policy would be resource-driven. Mr. Moore asked whether there should be additional data collected about risk and about previous offenses. He noted that the Iowa Court Information System (ICIS) does not keep track of criminal history, and that resources would be needed to collect it, one offender at a time. Mr. Crew said that an additional goal of sentencing should be reducing the problem of disparity, where similarly situated offenders receive very different sentences.

Incarceration Rates. Mr. Kautzky noted that correlation between incarceration rate and crime rate is often difficult to track state by state, because there are so many intervening variables (regional and other differentials). Ms. Ryan said that there is no statistically significant link between crime rates and incarceration rates. Mr. Kautzky noted that Iowa's incarceration rate, though increasing significantly, is still lower than most of its surrounding states, such as Missouri and Illinois.

Simulation Models. Ms. Faust noted the importance of statistical modeling ("what if" scenarios) in considering changes in sentencing policy. Mr. Moore said that, in a sense, the Fiscal Bureau already does some projections of this type, based on data from CJJP. Co-chairperson McKean asked what it would take to do a simulation model of how Kansas's sentencing system compares to Iowa's. Ms. Prell replied that it would be necessary to know what Kansas's system was like before it adopted sentencing guidelines. Mr. Kautzky asked what the impact was on judicial discretion in Kansas and how it affected correctional resources.

Co-chairperson McKean reiterated the need to know what type of offenders are in prison in Iowa compared to other states, and suggested that each of the three research operations present (CJJP, Iowa Research Council, and UNI) develop proposals on how to answer this question. Mr. Moore suggested that someone to help with this might be Mr. Jack O'Connell of the Delaware Statistical Analysis Center, who is serving as a consultant to CJJP in improving Iowa's ability to project its jail and community corrections population figures. Mr. Kautzky said he did not think it would be extremely difficult to craft the data currently available in Iowa and compare it to selected other states, if CJJP has staff resources to commit to the task. He asked Mr. Moore whether CJJP could do so, and Mr. Moore said yes. Mr. Lutz said he would be happy to let CJJP take the lead on this, so that UNI, CJJP, and the Iowa Research Council could collaborate rather than compete.

Developing a Research Proposal. Co-chairperson McKean restated that the Subcommittee was open to all suggestions on developing a research proposal. Mr. Moore asked how soon the proposal would be needed. Co-chairperson McKean said that the emphasis should be on speed. Mr. Lewis said that it is necessary to define the problem more precisely, in order to give the researchers sufficient clarity to develop a research proposal to answer it. Mr. Moore said that he thought the question is fairly clear: How do Iowa's sentencing laws compare to other states? He said that though there are other ways to develop a proposal, such as deciding in advance what level of resources to commit, or what policy outcome is desired, CJJP, Iowa Research Council, and UNI could move forward to develop a proposal to answer the question as stated.

Commission members and others then discussed some of the considerations involved in developing the proposal. Mr. Kautzky said he thought individual criminal history checks would be arduous, although Ms. Prell said there is some data already available on this. Mr. Moore said it would be important to know how other states classify crimes. Mr. Kautzky said that the Sentencing Digest published by the National Center for State Courts has useful conceptual material on this. Mr. Moore asked Co-chairperson McKean whether there would be funding available. Co-chairperson McKean replied that there might be funding through grants or an appropriation. Mr. Kautzky said this is an opportunity to find out what the major causal factors are in Iowa's sentencing system: what the current offenses are and how they compare to other states. He said that the Iowa Research Council might want to address the question of what resources are needed in order to understand these factors. Mr. Lewis said that it is also important to increase Iowa's capacity to perform research on such questions in the future. Mr. Moore asked the Subcommittee when it would like the proposal to be ready. Co-chairperson McKean asked that it be ready by the March meeting of the Commission.

Concluding Issues. Mr. Moore suggested that it is important for the Subcommittee, and the Commission as a whole, to decide on what type of continuing research support it needs. Mr. Kautzky called attention to a communications issue with colleagues in the courts. Some members of the judicial branch are still not aware of the work of the Sentencing Commission, he said. He also noted the crucial leadership role that Judge Thomas Ross played in the work of the North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission. Ms. Ryan suggested that one way to improve the Commission's communication with the courts would be for Mr. Sponheim to present updates on the Commission's work to judicial gatherings, such as the judicial training event held in June. Mr. Kautzky agreed this would be a good idea. Mr. Moore added that there are monthly meetings of the judicial district directors that would provide a similar opportunity.

3. Action Taken.

The Subcommittee requested that the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, the Iowa Research Council, and the Center for Social and Behavioral Research at the University of Northern Iowa collaborate on developing a research proposal for the Sentencing Commission. Mr. Moore of CJJP will coordinate this effort, to be ready to submit to the plenary Sentencing Commission by the later part of March.

4. Written Material on File With the Legislative Service Bureau.

·Report of Technical Assistance to the Iowa Sentencing Commission by National Institute of Corrections consultant Kay A. Knapp.

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: THU Feb 25 1999
sw/sam