Offender Population Forecasting in Virginia

2

Background - Studies by JLARC in 1980s

Staff of the Joint Legislative Audit & Review Commission (JLARC) first reviewed the Department of Corrections’ (DOC) forecasting methodology and procedures in 1985 and reported weaknesses in the methods used by DOC to forecast the adult inmate population.

Source: An Overview of Expenditure Forecasting in Four Major State Programs, JLARC (2000)

3

Background - Studies by JLARC in 1980s

A 1987 JLARC report recommended changing the forecasting process toward a more open, participative process.

• “The process for producing and validating the forecasts should be expanded to include more participants. Such a process would ensure that key actors in the criminal justice system have input into the forecast. Moreover, such a group would promote general understanding of the forecast and the assumptions which drive it.”

Source: An Overview of Expenditure Forecasting in Four Major State Programs, JLARC (2000)

4

Background - Consensus Forecasting

A more open, participative forecasting process was implemented in the late 1980s and remains in use today.

• This process is known as “consensus” forecasting.

Since the late 1980s, the Secretary of Public Safety has overseen this annual process.

5

Authorization – Appropriation Act

Authorization – Appropriation Act

6

7

Background - Consensus Forecasting

Forecasts of inmate populations provide key information for budgeting and planning of various criminal justice capital and operational expenditures and provide data for assessing policy needs.

8

Importance of Forecasting

In the 2000-2002 biennium, nearly $15.5 billion (almost two-thirds of Virginia’s general fund biennial budget of $24.7 billion) was appropriated to four State programs.

• Public education (K-12)• Higher education• Medicaid• Adult corrections

Source: An Overview of Expenditure Forecasting in Four Major State Programs, JLARC (2000)

9

Importance of Forecasting

Appropriations for three of these four programs depend heavily upon forecasts of either the population served or expected expenditures.

10

Committee Structure

The forecasting process has involved two committees working in conjunction to produce the official forecast.

• Technical Advisory Committee

• Policy Advisory Committee

NEW in 2006

• Technical/Policy Liaison Work Group

11

Committee Structure

Technical Advisory Committee

• Members include personnel from various state agencies who have expertise in statistical and quantitative methods.

Technical/Policy Liaison Work Group - NEW

• Members include staff of House Appropriations and Senate Finance Committees as well as agency deputy directors and senior managers.

Policy Advisory Committee

• Members include policy makers and other decision makers who administer the criminal justice system.

12

Technical Advisory Committee Membership

Department of Corrections (DOC)

Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)

Department of Planning and Budget (DPB)

Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS)

Compensation Board (CB)

Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission

Joint Legislative Audit & Review Commission (JLARC)

VCU Economics Professor

Chairperson selected by Secretary of Public Safety - Meredith Farrar-Owens

13

Policy Advisory Committee Membership

Secretary of Public Safety

DOC Director

DJJ Director

DPB Director

DCJS Director

Virginia Parole Board Chair

Virginia State Police Colonel

CB Director

Commonwealth’s Attorney

Sheriff

Police Chief

Members of Senate Finance and House Appropriations Committees

Members Senate and House Courts Committees

Chair of Technical Advisory Committee

14

Four Inmate Population Forecasts Produced

State-responsible (SR) inmate population

• Population housed in DOC prison facilities• State-responsible inmates housed in jails

Local-responsible (LR) prisoner population

• Prisoners confined in local and regional jails (other than SR)

Juvenile correctional center (JCC) population

Juvenile detention center (JDC) population

15

Development of Forecasts

DOC produces a forecast of the SR inmate population.

DCJS produces a forecast of the LR prisoner population.

DJJ produces forecasts of the JCC and JDC populations.

DPB independently develops forecasts for each of the four offender populations.

• Confidence in the official forecast is bolstered if the different methods used by the two agencies converge on the same future population levels.

16

Technical Advisory Committee Function

This committee reviews trends, methods, and assumptions employed in the forecasts, to assure that the final forecast has a sound methodological basis.

The committee reviews the various forecasts for statistical performance and recommends which forecasts the policy committee should consider.

17

Technical-Policy Liaison Work Group Function

This group reviews the work of the technical committee and requests additional data or analysis as needed.

The group selects which forecasts the policy committee should consider.

18

Policy Advisory Committee Function

This committee reviews the projections and selects a forecast for each population (SR, LR, JCC and JDC) to recommend to the Secretary.

This committee also considers the effects of recent trend shifts and newly adopted legislation.

• The committee can approve adjustments to the forecast to account for the impact of such changes, as it deems appropriate.

19

Policy Advisory Committee Function

When divergent views can be reconciled and incorporated into the forecast, overall confidence in the forecast may be improved.

It has not always been possible to achieve a high degree of consensus, however.

The policy committee adopts the forecast on the basis of a vote.

Minority opinions have sometimes been submitted in writing to present disagreements with aspects of the forecast.

20

Unique Approach

The extent of outside participation distinguishes the corrections forecasting process from other State forecasting efforts.

21

Annual Forecasting Process

The Technical Advisory Committee generally begins meeting in the spring of each year and usually concludes its work by September.

The Policy Advisory Committee will meet twice (August and September) to review projections and recommend a particular projection for each population to the Secretary.

The process concludes when the Secretary issues a report documenting the process and stating the official forecast.

• Due to the General Assembly by September 30 each year.

22

Budget Process

The personnel who generate the forecasts are typically not involved in the final steps of budget preparation.

DPB budget staff convert the forecasts into budgets and proposed appropriations.

Some budget adjustments are made based on DPB’s judgment and experience with prior forecasts.

While these adjustments generally take place after the forecasting processes described here, they are subject to further review and additional adjustments by the General Assembly.

State-Responsible Inmate Population*

13,419

19,851

10,1228,521

35,899

28,743

30,882

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

FY80 FY82 FY84 FY86 FY88 FY90 FY92 FY94 FY96 FY98 FY00 FY02 FY04

* Average June population for each fiscal year

23

37,902

36,667

28,657

35,899

20,000

22,000

24,000

26,000

28,000

30,000

32,000

34,000

36,000

38,000

40,000

FY98 FY00 FY02 FY04 FY06 FY08 FY10

State-Responsible Inmate Forecast (2005)

24

40,487

* Average June population for each fiscal year

Composition of Population in Jail Facilities

25

LR Population70%

SR Felons21%

Federal Prisoners

7%

Ordinance Violators

2%

Composition of Local-Responsible Population in Jails

11%16%17%

43%

51%

27%

20%

14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1998 2005

Unsent. Awaiting Trial Sent.-Add'l Charges Sent. Felon Sent. Misd.

26

Local-Responsible Prisoner Population*

11,911

17,89117,414

16,575

15,769

13,264

14,366

15,101

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

14,000

15,000

16,000

17,000

18,000

FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05

* Average population for fiscal year

27

Local-Responsible Prisoner Forecast (2005)

17,891

22,416

20,197

18,697

11,911

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

22,000

24,000

FY98 FY00 FY02 FY04 FY06 FY08 FY10

* Average population for fiscal year

28

29

Examples of Factors Affecting the Forecast

Demographic trends (“crime-prone age group”)

Economic trends

Crime trends

Law enforcement resources and practices

Bail policies and practices

Court case trends (case processing time)

Probation and parole violators

Alternative punishment programs

Sentencing practices

Changes in lengths of stay in prison or jail

Legislative or other policy changes

• e.g., abolition of parole in 1995

Index Crimes in Virginia (per 100,000 residents)

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,0001

97

0

19

72

19

74

19

76

19

78

19

80

19

82

19

84

19

86

19

88

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

Index crimes are: murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft and arson. Source: Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services Criminal Justice Research Center, May 2005

30