1 IMPACT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES ON THE USE OF INCARCERATION IN FEDERAL CRIMINAL COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1984-1990 (ICPSR 9845) Principal Investigator United States Sentencing Commission First ICPSR Release February 1993 Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research P.O. Box 1248 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 1 BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION Publications based on ICPSR data collections should acknowledge those sources by means of bibliographic citations. To ensure that such source attributions are captured for social science bibliographic utilities, citations must appear in footnotes or in the reference section of publications. The bibliographic citation for this data collection is: U.S. Sentencing Commission. IMPACT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES ON THE USE OF INCARCERATION IN FEDERAL CRIMINAL COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1984-1990 [Computer file]. Washington, DC: U.S. Sentencing Commission [producer], 1992. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter- university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1993. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON USE OF ICPSR RESOURCES To provide funding agencies with essential information about use of archival resources and to facilitate the exchange of information about ICPSR participants' research activities, users of ICPSR data are requested to send to ICPSR bibliographic citations for each completed manuscript or thesis abstract. Please indicate in a cover letter which data were used. DATA DISCLAIMER The original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for uses of this collection or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses. 1 DATA COLLECTION DESCRIPTION United States Sentencing Commission IMPACT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES ON THE USE OF INCARCERATION IN FEDERAL CRIMINAL COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1984-1990 (ICPSR 9845) SUMMARY: The primary purpose of this data collection was to examine the impact of the implementation of sentencing guidelines on the rate of incarcerative and nonincarcerative sentences imposed and on the average length of expected time to be served serve in incarceration for all offenses as well as for select groups of offenses. The measure of sentence length, "expected time to be served," was used to allow for assumed good time and parole reductions. This term represents the amount of time an offender can expect to spend in prison at the time of sentencing, a roughly equivalent standard that can be measured pre-guidelines and post- guidelines. Three broad offense categories were studied: drug offenses, robbery, and economic crimes. Drug offenses include a wide range of illegal activities involving marijuana, heroin, and cocaine. Robbery includes bank and postal robbery (both armed and unarmed) as well as other types of robbery offenses that appear less frequently in the federal system, such as carrying a firearm during the commission of a robbery. Economic offenses include fraud (bank, postal, and other), embezzlement (bank, postal, and other), and tax evasion. Other monthly data are provided on the number of prison and probation sentences for all offenses and by offense categories. CLASS IV UNIVERSE: All federal criminal cases from 1984 to 1990 contained in the Federal Probation Sentencing and Supervision Information System (FPSSIS) of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. NOTE: The codebook for this collection also documents PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION AND PLEA BARGAINING IN FEDERAL CRIMINAL COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1983-1990 (ICPSR 9844). EXTENT OF COLLECTION: 1 data file + machine-readable documentation (text) EXTENT OF PROCESSING: BLANKS/ NONNUM DATA FORMAT: Card Image 1 File Structure: rectangular Cases: 81 Variables: 38 Record Length: 72 Records Per Case: 5 RELATED PUBLICATION: United States Sentencing Commission. "The Federal Sentencing Guidelines: A Report on the Operations of the Guidelines System and Short-Term Impacts of Disparity in Sentencing, Use of Incarceration, and Prosecutorial Discretion and Plea Bargaining." Volume 2, December 1991. 1 1 IMPACT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES ON THE USE OF INCARCERATION AND PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION AND PLEA BARGAINING United States Sentencing Commission The following sections will be produced by ICPSR: 1. Title page 2. Bibliographic Citation 3. Data Disclaimer 4. Data Collection Description IMPACT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES ON THE USE OF INCARCERATION AND PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION AND PLEA BARGAINING SUMMARY: The United States Sentencing Commission, established in the 98th Congress, is an independent agency in the Judicial Branch of government. The Commission's primary function is to promulgate sentencing policies and practices for the federal courts that include guidelines prescribing the appropriate form and severity of punishment for offenders convicted of federal crimes. As specified in 28 USC 991(b), the sentencing guidelines established by the Commission are designed to: (1) effectuate just punishment, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation; and (2) provide certainty and fairness in meeting the purposes of sentencing by avoiding unwarranted disparity among offenders with similar characteristics convicted of similar criminal conduct, while permitting judicial flexibility to take into account relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. The sentencing and related time series data in this collection reflect two separate studies designed to assess the impact of Federal sentencing guidelines: a use of incarceration study and a prosecutorial discretion and plea bargaining study. The use of incarceration study includes data on the rate of incarcerative and non-incarcerative sentences imposed, and the average length of expected time to serve in incarceration for all offenses and for select groups of offenses. The prosecutorial discretion and plea bargaining study include data on the number of matters initiated, the number of cases filed, and the number of cases disposed of by guilty plea, trial, and both combined. UNIVERSE: Both studies utilize monthly time series before and after the initial implementation of the Federal sentencing guidelines (November 1987). The Federal Probation Sentencing and Supervision Information System (FPSSIS) files from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts defined the universe of observations for the use of incarceration study. These computerized files are available from July 1984 through August 1990. FPSSIS records have been matched with data from the Sentencing Commission's monitoring database, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the U.S. Parole Commission in order to obtain the relevant variables to compute the outcome variable "expected time to be served." Records on individual sentences in each of the datasets have been merged into one database. The use of incarceration data reflect monthly time series covering the period from 1984 to 1990. The monthly time series measurements for the prosecutorial discretion and plea bargaining study cover the period from 1983 to 1990. These monthly time series have been constructed from two datasets maintained by the Executive Office of the U.S. Attorneys: (1) Docket and Reporting System for Fiscal Years 1984-1986, and (2) Criminal Master File with Auxiliary Events and Charge Files (referred to as the new data system) for Fiscal Years 1987-1990. These datasets contain processing information about matters initiated, cases filed, and cases resolved in the U.S. attorneys' offices in each federal district. EXTENT OF COLLECTION: 2 data files DATA FORMAT: Logical record length Section 1: Use of Incarceration Study Filename: Incar.asc File Structure: Rectangular Cases: 81 Variables: 38 Record Length: 71 Records Per Case: 05 Section 2: Prosecutorial Discretion and Plea Bargaining Study Filename: Time.asc File Structure: Rectangular Cases: 78 Variables: 26 Record Length: 71 Records Per Case: 04 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Section 1: Use of Incarceration Study A. Documentation 1 B. Description of Variables 4 C. Descriptive Statistics 8 Section 2: Prosecutorial Discretion and Plea Bargaining Study A. Documentation 10 B. Description of Variables 12 C. Descriptive Statistics 15 Section 1: Use of Incarceration Study A. Documentation The primary purpose of research on the use of incarceration is to study the impact of the implementation of the guidelines on: (1) the rate of incarcerative and non-incarcerative sentences imposed; and (2) the average length of expected time to serve in incarceration for all offenses and for select groups of offenses. The measure of sentence length, "expected time to be served," was used to allow for assumed good time and parole reductions. This term represents the amount of time an offender can expect to spend in prison at the time of sentencing, a roughly equivalent standard that can be measured pre-guidelines and post- guidelines. The monthly estimates of average time expected to be served were derived from several sources of information. Guideline cases were straightforward; the maximum amount of good time under law was subtracted from prison sentences eligible for good time credits. Non- guideline cases were more difficult to derive, in large part because of a lack of presumptive parole release dates for recently sentenced cases. Where available, the Parole Commission's presumptive parole release date, set at the initial parole hearing, was used as the estimate of time to be served for parole-eligible offenders (offenders with sentences of 12 months or less were not eligible for parole). When this date was not available, other sources were used, in this hierarchy of precedence: 1. If actual time served was available in the Bureau of Prisons files, this was used as the time to be served, even if the presumptive parole release date was available. 2. If the sentence was greater than 12 months and less than or equal to 18 months, good time was subtracted from the sentence and used as the estimate of time to be served. 3. If the FPSSIS data file contained the upper and lower bounds of the parole guideline range, the midpoint of this range was used as the time to be served. 4. If the sentence was greater than or equal to 120 months, half of the sentence was taken as the time to be served. There were several exceptions to these rules. First, anyone sentenced under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 was not eligible for parole but could earn good time credits. In these cases, their time to be served was calculated on this basis. Second, the time to be served for a variety of offenders could not be estimated accurately under any circumstances. These cases were simply dropped from the analysis. For example, prisoners transferred to another country under a treaty before completion of their sentences were deleted from the dataset, as were prisoners who died or whose sentences were vacated for one reason or another. Defining Crime Categories In order to analyze a cross section of federal crimes, the use of incarceration study examined sentences for offenders convicted in three broad offense categories: drugs, robbery, and economic crimes. For purposes of this study, the category of "drug offenses" includes marijuana, heroin, and cocaine. These drug offenses cover a wide range of illegal activities, including distribution, importation, manufacture, possession, and regulatory/recordkeeping violations. The more serious trafficking violations in this offense category are subject to statutory mandatory minimum sentences. The category "robbery" includes the major offenses of bank and postal robbery (both armed and unarmed), along with other types of robbery offenses that appear less frequently in the federal system. This category may contain sentences affected by mandatory enhancements for additional, related convictions of using or carrying a firearm during the commission of the robbery offense. For purposes of contrast, this analysis looks at robbery with mandatory enhancements included and excluded. The category of "economic offenses" includes fraud (bank, postal, and other fraud), embezzlement (bank, postal, and other embezzlement), and tax evasion. No mandatory sentences for these economic offenses were enacted by Congress during the time period under study. Policy Interventions The impact of the guidelines on the use of incarceration was analyzed in relation to other legislative and policy changes occurring within the same timeframe that may have influenced the system. Thus, the analysis attempts to take account of significant legislative interventions--(1) the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (ADAA86) and (2) the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (ADAA88)--and two significant interventions related to the sentencing guidelines--(1) initial implementation in November 1987 (GL) and (2) the United States Supreme Court's Mistretta decision upholding the guidelines' constitutionality in January 1989 (MISTRETA). Data Sources The primary source of data for the analysis is the Federal Probation Sentencing and Supervision Information System (FPSSIS) files from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. These computerized files are available from July 1984 through August 1990. FPSSIS records have been matched with data from the Sentencing Commission's monitoring database, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the U.S. Parole Commission in order to obtain the relevant variables to compute the outcome variable "expected time to be served." Records on individual sentences in each of these datasets were merged into one database, for use in creating the aggregate time series. Section 1: Use of Incarceration Study B. Description of Variables Variable Rec Col Type Format Missing Variable Description YRSNT 1 01-08 Num F8.2 Blank Sentence year MTHSNT 1 10-17 Num F8.2 Blank Sentence month PRIS_A_N 1 19-26 Num F8.2 Blank Number of prison sentences for all offenses PRIS_D_N 1 28-35 Num F8.2 Blank Number of prison sentences for drug offenses PRIS_R_N 1 37-44 Num F8.2 Blank Number of prison sentences for robbery offenses PRIS_W_N 1 46-53 Num F8.2 Blank Number of prison sentences for economic offenses PROBPROP 1 55-62 Num F8.2 Blank Ratio of probation sentences to total sentences for all offenses PROB_A_N 1 64-71 Num F8.2 Blank Number of probation sentences for all offenses PROB_D_N 2 01-08 Num F8.2 Blank Number of probation sentences for drug offenses PROB_R_N 2 10-17 Num F8.2 Blank Number of probation sentences for robbery offenses PROB_W_N 2 19-26 Num F8.2 Blank Number of probation sentences for economic offenses TOT_A_N 2 28-35 Num F8.2 Blank Total number of sentences for all offenses TOT_D_N 2 37-44 Num F8.2 Blank Total number sentences for drug offenses Variable Rec Col Type Format Missing Variable Description TOT_R_N 2 46-53 Num F8.2 Blank Total number of sentences for robbery offenses TOT_W_N 2 55-62 Num F8.2 Blank Total number of sentences for economic offenses PRISPROP 2 64-71 Num F8.2 Blank Ratio of prison sentences to total sentences for all offenses PRIS_AMN 3 01-08 Num F8.2 Blank Average time to be served for prison sentences for all offenses PRIS_DMN 3 10-17 Num F8.2 Blank Average time to be served for prison sentences for drug offenses PRIS_RMN 3 19-26 Num F8.2 Blank Average time to be served for prison sentences for robbery offenses PRIS_WMN 3 28-35 Num F8.2 Blank Average time to be served for prison sentences for economic offenses PRSPRP_D 3 37-44 Num F8.2 Blank Ratio of prison sentences for drug offenses to total sentences for all offenses PRSPRP_R 3 46-53 Num F8.2 Blank Ratio of prison sentences for robbery offenses to total sentences for all offenses PRSPRP_W 3 55-62 Num F8.2 Blank Ratio of prison sentences for economic offenses to total sentences for all offenses PRS_DGMN 3 64-71 Num F8.2 Blank Average time to be served for prison sentences for drug offenses including only cases with a 18 USC 924(c) conviction Variable Rec Col Type Format Missing Variable Description PRS_DNMN 4 01-08 Num F8.2 Blank Average time to be served for prison sentences for drug offenses excluding cases with a 18 USC 924(c) conviction PRS_RGMN 4 10-17 Num F8.2 Blank Average time to be served for prison sentences for robbery offenses including only cases with a 18 USC 924(c) conviction PRS_RNMN 4 19-26 Num F8.2 Blank Average time to be served for prison sentences for robbery offenses excluding cases with a 18 USC 924(c) conviction TOTPRP_D 4 28-35 Num F8.2 Blank Ratio of sentences for drug offenses to total sentences for all offenses TOTPRP_R 4 37-44 Num F8.2 Blank Ratio of sentences for robbery offenses to total sentences for all offenses TOTPRP_W 4 46-53 Num F8.2 Blank Ratio of sentences for economic offenses to total sentences for all offenses TOT_AMN 4 55-62 Num F8.2 Blank Average time to be served for all offenses TOT_DGMN 4 64-71 Num F8.2 Blank Average time to be served for all drug offenses including cases with a 18 USC 924(c) conviction TOT_DMN 5 01-08 Num F8.2 Blank Average time to be served for all drug offenses TOT_DNMN 5 10-17 Num F8.2 Blank Average time to be served for all drug offenses excluding cases with a 18 USC 924(c) conviction Variable Rec Col Type Format Missing Variable Description TOT_RGMN 5 19-26 Num F8.2 Blank Average time to be served for robbery offenses including cases with a 18 USC 924(c) conviction TOT_RMN 5 28-35 Num F8.2 Blank Average time to be served for all robbery offenses TOT_RNMN 5 37-44 Num F8.2 Blank Average time to be served for all robbery offenses excluding cases with a 18 USC 924(c) conviction TOT_WMN 5 46-53 Num F8.2 Blank Average time to be served for all economic offenses Section 1: Use of Incarceration Study C. Descriptive Statistics Variable Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum N YRSNT 86.89 1.96 84.00 90.00 81 MTHSNT 6.33 3.42 1.00 12.00 81 PRIS_A_N 1758.14 328.43 949.00 2490.00 81 PRIS_D_N 684.77 207.00 357.00 1129.00 81 PRIS_R_N 79.79 15.60 48.00 119.00 81 PRIS_W_N 292.74 59.22 137.00 415.00 81 PROBPROP .45 .05 .32 .52 81 PROB_A_N 1396.17 162.24 454.00 1657.00 81 PROB_D_N 179.37 31.41 64.00 270.00 81 PROB_R_N 4.31 3.19 .00 15.00 81 PROB_W_N 396.07 59.69 150.00 531.00 81 TOT_A_N 3200.41 410.42 1414.00 4087.00 81 TOT_D_N 866.31 213.57 483.00 1325.00 81 TOT_R_N 84.15 15.51 52.00 123.00 81 TOT_W_N 697.21 97.64 288.00 880.00 81 PRISPROP .56 .05 .49 .68 81 PRIS_AMN 31.67 8.10 22.07 48.36 81 PRIS_DMN 41.26 13.91 24.36 70.68 81 PRIS_RMN 69.28 10.65 51.68 106.03 81 PRIS_WMN 14.46 1.82 9.88 21.14 81 Variable Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum N PRSPRP_D .38 .05 .28 .48 81 PRSPRP_R .05 .01 .03 .08 81 PRSPRP_W .17 .02 .13 .21 81 PRS_DGMN 77.56 42.91 2.85 162.96 71 PRS_DNMN 40.67 13.15 24.33 68.12 81 PRS_RGMN 120.52 57.31 26.00 373.10 68 PRS_RNMN 65.64 8.18 47.07 87.77 81 TOTPRP_D .26 .04 .19 .34 81 TOTPRP_R .03 .00 .02 .04 81 TOTPRP_W .22 .02 .19 .26 81 TOT_AMN 17.76 6.04 10.99 31.77 81 TOT_DGMN 74.70 44.54 .00 162.96 73 TOT_DMN 33.60 13.30 18.36 62.93 81 TOT_DNMN 33.02 12.56 18.31 60.36 81 TOT_RGMN 120.52 57.31 26.00 373.10 68 TOT_RMN 65.84 11.50 49.28 103.40 81 TOT_RNMN 62.15 8.84 44.67 84.84 81 TOT_WMN 6.05 1.12 3.02 9.02 81 Section 2: Prosecutorial Discretion and Plea Bargaining Study A. Documentation To address the issue of whether prosecutorial behavior may have been affected by the implementation of the sentencing guidelines, monthly time series data were constructed for a number of prosecutorial outcomes. These outcomes represent either discrete decision steps in the processing of criminal cases or the characteristics of cases that pass through the system. Data Sources and Outcome Measures The monthly time series measurements were constructed from two datasets maintained by the Executive Office of the U.S. Attorneys: (1) Docket and Reporting System for Fiscal Years 1984-1986, and (2) Criminal Master File with Auxiliary Events and Charge Files (referred to as the new data system) for Fiscal Years 1987-1990. These datasets contain case processing information about matters initiated, cases filed, and cases resolved in the U.S. attorneys' offices in each federal district. The two data archives used are not identical. The later Criminal Master File contains more information about matter and case processing than does the older system. However, a number of discrete processing stages were available consistently throughout the time period of the study. Sources of Change in Prosecutorial Outcomes The following events were coded as dichotomous variables (monthly post-event time series are coded 1, 0 otherwise) to assess their impact on prosecutorial outcomes over time:  Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (November 1986);  implementation of the sentencing guidelines (November 1987);  Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (November 1988);  U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Mistretta affirming the constitutionality of the guidelines (January 1989); and  Attorney General Thornburgh's memo outlining Justice Department policy on charging and prosecution (March 1989). Section 2: Prosecutorial Discretion and Plea Bargaining Study B. Description of Variables Variable Rec Col Type Format Missing Variable Description MONTH 1 01-08 Num F8.2 Blank Disposition month YEAR 1 10-17 Num F8.2 Blank Disposition year MATTERS 1 19-26 Num F8.2 Blank Number of matters initiated FILED 1 28-35 Num F8.2 Blank Number of cases filed MDECLINE 1 37-44 Num F8.2 Blank Number of matters declined DISMISS 1 46-53 Num F8.2 Blank Number of cases dismissed SUPERSED 1 55-62 Num F8.2 Blank Number of superseding informations and indictments CONV_T 1 64-71 Num F8.2 Blank Number of convictions by trial CONV_J 2 01-08 Num F8.2 Blank Number of convictions by jury trial CONV_B 2 10-17 Num F8.2 Blank Number of convictions by bench trial SETTLE_J 2 19-26 Num F8.2 Blank Number of cases settled by jury trial SETTLE_B 2 28-35 Num F8.2 Blank Number of cases settled by bench trial ACQUIT_T 2 37-44 Num F8.2 Blank Number of cases acquitted by trial PLEAS 2 46-53 Num F8.2 Blank Number of guilty pleas TRIALS 2 55-62 Num F8.2 Blank Number of trials Variable Rec Col Type Format Missing Variable Description RESOLVED 2 64-71 Num F8.2 Blank Number of cases resolved (pleaded guilty, convicted, dismissed) CONVICT 3 01-08 Num F8.2 Blank Number of convictions PLEARATE 3 10-17 Num F8.5 Blank Ratio of guilty pleas to cases resolved TRRATE 3 19-26 Num F8.5 Blank Ratio of trials to cases resolved ADAA86 3 28-35 Num F8.2 Blank Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (November 1986) 0 = Pre-Act series 1 = Post-Act series GL 3 37-44 Num F8.2 Blank Implementation of sentencing guidelines (November 1987) 0 = Pre-guideline series 1 = Post-guideline series ADAA88 3 46-53 Num F8.2 Blank Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (November 1988) 0 = Pre-Act series 1 = Post-Act series MISTRETA 3 55-62 Num F8.2 Blank U.S. Supreme Court's Mistretta decision affirming constitutionality of guidelines (January 1989) 0 = Pre-Decision series 1 = Post-Decision series MEMO 3 64-71 Num F8.2 Blank Justice Department Policy Memo 0 = Pre-Memo series 1 = Post-Memo series Variable Rec Col Type Format Missing Variable Description JOINT 4 01-08 Num F8.2 Blank Joining the Docket and Reporting System and Criminal Master File data systems 0 = Not transferred series 1 = Transferred series NEWDATA 4 10-17 Num F8.2 Blank Implementation of the new data system (August 1986) 0 = Old data system series 1 = New data system series Section 2: Prosecutorial Discretion and Plea Bargaining Study C. Descriptive Statistics Variable Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum N MONTH 6.50 3.57 1.00 12.00 78 YEAR 86.50 1.92 83.00 90.00 78 MATTERS 8416.62 927.02 6381.00 10659.00 78 FILED 4180.81 580.86 2635.00 5437.00 78 MDECLINE 1233.37 1385.81 8.00 3396.00 78 DISMISS 121.81 142.36 .00 373.00 78 SUPERSED 505.54 844.72 .00 7030.00 78 CONV_T 121.59 147.76 .00 422.00 78 CONV_J 191.08 175.95 .00 478.00 78 CONV_B 40.92 38.73 .00 115.00 78 SETTLE_J 228.77 210.74 .00 564.00 78 SETTLE_B 49.00 46.22 .00 133.00 78 ACQUIT_T 31.49 37.16 .00 98.00 78 PLEAS 2852.18 485.38 1711.00 3750.00 78 TRIALS 430.85 111.13 165.00 693.00 78 RESOLVED 3283.03 579.16 2017.00 4428.00 78 CONVICT 3205.77 569.62 1983.00 4298.00 78 PLEARATE .89 .02 .83708 .93867 78 TRRATE .13 .02 .07619 .18717 78 ADAA86 .36 .48 .00 1.00 78 Variable Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum N GL .37 .49 .00 1.00 78 ADAA88 .15 .36 .00 1.00 78 MISTRETA .18 .39 .00 1.00 78 MEMO .17 .38 .00 1.00 78 JOINT .05 .22 .00 1.00 78 NEWDATA .56 .50 .00 1.00 78