oklahoma smart justice reform act (sq 781) fy 2018 ... · • for 9,182 offenders, using the...

Oklahoma Smart Justice Reform Act (SQ 781) FY 2018 Calculations

Final Report

Executive Summary State Question 781 (SQ 781) created three new laws within Title 57 (Prisons and Reformatories). One of these, 57 O.S. § 632, statutorily tasks the Office of Management and Enterprise Services with the calculation of savings and any averted costs to the State of Oklahoma from the implementation of the act.

To calculate any potential averted costs to the state by the reclassification of a crime from a felony to a misdemeanor, OMES first reviewed the criminal justice system to try and isolate any potential impacts. OMES then identified four major components (the commission of the crime, law enforcement, adjudication, and sentencing/corrections) and calculated their associated costs.

• Roughly one-third of the inmates convicted of SQ 780 crimes would no longer be going to DOC. This translates to approximately 9,182 offenders being directed to county custody and 18,310 entering into DOC custody.

• According to DOC, the cost incurred for county jail backup is $27 per offender per day and $12.94 for each offender per day incarcerated in a DOC facility. OMES estimates community supervision to cost roughly $3.33 million annually.

• Currently there are 4,000 funded drug court slots for which there is excess demand. Offenders only convicted of SQ 780 crimes previously filled 28 percent of available slots.

• With 18,310 offenders of SQ 780 crimes still in DOC custody and with nearly 70 percent of all SQ 780 crimes being for drug possession, it is assumed that available drug court slots will be filled by other SQ 780 offenders.

• $12.4 million is the estimated amount of avoided costs to DOCas a result of offenders participating in the drug court program rather than going into DOC custody.

• For 9,182 offenders, using the durations of stay in the various stages of DOC custody, the estimation of adverted costs to DOC is:

o $35.7 million for county jail backup. o $60.3 million for incarceration in DOC facilities. o $29.4 million for community supervision. o $12.4 million savings from drug court participation.

Annual cost aversion by year:

Averted Cost Category

FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 – FY 2026

Total Est. Averted Costs

County Jail Backup

$35.7M 0 0 0 0 0 $35.7M

Incarceration in DOC Facility

$25.5M $34.8M 0 0 0 0 $60.3M

Community Supervision

0 $1.5M $9.7M $9.4M $8.8M 0 $29.4M

Drug Courts $2.3M $2M $2.6M $1.1M $1.1M $3.2M $12.4M Total $63.5M $38.4M $12.3M $10.5M $9.9M $3.2M $137.8M *The cost aversion findings for this report were done using an estimated net present value of costs at time of publication. **Due to unavailability of data from law enforcement and city and county courts at the time of this report, the cost savings realized by these entities in relation to SQ 780 were not factored in.

Conclusion: OMES estimates $137.8 million in cost aversion to the state over five years with $63.5 million cost aversion to the state in FY 2018. It should be noted, OMES calculated future costs over five years as offenders of SQ 780 crimes typically have sentence lengths of at least five years

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=479468

1Robert Cooter & Thomas Ulen, Law & Economics, Pearson Addison-Wesley (2008). In their book, Cooter and Ulen reviewed multiple empirical studies, including but not limited to the Participation in Illegitimate Activities: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation (Ehrlich), The Deterrent Effect of Legal Sanctions on Draft Evasion (Blumstein & Nagin), and An Economic Analysis of Crime and Punishment in England and Whales 1894-1967 (Wolpin). 2Based upon e-mails between OMES & DAC. 3Goldstein, J. (2012, September 16). Police Reports Suggest Officers May Sometimes Portray Crimes Less Seriously. NY Times. 4Letter from DOC’s Director Joe M. Allbaugh to OMES’ Director Denise Northrup dated July 3, 2018. 5Based upon e-mails between OMES, DAC, Oklahoma County, and Tulsa County. 6WSIPP Benefit-Cost Technical Documentation: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/TechnicalDocumentation/WsippBenefitCostTechnicalDocumentation.pdf 7According to DOC, the FY 17 actuals costs per day per offender housed in DOC facilities was $12.94. This includes medical costs, food, clothing/linen/personal supplies, and inmate pay. 8OMES pulled actual expense data for DOC from the state system of record (PeopleSoft Financials). 9OMES compiled and used weekly offender count reports provided by DOC: http://doc.ok.gov/weekly-count 10Based upon e-mails between OMES & ODMHSAS. 11ODMHSAS Performance and Outcome Report on Drug Courts for FY’02-FY’05, https://www.ok.gov/odmhsas/documents/Fiscal%20Year%202002-2005.pdf

Oklahoma Smart Justice Reform Act (SQ 781) FY 2018 Calculations Final Report

In the fall of 2016, Oklahoma citizens voted to pass State Questions 780 and 781, with the former better known as the “Oklahoma Smart Justice Reform Act.” This act amended statutes to reform criminal sentences for certain property and drug offenses, and it made simple drug possession a misdemeanor. These criminal justice reforms are intended to reduce incarceration rates.

In addition to the Oklahoma Smart Justice Reform Act, the citizens of Oklahoma also passed State Question 781 (SQ 781) which created three new laws within Title 57 (Prisons and Reformatories). One of which, 57 O.S. § 632, statutorily tasks the Office of

Management and Enterprise Services with the calculation of any averted costs to the State of Oklahoma from the implementation of the act.

57 O.S. § 632 requires these calculations to be performed “no later than July 31 of the year following the effective date of [SQ 781], and no later than July 31 every year thereafter.” Section 6 of SQ 781 made it effective July 1, 2017. As such, the first of these calculations is due by July 31, 2018.

To calculate any potential averted costs to the state from the reclassification of a crime from a felony to a misdemeanor, OMES first reviewed the criminal justice system to try and isolate any potential impacts. The criminal justice system is a complex system, but it essentially has four major components: the commission of the crime, law enforcement, adjudication and sentencing/corrections.

There are a few schools of thought with regard to the commission of crime, taking into consideration how often the crime is committed, the likelihood of it being committed, and even why the individual committed it. The relationship between the commission of a crime and the penalty for the crime (i.e., reclassifying a felony to a misdemeanor) is only one of the many different facets involved with the commission of a crime, but is often used in policy arguments. This specific relationship is commonly referred to as the “deterrence” factor.

Studies have been conducted to effectively test the impact of deterrence. While they do support deterrence’s impact on crime rates, the deterrent was mostly in the probability of conviction rather than the severity of the punishment1. Everything else held constant, the Oklahoma Smart Justice Reform Act did not alter the burden of proof for these crimes, and the burden of proof for a misdemeanor and felony are the same2.

The burden of proof and probability of conviction mostly fall within the adjudication component of the criminal justice system, which helps articulate the complicated task of estimating the impacts of policy changes. If there is no change in the burden of proof, then it can be assumed that there will not be a material change in conviction rates. Therefore, it is assumed that the act will not have a material impact on the adjudication of crimes. Further, because it is assumed conviction rates will not materially be affected, then it can also be assumed that there will not be a material impact to the commission of the crimes (i.e., no estimated change in deterrence).

Similar to the commission and adjudication of crimes, it is assumed the Oklahoma Smart Justice Reform Act will not have a material impact to the law enforcement component of the criminal justice system. The act did not make any activities lawful or unlawful, but instead changed the penalty for the crimes. To assume changing the penalty of a crime will have an impact on law

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=479468http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=479468


enforcement, one would need to assume that law enforcement treats crimes differently. While there might be arguments to the contrary3, more evidence is needed to support a decision by an executive branch agency to assume differently.

The final major component of the criminal justice system is sentencing/corrections. Because the Oklahoma Smart Justice Reform Act modified the penalties for and reclassified certain crimes, it is assumed there will be a material impact to this component. Because of the multiple entities and divisions of government (i.e., state, county, city, etc.) involved with this component, OMES looked towards the act for guidance. 57 O.S. § 632 specifically requires the calculations to be the “averted costs that accrued to the state from the implementation of the Oklahoma Smart Justice Reform Act” (emphasis added).

By itself, this could potentially be interpreted as comprising all levels of state government, as counties and cities are part of the State of Oklahoma. However, the actual changes made by the act lead one to assume only state-level entities/costs should be considered, due to the fact that the act reclassified crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. Felony convictions are predominately punishable by mandated custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, while misdemeanors are typically punished by custody of the county/municipality. Further, Section 1 of the act specifically references incarceration rates, a statistic which tracks inmates in DOC custody. Therefore, it is assumed 57 O.S. § 632 references the averted costs to state-level entities (i.e., DOC).

Because inmates in DOC custody could be serving sentences for multiple crimes, some inmates might be housed in county jails for a period of time while awaiting transport to DOC, and/or the existence of early release/probation. OMES received help from the DOC4 to split apart these different groups. DOC was able to separate out the offenders in their custody while also calculating average total sentence length, average length of incarceration and average jail time.

Of the inmates DOC has received the past couple of years, roughly 4,500 are received each year for convictions of crimes affected by the Oklahoma Smart Justice Reform Act (SQ 780 crimes). Only about one-third of these specific inmates are serving a sentence for only SQ 780 crimes, while the others are serving multiple sentences for multiple crimes which happen to include SQ 780 crimes. If SQ 780 crimes were reclassified from felonies to misdemeanors and if DOC only receives felons, then it is assumed roughly one-third of inmates convicted of SQ 780 crimes would no longer be in DOC custody.

Based upon caseload data provided by all 77 counties in Oklahoma5, there were 27,492 cases for SQ 780 crimes between July 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018 (i.e., FY 2018). Using the aforementioned rate of one-third not in DOC custody, it is estimated that roughly 9,182 offenders would be redirected to county custody, with 18,310 in DOC custody.

To estimate the averted costs to DOC, first the 9,182 offenders being redirected to county custody were considered. According to DOC4, offenders of only SQ 780 crimes have an average sentence length of roughly 1,812 days (nearly five years), with 145 days in the county jail awaiting transfer to DOC (i.e., county jail backup), 528 days incarcerated in a DOC facility, and the remaining 1,139 days on community supervision (e.g., probation, parole, GPS, electronic monitoring, etc.).

These lengths of stay in various stages of DOC custody imply costs are incurred over a length of time. Because the calculations required by 57 O.S. § 632 are at a single point in time (i.e., snapshot) compared to the costs that are incurred over a length of time, the time value of money is taken into account. The time value of money is a financial concept whereby a dollar today is more valuable than a dollar tomorrow (or any point in the future), therefore future costs are discounted to arrive at a net present value.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=479468http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=479468http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=479468


The Washington State Institute of Public Policy (WSIPP)6 recommends using an annual discount rate of 3.5% (roughly 0.0009589% per day).

According to DOC4, the costs incurred for county jail backup is $27 per offender per day and $12.947 for each offender per day incarcerated in a DOC facility. Using actual expense data8 for departments associated with community supervision, OMES estimates that community supervision roughly costs $33.3 million annually. Using population data9, there are roughly 29,000 offenders annually with an estimated cost of $3.16 per day per offender on community supervision.

With 9,182 offenders and using the aforementioned estimated lengths of stay at various stages of DOC custody (periods = days), the estimated net present value of averted costs to DOC is:

• $35,698,708 for county jail backup. • $60,328,017 for incarceration in DOC facilities. • $29,375,320 for community supervision.

While this is the estimated net present value of averted costs to DOC as a result of the Oklahoma Smart Justice Reform Act, other state entities will also be affected. Because some offenders are not going to DOC, this also means they do not have the option to participate in Oklahoma’s drug court program. Pursuant to 22 O.S. § 471.2 of the Oklahoma Drug Court Act, only felony offenders are eligible.

According to the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services (ODMHSAS)10, there are only 4,000 funded drug court slots for which there is excess demand: “there is a waitlist to get in to drug court, so even removing those cases affected by SQ 780 will continue to be filled by others on that waiting list.” By September 2017, 28 percent of the available slots were filled by offenders only convicted of drug possession. Based upon data provided by 75 of the 77 counties5, drug possession offenses (63 O.S. § 2-402) accounted for nearly 70 percent of all SQ 780 crime cases between FY 2016 and FY 2018.

The implication is that 1,120 drug court slots are estimated to become available to other offenders in DOC custody as a result of the Oklahoma Smart Justice Reform Act. By the end of FY 2018, limited data10 suggests that only approximately 20 percent of the entire year’s admissions to drug courts will be for drug possession only.

Assuming the drug court program is intended for offenders with substance abuse problems, with 18,310 offenders of SQ 780 crimes still in DOC custody and nearly 70 percent of SQ 780 crimes being for drug possession, it is assumed that the available drug court slots will be filled by other SQ 780 offenders. According to ODMHSAS10 & 11, average length of participation of drug court graduates is 19 months (roughly 570 days) with an average annual cost of $5,000 per year per participant (or roughly $13.70 per day).

To estimate the averted costs to the state, OMES compared the estimated net present values of DOC’s costs to the costs of drug court participants. This comparison is necessary because of the differences in sentence lengths for drug court participants versus DOC inmates. According to DOC4, offenders convicted of SQ 780 crimes in addition to other crimes (but where the SQ 780 crime has the largest sentence) have an average sentence length of 2,968 days (8.13 years or 97.58 months).

http://www.oscn.net/applications/OCISWeb/DeliverDocument.asp?citeid=482505http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=479470http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=479470


For these 1,120 offenders, the estimated net present value of costs DOC would have incurred is $20,897,352. Meanwhile, the estimated net present value of costs that should be incurred by drug courts for these offenders is $8,510,108. The difference between these amounts, $12,387,244, is the estimated amount of averted costs as a result of offenders participating in the drug court program rather than going to DOC custody.

Therefore, OMES estimates the FY 2018 averted costs to the State of Oklahoma from the implementation of the Oklahoma Smart Justice Reform Act is $137,789,289. It should be noted that this is the net present value of future costs, as offenders of SQ 780 crimes typically have sentence lengths of at least five years. To help illustrate this, the following summaries have been provided:

Averted Population

Averted Cost Category Averted Custody Duration Daily Cost per Offender

Averted Cost

9,182 County Jail Backup 145 days (0.4 years)* $27 $35,698,708 9,182 Incarceration in DOC

Facility 528 days (1.45 years)* $12.94 $60,328,017

9,182 Community Supervision

1,140 days (3.12 years)* $3.16 $29,375,320

1,120 Drug Courts 2,398 days (6.57 years)** *** $12,387,244 Total $137,789,289

*Average sentence length and custody duration for offenders with only a SQ 780 crime conviction4. **Difference between average sentence length and custody duration for offenders with multiple convictions with SQ 780 crime as the controlling sentence (2,968 days)4, and the average duration in the drug court program (570 days)10. ***Daily cost for the impact on the drug court program cannot be easily summarized as a daily rate, as these estimated averted costs are the difference between the costs DOC would have incurred across all categories across multiple periods versus the costs to be incurred by the drug courts.

Averted Cost Category

FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 – FY 2026

Total Averted Costs

County Jail Backup

$35,698,708 0 0 0 0 0 $35,698,708

Incarceration in DOC Facility

$25,508,355 $34,819,662 0 0 0 0 $60,328,017

Community Supervision

0 $1,546,274 $9,703,748 $9,370,007 $8,755,291 0 $29,375,320

Drug Courts $2,288,468 $2,012,112 $2,623,951 $1,142,880 $1,103,573 $3,216,260 $12,387,244 Total $63,495,531 $38,378,048 $12,327,699 $10,512,887 $9,858,864 $3,216,260 $137,789,289

FOOTNOTES

From: Baggett, TrentTo: Cary CundiffSubject: RE: SQ781 Calculation Questions: Misdemeanor Conviction DataDate: Monday, September 18, 2017 1:46:56 PMAttachments: image001.png

SQ 780 Comparison.docx

Burden of proof for a misdemeanor and felony are the same. Just like Murder and a speedingticket, burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. I have also attached a document that shows a comparison of one bill that got passed and theimpact of the changes to the drug laws. See if it makes sense to you. If not, we can try again. TRENT H. BAGGETTExecutive CoordinatorOklahoma District Attorneys Council421 NW 13th, Suite 290Oklahoma City, OK 73103(405) 264-5000 From: Cary Cundiff [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 11:48 AMTo: Baggett, Trent Cc: Angie Woodrow ; Brewer, Kathryn

Subject: RE: SQ781 Calculation Questions: Misdemeanor Conviction Data Thanks for the information! On some of the questions, I know we don’t yet have updated data/statistics for those crimes sincethe change from felony to misdemeanor. I was essentially asking for “baseline” statistics for thosespecific offenses, so that we may try to anticipate the impacts after the decrease to a misdemeanor. For example, the nature of a 63 O.S. § 2-402 violation itself isn’t changing, just the punishment. Thatis, the offender was still in possession of a controlled dangerous substance, but only the punishmentupon conviction has changed. If one assumes the burden of proof is relatively similar for amisdemeanor as it is for a felony (is that a safe assumption to make?), then one might also assumethe conviction rate would be similar after the reduction to a misdemeanor. That is, unless there areother factors that can affect conviction rates? Then, do y’all know if someone has a list already prepared showing the offenses who punishmentswere actually affected by the SQ780? I know with some of the property crimes (e.g. 21 O.S. § 1704),bills like HB2751 (passed during the 2016 Legislative Session) reduce them from felonies down tomisdemeanors. These went into effect a week prior to the people voting on SQ780, which made itthe law at the time of the passage of SQ780. This implies that, for those specific offenses, that theimpact of the passage of SQ780 is minimal (if there even is an impact). But I know that with otherstatutes, the changes of SQ780 weren’t as obvious.

mailto:[email protected]://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=479470http://www.oscn.net/applications/OCISWeb/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=70062

Statute

Bold text indicates current or proposed changes to made to existing statutory language

Strikethrough indicates existing or proposed language removed.

HB 2751

SQ 780

21 O.S. 1451

Embezzlement Defined

(B)(2) $500 – Up to $1000 – Misd. Up to 1yr or One or more nights or weekends pursuant to 991a-2 & Up to $5000

A. No Changes to existing language

(B)(1) – Property less than $1000 ($500), – Fine of $1000, or Up to 1year County, or both

(B)(2) – No Changes to existing language

(B)(3) – No Changes to existing language

(C) & (D) - No Changes to existing language

21 O.S. 1503

Defrauding Innkeeper

No changes to existing language

If the value of food or services is less than $1000 ($500), Misd, Fine Up to $500, or Up to 30 days County Jail, or both

and if the value of such food, lodging, services or other accommodations is more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) but less than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), any person convicted pursuant to this section shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by incarceration in the county jail for not to exceed one (1) year or incarceration in the county jail one or more nights or weekends pursuant to Section 991a-2 of Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes, at the option of the court, and shall be subject to a fine of not more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) and ordered to provide restitution to the victim as provided in Section 991a of Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes,

if the value of such food, lodging, services or accommodations is valued at One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or more, any person convicted hereunder shall be deemed guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for a term not exceeding five (5) years.

21 O.S. 1521 Motor Vehicle Lease or Rental - Payment by False or Bogus Check

$20 or less – Misd. - $500 or 6mos or both

$20 - $999 – Misd. – Up to 1yr or One or more nights or weekends pursuant to 991a-2 & Up to $5000 – subject to restitution

$1000+ - Felony – Up to 7yrs DOC, or $500 or both

Who pays the fees for such lease or rental by means of a false, bogus or worthless check written for the sum of less than $1000 ($20-$999), Misd., Up to $500 fine, or 6mos County Jail, or both.

Statute

HB 2751

SQ 780

21 O.S. 1533.1

(A)(B)(D) – Felony - 1yr – Up to 5yrs or Up to $100k or both

(C) – Misd. – Up to 1 or Up to $100k or both

Not referenced

21 O.S. 1541.1 Obtaining Property by Trick or Deception:

Value less than $1000 ($500)– Misd.

Value less than $1000 ($500.00)

21 O.S. 1541.2 Penalty - Value of Property

Value more than $1000 ($500 or more but less than)– Felony - Up to 10yrs DOC or $5k or both AND ordered to pay restitution

Value of property or valuable thing is $1000 ($500-1000) or more, Felony, Up to 10yrs or Up to $5000 fine, or both.

21 O.S. 1541.3 False or Bogus Checks

Value more than $2000 ($1000) – Felony - Up to 10yrs DOC (State Penitentiary) or $5k or both AND ordered to pay restitution

2 Instruments total - $500 - $2000 – Misd. – Up to 1yr or One or more nights or weekends pursuant to 991a-2 & Up to $5000 – subject to restitution

Any person making, drawing, uttering or delivering two or more false or bogus checks the total sum of which is One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or more ($500 to 1000), even though each separate instrument is written for less than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), all in pursuance of a common scheme or plan to cheat and defraud, shall be deemed guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for a term not more than ten (10) years, or by a fine not to exceed Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment

If the total sum of two or more false or bogus checks, drafts or orders is Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) or more, but less than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), the person shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by incarceration in the county jail for not more than one (1) year or by incarceration in the county jail one or more nights or weekends pursuant to Section 991a-2 of Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes, at the option of the court, and shall be subject to a fine of not more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) and ordered to provide restitution to the victim as provided in Section 991a of Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes.

Statute

HB 2751

SQ 780

21 O.S. 1542

(A) $1000 or more – Felony – Up to 3yrs DOC or 1 yr county or 3x value of property, or both

Less than $1000 – Misd. Up to 1year, 3x value of property, or both

(B) UPC - $1000 or more – Felony – Up to 3yrs DOC or 1 yr county or 3x value on UPC, or both

Less than $1000 – Misd. Up to 1year, 3x value on UPC, or both

· Series of offenses may be aggregated into one offense when part of a plan or scheme.

· When all acts result in continuing course of conduct they may be aggregated into one crime.

· Acts forming an integral part of 1st taking which lead to other takings are relevant to determine intent.

Not Referenced

21 O.S. 1550.27

False Making or Embossing of Credit or Debit Card

(A)(3) Guilty of Forgery in 3rd degree – penalties in 21 O.S. 1533

Not Referenced

21 O.S. 1550.32

Violation of 21 O.S. 1550.29 - Penalties subject to 21 O.S. 1533

Not Referenced

21 O.S. 1550.33

Penalties

(A) – Misd. (Felony) – Up to $1000 or Up to 1yr county or Both

(B) – Imprisoned in DOC (in the State Penitentiary)

(C) – Person who received goods or services – Value MT $1000 – Felony – Up to $3000, Up to 3yrs DOC, or Both.

Value LT $1000 – Misd. – Up to $1000, Up to 1 year county, or Both




(A person who violates any provision of the Oklahoma Credit Card Crime Act shall be deemed guilty of a felony)

Not Referenced

Statute

HB 2751

SQ 780

21 O.S. 1577 Sale, Delivery or Receipt of Forged Notes

$1000 or More = 2nd degree forgery

$999 or less =3rd degree forgery




[I]s guilty of forgery in the third (second) degree

Punishment found in 21 O.S. 1621

3. Forgery in the third degree is:

a. If the value is less than $1000, Misd, Up to (1) year county jail and a fine Up to $1000

b. If the value is more than $1000, Felony, Up to (7) yrs

c. If the total or aggregate value is more than $2000, Felony, Up to (7) yrs

21 O.S. 1578 Possession of Forged Notes or Instruments

In his or her possession a forged instrument;












Statute

HB 2751

SQ 780

21 O.S. 1579

Other Forged Instruments





Acts forming an integral part of 1st taking which lead to other takings are relevant to determine intent.







21 O.S.1592






Not Referenced

21 O.S. 1621

Penalty for Forgery

(A) 1st degree Forgery – Felony - 7yrs - 20yrs DOC

(B) 2nd degree Forgery – Felony – Up to 7 yrs DOC

(C) 3rd degree Forgery – Misd – Up to 1 yr and $1000





21 O.S. 1704

Grand Larceny

1. Property exceeding $1000

2. Property not exceeding $1000 is taken from the person of another;

All other is petit larceny

1. When property taken exceeds $1000 ($500);

2. When property taken although less than $1000 ($500) is taken from another;

All other larceny is petit larceny

21 O.S. 1713

Receiving Stolen Property

(A) – Value of $1000 or more = Felony; Up to 5yrs DOC; or Up to 1 year County; or by fine Up to $500; or both

Property less than $1000 = Misd. Up to 1yr county jail

(B) No changes

(A) if property exceeds $1000, Felony, State penitentiary Up to 5yrs; or,Up to 1yr county jail or weekends at the option of the court; or,

by a fine Up to $500; or both.

If property less than $1000, Misd., fine Up to $500, or Up to 6mos county jail, or both.

(B) No changes

21 O.S. 1719.1 Larceny of Domesticated Fish and Game


No changes to (A) or (B)

(C)(1) – if the market value of the fish or game is less than $1000 ($500), Misd., Fine Up to $500; or 60days County Jail; or both.

(C)(2) – no changes

21 O.S. 1722 Taking Oil, Gas, Gasoline


1. Less than $1000 ($500), Misd., Fine Up to $500; or 60days County Jail; or both.

2. Removes middle ground language:

If the value exceeds Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) but is less than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), the person shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by incarceration in the county jail for a term of not more than one (1) year or by incarceration in the county jail one or more nights or weekends pursuant to Section 991a-2 of Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes, at the option of the court, and shall be subject to a fine of not more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) and ordered to provide restitution to the victim as provided in Section 991a of Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes.

Statute

HB 2751

SQ 780

21 O.S. 1731

Larceny of Merchandise

1. – Less than $1000= Misd.; County jail Up to 30 days; and fine of NLT $10/Up to $500

(more than one good: Up to 30 days County; and fine of NLT $50/Up to $500)

2. – Less than $1000, 2nd conviction = Misd.; imprisonment in County jail; NLT 30 days/Up to 1 year; and Up to $1000 Fine

3. – Less than $1000, 2 or more convictions = Felony, DOC NLT 2yrs/Up to 5yrs; and

4. – More than $1000 = felony, DOC NLT 2yrs/Up to 5yrs; and Up to $5000 fine

1. – Less than $1000 ($500), = Misd.; County jail Up to 30 days; and fine of NLT $10/Up to $500

(more than one good: Up to 30 days County; and fine of NLT $50/Up to $500)

2. – Less than $1000 ($500),, 2 or more convictions = Up to 1yr County, and Fine Up to $1000

3. – More than $1000 ($500), = Penitentiary 5yrs and shall be subject to a fine of not more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00)

21 O.S. 1834

Conditional Sales Contract

Value of Property more than $1000 = DOC

Value of Property less than $1000 = Misd., Up to 1yr County, or Up to $500 fine

Not Referenced

59 O.S. 1512

Pawn Broker


Adds:

(A)(2) However, if the property was acquired by means of robbery or burglary, punished Up to (5) years or in the county jail not to exceed one (1) year, or fine Up to $500.00, or by both such imprisonment and fine, without regard to the value of the property.

(A)(3) …county jail for a term not to exceed six (6) months, or a fine not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), or by both such fine and Imprisonment.

Statute

HB 2479

SQ 780

63 O.S. 2-402(B)

(B)(1) – Sched. 1&2

1st – Felony, Up to 5yrs (2-10) & $5000

2nd – Felony, Up to 10yrs (4-20) & Up to $10K

3rd – Felony, NLT 4yrs/Up to15yrs & 10K

(B)(2) – Sched. 3, 4 or 5, Marijuana

1st – Misd., Up to 1yr & $1000

2nd w/in 10yrs – NLT 1yr/Up to 5ys & Up to $5000

(B) – Violations of this section are a misdemeanor; Up to 1 yr and $1000 fine

(C) – Adds $100 “special assessment trauma care” fee upon conviction to be deposited into the County Community Safety Investment Fund

Statute

HB 2472

New Law – 22 O.S. 234

Gives the District Attorney discretion to charges as misdemeanors in the best interest of justice provided it is not an 85% crime

Statute

HB 2753

22 O.S. 471.1

Defining Drug Courts - Removes “in lieu of incarceration”

22 O.S. 471.2

Removes statutory reference to Trafficking; adds an option if charges not automatically eligible for drug court program based upon a 43 O.S. 3-704 assessment that recommends drug court

22 O.S. 988.2

Community Sentencing - adds an option to qualify an otherwise ineligible offender based upon an 43 O.S. 3-704 assessment which recommends community sentencing

Mentally ill offenders - Adds community sentencing based upon an 43 O.S. 3-704 assessment an option for mentally ill offenders

256343Text BoxFootnote 2

For example, at the time people voted on SQ780, some violations of 63 O.S. § 2-402 were alreadymisdemeanors (paragraph 2 of subsection B of the language that was last amended by HB2479). Sofor those very specific offenses (or “sub-categories”/”degrees” of an offense), there was no impactfrom the passage of SQ780. So I was hoping someone already had a list prepared which shows the offenses which were actuallyaffected by SQ780? To save me a little legwork. Thanks,Cary

From: Baggett, Trent [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 4:39 PMTo: Cary Cundiff Cc: Angie Woodrow ; Brewer, Kathryn

Subject: RE: SQ781 Calculation Questions: Misdemeanor Conviction Data Hi Cary, Below are my responses to your queries. I’m not going to proclaim that they are 100%accurate, but they should be fairly close unless otherwise indicated. Is there a possibility that the # of arrests made for SQ780 affected offenses will change now thatthey are misdemeanors rather than felonies?Is that a possibility? I would say it is. It is possible that law enforcement may have to prioritize andfocus their resources on more serious offenses. I don’t know that will happen, but it is a possibility. I know that I have read articles from California after they passed Prop 47 where their arrests wentdown markedly as police felt some of the offense were not as important, considering the timenecessary to book offenders and evidence , do the required testing, write the reports, etc. What is the average conviction rate of arrests made for SQ780 affected offenses?Too early to tell. Remember that these “new” offenses only became effective approximately 80 daysago. That is insufficient time to get a clear, reliable picture of disposition rates. Is there a possibility of conviction rates (on average) of the SQ780 affected offenses changing nowthat those crimes are misdemeanors rather than felonies? If so, would there be a way to estimatethat impact to conviction rates?I do not want to speak in terms of possibilities for these offenses when it comes to conviction rates. See the answer above. Then I’m not sure how exactly to ask this next question, so bear with me. Say someone is convictedof a crime (specifically one of the offenses affected by SQ780), what is the average breakdown of

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=479470mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

what happens next? As in, what percentage of those convicted actually serve jail time (on average);what percentage might get a deferred sentence (on average); what percentage go to a drug court;etc.As for serving jail time, I believe those will be negligible due to scarce resources in county jails. No orlittle room at the Inn.As for deferred sentences, if they are a TRUE first offender, they would be eligible for a deferredsentence and would probably get that, depending on the type of drug it is. If it is MJ, they probablyget that. If it is LSD, PCP, Heroin, Coke, Crack, Meth, maybe and maybe not. I have not heard whatapproach all of the DA’s will be taking in their respective areas.As for drug court participants, I anticipate those will be few and far between. Not manymisdemeanor drug courts are available (1 currently, and that is in MWC). To be eligible for regulardrug court, an offender would have to want to go into drug court and then be assessed as needing itfor the state to pay for it. Further, an offender would have to truly want to go into drug court,comply with the 2 years intense supervision and successfully complete it. They could either do thator pay a fine and be on their way. Were you an addict, which one would you choose? What alternatives to incarceration exist for misdemeanor drug offenses as compared to felonies?Alternatives for misdemeanor drug offenses. WOW! Not much, if anything, considering that anysuch program would have to be funded through the county. Counties have NO money with which tofund alternative courts. As indicated above, I was told by DMH that there was only 1 misdemeanordrug court and that was in the MWC Municipal Court.As for other alternatives, not many people actually get sentenced to jail on misdemeanors anyway. Absent Negligent Homicide (up to 1 year), the next most serious offenses would be domestic abuseand DUI/DWI. Community service may be a possibility, presuming the community has sufficient andwilling entities where the community service might be done. For DUIs, Victim Impact panels arerequired, so I don’t really consider that an alternative.To say the alternatives are limited is a massive understatement. I know that State drug courts are no longer an option for possession (63 O.S. § 2-402), as they canonly accept felony offenders (pursuant to 22 O.S. §471.2(A)(4)). But I also know that counties canestablish misdemeanor drug courts (pursuant to 22 O.S. § 471.1(I)). So I didn’t know if all the sameoptions exist for misdemeanants as for felons?See my answers above. The misdemeanor drug courts (authorized when Kris Steele was in thelegislature and not funded by Kris Steele when he was in the legislature) were never (and probablywill be) funded. Counties do not have the resources to devote to that. It would be great if therewere any money that could be provided as a result of SQ 781, but I believe we all are skeptical ofthat. With that “money” being distributed to counties by population, the very rural, less populatedcounties that probably need it the most will have little chance at it. How many misdemeanor drug courts exist?As I have indicated above, I was told by DMH that there was 1 misdemeanor drug court and it wasactually a municipal court in MWC rather than a district court. To verify this, I would contact DMH. Essentially, I’m trying to “map” out the criminal-justice system (to a very limited extent) to see howand to what extent various entities will be affected.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=479470http://www.oscn.net/applications/OCISWeb/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=70501http://www.oscn.net/applications/OCISWeb/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=70500

TRENT H. BAGGETTExecutive CoordinatorOklahoma District Attorneys Council421 NW 13th, Suite 290Oklahoma City, OK 73103(405) 264-5000 From: Cary Cundiff [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 9:53 AMTo: Angie Woodrow ; Baggett, Trent

Cc: Brewer, Kathryn Subject: RE: SQ781 Calculation Questions: Misdemeanor Conviction Data If you wouldn’t mind asking around, that would be awesome! Thanks! I also had some other questions related to SQ781 calculations that I was hoping y’all might be able tohelp with: Is there a possibility that the # of arrests made for SQ780 affected offenses will change now thatthey are misdemeanors rather than felonies? What is the average conviction rate of arrests made for SQ780 affected offenses? Is there a possibility of conviction rates (on average) of the SQ780 affected offenses changing nowthat those crimes are misdemeanors rather than felonies? If so, would there be a way to estimatethat impact to conviction rates? Then I’m not sure how exactly to ask this next question, so bear with me. Say someone is convictedof a crime (specifically one of the offenses affected by SQ780), what is the average breakdown ofwhat happens next? As in, what percentage of those convicted actually serve jail time (on average);what percentage might get a deferred sentence (on average); what percentage go to a drug court;etc. What alternatives to incarceration exist for misdemeanor drug offenses as compared to felonies? I know that State drug courts are no longer an option for possession (63 O.S. § 2-402), as they canonly accept felony offenders (pursuant to 22 O.S. §471.2(A)(4)). But I also know that counties canestablish misdemeanor drug courts (pursuant to 22 O.S. § 471.1(I)). So I didn’t know if all the sameoptions exist for misdemeanants as for felons? How many misdemeanor drug courts exist?

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=479470http://www.oscn.net/applications/OCISWeb/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=70501http://www.oscn.net/applications/OCISWeb/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=70500

Essentially, I’m trying to “map” out the criminal-justice system (to a very limited extent) to see howand to what extent various entities will be affected. -Cary

From: Angie Woodrow [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 10:12 AMTo: Baggett, Trent ; Cary Cundiff Cc: Brewer, Kathryn Subject: RE: SQ781 Calculation Questions: Misdemeanor Conviction Data I will check with our Information Services Division. Court clerks are required to report disposition(conviction) to OSBI so we can add it to the criminal history record – we have criminal historyrecords for everyone who is arrested in Oklahoma (theoretically). I have not worked with criminalhistory data in a few years but, at that time, only a small percentage (something like 30% or so) haddispositions. I’ve never had much success with using those administrative data (criminal historyrecords) for research or planning purposes. I am going to check and then I’ll get back to you. I am not aware of any other systems, but I will askaround. Angie From: Baggett, Trent [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 10:02 AMTo: Cary Cundiff; Angie WoodrowCc: Brewer, KathrynSubject: RE: SQ781 Calculation Questions: Misdemeanor Conviction Data Hi Cary, You can always ask questions. Not a problem. As for misdemeanor and felonyconvictions/deferreds/etc., I would presume that the best information would be through OSBI. Angie, please correct me if I am wrong. I sincerely want the DAC to have the best informationon that, but presently there is no way to do that. While we collect information on 75 counties,Oklahoma and Tulsa counties are not on our system, and won’t be. Those are through theircounty IT systems. We are happy to give you what we have, but I cannot vouch for it being100% accurate. The information should be going to OSBI on everyone who is booked into jail. As for inmate head counts in county jails, take it up with them. They should be able tocount heads. As for violations under SQ 780 amendments being adjudicated in municipal courts not ofrecord, that is a terrific question. I reached out to all of the city attorneys across Oklahomathrough the Municipal League. I got 2 (yes, 2) to respond to me. They are able to processviolations through municipal courts not of record IF the city has adopted such an ordinance. Ifthey have not, those cases should be going to District Court. Remember that violations of SQ780 amendments were only filed after July 1. While some of the cases may have gotten to finaldisposition by now (73 days since July 1 isn’t long in the criminal justice world), the lion’s sharehave not and may not for a few months. Those statistics will be only anecdotal.

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

Angie, if there is anything you feel I have misreported, please let me know.Thanks!TRENT H. BAGGETTExecutive CoordinatorOklahoma District Attorneys Council421 NW 13th, Suite 290Oklahoma City, OK 73103(405) 264-5000 From: Cary Cundiff [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 9:26 AMTo: Baggett, Trent ; Angie Woodrow

Subject: SQ781 Calculation Questions: Misdemeanor Conviction Data Good morning, Angie & Trent! I’ve got some more questions related to SQ781 calculations and criminal-justice system data, and Iwas hoping y’all could help me out? I know I’ve asked you both plenty of questions in the past regarding criminal-justice system data(and about everything else under the moon), so I apologize in advance if I ask a question either ofyou have already answered before. What systems and/or entities track conviction stats for misdemeanor offenses? Do those systems/entities break out the convictions down to the statutory citation? What is the reliability of those systems/entities? (there have been a couple recent “audit” reports onOklahoma and Cleveland jails which have found limited or even unavailable data on stats as basic asinmate head counts) How much “lag” might there be with the data? (i.e. how long after a conviction would the data be“available”?) Would violations of any offenses listed in SQ780 (specifically the crimes reduced to misdemeanoroffenses) ever be adjudicated in a court of no record? Thanks, Cary Cundiff | Budget Analystp. 405-522-3170 | fax. 405-521-3902Budget & Policy | OMES | omes.ok.gov

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/oklahoma-city-chamber-criminal-justice-task-force-report/legacy_downloads/OK-chamber-final-report.pdfhttps://www.sai.ok.gov/Search%20Reports/database/ClevelandCoSher16WebFinal.pdfhttp://omes.ok.gov/

From: Baggett, TrentTo: Cary CundiffSubject: FW: SQ780 Filed Crime Fy2018, Fy2017, and Fy2016 by District and CountyDate: Monday, July 16, 2018 2:00:48 PMAttachments: image001.png

SQ780CasesFy2016ThruFy2018.xlsx

TRENT H. BAGGETTExecutive CoordinatorDistrict Attorneys Council421 NW 13th, Suite 290Oklahoma City, OK 73103(405) 264-5000 From: Lowes, Albert Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2018 9:02 AMTo: Baggett, Trent Cc: Starr, LaRue ; Bebber, David ;Carneiro, Victor Subject: SQ780 Filed Crime Fy2018, Fy2017, and Fy2016 by District and County Trent, I am seeing in the DAC JustWare districts, i.e. not including OKC and Tulsa, for SQ780 cases; 16,577 filed cases in Fy2018,20,026 filed cases in Fy2017, and19,593 filed cases in Fy2016 with a district breakdown of the SQ780 case counts in the enclosed Excel spreadsheet. Note: The SQ780 cases include cases

1. with a Case Received Date during each fiscal year, 2. that do not have a status of Declined, Intake, or No Probable Cause3. are not Prior Instate or Prior Out of State cases and4. that have at least one felony or misdemeanor count [with an occurred date during the

respective fiscal year] of the following SQ780 Statutes: Code Description21 O.S. § 1451 EMBEZZLEMENT21 O.S. § 1451(A)(9) EMBEZZLEMENT OF RENTAL PROPERTY21 O.S. § 1503 DEFRAUDING AN INNKEEPER / RESTAURATEUR21 O.S. § 1521 RENTING VEHICLE WITH BOGUS CHECK

mailto:[email protected]

SQ780Cases By District

DA DistrictTypeStatuteNo. of Fy2018 CasesNo. of Fy2017 CasesNo. of Fy2016 Cases

D01AllSQ780 Cases202274256



D04AllSQ780 Cases115513791442


D06AllSQ780 Cases88110821210





D12AllSQ780 Cases95012261256







D20AllSQ780 Cases97711581070

D21AllSQ780 Cases152517611714






D27AllSQ780 Cases153622951801

TOTALAllSQ780 Cases16,57720,02619,593

SQ 780 Cases By County

DA DistrictCountyTypeStatuteNo. of Fy2018 CasesNo. of Fy2017 CasesNo. of Fy2016 Cases

D01BeaverAllSQ780 Cases234433

D01CimarronAllSQ780 Cases165786

D01HarperAllSQ780 Cases171526

D01TexasAllSQ780 Cases146158111

D02BeckhamAllSQ780 Cases149168213

D02CusterAllSQ780 Cases251314261

D02EllisAllSQ780 Cases1999

D02Roger MillsAllSQ780 Cases71411

D02WashitaAllSQ780 Cases516394

D03GreerAllSQ780 Cases162031

D03HarmonAllSQ780 Cases92128

D03JacksonAllSQ780 Cases120129156

D03KiowaAllSQ780 Cases8499124

D03TillmanAllSQ780 Cases425344

D04BlaineAllSQ780 Cases867683

D04CanadianAllSQ780 Cases405588561

D04GarfieldAllSQ780 Cases504548687

D04GrantAllSQ780 Cases304110

D04KingfisherAllSQ780 Cases130126101

D05ComancheAllSQ780 Cases616612482

D05CottonAllSQ780 Cases678791

D06CaddoAllSQ780 Cases213302228

D06GradyAllSQ780 Cases434458575

D06JeffersonAllSQ780 Cases514337

D06StephensAllSQ780 Cases183279370

D08KayAllSQ780 Cases352525533

D08NobleAllSQ780 Cases507557

D09LoganAllSQ780 Cases258197153

D09PayneAllSQ780 Cases634528530

D10OsageAllSQ780 Cases303376329

D10PawneeAllSQ780 Cases112132107

D11NowataAllSQ780 Cases73169156

D11WashingtonAllSQ780 Cases269241225

D12CraigAllSQ780 Cases143139152

D12MayesAllSQ780 Cases192302267

D12RogersAllSQ780 Cases615785837

D13DelawareAllSQ780 Cases160224202

D13OttawaAllSQ780 Cases352320326

D15MuskogeeAllSQ780 Cases513704689

D16LatimerAllSQ780 Cases154203164

D16LefloreAllSQ780 Cases437273224

D17ChoctawAllSQ780 Cases99181224

D17McCurtainAllSQ780 Cases219353396

D17PushmatahaAllSQ780 Cases7114377

D18HaskellAllSQ780 Cases16613171

D18PittsburgAllSQ780 Cases414641648

D19AtokaAllSQ780 Cases11959126

D19BryanAllSQ780 Cases443670712

D19CoalAllSQ780 Cases774946

D20CarterAllSQ780 Cases570604581

D20JohnstonAllSQ780 Cases849488

D20LoveAllSQ780 Cases222230245

D20MarshallAllSQ780 Cases98230156

D20MurrayAllSQ780 Cases300

D21ClevelandAllSQ780 Cases98010921093

D21GarvinAllSQ780 Cases174224187

D21McClainAllSQ780 Cases371445434

D22HughesAllSQ780 Cases84134145

D22PontotocAllSQ780 Cases323368407

D22SeminoleAllSQ780 Cases161215245

D23LincolnAllSQ780 Cases112303259

D23PottawatomieAllSQ780 Cases476558573

D24CreekAllSQ780 Cases443519636

D24OkfuskeeAllSQ780 Cases406760

D25McIntoshAllSQ780 Cases271250255

D25OkmulgeeAllSQ780 Cases350341458

D26AlfalfaAllSQ780 Cases624220

D26DeweyAllSQ780 Cases374718

D26MajorAllSQ780 Cases412846

D26WoodsAllSQ780 Cases6710563

D26WoodwardAllSQ780 Cases178141120

D27AdairAllSQ780 Cases150208150

D27CherokeeAllSQ780 Cases592789723

D27SequoyahAllSQ780 Cases392733522

D27WagonerAllSQ780 Cases402565406

TOTALALLSQ780 Cases16,57720,07619,593

12782


21 O.S. § 1541.1 OBTAINING CASH OR MERCHANDISE BY BOGUS CHECK / FALSE PRETENSES21 O.S. § 1541.2 FELONY VALUE - FALSE PRETENSES / BOGUS CHECK / CON GAME21 O.S. § 1541.3 FELONY VALUE - 2 OR MORE BOGUS CHECKS TOGETHER21 O.S. § 1577 FORGERY IN THE THIRD DEGREE21 O.S. § 1578 POSSESSION OF FORGED NOTES OR INSTRUMENTS21 O.S. § 1579 POSSESSION OF FORGED INSTRUMENTS21 O.S. § 1713 KNOWINGLY CONCEALING STOLEN PROPERTY21 O.S. § 1713.1 RECEIVE / CONCEAL STOLEN CONSTRUCTION / FARM EQUIPMENT21 O.S. § 1719.1 LARCENY OF DOMESTICATED FISH OR GAME21 O.S. § 1722 LARCENY OF GASOLINE.21 O.S. § 1731 LARCENY OF MERCHANDISE FROM RETAILER59 O.S. § 1512 FALSE DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP IN PAWN59 O.S. § 1512(C)(1) OPERATING AS PAWNBROKER WITHOUT A LICENSE59 O.S. § 1512(C)(2) FALSE DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP TO A PAWNBROKER59 O.S. § 1512(C)(3) FAILURE TO REPAY PAWNBROKER63 O.S. § 2-402 POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE

Note: Justware does not have any statutes cited as 21 O.S. § 1621, which lists the punishment forForgery. Thanks, Albert LowesDatabase AdministratorOklahoma District Attorneys Council421 NW 13th St. Suite 290Oklahoma City, OK 73103405-264-5002 405-264-5099 (fax)[email protected] From: Cary Cundiff Sent: Monday, July 2, 2018 10:42 AMTo: Baggett, Trent Subject: FW: SQ780Filed Crime since 7-1-2017 by District and County Good morning, Trent! As it is now July, we need to start finalizing our SQ781 calculations. You’ve already been atremendous help, but I’ll need a little bit more if you would be so kind? The attached query (referenced in the below e-mail chain) is a fantastic start! We’d mostly just needan updated data pull for a complete list of case between 07/01/2017 & 06/30/2018, please. Also, if it wouldn’t be too much trouble, perhaps we could run that same query for a couple years

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

prior, for comparison sake? (i.e. comparing the amount of those specific case filings before and afterSQ780) Finally, would y’all mind reaching out to the OKC & Tulsa folks to see if they could mirror/copy thatquery on their systems? If not, would you mind providing me with some contact information so I canreach out? Thanks, Cary Cundiff | Budget Analystp. 405-522-3170 | fax. 405-521-3902OMES – Budget | omes.ok.gov

From: Baggett, Trent Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 10:31 AMTo: Cary Cundiff Subject: FW: SQ780Filed Crime since 7-1-2017 by District and County TRENT H. BAGGETTExecutive CoordinatorOklahoma District Attorneys Council421 NW 13th, Suite 290Oklahoma City, OK 73103(405) 264-5000 From: Lowes, Albert Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 12:59 PMTo: Baggett, Trent Cc: Starr, LaRue ; Bebber, David ;Carneiro, Victor Subject: SQ780Filed Crime since 7-1-2017 by District and County Trent, I am seeing in the DAC JustWare districts, i.e. not including OKC and Tulsa, for SQ780 cases12,782 filed cases since 7-1-2017 with a district breakdown of the SQ780 case counts in the enclosedExcel spreadsheet. Note: The SQ780 cases include cases

http://omes.ok.gov/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

1. with a Case Received Date on or after 7-1-20172. that do not have a status of Declined, Intake, or No Probable Cause3. are not Prior Instate or Prior Out of State cases and4. that have at least one felony or misdemeanor count [that is not listed as occurring before 7-1-

2017] of the following SQ780 Statutes: Code Description21 O.S. § 1451 EMBEZZLEMENT21 O.S. § 1451(A)(9) EMBEZZLEMENT OF RENTAL PROPERTY21 O.S. § 1503 DEFRAUDING AN INNKEEPER / RESTAURATEUR21 O.S. § 1521 RENTING VEHICLE WITH BOGUS CHECK21 O.S. § 1541.1 OBTAINING CASH OR MERCHANDISE BY BOGUS CHECK / FALSE PRETENSES21 O.S. § 1541.2 FELONY VALUE - FALSE PRETENSES / BOGUS CHECK / CON GAME21 O.S. § 1541.3 FELONY VALUE - 2 OR MORE BOGUS CHECKS TOGETHER21 O.S. § 1577 FORGERY IN THE THIRD DEGREE21 O.S. § 1578 POSSESSION OF FORGED NOTES OR INSTRUMENTS21 O.S. § 1579 POSSESSION OF FORGED INSTRUMENTS21 O.S. § 1713 KNOWINGLY CONCEALING STOLEN PROPERTY21 O.S. § 1713.1 RECEIVE / CONCEAL STOLEN CONSTRUCTION / FARM EQUIPMENT21 O.S. § 1719.1 LARCENY OF DOMESTICATED FISH OR GAME21 O.S. § 1722 LARCENY OF GASOLINE.21 O.S. § 1731 LARCENY OF MERCHANDISE FROM RETAILER59 O.S. § 1512 FALSE DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP IN PAWN59 O.S. § 1512(C)(1) OPERATING AS PAWNBROKER WITHOUT A LICENSE59 O.S. § 1512(C)(2) FALSE DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP TO A PAWNBROKER59 O.S. § 1512(C)(3) FAILURE TO REPAY PAWNBROKER63 O.S. § 2-402 POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE

Note: Justware does not have any statutes cited as 21 O.S. § 1621, which lists the punishment forForgery. Thanks, Albert LowesDatabase AdministratorOklahoma District Attorneys Council421 NW 13th St. Suite 290Oklahoma City, OK 73103405-264-5002 405-264-5099 (fax)[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

From: Adkisson, JayneTo: Cary CundiffSubject: RE: Count of SQ780 CasesDate: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 8:15:42 AM

Cary,The total cases that match the requested criteria is: 7652

Jayne

-----Original Message-----From: Cary Cundiff [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 2:36 PMTo: Adkisson, Jayne Subject: RE: Count of SQ780 Cases

Yes. Thanks!

-Cary

-----Original Message-----From: Adkisson, Jayne Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 2:35 PMTo: Cary Cundiff Subject: RE: Count of SQ780 Cases

My MIS department said they could try and get something together for tomorrow some time, will that work for you?

Jayne

-----Original Message-----From: Cary Cundiff [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 9:58 AMTo: Adkisson, Jayne Subject: RE: Count of SQ780 Cases

Just to be clear, are you telling me that Oklahoma county is the only county in Oklahoma that will not provide this data? I just want to doublecheck before I include it in my report.

Thanks,Cary

-----Original Message-----From: Adkisson, Jayne Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 9:54 AMTo: Cary Cundiff Subject: RE: Count of SQ780 Cases

Yes I did and after doing some research, there is not an easy way to get these numbers. Our MIS department would have to write a program andI have no idea how long it would take to do that.I wish I could help you.

Thanks Jayne

-----Original Message-----From: Cary Cundiff [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 9:04 AMTo: Adkisson, Jayne Subject: RE: Count of SQ780 Cases

Good morning, Jayne!

Did you have a chance to talk with Mr. Prater yesterday?

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

Thanks,

Cary Cundiff | Budget Analystp. 405-522-3170 | fax. 405-521-3902OMES - Budget | omes.ok.gov

-----Original Message-----From: Adkisson, Jayne Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 8:29 AMTo: Cary Cundiff Subject: RE: Count of SQ780 Cases

Mr. Prater will be back in the office on Monday, hopefully I will get a chance to talk to him today.

Thanks Jayne

-----Original Message-----From: Cary Cundiff [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 8:26 AMTo: Adkisson, Jayne Subject: RE: Count of SQ780 Cases

I completely understand. Do you have an estimated timeline for when you might get clearance? I'm only asking because we're up againststatutory deadlines with these calculations, so I'm just trying to make sure all the proverbial ducks are in a row.

And just in case it might help with requesting the clearance (for whatever potential issues there might be), Oklahoma county is the only countythat has yet to provide this data (attached is an e-mail from Tulsa county and the below e-mail chain contains data from the other counties).Also, Trent Baggett from the DAC said he e-mailed Mr. Prater about this type of request a few weeks ago (attached e-mail 'RE: SQ780FiledCrime since 7-1-2017 by District and County').

But definitely let me know if there is anything else I can do to help with requesting clearance!!!

Thanks,Cary

-----Original Message-----From: Adkisson, Jayne Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 8:02 AMTo: Cary Cundiff Subject: RE: Count of SQ780 Cases

I did not get a chance to talk to Mr. Prater, I want to get his clearance before I start on this project.Jayne

-----Original Message-----From: Cary Cundiff [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 5:43 AMTo: Adkisson, Jayne Subject: RE: Count of SQ780 Cases

Good morning, Jayne!

I was curious if you had a chance to look into this yet?

Thanks,Cary

-----Original Message-----From: Adkisson, Jayne Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 11:25 AMTo: Cary Cundiff Subject: Re: Count of SQ780 Cases

I am out of the office today but I will check n this tomorrow.

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

Jayne

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 17, 2018, at 10:05 AM, Cary Cundiff wrote:

Good morning!

My name is Cary Cundiff and I'm with the Office of Management & Enterprise Services (OMES). I'm currently trying to "calculate the savingsand averted costs that accrued to the state from the implementation of the Oklahoma Smart Justice Reform Act" pursuant to 57 O.S. §632, and I was hoping you could help me out?

Basically, I'm trying to gather caseload data for statutes/crimes affected by SQ780, which is cited as the Oklahoma Smart Justice Reform Act.57 O.S. § 632 also has a strict timeline that we're up against, soI would definitely appreciate any and all help y'all might be able to provide!

For a little bit of backstory, the Oklahoma Smart Justice Reform Act was State Question780(SQ780) which the citizens of Oklahoma approved in November of 2016. This Act modified penalties of certain crimes, whereby it reducedsome felonies down to misdemeanors.

At the same time, the citizens also voted on and approvedSQ781, which created 57 O.S. §631,632, &633 and which leads me to y'all. To help with the calculations,we'll need to know how many offenders have been charged and convicted of the crimes affected by SQ780.

I've been working with the District Attorneys' Council (DAC) on a query to pull caseload information from their JustWare system, and I washoping y'all could run similar queries for Oklahoma & Tulsa counties?

Essentially, we need the number/count of cases for offenses of specific statutes during certain time frames. The Oklahoma Smart Justice ReformAct became effective July 1, 2017, so we would at least need cases filed/"received" after that.

Here is an excerpt of some information from the DAC on their query:"I am seeing in the DAC JustWare districts, i.e. not including OKC and Tulsa, for SQ780 cases12,782 filed cases since 7-1-2017 with a district breakdown of the SQ780 case counts in the enclosed Excel spreadsheet.

Note: The SQ780 cases include cases

1. with a Case Received Date on or after 7-1-2017 2. that do not have a status of Declined, Intake, or No Probable Cause 3. are not Prior Instate or Prior Out of State cases and 4. that have at least one felony or misdemeanor count [that is not listed as occurring before 7-1-2017] of the following SQ780 Statutes:

Code Description21 O.S. § 1451 EMBEZZLEMENT21 O.S. § 1451(A)(9) EMBEZZLEMENT OF RENTAL PROPERTY21 O.S. § 1503 DEFRAUDING AN INNKEEPER / RESTAURATEUR21 O.S. § 1521 RENTING VEHICLE WITH BOGUS CHECK21 O.S. § 1541.1 OBTAINING CASH OR MERCHANDISE BY BOGUS CHECK / FALSE PRETENSES21 O.S. § 1541.2 FELONY VALUE - FALSE PRETENSES / BOGUS CHECK / CON GAME21 O.S. § 1541.3 FELONY VALUE - 2 OR MORE BOGUS CHECKS TOGETHER21 O.S. § 1577 FORGERY IN THE THIRD DEGREE21 O.S. § 1578 POSSESSION OF FORGED NOTES OR INSTRUMENTS21 O.S. § 1579 POSSESSION OF FORGED INSTRUMENTS21 O.S. § 1713 KNOWINGLY CONCEALING STOLEN PROPERTY21 O.S. § 1713.1 RECEIVE / CONCEAL STOLEN CONSTRUCTION / FARM EQUIPMENT21 O.S. § 1719.1 LARCENY OF DOMESTICATED FISH OR GAME21 O.S. § 1722 LARCENY OF GASOLINE.21 O.S. § 1731 LARCENY OF MERCHANDISE FROM RETAILER59 O.S. § 1512 FALSE DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP IN PAWN59 O.S. § 1512(C)(1) OPERATING AS PAWNBROKER WITHOUT A LICENSE59 O.S. § 1512(C)(2) FALSE DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP TO A PAWNBROKER59 O.S. § 1512(C)(3) FAILURE TO REPAY PAWNBROKER63 O.S. § 2-402 POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE

mailto:[email protected]://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=479468http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=479468https://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_Reclassification_of_Some_Drug_and_Property_Crimes_as_Misdemeanors,_State_Question_780_(2016)https://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_Rehabilitative_Programs_Fund_Initiative,_State_Question_781_(2016)http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=479467http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=479468http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=479469

Note: Justware does not have any statutes cited as 21 O.S. § 1621, which lists the punishment for Forgery."

They were also able to pull the same query for a couple years prior to state-fiscal-year 2017 (July 2017 - June 2018) to be used for comparisonpurposes. I've also CC'ed Trent Baggett from the DAC just in case y'all might have any questions for him.

Would it be possible for y'all to run some similar queries to help us get data for Oklahoma & Tulsa counties?

Thanks,

Cary Cundiff | Budget Analystp. 405-522-3170 | fax. 405-521-3902OMES - Budget | omes.ok.gov

http://omes.ok.gov/

From: Keli BlanchettTo: Cary CundiffCc: Baggett, TrentSubject: RE: Count of SQ780 CasesDate: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 3:35:27 PMAttachments: image001.png

Cary, The numbers for Tulsa County based on the criteria below are: FY2018 – 3,263FY2017 – 4,740FY2016 – 4,825 If I have missed anything please let me know. Thank you, Keli BlanchettExecutive Assistant to Steve KunzweilerTulsa County District Attorney’s [email protected]

From: Cary Cundiff [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 10:06 AMTo: Keli Blanchett; [email protected]: Baggett, TrentSubject: Count of SQ780 CasesImportance: High Good morning! My name is Cary Cundiff and I’m with the Office of Management & Enterprise Services (OMES). I’mcurrently trying to “calculate the savings and averted costs that accrued to the state from theimplementation of the Oklahoma Smart Justice Reform Act” pursuant to 57 O.S. § 632, and I washoping you could help me out? Basically, I’m trying to gather caseload data for statutes/crimes affected by SQ780, which is cited asthe Oklahoma Smart Justice Reform Act. 57 O.S. § 632 also has a strict timeline that we’re upagainst, so I would definitely appreciate any and all help y’all might be able to provide! For a little bit of backstory, the Oklahoma Smart Justice Reform Act was State Question 780 (SQ780)which the citizens of Oklahoma approved in November of 2016. This Act modified penalties of

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=479468http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=479468https://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_Reclassification_of_Some_Drug_and_Property_Crimes_as_Misdemeanors,_State_Question_780_(2016)

certain crimes, whereby it reduced some felonies down to misdemeanors. At the same time, the citizens also voted on and approved SQ781, which created 57 O.S. § 631, 632,& 633 and which leads me to y’all. To help with the calculations, we’ll need to know how manyoffenders have been charged and convicted of the crimes affected by SQ780. I’ve been working with the District Attorneys’ Council (DAC) on a query to pull caseload informationfrom their JustWare system, and I was hoping y’all could run similar queries for Oklahoma & Tulsacounties? Essentially, we need the number/count of cases for offenses of specific statutes during certain timeframes. The Oklahoma Smart Justice Reform Act became effective July 1, 2017, so we would at leastneed cases filed/”received” after that. Here is an excerpt of some information from the DAC on their query:“I am seeing in the DAC JustWare districts, i.e. not including OKC and Tulsa, for SQ780 cases12,782 filed cases since 7-1-2017 with a district breakdown of the SQ780 case counts in the enclosedExcel spreadsheet. Note: The SQ780 cases include cases

1. with a Case Received Date on or after 7-1-20172. that do not have a status of Declined, Intake, or No Probable Cause3. are not Prior Instate or Prior Out of State cases and4. that have at least one felony or misdemeanor count [that is not listed as occurring before 7-1-

2017] of the following SQ780 Statutes: Code Description21 O.S. § 1451 EMBEZZLEMENT21 O.S. § 1451(A)(9) EMBEZZLEMENT OF RENTAL PROPERTY21 O.S. § 1503 DEFRAUDING AN INNKEEPER / RESTAURATEUR21 O.S. § 1521 RENTING VEHICLE WITH BOGUS CHECK21 O.S. § 1541.1 OBTAINING CASH OR MERCHANDISE BY BOGUS CHECK / FALSE PRETENSES21 O.S. § 1541.2 FELONY VALUE - FALSE PRETENSES / BOGUS CHECK / CON GAME21 O.S. § 1541.3 FELONY VALUE - 2 OR MORE BOGUS CHECKS TOGETHER21 O.S. § 1577 FORGERY IN THE THIRD DEGREE21 O.S. § 1578 POSSESSION OF FORGED NOTES OR INSTRUMENTS21 O.S. § 1579 POSSESSION OF FORGED INSTRUMENTS21 O.S. § 1713 KNOWINGLY CONCEALING STOLEN PROPERTY21 O.S. § 1713.1 RECEIVE / CONCEAL STOLEN CONSTRUCTION / FARM EQUIPMENT21 O.S. § 1719.1 LARCENY OF DOMESTICATED FISH OR GAME21 O.S. § 1722 LARCENY OF GASOLINE.21 O.S. § 1731 LARCENY OF MERCHANDISE FROM RETAILER59 O.S. § 1512 FALSE DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP IN PAWN

https://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_Rehabilitative_Programs_Fund_Initiative,_State_Question_781_(2016)http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=479467http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=479468http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=479469

59 O.S. § 1512(C)(1) OPERATING AS PAWNBROKER WITHOUT A LICENSE59 O.S. § 1512(C)(2) FALSE DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP TO A PAWNBROKER59 O.S. § 1512(C)(3) FAILURE TO REPAY PAWNBROKER63 O.S. § 2-402 POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE

Note: Justware does not have any statutes cited as 21 O.S. § 1621, which lists the punishment forForgery.” They were also able to pull the same query for a couple years prior to state-fiscal-year 2017 (July2017 – June 2018) to be used for comparison purposes. I’ve also CC’ed Trent Baggett from the DACjust in case y’all might have any questions for him. Would it be possible for y’all to run some similar queries to help us get data for Oklahoma & Tulsacounties? Thanks, Cary Cundiff | Budget Analystp. 405-522-3170 | fax. 405-521-3902OMES – Budget | omes.ok.gov

The information in this e-mail message (including any information contained in attachments hereto) is intended only for use of theaddressee. This e-mail message may contain confidential or privileged information. If you receive this e-mail message unintentionally,please notify the sender promptly and then delete this message. E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be secured or error free. Thesender is in no way liable for any errors or omissions in the content of this e-mail message, which may arise as a result of e-mailtransmission. E-mails, text messages, and other electronic communications made or received in connection with the conducting of publicbusiness, the expenditure of public funds, or the administration of public property are subject to the Oklahoma Open Records Act and theRecords Management Act.

http://omes.ok.gov/

Benef it-Cost Technical Documentat ion W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e I n s t i t u t e f o r P u b l i c P o l i c y B e n e f i t - C o s t M o d e l

December 2017

This Technical Documentation describes the computational procedures used in the

Washington State Institute for Public Policy’s Benefit-Cost Model.

The Technical Document is periodically updated to incorporate the latest revisions to the model.

Many WSIPP employees, both current and former, contributed to the information contained in the

Benefit-Cost Technical Documentation. For further information on the procedures described in this

report, contact Stephanie Lee at [email protected] or (360) 664-9803.

Suggested citation: Washington State Institute for Public Policy (December 2017). Benefit-cost technical documentation.

Olympia, WA: Author.


W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e I n s t i t u t e f o r P u b l i c P o l i c y

110 Fifth Avenue Southeast, Suite 214 • PO Box 40999 • Olympia, WA 98504-0999

(360) 664-9800 • www.wsipp.wa.gov

The Washington State Legislature created the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP)

in 1983. WSIPP is governed by a Board of Directors that represents the legislature, the governor,

and public universities. WSIPP’s mission is to carry out practical, non-partisan research at the

direction of the legislature or the Board of Directors.

WSIPP’s Board of Directors authorized WSIPP to receive outside funding from the

MacArthur Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts to support some of this work.

2

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Overview of the Benefit-Cost Approach and Model............................................................................61.1 Structure of the Model ............................................................................................................................................................ 7

1.2 General Characteristics of WSIPP’s Approach to Benefit-Cost Modeling ......................................................... 8

1.3 Peer Review of the WSIPP Benefit-Cost Model ............................................................................................................ 9

Chapter 2: Procedures to Estimate Effect Sizes and Standard Error ................................................................... 11

2.1 Effect Sizes from Two Bodies of Research:

Program Evaluations and Studies Measuring Linkages Between Outcomes ................................................. 12

2.2 Meta-Analytic Procedures: Study Selection and Coding Criteria ........................................................................ 13

2.3 Meta-Analytic Procedures: Calculating “Unadjusted” Effect Sizes ..................................................................... 14

2.3a Continuously Measured Outcomes ................................................................................................................................. 14

2.3b Dichotomously Measured Outcomes ............................................................................................................................. 15

2.3c Other Effect Size Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 16

2.3d Modifying Effect Sizes ........................................................................................................................................................... 16

2.3e Computing Weighted Average Effect Sizes ................................................................................................................. 18

2.4 WSIPP Adjustments to Effect Sizes from Program Evaluations ........................................................................... 20

2.4a Methodological Quality ........................................................................................................................................................ 21

2.4b Researcher Involvement in the Program’s Design and Implementation ......................................................... 21

2.4c Evaluations with Weak Outcome Measures ................................................................................................................. 22

2.4d Evaluations Conducted in “Non-Real-World” Settings ........................................................................................... 22

2.4e Evaluations with Wait-List Research Designs .............................................................................................................. 22

2.4f Values of the Five WSIPP Adjustment Factors ............................................................................................................ 22

2.4g Calculating the Inverse Variance Weights and Standard Errors when WSIPP Adjustments

are made to Effect Sizes ....................................................................................................................................................... 23

2.5 WSIPP Adjustments to Effect Sizes from Longitudinal Linkage Studies .......................................................... 25

2.5a Methodological Quality ........................................................................................................................................................ 25

2.5b Generalizability of the Sample ........................................................................................................................................... 25

2.5c Relevance of the Independent and Dependent Variables ..................................................................................... 26

2.6 Meta-Analytic Procedures: Calculating “Adjusted” Effect Sizes for the Benefit-Cost Model .................. 26

2.7 The Persistence of Effect Sizes over T

oklahoma smart justice reform act (sq 781) fy 2018 ... · • for 9,182 offenders, using the...

Documents