First Final Draft, PR Projection Jan. 06

Review Trends and Correctional Population Projection for the Administration of Corrections of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

MGT Team

Dr. James Austin

Dr. Tony Fabelo

Wendy Naro

Administration of Corrections Team (Oficina de Planes Programáticos y Estadísticas)

Susana Prosperi Gines

German Palau Rios

February 2006 MGT of America

Table of Contents

Executive Summary...... iii

I. Introduction...... 1

II. AOC Population Trends...... 2

III. Admissions...... 7

IV. Releases and Diversion Program...... 10

V. January 2005 Projection and Its Accuracy...... 15

VI. Projection of January 2006...... 21

VII. Impact of Sentencing Reform...... 25

i MGT of America

Table of Tables

Table 1: Average Daily Population of AOC, Sentenced and Pre-Trial Population and Percent of the Population Represented by the Sentenced and Pre-Trial Population...... 3

Table 2: Average Daily Population of Youth (Jóvenes) in AOC and Percent Youth Population of Total AOC Population...... 5

Table 3: Average Daily Population of Females in AOC and Percent Female Population of Total AOC Population...... 6

Table 4: Percent Distribution of Sentenced Population by Custody Classification Levels...... 7

Table 5: Admissions to AOC, Admissions for Pre-Trial Offenders and Percentage of Admissions Accounted for by Pre-Trial Offenders...... 8

Table 6: Number of Admissions, Admissions of Sentenced Offenders and Percent of All Admissions Accounted by Sentenced Offenders...... 10

Table 7: Number of Releases from AOC, Number Discharged and Paroled and Percent of All Releases That They Represented...... 11

Table 8: Number of Admissions to AOC Diversion (Desvío) Programs, Population Active in Diversion (Desvío) Programs, Negative Exits from Diversion (Desvío) Programs, and Percent of Negative Exits out the Population Served...... 14

Table 9: January 2005 Projection - Projected AOC Sentenced Population under Low Growth Scenario Compared to Actual, July 2004 to December 2005...... 16

Table 10: January 2005 Projection - Comparison of Actual Pre-Trial Population with Projected Population, July 2004 to December 2005...... 17

Table 11: January 2005 Projection - Comparison of Actual and Projected Fluctuations in Pre-Trial Population, July 2004 to December 2005...... 18

Table 12: Projected Total PR Population and Population of Males Aged 15-34. 20

Table 13: January 2006 Projection - Projected AOC Population under Baseline and Low Growth Scenario, 2006-2015...... 21

Table 14: January 2006 Projection - Projected Pre-Trial Population and Sentenced Population Low Growth Scenario, 2006-2015...... 22

ii MGT of America

Table 15: January 2006 Projection - Projected Pre-Trial Population with Projected Peaking or Fluctuations, 2006-2015...... 22

Table 16: January 2006 Projection - Projected Youth (Jóvenes) and Female Population under Low Growth Scenario, 2006-2015...... 23

Table 17: January 2006 Projection - Based Sentenced Population by Classification Level, 2006-2015...... 24

Table 18: January 2006 Projection - Percentage of Sentenced Population by Classification Levels, 2006-2015...... 24

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Average Monthly Daily AOC Population for Fiscal Year 2005...... 4

Figure 2: Total AOC Admissions, 1992-2005...... 9

Figure 3: Total AOC Releases, 1992-2005...... 12

Figure 4: Discharges and Parole Releases, 1992-2005...... 12

Figure 5: January 2005 Projected AOC Pre-Trial Population, Projected High and Low Peaks and Actual Population, July 2004 to December 2005...... 19

Figure 6: Overview of Main Policies under Pre-and-Post May 2005 Penal Code Reform and Good Time Policy Changes...... 27

Figure 7: Summary of Snapshot Static Impact Analysis of the New Sentencing Code, May 2005...... 29

iii MGT of America

Executive Summary

This report presents a review of correctional population trends in Puerto Rico with updated fiscal year 2005 data. These trends are examined to determine if the correctional population projection of January 2005 presented to the Administration of Corrections (AOC) in a February 2005 report needs to be updated. A new updated projection is presented here and this will be referred as the January 2006 projection.

The monthly trend information was collected using the monthly tracking report created by the AOC Planning Office to facilitate the tracking of this information and to provide updates for the AOC Secretary (Informe Ejecutivo Mensual de Medidas de Desempeño).

The projection methodology used here relies on a time series regression model. Time series analysis is inherently problematic as it relies too heavily upon history and cannot mimic current sentencing release and other correctional policies that are in a constant state of change. However, the current AOC computerized Population Control System (PCS) is still being developed and implemented and due to issues reviewed in three other MGT reports, this system cannot be utilized to develop a projection model. This data system has the potential of providing individual or case-based data for developing a more sophisticated projection model. Such a model would be based on a stochastic simulation program that is capable of mimicking the flow of individual prisoners from the point of admission through release for a ten year time frame.

In fiscal year 2005 the average daily population of AOC decreased by 2.8%. Both the pre-trial and sentenced population declined, with a steeper decline for the pre- trial population (6.6% compared to the 2.1% decline in the sentenced population). Other trends in fiscal year 2005 are the following:

 The youth population decreased by 18.5%. The youth population represented 3.9% of the AOC correctional population in 2004, the lowest percentage since 1992.

 The female population decreased by 4.%. The female population represented 3.4% of the AOC correctional population in 2004.

 The percentage of the sentenced population classified in higher custody levels continued to increase. The percent of the population in medium custody increased from 39% of the population to 40% (4,960 out of 12,378) and the percent in maximum custody increased from 7.1% to 7.9% (984 out of 12,378) as mentioned above. The percent of the population in minimum custody declined from 49.6% to 48.6% (6,026 out of 12,378) and the percent unclassified continued to decline from 3.2% to 4.1% (6,026 out of 12,378).

 Admissions declined by 10.1% and releases decreased by 3.2%. The number of discharges decreased by 4.6% and the number of parole releases declined by 15.2%, continuing the prior declining trend.

iv MGT of America

 Admissions to the diversion programs declined by 22.5% and, accordingly, the active population under supervision also declined (by 14.4%). This has been a result of the toughening of criteria regarding the use of these programs.

Various projections have been developed since 2004. The accuracy of the January 2004 projection was reviewed in a report issued in August 2004. At the time, the review found the original projection of January 2004 to be accurate and this projection was maintained. However, in January 2005 a new projection was issued as the correctional population in late 2004 was declining faster than projected. The accuracy of that projection is reviewed in the body of this report. The new projection is presented below. This projection is referred to as the January 2006 projection

Projections are developed using time series regression models. Two projection scenarios are usually presented. The Baseline Scenario relies on the historic growth patterns for the past ten years, but uses a log-linear equation which places additional weighting on the most recent years and diminished the influence of erratic increases since 1993. The Low Growth Scenario is based only on the past five years of growth which has been minimal and/or erratic. This is considered the most likely scenario and is the one that is developed for the January 2006 projection.

The table below shows that January 2006 projection for the period of 2006-2015. As can be seen in this table, the AOC population is projected to increase by 3.2% between 2005 and 2016 under this scenario. Compared to the January 2005 projection, this projection is lower. The projected low growth population by 2015 in the January 2005 projection was 15,914 compared to 15,198 for this one.

January 2006 Projection - Projected AOC Population under Baseline and Low Growth Scenario, 2006-2015

Year Total Low Growth Scenario 2005* 14,708 2006 14,730 2007 14,772 2008 14,819 2009 14,865 2010 14,912 2011 14,960 2012 15,007 2013 15,055 2014 15,102 2015 15,150 2016 15,198

Percent Change 3.2% 06 to 16

v MGT of America

The table below shows the projection for the pre-trial and the sentenced population. The pre-trial population is projected to increase by 3.9% in 2005-2016 and the sentenced population under the low growth scenario is projected to increase by 3.0%. The projected pre-trial population by 2015 in the January 2005 projection was 2,787 compared to 2,519 for this one; for the low growth sentenced population scenario it was 13,127 compared to 12,631.

January 2006 Projection - Projected Pre-Trial Population and Sentenced Population Low Growth Scenario, 2006-2015

Year Pre-Trial Sentenced Population Population Low Growth Scenario 2005* 2,427 12,281 2006 2,435 12,295 2007 2,440 12,332 2008 2,450 12,369 2009 2,459 12,406 2010 2,469 12,443 2011 2,479 12,481 2012 2,489 12,518 2013 2,499 12,556 2014 2,509 12,593 2015 2,519 12,631 2016 2,529 12,669

Percent Change 3.9% 3.0% 06 to 16

None of the projections, including the one presented above, have taken into account the potential impact of the sentencing and penal code reform approved by the Governor in June 2004. The reform became effective in May 2005. There has not been a comprehensive impact analysis of the reform on the correctional system done by the Commonwealth government. Moreover, the necessary sentence, offense and time served data to conduct a comprehensive analysis are not available. Options are being explored now to set a monthly tracking report to determine the number of admissions under the new sentencing code and determine the offense and sentence characteristics of the offenders admitted. However, the AOC planning office, working with the MGT team, developed a “snapshot” impact analysis of the sentencing reform. The results of this analysis are discussed in this report.

In general, it is estimated that the based on the sentence and offense distribution of a group of admissions tracked, offenders admitted to prison “after the reform” would have had to serve 1.14 years longer in prison and would have consumed an additional 3,427 beds. However, the static model used to make this estimate cannot be used to

vi MGT of America estimate the impact of lower recidivism (due to fewer releases), cannot account for changes in admissions trends driven by demographic or court practices and cannot account for the phase-in of the impact (no information is available at this time to determine how quickly new code offenders are replacing old code offenders sentenced to prison). Therefore, all that can be said until further studies are completed is that “given every thing else being equal” the new code is probably going to increase time served in prison for sentenced offenders but how this increase translate into the need for more capacity and by when is not clear at this time.

vii MGT of America

I. Introduction

Various correctional population projections have been developed since 2004. The first projection was that of January 2004. This projection was reviewed in an August 2004 report which found the projection to be accurate. However, a January 2005 projection modified the original projection by reducing the projected prison population as the trends for the end of 2004 showed the population to be lower than originally projected.

The projection methodology used here relies on a time series regression model. Time series analysis is inherently problematic as it relies too heavily upon history and cannot mimic current sentencing release and other correctional policies that are in a constant state of change. The current AOC computerized Population Control System (PCS) is still being developed and implemented and due to issues reviewed in three other MGT reports, this system cannot be utilized to develop a projection model.1 This data system has the potential of providing individual or case-based data for developing a more sophisticated projection model. Such a model would be based on a stochastic simulation program that is capable of mimicking the flow of individual prisoners from the point of admission through release for a ten year time frame.

Arrest and court data has been examined, but due to inconsistencies in reporting, these data are found at this time to be too problematic to integrate in a projection model. Demographic trends in Puerto Rico were also examined in developing the projection. The monthly correctional population trend information was collected using the monthly tracking report created by the AOC Planning Office to facilitate the tracking of this information and to provide updates for the AOC Secretary (Informe Ejecutivo Mensual de Medidas de Desempeño).

It is important to note that these projections do not take into account the potential impact of the sentencing and penal code reform approved by the Governor in June 2004. The reform became effective in May of 2005. Sentence, offense and time served data are not available to analyze the impact of this reform. The MGT team, working with the AOC planning office, developed a “snapshot” impact analysis of the sentencing reform. However, this analysis cannot be used to estimate the magnitude and timing of the impact of the reform on the projected yearly population for reasons explained later in the report. Options are being explored now to set a monthly tracking report to determine

1 “Management Report I: Analysis of Truenorth’s Population Control System of the Administration of Corrections of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico” June 2004; “Management Report II: Analysis of Admissions and Release Counts to Bayamón 705 Intake Center,” August 2004; and “Evaluation of the Start-Up Implementation of Truenorth’s Population Control System of the Administration of Corrections of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Recommendations for Improvements and 2005 Work Plan” November 2004.

1 MGT of America the number of admissions under the new sentencing code and determine the offense and sentence characteristics of the offenders admitted.

II. AOC Population Trends

Table 1 below shows the average daily AOC population, the average daily population for sentenced and pre-trial offenders, and the percentage that sentenced and pre-trial offenders represent in the total population. Figure 1 depicts graphically the monthly trend in the average daily population in 2005.

As can be seen in Table 1, the correctional population started decreasing in 2000 with both the sentenced and pre-trial populations decreasing, but the steepest decrease occurred with the pre-trial population. Both the sentenced and pre-trial populations declined in 2005. The decline was steeper for the pre-trial population at 6.6% compared to a 2.1% decreased for the sentenced population. In 2005 the percentage of the correctional population that was pre-trial was the lowest in the fourteen-year period (at 17.1% in 2005 compared to 24.4% in 1995). The decline in the population continued during the July to December 2005 period.

2 MGT of America

Table 1: Average Daily Population of AOC, Sentenced and Pre-Trial Population and Percent of the Population Represented by the Sentenced and Pre-Trial Population

Fiscal Average Sentenced Percent of Pre-Trial Percent of Year Daily Population Population Population 92-93 11,387 8,642 75.9% 2,745 24.1% 93-94 10,617 8,033 75.7% 2,584 24.3% 94-95 11,524 8,716 75.6% 2,808 24.4% 95-96 13,092 10,441 79.8% 2,651 20.2% 96-97 14,139 11,539 81.6% 2,600 18.4% 97-98 15,018 12,022 80.1% 2,996 19.9% 98-99 16,033 12,724 79.4% 3,279 20.5% 99-00 15,805 12,801 81.0% 3,004 19.0% 00-01 15,090 12,059 79.9% 3,031 20.1% 01-02 15,133 12,106 80.0% 3,027 20.0% 02-03 15,147 12,368 81.7% 2,779 18.3% 03-04 15,355 12,642 82.3% 2,714 17.6% 04-05 14,911 12,377 82.9% 2,534 17.1% Percent -2.8% -2.1% -6.6% Change 04 to 05

Average July- 14,708 12,281 2,427 Dec. 2005

3 MGT of America

Figure 1: Average Monthly Daily AOC Population for Fiscal Year 2005

18,000 15,428 16,000 14,913 14,820 14,665 14,773 15,319 14,000 15,278 15,218 15,356 14,586 14,450 14,740 14,749 12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0 03- July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Ap May Jun 04 04 05

Table 2 below shows the average daily population of youth (Jóvenes) in AOC and the percent that this population represents of the total AOC population. The rapidly declining youth population in AOC has contributed to the decline in the AOC population. In fiscal year 2005, the youth population decreased by 18.5%. The youth population represented 3.9% of the AOC correctional population in 2005, the lowest percentage since 1992. The decline in the population continued during the July to December 2005 period.

4 MGT of America

Table 2: Average Daily Population of Youth (Jóvenes) in AOC and Percent Youth Population of Total AOC Population

Fiscal Average Jóvenes Percent of Year Daily Population Population 92-93 11,387 1,188 10.4% 93-94 10,617 1,120 10.5% 94-95 11,524 1,120 9.5% 95-96 13,092 1,216 9.3% 96-97 14,139 1,411 10.0% 97-98 15,018 1,169 7.8% 98-99 16,033 1,369 8.5% 99-00 15,805 1,084 6.9% 00-01 15,090 962 6.4% 01-02 15,133 837 5.5% 02-03 15,147 762 5.0% 03-04 15,355 718 4.6% 04-05 14,911 585 3.9% Percent -2.8% -18.5% Change 04 to 05

Average July- 14,708 506 Dec. 2005

Table 3 below shows the average daily population of females in AOC and the percent that this population represents of the AOC population. In fiscal year 2005 the female population decreased by 4.8%. The female population represented 3.4% of the AOC correctional population in 2005. The decline in the population continued during the July to December 2005 period.

5 MGT of America

Table 3: Average Daily Population of Females in AOC and Percent Female Population of Total AOC Population

Fiscal Average Females Percent of Year Daily Population Population 92-93 11,387 461 4.0% 93-94 10,617 360 3.3% 94-95 11,524 506 4.3% 95-96 13,092 524 4.0% 96-97 14,139 545 3.8% 97-98 15,018 602 4.0% 98-99 16,033 661 4.1% 99-00 15,805 642 4.0% 00-01 15,090 583 3.6% 01-02 15,133 544 3.5% 02-03 15,147 579 3.8% 03-04 15,355 539 3.5% 04-05 14,911 513 3.4% Percent Change -2.8% -4.8% 04 to 05

Average July- 14,708 494 Dec. 2005

Table 4 below shows the percent distribution of the sentenced population by custody classification levels. In fiscal year 2005 the population was classified in higher custody levels than in 2004. The percent of the population in medium custody increased from 39% of the population to 40% (4,960 out of 12,378) and the percent in maximum custody increased from 7.1% to 7.9% (984 out of 12,378). The percent of the population in minimum custody declined from 49.6% to 48.6% (6,026 out of 12,378) and the percent unclassified continued to decline from 3.2% to 4.1% (6,026 out of 12,378). These trends continued during the July to December 2005 period.

6 MGT of America

Table 4: Percent Distribution of Sentenced Population by Custody Classification Levels

Fiscal Percent Percent Percent Percent of Year Population Population Population Population in Minimum in Medium in Maximum Unclassified Custody Custody Custody 92-93 45.0% 35.7% 7.5% 11.6% 93-94 48.1% 33.9% 7.1% 10.6% 94-95 52.0% 33.7% 5.7% 8.5% 95-96 54.3% 32.3% 5.7% 7.5% 96-97 47.6% 41.0% 5.3% 5.9% 97-98 41.8% 46.4% 6.5% 5.1% 98-99 40.8% 45.9% 7.6% 5.5% 99-00 41.1% 45.6% 7.7% 5.4% 00-01 46.0% 42.8% 7.1% 3.9% 01-02 53.1% 36.2% 5.9% 4.7% 02-03 54.6% 34.3% 6.1% 4.8% 03-04 49.6% 39.0% 7.1% 4.1% 04-05 48.6% 40.0% 7.9% 3.2%

Jul -Dec 48.8% 38.6% 9.3% 2.9% 05

III. Admissions

Table 5 below shows the number of admissions to AOC, admissions for pre-trial offenders and the percentage of admissions accounted for by pre-trial offenders. Admissions here refer to those admitted in the following categories: Sentenced (Sentenciados), Pre-Trial (Sumariados), Violations from probation and parole (Violaciones), Readmissions (Reingresos) and Captures (Capturas). The admissions number does not count Transfers (Traslados) and Transit (Tránsitos) as admissions for this analysis. Figure 2 depicts the total admissions trend from 1992-2005.

In fiscal year 2005 admissions continued to decline. Total admissions decreased by 10.1% with admissions for pre-trial offenders decreasing by 6.0%. The number of admissions for pre-trial offenders declined by 25% from its peak in 1995 of 20,950 to its low of 15,058 in 2005, The decline in admissions continued during the July to December 2005 period.

7 MGT of America

Table 5: Admissions to AOC, Admissions for Pre-Trial Offenders and Percentage of Admissions Accounted for by Pre-Trial Offenders

Fiscal Admissions Admissions Percent of Year of Pre-Trial All Offenders Admissions 92-93 27,578 20,192 73.2% 93-94 31,367 20,461 65.2% 94-95 32,088 20,950 65.3% 95-96 29,391 18,718 63.7% 96-97 28,630 18,279 63.8% 97-98 32,025 19,991 62.4% 98-99 32,303 19,574 60.6% 99-00 32,210 18,173 56.4% 00-01 33,518 19,076 56.9% 01-02 29,587 17,007 57.5% 02-03 30,812* 17,541* 56.9%* 03-04 28,349 16,030 56.5% 04-05 25,480 15,058 59.1% Percent Change 04 -10.1% -6.0% to 05

Average July-Dec. 22,375 14,254 2005 *Number slightly different from does shown in August 2004 Report due to update in year end data by AOC

8 MGT of America

Figure 2: Total AOC Admissions, 1992-2005

40,000 33,518 35,000 32,210 31,367 32,088 32,025 30,963 30,000 32,303 28,630 29,391 29,587 27,578 28,349 25,000 25,480 20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0 92- 93- 94- 95- 96- 97- 98- 99- 00- 01- 02- 03- 04- 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05

Table 6 below shows the number of admissions, admissions of sentenced offenders and percent of admissions accounted by sentenced offenders. The admissions for sentenced offenders (Sentenciados) have decreased since 2000 after increasing every year since 1992. In fiscal year 2005, the admissions for sentenced offenders declined by 24.3%. Admissions for sentenced offenders represented a lower percentage of the admissions in 2005 than in the peak year of 2000 (10.6% in 2005 compared to 14.9% in 2000). The decline in admissions continued during the July to December 2005 period.

9 MGT of America

Table 6: Number of Admissions, Admissions of Sentenced Offenders and Percent of All Admissions Accounted by Sentenced Offenders

Fiscal Admissions Admissions Percent of Year of All Sentenced Admissions Offenders 92-93 27,578 2,091 7.6% 93-94 31,367 2,812 9.0% 94-95 32,088 2,980 9.3% 95-96 29,391 2,612 8.9% 96-97 28,630 3,130 10.9% 97-98 32,025 3,944 12.3% 98-99 32,303 4,461 13.8% 99-00 32,210 4,808 14.9% 00-01 33,518 4,543 13.6% 01-02 29,587 4,292 14.5% 02-03 30,812* 4,293 13.9% 03-04 28,349 3,576 12.6% 04-05 25,486 2,707 10.6% Percent Change 04 -10.1% -24.3% to 05

Average July-Dec 22,375 2,330 2005 *Number slightly different from does shown in August 2004 Report due to update in year end data by AOC

IV. Releases and Diversion Program

Table 7 below shows the number of releases from AOC, the number of offenders discharged (Cumplido), the number paroled and the percent of all releases that each group represented. The total releases include discharges, paroles, releases to probation from AOC, releases by order of the court, releases after paying a fine or bond, and all the escapes. The count below excludes all the transfers and transits. Figure 3 depicts graphically the trend in releases. Figure 4 depicts graphically the trend for discharges and parole releases.

In fiscal year 2005 total releases decreased by 3.2%, the number of discharges declined by 4.6% and parole releases declined by 15.2%, continuing the prior trend. The percentage of all releases that were parole releases decreased from a high of 7.6% in 1994 to 2% in 2005, while the percentage discharged increased from a low of 17.3% in 1994 to 28.3% in 2005. The decline in releases continued during the July to December 2005 period.

10 MGT of America

Table 7: Number of Releases from AOC, Number Discharged and Paroled and Percent of All Releases That They Represented

Fiscal Releases Discharges Percent of Paroles Percent of Year (Cumplido) All (LBP) All Releases Releases 92-93 22,862 4,214 18.4% 1,603 7.0% 93-94 23,803 4,118 17.3% 1,815 7.6% 94-95 24,099 4,263 17.7% 1,307 5.4% 95-96 22,779 4,623 20.3% 1,166 5.1% 96-97 22,423 4,781 21.3% 848 3.8% 97-98 26,851 5,327 19.8% 905 3.4% 98-99 23,530 5,302 22.5% 929 3.9% 99-00 24,077 5,791 24.1% 1,349 5.6% 00-01 25,527 5,969 23.4% 1,115 4.4% 01-02 19,434 5,439 28.0% 631 3.2% 02-03 22,622* 6,640* 27.3% 559 2.5% 03-04 22,140 6,367 28.7% 525 2.3% 04-05 21,421 6,072 28.3% 445 2.0% Percent Change -3.2% -4.6% -15.2% 04 to 05

Average July – 18,797 5,316 206 Dec. 05 *Number slightly different from does shown in August 2004 Report due to update in year end data by AOC

11 MGT of America

Figure 3: Total AOC Releases, 1992-2005

30,000 26,651 23,803 24,099 25,527 25,000 22,484 24,077 22,862 22,423 23,530 20,000 22,779 22,140 19,434 21,421 15,000

10,000

5,000

0 92- 93- 94- 95- 96- 97- 98- 99- 00- 01- 02- 03- 04- 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05

Figure 4: Discharges and Parole Releases, 1992-2005

7,000 6,131 5,791 5,969 6,000 6,367 5,327 5,439 6,072 5,302 5,000 4,214 4,263 4,781 4,623 4,000 4,118 Discharged 3,000 Paroled 1,815 2,000 1,307 1,166 1,349 1,603 1,115 559 1,000 525 848 905 929 631 0 445 92- 93- 94- 95- 96- 97- 98- 99- 00- 01- 02- 03- 04- 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05

AOC has the ability to release offenders directly from the institutions to a diversion program (Desvío) for the offenders to complete their sentences. Offenders are

12 MGT of America placed in furloughs (Pases Extendidos), participate in social integration programs (Hogares de Adaptación Social, Centros Cristianos), or are in electronic monitoring (Supervisión Electrónica).

Table 8 shows the number of admissions to AOC diversion programs, the population active in diversion programs, the negative exits from diversion programs and the percent of negative exits out of the population served. Negative exists refer to absconders (Abandono), transfers to institutions (Traslado Otra Institución), new crimes (Nuevo Delito), violations of conditions (Violación de Condiciones), and other violations (Otras Violaciones).

In fiscal year 2005 admissions to the diversion programs declined by 22.5% and, accordingly, the active population declined by 14.4%. Negative exits declined by 21.4%. This is a reflection of the declining number of inmates in the population and more restrictive placement policies for the program.

Admissions to the diversion programs peaked in 1996 and have declined since then. During the same period, the active population under supervision declined by 66.7%. Negative exits from the programs peaked at 31.7% of the population under active supervision in 2003 and then declined to 27.5% in 2005. The trends continued during the July to December 2005 period.

13 MGT of America

Year Admissions Population Negative Percent of to Desvío Active in Exits from Negative Programs Desvío Desvío Exits of Programs Programs Active Population 92-93 2,866 3,138 56 1.8% 93-94 6,205 7,810 280 3.6% 94-95 8,340 11,915 1,209 10.1% 95-96 8,297 12,614 1,803 14.3% 96-97 7,892 12,497 3,029 24.2% 97-98 7,019 10,257 1,825 17.8% 98-99 7,333 10,324 2,407 23.3% 99-00 6,755 9,626 2,371 24.6% 00-01 5,817 8,258 2,399 29.1% 01-02 5,244 7,499 2,246 30.0% 02-03 4,627 6,614 2,099* 31.7%* 03-04 3,131 4,895 1,469 30.0% 04-05 2,424 4,188 1,154 27.5% Percent Change -22.5% -14,4% -21.4% 04 to 05

Average July- 1,445 3,209 403 Dec. 2005 *Number slightly different from does shown in August 2004 Report due to update in year end data by AOC

V. January 2005 Projection and Its Accuracy

14 MGT of America

Projections are developed using time series regression models. Two projection scenarios are usually presented. These are:

 Baseline Scenario: This projection relies on the historic growth patterns for the past ten years, but uses a log-linear equation which places additional weighting on the most recent years and diminished the influence of erratic increases since 1993.

 Low Growth Scenario: The low growth projection is based only on the past five years of growth which has been minimal and/or erratic. This is considered the most likely scenario.

As stated in the introduction, none of the projections have taken into account the potential impact of the sentencing and penal code reform approved by the Governor in June 2004. The reform became effective in May 2005. Sentence, offense and time served data are not available to analyze the impact of this reform. The MGT team working with the AOC planning office developed a “snapshot” impact analysis of the sentencing reform but, as it will be explained later, this analysis cannot be used to estimate the magnitude and timing of the impact of the reform on the projected yearly population. Options are being explored now to set a monthly tracking report to determine the number of admissions under the new sentencing code and determine the offense and sentence characteristics of the offenders admitted.

The low growth scenario for the sentenced population was seen as the most likely scenario for the January 2005 projection. Table 9 below presents the comparison of the projected sentenced population in AOC under this scenario with the actual sentenced population for the months of July 2004 to December 2005. As can be seen, the projected population has been higher than the actual, with the projected population for December 2005 being 696 higher than the actual, or a variance of 5.7%.

Table 9: January 2005 Projection - Projected AOC Sentenced Population under Low Growth Scenario Compared to Actual, July 2004 to December 2005

15 MGT of America

Actual Projected Variance Variance AOC Population Month/Year Raw Percentage Sentenced Slow Growth Numbers Difference Population Scenario Jul-04 12,633 12,642 9 0.1% Aug-04 12,608 12,647 39 0.3% Sep-04 12,627 12,652 25 0.2% Oct-04 12,544 12,657 113 0.9% Nov-04 12,372 12,663 291 2.4% Dec-04 12,172 12,669 497 4.1% Jan-05 12,077 12,675 598 5.0% Feb-05 12,207 12,681 474 3.9% Mar-05 12,243 12,687 444 3.6% Apr-05 12,292 12,692 400 3.3% May-05 12,401 12,698 297 2.4% June-05 12,350 12,704 354 2.9% July-05 12,298 12,710 412 3.4% Aug-05 12,266 12,742 476 3.9% Sep-05 12,282 12,774 492 4.0% Oct-05 12,340 12,806 466 3.8% Nov -05 12,328 12,838 510 4.1% Dec -05 12,174 12,870 696 5.7%

A comparison between the actual population and the projected pre-trial population is also presented in tables 10 and 11. The pre-trial projection is also declining faster than projected and is not even within the projected “low peak”. The projected pre-trial population for December 2006 was 14.1% or 322 inmates higher than the actual.

16 MGT of America

Table 10: January 2005 Projection - Comparison of Actual Pre-Trial Population with Projected Population, July 2004 to December 2005

Actual Projected Variance Variance Month/Year Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Raw Percentage Population Population Numbers Difference July-04 2,645 2,569 -76 -2.9% Aug-04 2,711 2,572 -139 -5.1% Sep-04 2,801 2,575 -226 -8.1% Oct-04 2.674 2,578 -103 -3.8% Nov-04 2,541 2,580 39 1.5% Dec-04 2 ,414 2,581 167 6.9% Jan-05 2,373 2,583 210 8.8% Feb-05 2,458 2,586 128 5.2% Mar-05 2,497 2,589 92 3.7% Apr-05 2,528 2,592 64 2.5% May-05 2,372 2,595 223 9.4% Jun-05 2,399 2,598 199 8.3% July-05 2,390 2,599 209 8.7% Aug-05 2,365 2,601 236 10.0% Sep-05 2,486 2,603 117 4.7% Oct-05 2,540 2,605 65 2.6% Nov-05 2,494 2,607 113 4.5% Dec-05 2,287 2,609 322 14.1%

Table 11 presents the projected “peaking” fluctuation for this population, which is roughly a fluctuation of 8% on any given month. This is mainly due to the fact that pre- trial or jail populations tend to have more monthly fluctuations than the sentenced population. For example, pre-trial or jail populations may be quickly impacted by arrest policies during a particular month. Therefore, a peaking factor is always computed for projections of this kind. The actual and projected figures are presented in comparison to the potential fluctuations and as can be seen, the projection falls below the expected low peak for four months during this period. In December 2005, the actual pre-trial population was 2,287 compared to 2,397 for the low-peak projection. Figure 5 shows the same relationship graphically.

17 MGT of America

Table 11: January 2005 Projection - Comparison of Actual and Projected Fluctuations in Pre-Trial Population, July 2004 to December 2005

Actual Pre- Projected Projected Projected Month/Year Trial Pre-Trial High Peak Low Peak Population Population July-04 2,774 2,645 2,569 2,363 Aug-04 2,777 2,711 2,572 2,366 Sep-04 2,780 2,801 2,575 2,369 Oct-04 2,784 2.674 2,578 2,373 Nov-04 2,788 2,541 2,580 2,377 Dec-04 2,789 2 ,414 2,581 2,378 Jan-05 2,791 2,373 2,583 2,380 Feb-05 2,794 2,458 2,586 2,381 Mar-05 2,796 2,497 2,589 2,383 Apr-05 2,799 2,528 2,592 2,385 May-05 2,803 2,372 2,595 2,387 Jun-05 2,806 2,399 2,598 2,390 July-05 2,807 2,390 2,599 2,391 Aug-05 2,808 2,365 2,601 2,392 Sep-05 2,809 2,486 2,603 2,393 Oct-05 2,810 2,540 2,605 2,394 Nov-05 2,811 2,494 2,607 2,396 Dec-05 2,812 2,287 2,609 2,397

18 MGT of America

Figure 5: January 2005 Projected AOC Pre-Trial Population, Projected High and Low Peaks and Actual Population, July 2004 to December 2005

2,900

2,800

2,700 High Peak Actual 2,600 Projected 2,500 Low Peak

2,400

2,300 J D M O u e c ly c ay t 0 . . 0 4 05 5

19 MGT of America

Table 12 below shows the population projection for Puerto Rico for 2004-2015.2 The population of Puerto Rico is projected to increase by 4.3% during this period but the population of males aged 15-34 is projected to decline by 4.9%. This population is usually referred to as the “crime prone” population due to most crimes being committed by males in this age group. Although the size of this population is not the only factor that can impact correctional population growth, it is an important factor that is usually considered in projecting changes in crimes and arrests. In the case of Puerto Rico, the decline in this population would seem to indicate that crime would stabilize or decline assuming everything else being equal. However, everything else may not be equal as the current youth gang and drug gang violence in Puerto Rico may indicate that demographic changes alone may not be a good predictor in this case. No data are available to further explore this.

Table 12: Projected Total PR Population and Population of Males Aged 15-34

Year PR Male Population Population Age 15-34 2004 3,897,960 565,006 2005 3,916,632 563,758 2006 3,934,706 562,615 2007 3,952,188 561,576 2008 3,969,048 560,386 2009 3,985,256 558,786 2010 4,000,777 556,576 2015 4,066,356 537,075 Percent Change 4.3% -4.9% 03 to 15

VI. Projection of January 2006

2 U.S. Bureau of the Census, International Data Base, www.census.gov.

20 MGT of America

This section presents new projections updating the projections of January 2005. The new projections are shown in the tables below. The low growth scenario is seeing as the most likely one given recent trends. As seen in Table 13 below, the AOC population is projected to increase by 3.2% between 2005 and 2016 under this scenario. Compared to the January 2005 projection, this projection is lower. The projected low growth population by 2015 in the January 2005 projection was 15,914 compared to 15,198 for this one.

Table 13: January 2006 Projection - Projected AOC Population under Baseline and Low Growth Scenario, 2006-2015

Year Total Low Growth Scenario 2005* 14,708 2006 14,730 2007 14,772 2008 14,819 2009 14,865 2010 14,912 2011 14,960 2012 15,007 2013 15,055 2014 15,102 2015 15,150 2016 15,198

Percent Change 3.2% 06 to 16 * 2005 counts represent average from July 2005-December 2005

Table 14 below shows the projected pre-trial (Sumariado) population and the sentenced population under low growth scenario. Again, the low growth scenario is seen as the most likely given present trends. The pre-trial population is projected to increase by 3.9% in 2005-2016 and the sentenced population under the low growth scenario is projected to increase by 3.0%. The projected pre-trial population by 2015 in the January 2005 projection was 2,787 compared to 2,519 for this one; for the low growth sentenced population scenario it was 13,127 compared to 12,631. Table 15 presents the projected high peak and low peak pre-trial population projection. As stated above, pre-trial or jail populations may be quickly impacted by arrest policies during a particular month. Therefore, a peaking factor is always computed for projections of this kind.

21 MGT of America

Table 14: January 2006 Projection - Projected Pre-Trial Population and Sentenced Population Low Growth Scenario, 2006-2015

Percent Change 3.9% 3.0% 06 to 16 * 2005 counts represent average from July 2005-December 2005

Table 15: January 2006 Projection - Projected Pre-Trial Population with Projected Peaking or Fluctuations, 2006-2015

Projected Projected Projected Month/Year Pre-Trial High Peak Low Peak Population 2006 2,255 2,435 2,646 2007 2,259 2,440 2,652 2008 2,269 2,450 2,663 2009 2,277 2,459 2,673 2010 2,286 2,469 2,684 2011 2,296 2,479 2,694 2012 2,305 2,489 2,705 2013 2,314 2,499 2,716 2014 2,323 2,509 2,728 2015 2,333 2,519 2,738 2016 2,342 2,529 2,749

Table 17 below presents the projected youth and female population under the low growth scenario. Both the youth and female population are expected to grow by 2.0% and 3.2% respectively in 2005-2016. The projected youth population by 2015 under the low growth scenario in the January 2005 projection was 593 compared to 485 for this one; for the low growth female population scenario it was 553 compared to 520

22 MGT of America

Table 16: January 2006 Projection - Projected Youth (Jóvenes) and Female Population under Low Growth Scenario, 2006-2015

Year Youth Females (Jóvenes) Slow Slow Growth Growth Projection Projection 2005* 506 494 2006 473 497 2007 473 502 2008 475 504 2009 476 506 2010 478 509 2011 479 510 2012 481 513 2013 482 514 2014 483 517 2015 485 519 2016 486 520

Percent Change 05 to 16 2.0% 3.2% * 2005 counts represent average from July 2005-December 2005

Table 17 below presents the projected sentenced population by classification level. Table 18 shows the same information in terms of percentage of the AOC sentenced population that the population in each classification level represents. The percent of the AOC population in maximum custody is projected to increase from 9.3% of the sentenced population in 2005 to 12.8% in 2016 or from 1,146 inmates to 1,625. This is based on recent trends and initial results from the new classification system. Monitoring of the new classification system is needed to further refine the projection in the future.

23 MGT of America

Table 17: January 2006 Projection - Sentenced Population by Classification Level, 2006-2015

Year Population Population Population Population in Minimum in Medium in Maximum Unclassified Custody Custody Custody 2005* 6,002 4,743 1,146 361 2006 6,288 4,734 1,270 361 2007 6,245 4,748 1,336 363 2008 6,227 4,750 1,389 364 2009 6,196 4,764 1,443 365 2010 6,189 4,766 1,484 366 2011 6,171 4,780 1,526 367 2012 6,164 4,794 1,556 368 2013 6,183 4,796 1,573 369 2014 6,188 4,811 1,590 370 2015 6,207 4,812 1,608 371 2016 6,213 4,827 1,625 372

Table 18: January 2006 Projection - Percentage of Sentenced Population by Classification Levels, 2006-2015

Year Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Population Population Population Population in Minimum in Medium in Maximum Unclassified Custody Custody Custody 2005* 48.9% 38.6% 9.3% 2.9% 2006 51.1% 38.5% 10.3% 2.9% 2007 50.6% 38.5% 10.8% 2.9% 2008 50.3% 38.4% 11.2% 2.9% 2009 49.9% 38.4% 11.6% 2.9% 2010 49.7% 38.3% 11.9% 2.9% 2011 49.4% 38.3% 12.2% 2.9% 2012 49.2% 38.3% 12.4% 2.9% 2013 49.2% 38.2% 12.5% 2.9% 2014 49.1% 38.2% 12.6% 2.9% 2015 49.1% 38.1% 12.7% 2.9% 2016 49.0% 38.1% 12.8% 2.9%

24 MGT of America

VII. Impact of Sentencing Reform

Senate Bill 2302 abolished the present Penal Code of Puerto Rico effective for offenders committing offenses on or after May 1, 2005. On June 2004 the Governor signed the new law (Law 149 of June 18, 2004). The good time provisions applying to all inmates were changed by amending the enabling operational statute of the AOC. (“Ley Orgánica de la Administración de Corrección” del 22 de Julio de 1974).

The preamble of Senate Bill 2302 stated the main purpose of the reform:

“ The revolving door of the penal system needed to reduce overcrowding has opened a shocking difference between the sentence imposed and the actual time served. This is due to the fact that the automatic good time given to inmates reduces by 43% the sentences longer than 15 years and reduces by 40% the sentences of less than 15 years. After serving half of the sentences, including good time, inmates qualify for parole and additional good time of between 5 and 7 days given for work and studying. In addition, there are diversion programs for the inmates, and in some cases, the inmates can qualify for a diversion program when they still have 36 months to qualify for parole.” 3

The new code intends to address the above issue but also tries to promote rehabilitation. The preamble stated that “following the constitutional requirement for the rehabilitation of the offender, the types of penalties imposed by the courts are expanded and a new procedure is adopted that permits the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to certify that the inmate is rehabilitated and eligible for reintegration without risk to the community.” 4

3 P. del S. 2302, page 2. 4 P. del S 2303, p.3.

25 MGT of America

Apart from the changes instituted with the Penal Code reform and the changes in the good time earning policy, the law was also changed to require inmates sentenced under the old code to serve longer in prison before becoming eligible for diversions programs (Programas de Desvió). Most offenders released in these programs (about 75%) are released to halfway houses (Hogar de Adaptación Social) and furloughs (Pases Extendidos). The eligibility for these programs was changed in legislation passed in September 2004 from a minimum of 10% of sentence credited to 20% of sentence credited.5 Also by AOC regulation offenders released to halfway houses cannot only be released one year before their parole eligibility even after they qualify under the 20% rule. Offenders granted furloughs can only be granted the furlough if they are within 16 months of being release. In other words, after this policy, offenders will have to serve longer before being released to a halfway house or granted a furlough. For offenders sentenced under the new code, eligibility for the Desvio programs was eliminated.

It is also important to note that penalties for some offenses in Puerto Rico are set in Special Laws (Leyes Especiales). The reduction in sentences and restriction in parole eligibility in the new Penal Code were not extended to the offenses covered by the Special Laws.6 However, the restriction in the earning of good time applies to all offenders sentenced to prison. This is significant because the Special Laws related to Illegal Substances, Domestic Violence, Firearms, and Motor Vehicle Theft cover a group of offenses with high frequency of admissions to AOC. Offenders with these offenses can be sentenced to prison sentences that have not been reduced but will be subjected to the severe restrictions in good time that apply to all offenders admitted to the AOC after May 2005.

Figure 6 below summarizes the main policy changes adopted. The 1974 Penal Code defined sentences for each specific offense in the code in a range of minimum (for mitigating circumstances), midpoint and maximum (for aggravating circumstances). The May 2005 Penal Code reorganizes offenses by creating four felony categories and a category for Misdemeanors. Felony offenses are classified in one of the four levels (First, Second, Third and Fourth Degree). Sentences were reduced, the minimum time served for parole eligibility was extended and the earning of good time credits was restricted at no more than 10% of sentence. Eligibility for release on the diversion programs (Desvio), the pre-release prison programs, was abolished. These changes were similar to the “truth-in-sentencing” reforms adopted in many states in the US. For example, under the pre-May 2005 code, the maximum sentence for Homicide was 15 years with parole eligibility at 50% of credited sentence. Given prior good time policies, offenders sentenced to 15 years for Homicide were eligible for parole in about four years. Under the new code, offenders getting the maximum 8 year sentence for Homicide are eligible for parole in about 6 and a half years.

5 Ley Número 518 de 29 de septiembre de 2004. 6 See Article 16 of the new Penal Code.

26 MGT of America

Figure 6: Overview of Main Policies under Pre-and-Post May 2005 Penal Code Reform and Good Time Policy Changes

27 MGT of America

Old New Pre-May 1, 2005 Policy Post May 1, 2005 Policy

Sentences defined for each Crimes classified as specific offense in a range Misdemeanors and First, of minimum (for mitigating Second, Third and Fourth circumstances), midpoint, Degree felonies; sentences and maximum (for reduced; real time ranges aggravating circumstances) for each felony level

Good time earning Good time earning equivalent to 40 to 45% of restricted to no more than sentence 10% of sentence

Parole eligibility defined for Parole eligibility defined for each specific offense; each felony level; minimum generally at 50% of credited eligibility increased for sentence Felony Levels 1 and 2

Example for Homicide: Example for Homicide: Real Confinement term fixed in time sentence at 3 to 8 10 years; minimum 6 years years; parole eligibility at and maximum 15 years; 80% of real time sentence parole eligibility at 50% of time credited

Special Laws (Leyes No change in general; Especiales) like Drugs, Firearm law changed to Domestic Violence, restrict community Firearms and Traffic Law: alternatives; consecutive Penalties as defined in each sentences for firearm + Special Law sentence for other offenses

Probation, Diversion “Therapeutic restrictions” (Desvio) and similar and new “Certificate of programs as defined in the Rehabilitation” but eligibility law or regulations for for Diversion (Desvio) pre- eligible offenders release eliminated

On May 2005 the AOC planning staff, with assistance from the MGT team, completed a “snapshot” impact analysis of the reform. This analysis was presented to

28 MGT of America the AOC Secretary during the same month.7 This is called a “snapshot” because the evaluation was based on a static model that cannot be used to estimate the growth of the population by month or year as would be presented in a projection scenario. The static model just calculates the average time serve for a group of offenders admitted to prison under the present policy and compares that with the average time serve calculated for a similar group admitted under the new policies. The difference in time serve is then translated into a prison bed consumption impact.

Assumptions were made based on aggregate data about the midpoint sentences for offenders sentenced to prison in broad offense categories and their respective eligibility and release requirements. Data for calculating the impact of the new policies is limited. There are no reliable data to analyze court disposition and conviction patterns. There are no data in AOC to determine the exact distribution of offenses and sentences for offenders sentenced to prison and the exact distribution of sentences and time served for offenders released from prison. Data from the new computerized Population Control System (PCS) were examined in an attempt to identify the offense and sentence distribution for sentenced offenders in 2004 but these data were incomplete and/or erroneous due to issues documented in a prior report. 8 Therefore, aggregate counts of admissions and releases collected by the AOC planning office were the only available data for the analysis. The Legal Division of the department also provided legal research to assist in the planning effort related to determining the midpoint sentences provided in the Special Laws for particular offenses.

To estimate the offense distribution of offenders sentenced to prison admissions counts from the 2003 study of admissions by the AOC Planning Office were used. 9 The counts tracked admissions for sentenced offenders along 87 offenses. The counts do not track sentences as case data with offense and sentence for each particular offender are not available. Therefore, an analysis of the Penal Code and Special Laws was conducted to identify the “midpoint” sentence for each of the offenses. For modeling purposes, this midpoint was assumed to be equivalent to the average sentence for offenders admitted.

Figure 7 below shows the results of the analysis as presented to the Secretary in May 2005. The data used for 2003 was on 3,621 offenders admitted as sentenced offenders in 2003. Under the policies at the time, these offenders would have served an average of 1.88 years and would have consumed an average of 7,384 beds during their length of stay (the beds years are affected by the particular distribution of offenders discharged, release through the diversion programs or paroled). The same group of offenders would have served 3.02 years after the reform and would have consumed 10,811 beds during their length of stay.

Figure 7: Summary of Snapshot Static Impact Analysis of the New Sentencing Code, May 2005

7 “Análisis Evaluativo Nuevo Código Pernal vs. Anterior” Oficina de Planes Programáticas y Estadísticas, Mayo de 2005. 8 See: Evaluation of the Population Control System and Recommendations for Immediate Improvements, February 2005, MGT of America. 9 Oficina de Planes Programaticos y Estadisticas. “Informe de Población Correccional Ingresada Sentenciada por Orden Del Tribunal 2002-2003.

29 MGT of America

Sentenced Offenders Admitted to DOC in 2003 3,621

Midpoint Sentence Assume to Reflect Average Sentence for Offense

Time Served after Credits for Good Time Calculated by Static Model

Pre-Reform Post-Reform Policies Policy

Average Time Served Average Time Served Discharged Discharged 2.77 years 3.71 years Average Time Served Average Time Served Desvio Desvio .59 years .71 years Average Time Served Average Time Served Parole Parole 1.61 years 2.73 years

Overall Average Overall Average 1.88 years 3.02 years

Beds Consumed Beds Consumed 7,384 10,811

Based on the sentence and offense distribution of the group of admissions tracked, offenders admitted to prison “after the reform” would have had to serve 1.14 years longer in prison and would have consumed an additional 3,427 beds. However, the static model cannot be used to estimate the impact of lower recidivism (due to fewer

30 MGT of America releases), cannot account for changes in admissions trends driven by demographic or court practices and cannot account for the phase-in of the impact (no information is available at this time to determine how quickly new code offenders are replacing old code offenders sentenced to prison). Therefore, all that can be said until further studies are completed is that “given every thing else being equal” the new code is probably going to increase time served in prison for sentenced offenders but how this increase translate into the need for more capacity and by when is not clear at this time.