,~--,~"""",---'­ ..... ~, National Criminal Justice Reference Service ", I This microfiche was produced from documents received for inclusion in the NCJRS data' base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise control over the physical condition of the documents submitted the individual frame quality will vary. The resolupon chart on 11 , this frame may be used to evaluate the document quality. ~ . - , " Microfilming I?Iocedures used to create this fiche comply with the standardfset forth in 41CFR 101-11.504. c' o "'I Points of view or opinions stated in this document are ", those of the author(s) and do not represent the official ~,~'>I< ., position or poliCies of the U. S. Department of JUStice. <tt l) National Institute of Justice Unit~d States Department of Justice Washington. D. C. 20531 \! -=-'~-~~~" ,-- - - --~ ...---- ---- ~- - WHAT HAPPENS AFTER ARREST IN OREGON? A Report on,the Disposition of Part I Felony.Arrests for 1979 -. t', , " '; \',' .. ; ~.' . .. .' WHAT'HAPPENS AFTER ARREST IN OREGON? by A Report on the Disposition of Part I Felony Arre&­ ; "'James P:auTHeuser, Ph •. D.:,Resear'ther " for 1979 , 'j ~ ". - ' .. ~,;: _ '1 • Oregon Law 'Enforcement' CounCil-' ,. ~'! .' '... , ."' ~. ~ .' ~ .: o \) , <tHttlthe Ass i stance of Prepared by the Stahley T. Woodwell, Data Processing OREGON LAW ENFORCEMENT COUNCIL Pearl B. Heath August, 1982 and Jeanne Bittner . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS " U.S. Department of Justice '.~.\ This study was conducted by members of the Crime Analysis Center of the Oregon National Institute of Justice Law Enforctment Council (OlEC). Mr. Stan Woodwell, Programmer Analyst, did This document .has been reproducetl exactly as received from the the computer programming to compile the data and to put it in a format for sta­ pe~~?n ~r organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated In IS ocumen~ are those of the authors and do not necessaril tistical analysis. Dr. Heuser performed the remaining data analysis tasks and reprt~Sellt the QffJcial ppsition or ,policies of the National Institute OYf Jus Ice. wrote and edited the document. Mrs., Pearl B. Heath helped with the tasks of If organizing"data and proofreadtng the document. Mrs. ,Jeanne, Bittner .. typed the Permission to reproduce this GG")'Fi!!RIB~material has been granted by . " drafts of the document. on our word ·process.ing system. Mr,. Keith Stubblefield, Public Domain/LEAA Administrator, and Dr. Clinton Goff, Deputy Administrator, helped supervise ;.:~ NC:JRS , , Bureau of Justice Statistics the overall effort and provided helpful comments to shape revisions in the. draft during the review phase. ". ' . ' Vo?he ~acrrcR~C:;i~aY1Js~ce'i?jereWc~~e~~e1£JRS). MAY 13 '1985 ~~~ho~rt~~~~~~~~~ ~~~s~1.e of the NCJRS system requires perm is- The data used' for this study was developed from the Computerized Criminal History (CCH) file jointly maintained by the Oregon StatePoHce (OSP) and the ACQUISITION'S Law Enforcement Data SYSk~S (LEOS). The data, was accessed pursuant to a re­ searc;h ~greement between 'the Oregon Law Enforcement Counc; 1, the Law Enforce- " ment·Data Systems, and the Oregon State Police~ Appreciation is extended to the f()llowing people" ,who reviewed a draft of this. c' report and pr:ovided many helpful qmvnents an~ 'suggestions: ;::; .~. /') vi'ctor Atiyeh v " Governor (" Niel Chambers, Executive Assistant, Oregon CQrrecti'ons Division u m' oShirlieH. Davidson," Assistant Manager, Law'_EnforcementData Systems Hon. bave Frohnmayer ~Keith A. Stubblefield t~:l Wi 1li am H. Freele, Bureau of Crimina] Identifi cationtOregon State pol ice Chairman . ,Aanini strator J. Pat Hortt:m, District Attorney, Lane County Oregon Law Enforcement Counc'i 1 Oregon Law Enf()rcement Council ,.j..: .... , James"O'Leary, District'Attorney~ Clackarn~s County /i' Charles E. Pritchard, Chief Coun;;el, Department of Justice Marl a. Rae, Communi cat; ons Spec,ialist,Department of Justice ,.~- ':' \~ \ Ray Rebinett, Former District Attorney,W~shington C'ounty Prepared under Grants 179-MU-AX-0003 andI81-BJ-CX-K034 from 'the U.S. Oepart­ .\ f!l ent' ofJusti.c~ an~ the Bureau of Jystice, Statistics. " Points of view or opin­ Michael ,D. Schru~k, District;~ttorney, MultnomahCounty l,onsstated 1n thlS document are those of the author and" do not necessarily Justin M. Smith,'Distr,ict Attorney, Jacks(mCounty represent official positions or policies. ' . Chris Van Dyke, District Attorn~y,Marion County o :="""""'-·rr~:z.;~..:~~")· . _ 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS iJ . Information regarding this study or copies of this .. report can be obtained by writing or caJling: c, ,LIST OE FIGURES . ,. " 0' • • • • • • •. e_: ,. • ',. '. • • • i Clinton Goff, Deputy Administrator JameS P. Heuser, Ph.D. : , ' '. Oregon Law Enforcement Council Oregon Law Enforcement ~ouncil LIST OF TABLES ",; , • • 'e '-. !I • .- • • .' ., i i 2001 Front Street N.E. '2001 Front StreetN.E. ~ '" • • • .'. • e • -. • ,"Ii • Salem OR 97310 Salem OR 97310 EXECUTI VE .:>UMMAR Y iii Phone: 378-8056 Phone: 378-4346 . · . · . 1. INTRODUCTION. • • ',.' • • • • ,. • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • 1 . (., The Purposes of ThisReport ••••• . · . 1 A .Word About the OBTS Concep"t of Data Analysis i 0 in the Criminal Justice Sys~m •••••• : • · · · · • · • 3 Study Meth090 logy • • • • • • • • • I.. • • . • • • • • • 6 ,;', · · · · A Note on, the Comparability of the 1977 and 1979 OBTS Study Arrest Popul ati ons •• • • • • • • • • · . 10 t:. ~. I. 2. SYSTEM OVERVIEW ••••••••••••••• . e , • • • • · . .- 13 Answering the General Question of What Happens After Arrest for Part I Felonies: A First Look at the Effects of Case Attrition ••••••••• ~ ...... · . 13 : :' ',' What Happens After ~rrest for Part 1 Violent and Property Crimes Consi dered Separately • • • • • • • • ill "a · ,.. 22 ' ... : Criminal Justice "Funneling Effects"1 a'nd Differential , Case Attrition for Specific Crimes 'Charged at Arrest. · . · .' . 26 Violent Crimes • . • • 'r:". • • • • - • • • • • • 30 Property Crimes. - - • • ._ •. • • • ~. _ • a _ _ ~. • 31 " Conviction Rates from Varying Perspectives ••••••••••• 32 ..: '~. 3. SPECIAL ANALYSES • ~ • • • •. • • • "~ • • •• • • • • • • • • • • •.• ,.. 37 , ~. ,. ;;.,.(\ . The, Analysis of Patterns in Arrest vs. Disposition Charge •••••••••• ~ .0 . • • • • • 37 An Exqmination of the Probability of Each of :.: , " ~l '<: Several Dispositional Outcomes" for ,Arrests With Charges Filed in Court •. : ••• 0 ••••• ' •• 42 • • .~ . · I" · . ; ~ ;"'. '- ..: , "'," -: .........'- .. ~-~, ..~~-. ---~':-:'"---':'''--'--''-'''''''''''''-=-~'''''''''''''~~~~~'Z~~~l,~~..;,..,;;"..··;:.:=t7:-~~~\:.:.l~"'l \, '. Ii' \' 1- TABLE OF CONTENTS, Cont. LIST OF FIGURES i=igure 1 Criminal Justice Funneling Effects (All Part~1 An Examination of Sentencing Patterns and the Fe 1oni es, Statewi de, 1979). • • ,. • • • • • • • Probability of Certain Sentences Following Conviction •• '. 45 · . 14 Figure 2 Flowchart Depicting the. Processing and Court An Analysis of Patterns in Elapsed Time from Disposition of Part I Felony Arrests in Oregon " Arrest to Disposition.... '. • • '. • • • • ~I • • • • .'" 48 inC Y 1979. .'. 0 • • • • .". • • • • • • • • ,19 4. IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH REPORTED ON IN THIS REPORT • • • • • •• 53 Figure 3 "Caseflow of Part I . Felony Offenders" ( Statewi de, 1979)' • ..". • • • • • • . .. 21 APPENDICES Figure 4a" Griminal Justice Funneling Effects (Part I FelonieS-ViolentCrimes-$tatewide, 1979) •• 24 APPENDIX A - GLOSSARY OF PART I FELONY • • ~ e: • QCHARGE DEFINITIONS ••• . 'I.,. t.!". L' . ." . A-I '\ Figure 4b Crimina} Justice Funneling ~ffects (Part I \' APPENDIX B - MISSING DATA . ,. B-1 Felonies-Property Crimes-Statewide, 1979) • • 25 1 G v' Ii . , . • 'j . , «( \) J": • '. 4', • " ) i '~?_"!>IQ;I':t"""""_"""' __------,--- __""""' ___ '1"'~~_T~~t; . ~~~~~~~~~~";:::7:;-:... ~~:;:~,; ..r~:::~::·-:;:-7":"":'~~\~: ...,.,-., ." EXECUTIVE SU~;~RY LIST OF TABLES II Thiis report attempts to answer a number of questi ons about what happens to 'Table 1 Comparison Between the Traditional and the OBTS pe(~ple who ha9 been arrested for serious {Part 1) fe1pny crimes in Oregon in 4 "H Approaches to Criminal Justice System Statistics. 19~r.9. It is based on research which utilizes a statistical approach to the Table 2 Compari son Between 1977 and 1979 OBTS Report .. an~llysis of computerized criminal history (CCH) data known as the offender , " Results on the Distribution of Arrest Charge Offenses • • . • • 12 based transaction statistics (OBTS) approach. The report introduces the read- Table 3 Reasons for Nonconviction Among Arrests With er lito the, concept and utility of offender based transaction stati~tics and Court Fi 1 i ng Reported . • • '. •• • • .• • •. 16 outl i nes the r'esults of usi ng the QBTS approach to track peop leI arrested in order to descri be wh'at happened to them in terms of' arrest, court di SP9si t ion, Table 4 Number and Percentage of Specific Arrests Reaching i Certain Disposition P'oints During Criminal Justice and sentencing patterns. It also contains infm'rnation on how long it takes to System Processing (Statewide~ 1979) ••• . 29 di~iPose of various 'cases in the courts (i.e., time to disposition). This . ~ Table 5 Conviction Rates for Part I Arrests report represents the second time such an effort has been made ,to gather and Computed from Different Bases (Statewide, 1979) • • • • 33 · . ana.1yze offender based transaction statistics ana statewi de basi s~ An ear- Table 6 Relationships Between Arrest and Disposition l i eir report (pub 1 i shed by the Or~gon Law EnforcementCounci 1