An Overview of Intermittent Confinement and Weekend Incarceration in the US-Feb 2024
Download original document:
![Brief thumbnail](/media/cache/d7/02/d70229e53d58ff8c4bf7e207dc61380d.jpg)
Document text
![Brief thumbnail](/media/cache/d7/02/d70229e53d58ff8c4bf7e207dc61380d.jpg)
Document text
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 0 THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY MORITZ COLLEGE OF LAW DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER An Overview of Intermittent Confinement and Weekend Incarceration in the U.S. Pete Leasure, Douglas A. Berman, and Jana Hrdinová Drug Enforcement and Policy Center, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University This report was produced with generous support from the Aleph Institute. CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1 I. Overview of Federal Law on Intermittent Confinement .......................................................................... 1 II. Overview of Defendants Who Received Intermittent Confinement ....................................................... 3 III. Review of Literature on Intermittent Confinement .............................................................................. 20 IV. Weekend-Only Inmates in U.S. Jails ................................................................................................. 22 V. Survey of Federal Probation Officers .................................................................................................. 26 VI. Discussion of Survey Results ............................................................................................................ 32 VII. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 32 Technical Appendix ................................................................................................................................. 34 INTRODUCTION This study provides an overview of available data and research about the use of intermittent confinement in federal and state criminal justice systems. In the sections below, we (1) provide an overview of federal law on intermittent confinement, 1 (2) present data on the use of intermittent confinement in the federal system and weekend incarceration in the state system, (3) discuss existing research on intermittent confinement and weekend incarceration, and (4) present results of a survey of federal probation officers on their opinions of intermittent confinement. I. OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL LAW ON INTERMITTENT CONFINEMENT Congress has set out express authority for federal district judges to impose intermittent confinement when ascribing sentences to achieve the purposes Congress set forth for criminal sentencing. Specifically, 18 1 A review of current state legislation on intermittent confinement is beyond the scope of this project. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 1 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(10) provides that a court may order that a defendant “remain in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons during nights, weekends, or other intervals of time, totaling no more than the lesser of one year or the term of imprisonment authorized for the offense, during the first year of the term of probation or supervised release.” The legislative history of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 indicates that Congress was eager, through this provision, to give sentencing judges “flexibility” to consider factors that could advance a “rehabilitative program” and “educational or employment purposes.” 2 The Senate Report stressed the value of an express intermittent confinement provision to enable judges to sentence appropriate offenders in ways that could, for example, “permit the defendant to continue employment and his contacts with his family and community.” 3 The United States Sentencing Commission has issued only the most minimal guidance to federal judges concerning intermittent confinement in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Specifically, U.S.S.G. § 5F1.8 simply restates the basic statutory rules for intermittent confinement. Here is the full text of the only guideline discussing intermittent confinement: Intermittent confinement may be imposed as a condition of probation during the first year of probation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(10). It may also be imposed as a condition of supervised release during the first year of supervised release, but only for a violation of a condition of supervised release in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) and only when facilities are available. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). 4 Somewhat more beneficial, in November 2016, the Probation and Pretrial Services Office of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts published an "Overview of Probation and Supervised Release Conditions" that provided a bit more guidance on the use of intermittent confinement. Specifically, in a short section, this document states: In some circumstances this condition may prevent a defendant from losing employment, or allow a defendant to avoid the complete removal from role of provider or caretaker for dependents and other family members that would result from a traditional term of incarceration. Similarly, this condition may benefit a defendant with a medical or psychiatric diagnosis requiring regular, consistent care by a physician. 5 This document further explains: “Once the court imposes a condition requiring intermittent confinement, the probation officer submits a referral packet (including the court’s order of intermittent confinement, judgment form, and presentence report) to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) so that it can designate the defendant to the appropriate facility.” 6 This document also sets forth these additional administrative particulars: “Probation officers communicate clearly to the defendant the designated schedule of confinement. The defendant is required to abide by the rules and regulations of the facility during the periods of confinement, and the facility staff may impose additional restrictions or sanctions on defendants who violate the rules and regulations. The probation officer maintains regular communication with the BOP and/or facility staff to monitor the defendant’s Senate Rep. No. 98-225, at 98 (1984), as reprinted at 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182, 3281. Senate Rep. No. 98-225, at 89 (1984), as reprinted at 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182, 3272. 4 See United States Sentencing Guidelines § 5F1.8 - INTERMITTENT CONFINEMENT. Note that under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2), the court may modify the conditions of supervised release “at any time prior to the expiration or termination of the term of supervised release” (see: Chapter 1, Section II(A)(3). https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/intermitten-confinement-probation-supervisedrelease-conditions. 5 Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Probation and Pretrial Services Office, Overview of Probation and Supervised Release Conditions 77 (Nov. 2016). 6 Id. at 78. 2 3 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 2 compliance with both the schedule of confinement and facility rules and regulations and intervenes as necessary.” 7 II. OVERVIEW OF DEFENDANTS WHO RECEIVED INTERMITTENT CONFINEMENT To our knowledge, the U.S. Sentencing Commission has never published any systematic research or detailed analyses on the use of intermittent confinement in the federal sentencing system. In addition, we are unaware of any other federal agency or department, or any private research or advocacy group, that has collected data or conducted any assessments of when and how intermittent confinement has been utilized as a possible alternative to traditional periods of incarceration in the federal system. Given that the U.S. Sentencing Commission and many advocacy groups have expressed interest in alternatives to incarceration (in the federal system and elsewhere), it is somewhat curious that the use of intermittent confinement in the federal sentencing system has largely gone unstudied and unanalyzed. Helpfully, though it has not regularly made any public report or assessments of the use of intermittent confinement, the U.S. Sentencing Commission does collect and maintain data on the use of this sentencing opinion. For this report, United States Sentencing Commission data was extracted from official USSC data files to provide an overview of defendants who received intermittent confinement (IC). 8 Where practical, results across 10 years are presented in tables. 9 Where not practical, results for 20202021 are presented in tables, and patterns across 10 years are discussed in the text. Detailed information on the years before 2020-2021 is also available in the technical appendix. Intermittent Confinement Sentences Table 1 displays counts and percentages of defendants who received a term of intermittent confinement over the last 11 fiscal years according to USSC data. Note that some defendants may have received IC (or may have been relieved of IC) after sentencing through a modification, which would not be captured in the data. As shown, the number of individuals receiving IC sentences is extremely small as compared to the overall sentenced population, with the total number of defendants sentenced yearly ranging from 81 to 163 (and from 0.13% to 0.24% of all cases). Table 1. Defendant received intermittent confinement. Year Yes No 2021-2022 81 (0.13%) 64,061 (99.87%) 2020-2021 106 (0.19%) 57,181 (99.81%) 2019-2020 95 (0.15%) 64,470 (99.85%) 2018-2019 133 (0.17%) 76,404 (99.83%) 2017-2018 153 (0.22%) 69,272 (99.78%) 2016-2017 162 (0.24%) 66,711 (99.76%) 2015-2016 163 (0.24%) 67,579 (99.76%) Id. United States Sentencing Commission. Monitoring of Federal Criminal Sentences, [United States], 2020-2021. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2023-03-28. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR38552.v1. 9 The lack of data in older datasets or the number of categories within a variable made some 10-year tables not practical. 7 8 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 3 Year Yes No 2014-2015 129 (0.18%) 70,874 (99.82% 2013-2014 128 (0.17%) 75,708 (99.83%) 2012-2013 116 (0.14%) 79,919 (99.86%) 2011-2012 109 (0.13%) 84,058 (99.87%) Tables 2 and 3 display the term of IC ordered in months for 2020-2021 and 2021-2022. As shown, onemonth sentences were the most common. However, note that many cases did not have a term of IC specified. In previous years, one-month and two-month IC terms were the most common. Table 2. Term of IC ordered in months for 2020-2021. 10 Term of IC Ordered (Months) Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage 1 17 16.04 16.04 2 3 2.83 18.87 3 7 6.60 25.47 4 3 2.83 28.30 5 5 4.72 33.02 6 14 13.21 46.23 10 1 0.94 47.17 12 5 4.72 51.89 IC ordered, but term not specified 51 48.11 100.00 Total 106 100.00 Not applicable Table 3. Term of IC ordered in months for 2021-2022. Term of IC Ordered (Months) Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage 1 15 18.52 18.52 2 7 8.64 27.16 3 4 4.94 32.1 4 2 2.47 34.57 5 2 2.47 37.04 6 1 1.23 38.27 Variables used for Tables 1-2: INTDUM (Indicates whether a defendant received intermittent confinement) and MOINTCON (total term of intermittent confinement ordered, in months). 10 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 4 Term of IC Ordered (Months) Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage 12 1 1.23 39.51 IC ordered, but term not specified 49 60.49 100 Total 81 100.00 Not applicable Demographics Tables 4 and 5 display the defendants’ age at sentencing for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 periods. As shown, most individuals were in the 26-30 and 41-50 age categories. However, distributions varied in other years. For example, some years showed that most individuals were in the 41-50 age category. The technical appendix displays the age at sentencing for all other years. Table 4. Age at Sentencing for 2020-2021. 11 Defendant’s Age at Time of Sentencing Categorized Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage < 20 12 11.32 11.32 21 thru 25 16 15.09 26.42 26 thru 30 23 21.70 48.11 31 thru 35 12 11.32 59.43 36 thru 40 15 14.15 73.58 41 thru 50 14 13.21 86.79 51 thru 60 7 6.60 93.40 > 61 7 6.60 100.00 Total 106 100.00 Not applicable Table 5. Age at Sentencing for 2021-2022. Defendant’s Age at Time of Sentencing Categorized Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage < 20 6 7.41 7.41 21 thru 25 8 9.88 17.28 26 thru 30 12 14.81 32.1 31 thru 35 9 11.11 43.21 36 thru 40 14 17.28 60.49 41 thru 50 21 25.93 86.42 Variable AGECAT: Categories of age ranges (Recode of AGE for USSC Sourcebook Fiscal Year 2018 on). See YEARS for categories used in Sourcebook prior to Fiscal Year 2018. Field available FY2019-present. 11 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 5 Defendant’s Age at Time of Sentencing Categorized Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage 51 thru 60 8 9.88 96.3 > 61 3 3.7 100 Total 81 100.00 Not applicable Table 6 displays the education level of defendants who received an IC sentence. Results are presented for all 11 years. As shown, high school and some college were generally the two most common levels of education. Table 6. Defendant’s Education. 12 Year Less than High School High School Some College College 2021-2022 21 (26.58%) 24 (30.38%) 28 (35.44%) 6 (7.59%) 2020-2021 32 (32%) 37 (37%) 27 (27%) 6 (6%) 2019-2020 24 (28.92%) 26 (31.33%) 26 (31.33%) 7 (8.43%) 2018-2019 26 (23.01%) 39 (34.51%) 35 (30.97%) 13 (11.50%) 2017-2018 25 (19.23%) 39 (30.00%) 48 (36.92%) 18 (13.85%) 2016-2017 35 (25.55%) 46 (33.58%) 35 (25.55%) 21 (15.33%) 2015-2016 28 (21.21%) 41 (31.06%) 43 (32.58%) 20 (15.15%) 2014-2015 16 (15.24%) 30 (28.57%) 37 (35.24%) 22 (20.95%) 2013-2014 27 (25.47%) 27 (25.47%) 31 (29.25%) 21 (19.81%) 2012-2013 10 (9.80%) 37 (36.27%) 30 (29.41%) 25 (24.51%) 2011-2012 9 (10.84%) 32 (38.55%) 34 (40.96%) 8 (9.64%) Table 7 displays the defendant’s race/ethnicity for all 11 years. As shown, Hispanic and White individuals were the majority categories in all 10 years. Table 7. Defendant’s Race. 13 12 13 Year White Black Hispanic Other 2021-2022 19 (23.46%) 11 (13.58%) 50 (61.73%) 1 (1.23%) 2020-2021 24 (22.64%) 16 (15.09%) 65 (61.32%) 1 (0.94%) 2019-2020 34 (36.96%) 12 (13.04%) 45 (48.91%) 1 (1.09%) Variable NEWEDUC: Highest level of education for offender (Recode of EDUCATN for annual report). Variable NEWRACE: Race of defendant (Recode of MONRACE and HISPORIG for the annual report). DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 6 Year White Black Hispanic Other 2018-2019 34 (26.77%) 31 (24.41%) 56 (44.09%) 6 (4.72%) 2017-2018 57 (39.31%) 41 (28.28%) 40 (27.59%) 7 (4.83%) 2016-2017 48 (30.38%) 48 (30.38%) 57 (36.08%) 5 (3.16%) 2015-2016 67 (42.68%) 37 (23.57%) 50 (31.85%) 3 (1.91%) 2014-2015 56 (45.16%) 35 (28.23%) 24 (19.35%) 9 (7.26%) 2013-2014 49 (41.53%) 25 (21.19%) 37 (31.36%) 7 (5.93%) 2012-2013 52 (50.49%) 24 (23.30%) 17 (16.50%) 10 (9.71%) 2011-2012 48 (57.14%) 16 (19.05%) 11 (13.10%) 9 (10.71%) Table 8 displays counts and percentages of individuals who had no dependents. All 11 years are displayed in the table. As shown in Table 8, most individuals in all years had one or more dependents. Table 8. Defendants with no dependents. 14 Year Count (%) 2021-2022 30 (37.97%) 2020-2021 34 (34.00%) 2019-2020 36 (43.90%) 2018-2019 49 (43.75%) 2017-2018 49 (38.28%) 2016-2017 52 (37.68%) 2015-2016 44 (33.08%) 2014-2015 40 (38.10%) 2013-2014 33 (31.73%) 2012-2013 33 (33.00%) 2011-2012 25 (30.49%) Tables 8 and 9 display the citizenship of the defendant in 2020-2021 and 2021-2022. As shown, a large majority of defendants (over 95%) were United States citizens. This pattern was consistent across all 11 years. 14 Variable NUMDEPEN: Number of dependents whom the offender supports (excluding self). DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 7 Table 8. Defendant’s citizenship for 2020-2021. 15 Nature of Defendant’s Citizenship Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage United States citizen 100 95.24 95.24 Resident/legal alien 3 2.86 98.10 Illegal alien 2 1.90 100.00 Total 105 100.00 Not applicable Table 9. Defendant’s citizenship for 2021-2022. Nature of Defendant’s Citizenship Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage United States citizen 74 91.36 91.36 Resident/legal alien 6 7.41 98.77 Illegal alien 1 1.23 100 Total 81 100.00 Not applicable Table 10 displays the defendant’s gender for all 11 years. As shown, the majority of defendants were male for all 11 years. However, the distribution of gender varied across those 11 years (e.g., 2014-2015). It is important to note that the pool of sentenced federal defendants is typically around 85% male, so female defendants are potentially overrepresented in the pool of those sentenced to IC. 16 Table 10. Defendant’s Gender. 17 Year Male Female 2021-2022 55 (67.90%) 26 (32.10%) 2020-2021 65 (61.32%) 41 (38.68%) 2019-2020 72 (75.79%) 23 (24.21%) 2018-2019 83 (62.88%) 49 (37.12%) 2017-2018 107 (69.93%) 46 (30.07%) 2016-2017 106 (65.84%) 55 (34.16%) 2015-2016 111 (68.10%) 52 (31.90%) 2014-2015 106 (82.17%) 23 (17.83%) 2013-2014 90 (70.87%) 37 (29.13%) 2012-2013 77 (70.00%) 33 (30.00%) 2011-2012 65 (65.00%) 35 (35.00%) Variable CITIZEN: Identifies the nature of defendant's citizenship with respect to the United States. Value 5 (Extradited Alien) added in September of 2007. 16 For example, males comprised 86.72% of the total pool of sentenced federal defendants in 2020-2021. 17 Variable MONSEX: Indicates the offender's gender. 15 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 8 Sentencing Court Information Table 11 displays the district in which the defendant was sentenced for the 2020-2021 period. 18 As shown, Texas West, Texas South, and Virginia East most often utilized IC sentences. Texas West and Virginia East also had consistently higher numbers of IC sentences over the 11 years. 19 Other districts (e.g., North Carolina East, Oklahoma West, and New York North) also had higher numbers of IC sentences in particular years. The technical appendix displays sentencing court information for all other years. Table 12 also displays IC sentences across circuits for the 2020-2021 period. Table 11. District in which defendant was sentenced for 2020-2021. 20 District in which defendant was sentenced Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage New York South 1 0.94 0.94 Pennsylvania Middle 1 0.94 1.89 Maryland 2 1.89 3.77 North Carolina East 1 0.94 4.72 North Carolina Middle 2 1.89 6.60 North Carolina West 1 0.94 7.55 Virginia East 9 8.49 16.04 Alabama North 1 0.94 16.98 Florida Middle 2 1.89 18.87 Florida South 1 0.94 19.81 Georgia South 1 0.94 20.75 Texas North 1 0.94 21.70 Texas South 15 14.15 35.85 Texas West 53 50.00 85.85 Kentucky East 1 0.94 86.79 Kentucky West 1 0.94 87.74 Illinois Central 1 0.94 88.68 Illinois South 1 0.94 89.62 Indiana South 1 0.94 90.57 Minnesota 1 0.94 91.51 2021-2022 results also indicated that Texas West continued to be the court with the most IC sentences. Note that the probation office variable POOFFICE indicated that El Paso comprises approximately 84% of the Texas West IC cases for the 2021-2022 period. 19 The technical appendix includes a section that presents several descriptive statistics for the Texas West district. 20 Variable DISTRICT: The district in which the defendant was sentenced. Use CIRCDIST for the districts in the same order in which they appear in the Sourcebook. 18 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 9 District in which defendant was sentenced Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage Nebraska 2 1.89 93.40 California South 2 1.89 95.28 Nevada 2 1.89 97.17 Oklahoma West 2 1.89 99.06 District of Columbia 1 0.94 100.00 Total 106 100.00 Not applicable Table 12. Circuit in which the defendant was sentenced for 2020-2021. 21 Circuit in which the defendant was sentenced Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage 1 1 0.94 0.94 2 1 0.94 1.89 3 1 0.94 2.83 4 15 14.15 16.98 5 69 65.09 82.08 6 2 1.89 83.96 7 3 2.83 86.79 8 3 2.83 89.62 9 4 3.77 93.40 10 2 1.89 95.28 11 5 4.72 100.00 Total 106 100.00 Not applicable Additional Sentencing Factors Tables 13 and 14 display the dollar amount of the fine ordered for those with IC sentences in 2020-2021 and 2021-2022. As shown, a large majority of defendants received no fine. This pattern was consistent across all 11 years. Variable MONCIRC: Indicates the judicial circuit in which the defendant was sentenced. This variable is generated from the entry for judicial district. 21 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 10 Table 13. Dollar amount of fine ordered for 2020-2021. 22 Dollar amount of fine ordered Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage No fine 96 90.57 90.57 $200 1 0.94 91.51 $250 2 1.89 93.40 $300 1 0.94 94.34 $500 2 1.89 96.23 $1,000 1 0.94 97.17 $2,000 1 0.94 98.11 $3,600 1 0.94 99.06 $10,000 1 0.94 100.00 Total 106 100.00 Not applicable Table 14. Dollar amount of fine ordered for 2021-2022. Dollar amount of fine ordered Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage No Fine 72 88.89 88.89 $465 1 1.23 90.12 $600 1 1.23 91.36 $1,000 2 2.47 93.83 $1,250 1 1.23 95.06 $2,000 1 1.23 96.3 $2,500 1 1.23 97.53 $5,500 1 1.23 98.77 $20,000 1 1.23 100 Total 81 100.00 Not applicable Tables 15 and 16 display the dollar amount of restitution ordered for those with IC sentences in 20202021 and 2021-2022. As shown, a large majority of defendants received no fine. This pattern was consistent across all 11 years. Variable FINE: The dollar amount of fine ordered (including cost of supervision when fine and cost of supervision are not reported separately). 22 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 11 Table 15. Dollar amount of restitution for 2020-2021. 23 Dollar amount of restitution Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage No restitution ordered 87 82.08 82.08 $100 1 0.94 83.02 $3,000 1 0.94 83.96 $11,750 1 0.94 84.91 $16,125 1 0.94 85.85 $20,385 2 1.89 87.74 $21,370 2 1.89 89.62 $23,258 1 0.94 90.57 $27,525 1 0.94 91.51 $58,114 1 0.94 92.45 $76,974 1 0.94 93.40 $94,416 1 0.94 94.34 $131,912 1 0.94 95.28 $194,148 1 0.94 96.23 $297,155 1 0.94 97.17 $416,389 1 0.94 98.11 $649,974 1 0.94 99.06 $1,641,868 1 0.94 100.00 Total 106 100.00 Not applicable Table 16. Dollar amount of restitution for 2021-2022. 23 Dollar amount of restitution Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage No Restitution Ordered 65 82.28 82.28 $500 2 2.53 84.81 $6,627 1 1.27 86.08 $7,344 1 1.27 87.34 $18,037 1 1.27 88.61 $117,806 1 1.27 89.87 Variable AMTREST: Dollar amount of restitution. Similar to the variable TOTREST. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 12 Dollar amount of restitution Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage $120,733 1 1.27 91.14 $181,137 1 1.27 92.41 $212,848 1 1.27 93.67 $254,085 1 1.27 94.94 $271,000 1 1.27 96.2 $272,202 1 1.27 97.47 $569,333 1 1.27 98.73 $2,884,193 1 1.27 100 Total 81 100.00 Not applicable Table 17 displays whether financial sanctions were ordered. The displayed results are for the full 11-year period. As shown, the majority of defendants received no fine or restitution over the 11-year period (although note 2011-2012 where the counts and percentages are equal for those with no fine/restitution and only restitution). Table 17. Whether financial sanctions were ordered. 24 Year None Only Restitution Only Fine Both 2021-2022 54 (66.67%) 11 (13.58%) 11 (13.58%) 5 (6.17%) 2020-2021 68 (64.15%) 16 (15.09%) 19 (17.92%) 3 (2.83%) 2019-2020 52 (45.74%) 12 (12.63%) 26 (27.37%) 5 (5.26%) 2018-2019 71 (53.38%) 21 (15.79%) 35 (26.32%) 6 (4.51%) 2017-2018 72 (47.06% 30 (19.61%) 43 (28.10%) 8 (5.23%) 2016-2017 75 (46.30%) 35 (21.60%) 44 (27.16%) 8 (4.94%) 2015-2016 68 (41.72%) 40 (24.54%) 46 (28.22%) 9 (5.52%) 2014-2015 38 (29.56%) 38 (29.46%) 35 (27.13%) 18 (13.95%) 2013-2014 61 (47.66%) 40 (31.25%) 21 (16.41%) 6 (4.69%) 2012-2013 48 (41.38%) 32 (27.59%) 28 (24.14%) 8 (6.90%) 2011-2012 37 (33.94%) 37 (33.94%) 30 (27.52%) 5 (4.59%) Variable TYPEMONY: Indicates whether a fine/cost of supervision or restitution was ordered. Compare to RESTDUM, ECONDUM, and FINECDUM. 24 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 13 Tables 18 and 19 display whether the case was a felony or misdemeanor in 2020-2021 and 2021-2022. As shown, a large majority of IC sentences were for felony cases. However, the percentage of misdemeanor cases is larger in previous years where this variable is available (i.e., 2018-present). The technical appendix displays the type of case for all other available years. Table 18. Type of case (felony or misdemeanor) in 2020-2021. 25 Type of case Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage Felony 100 94.34 94.34 Misdemeanor A 6 5.66 100.00 Total 106 100.00 Not applicable Table 19. Type of case (felony or misdemeanor) in 2021-2022. Type of case Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage Felony 74 91.36 91.36 Misdemeanor A 7 8.64 100.00 Total 81 100.00 Not applicable Table 20 displays whether the defendant has any criminal history for all years. As shown, most defendants in all years had some form of criminal history. Table 20. Any criminal history. 26 Year No Yes 2021-2022 24 (30.38%) 55 (69.62%) 2020-2021 28 (27.72%) 73 (72.28%) 2019-2020 27 (32.53%) 56 (67.47%) 2018-2019 32 (27.12%) 86 (72.88%) 2017-2018 38 (27.94%) 98 (72.06%) 2016-2017 43 (30.28%) 99 (69.72%) 2015-2016 49 (35.25%) 90 (64.75%) 2014-2015 30 (26.55%) 83 (73.45%) 2013-2014 36 (31.03%) 80 (68.97%) 2012-2013 31 (29.25%) 75 (70.75%) 2011-2012 30 (31.58%) 65 (68.42%) Variable CASETYPE: Identifies the type of case. This field is available FY2018-present. Variable CRIMHIST: Indication as to whether the defendant has any criminal history, including behavior that is not eligible for the application of criminal history points (ex. arrests). 25 26 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 14 Tables 21 and 22 display the crime-type category of the current offense for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 years. As shown, drug trafficking was the most common offense category, with fraud and immigration being larger categories. Larger numbers of firearms offenses, larceny offenses, and other/traffic offenses were also present in previous years. The technical appendix displays crime-types for all other years. Table 21. Crime-type category for 2020-2021. 27 Primary Type of Crime for the Case Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage Bribery/Corruption 1 0.94 0.94 Child Pornography 1 0.94 1.89 Drug Trafficking 48 45.28 47.17 Extortion/Racketeering 1 0.94 48.11 Firearms 5 4.72 52.83 Fraud/Theft/Embezzlement 10 9.43 62.26 Immigration 22 20.75 83.02 Individual Rights 1 0.94 83.96 Money Launder 5 4.72 88.68 National Defense 2 1.89 90.57 Tax 3 2.83 93.40 Other 7 6.60 100.00 Total 106 100.00 Not applicable Table 22. Crime-type category for 2021-2022. Primary Type of Crime for the Case Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage Administration of Justice 1 1.23 1.23 Bribery/Corruption 1 1.23 2.47 Burglary/Trespass 2 2.47 4.94 Drug Trafficking 34 41.98 46.91 Environmental 1 1.23 48.15 Firearms 8 9.88 58.02 Fraud/Theft/Embezzlement 12 14.81 72.84 Immigration 14 17.28 90.12 Variable OFFGUIDE: Primary type of crime for the case generated mainly from the primary guideline and then the count of conviction with the highest statutory maximum. See OFFTYPE2 for offense types used in USSC Sourcebook FY1999-FY2009 and OFFTYPSB for offense types used in USSC Sourcebook FY2010-FY2017. This field available FY2018-present. Commission publications use OFFGUIDE starting in FY2018. 27 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 15 Primary Type of Crime for the Case Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage Money Laundering 1 1.23 91.36 Prison Offenses 1 1.23 92.59 Sex Abuse 1 1.23 93.83 Stalking/Harassing 1 1.23 95.06 Tax 2 2.47 97.53 Other 2 2.47 100 Total 81 100.00 Not applicable Tables 23 and 24 display the final criminal history category for individuals who received an IC sentence in 2020-2021 and 2021-2022. This category is calculated based on the number and nature of defendants’ prior criminal history, with higher categories representing more prior criminal contacts. As shown, category 1 was the most common criminal history category for individuals who received an IC sentence. This pattern was consistent across all 11 years. Table 23. Final criminal history category for 2020-2021. 28 Defendants Final Criminal History Category Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage 1 80 76.19 76.19 2 8 7.62 83.81 3 12 11.43 95.24 4 4 3.81 99.05 5 1 0.95 100.00 Total 106 100.00 Not applicable Table 24. Final criminal history category for 2021-2022. Defendants Final Criminal History Category Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage 1 52 65.82 65.82 2 13 16.46 82.28 3 6 7.59 89.87 4 4 5.06 94.94 5 2 2.53 97.47 28 Variable XCRHISSR: Defendant's final criminal history category (I-VI), as determined by the court. If info is missing from the SOR, then PSR values are used- use SOURCES to choose only SOR values. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 16 Defendants Final Criminal History Category Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage 6 2 2.53 100 Total 79 100.00 Not applicable Tables 25 and 26 display the final offense level for individuals who received an IC sentence in 2020-2021 and 2021-2022. The levels (which range from level 1 to level 43) are calculated based on the nature of the crime of conviction and other related offense-factors such as the amount of drugs or money involved in certain offenses, the use of weapons, role in the offense and even some pre- and post-offense behaviors. Higher final offense levels represent more serious offenses and offense-related behaviors. As shown, levels 10, 13, and 27 were the most common in 2020-2021. However, there was variability in other years. For example, level 4 was common in earlier years. The technical appendix displays the final offense level for all other years. Table 25. Final offense level for 2020-2021. 29 Final Offense Level Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage 4 5 4.76 4.76 6 2 1.90 6.67 8 5 4.76 11.43 9 1 0.95 12.38 10 12 11.43 23.81 11 4 3.81 27.62 12 7 6.67 34.29 13 11 10.48 44.76 14 1 0.95 45.71 15 8 7.62 53.33 16 1 0.95 54.29 17 1 0.95 55.24 18 1 0.95 56.19 19 3 2.86 59.05 20 2 1.90 60.95 21 1 0.95 61.90 23 8 7.62 69.52 24 4 3.81 73.33 29 Variable XFOLSOR: The final offense level, as determined by the court. If info is missing from the SOR, then PSR values are used - use SOURCES to choose only SOR values. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 17 Final Offense Level Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage 25 3 2.86 76.19 26 4 3.81 80.00 27 14 13.33 93.33 28 2 1.90 95.24 29 4 3.81 99.05 33 1 0.95 100.00 Total 105 100.00 Not applicable Table 26. Final offense level for 2021-2022. Final Offense Level Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage 4 4 5.13 5.13 6 4 5.13 10.26 7 1 1.28 11.54 8 1 1.28 12.82 10 4 5.13 17.95 11 6 7.69 25.64 12 6 7.69 33.33 13 2 2.56 35.9 15 4 5.13 41.03 16 1 1.28 42.31 17 3 3.85 46.15 18 1 1.28 47.44 19 3 3.85 51.28 20 1 1.28 52.56 21 6 7.69 60.26 23 10 12.82 73.08 24 1 1.28 74.36 25 9 11.54 85.9 26 2 2.56 88.46 27 4 5.13 93.59 29 3 3.85 97.44 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 18 Final Offense Level Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage 32 1 1.28 98.72 37 1 1.28 100 Total 78 100.00 Not applicable Table 27 displays the sentence table zone group for all 11 years. These groups are defined placements on the sentencing table that recommends sentencing terms for individuals based on their offense levels and criminal history categories. When offense levels and criminal histories score lower on the table, the defendant is in a grouping that recommends more prison alternatives. 30 In other words, zone group A would receive the least severe sanctions, while zone group D would receive the most severe. As shown, most defendants were in zone group D for all years. Table 27. Sentence table zone group. 31 Year A B C D 2021-2022 7 (8.97%) 11 (14.10%) 6 (7.69%) 54 (69.23%) 2020-2021 12 (11.43%) 13 (12.38%) 19 (18.10%) 61 (58.10%) 2019-2020 12 (13.33%) 20 (22.22%) 11 (12.22%) 47 (52.22%) 2018-2019 23 (18.25%) 18 (14.29%) 27 (21.43%) 58 (46.03%) 2017-2018 24 (16.11%) 30 (20.13%) 29 (19.46%) 66 (44.30%) 2016-2017 25 (16.45%) 16 (10.53%) 39 (25.66%) 72 (47.37%) 2015-2016 38 (24.05%) 35 (22.15%) 29 (18.35%) 56 (35.44%) 2014-2015 24 (18.90%) 18 (14.17%) 31 (24.41%) 54 (42.52%) 2013-2014 23 (18.40%) 22 (17.60%) 24 (19.20%) 56 (44.80%) 2012-2013 26 (23.01%) 22 (19.47%) 23 (20.35%) 42 (37.17%) 2011-2012 23 (21.50%) 21 (19.63%) 18 (16.82%) 45 (42.06%) Table 28 displays the type of sentence (probation, prison, or fine only) for all years. As shown, most IC conditions involved probation for the earlier years. However, IC was given more often as a prison condition in more recent years. See https://www.ussc.gov/z. Variable ZONE: Sentence table group which determines eligibility for probation and alternative prison sentences (See §5B1.1 and §5C1.1). 30 31 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 19 Table 28. Probation, parole, or fine only. 32 Year Probation Prison Fine Only 2021-2022 31 (38.27%) 50 (61.73%) 0 (0%) 2020-2021 51 (48.11%) 55 (51.89%) 0 (0%) 2019-2020 53 (55.79%) 42 (44.21%) 0 (0%) 2018-2019 94 (70.68%) 39 (29.32%) 0 (0%) 2017-2018 105 (68.63%) 48 (31.37%) 0 (0%) 2016-2017 103 (63.58%) 59 (36.42%) 0 (0%) 2015-2016 132 (80.98%) 30 (18.40%) 1 (0.61%) 2014-2015 107 (82.95%) 22 (17.05%) 0 (0%) 2013-2014 109 (85.16%) 18 (14.06%) 1 (0.78%) 2012-2013 90 (77.59%) 26 (22.41%) 0 (0%) 2011-2012 86 (78.90%) 21 (19.27%) 2 (1.83%) III. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON INTERMITTENT CONFINEMENT U.S. Studies Very few studies have examined intermittent confinement in the U.S. Early studies presented legal overviews of IC across multiple states. 33 One study published in 1989 found low numbers of re-arrests, high levels of employment, and low levels of absenteeism (not showing up for their weekend incarceration) in a sample of individuals ordered to serve weekend sentences in New York State. 34 However, this study had a very low sample size (62) and utilized self-reporting rather than official records. Wood and May (2003) found that African American individuals were less willing to serve alternative sentences (e.g., intermittent confinement) compared to White individuals. 35 Regarding longer IC sentences, one article indicated that some defendants would prefer serving their sentence consecutively, rather than only on weekends. 36 Another recent study examined perceptions of correctional professionals about a new law that expanded the use of IC in Virginia. 37 The study found that correctional professionals were concerned about staffing issues, logistical issues, and safety issues as a result of the newly expanded IC law. For example, some respondents noted as follows: Fridays are an absolute nightmare in my jail. Not only are Friday nights busy at the jail to begin with, we also have weekenders. We don’t always know exactly how many weekenders are going to show up—and it’s different every weekend—so not only is it difficult to plan housing space and Variable SENTIMP: Indicates what type of sentence was given. See Parisi, N. (1979). Part-Time Imprisonment: The Legal and Practical Issues of Periodic Confinement. Judicature, 63, 385. 34 See Cohen, P. M. (1989). The weekend sentence: a descriptive/evaluative study. Adelphi University, School of Social Work. 35 See Wood, P. B., & May, D. C. (2003). Racial differences in perceptions of the severity of sanctions: A comparison of prison with alternatives. Justice Quarterly, 20(3), 605-631. 36 See https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/08/28/weekends-in-jail-for-rape. 37 See Bowman Balestrieri, B. A. (2020). Part-Time Jail Time: Jailors’ Perspectives on the Practice of Nonconsecutive Day Sentencing in Virginia. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 31(3), 452-474. 32 33 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 20 weekend staffing, but there’s no consistency, so one weekend we’re fine and then the next weekend the booking area is overflowing for hours while we process and drug test people, we’re putting boats (jail mattresses) in the gym for extra housing because the pods are full, and my officers are stressed out working overtime . . . my officers don’t need the extra stress, and I don’t need the extra liability. I barely have enough staff as it is, so when I get weekenders I’m not able to plan in advance for it, [it] drives my officers crazy especially on the night shift. Sometimes we have dozens of weekenders reporting on a Friday afternoon and they’re [the officers] processing until three, four in the morning. I’ve got two officers back there booking, and it’s a lot, and you run across a lot of errors in the booking process because they have to do everything and they’re constantly being interrupted . . . that’s a big security concern. People come in, they don’t have the papers or fees they’re supposed to have, the officer has to stop what they’re doing to explain it to them personally, then they go back to their job and fifteen minutes later the person comes back with papers and fees, maybe they’re right this time and maybe they’re wrong, either way the officer has to start the process all over again . . . . Weekenders creat[e] a dangerous and possibly deadly situation for officers and other inmates . . . Despite thorough strip searches, drugs, guns, needles, cigarettes, lighters, knives, and cell phones have all been detected after the fact. 38 International Studies One evaluation from 1992 in New South Wales, Australia studied several areas of the jurisdiction’s IC law. 39 The following are excerpts from this study’s executive summary: One of the main concerns of periodic detention is the problem of "net-widening" - that is, the sanction is used in cases where periodic detention is imposed as an alternative to a less severe sanction, such as a community service order or a recognizance with supervision. While the extent of net-widening is difficult to measure and there is some evidence of its continued existence, recent data suggest that in the main, periodic detention is being used as an alternative to imprisonment. Without including the value of community work performed by periodic detainees and the saving to the community in social welfare benefits paid to the offenders' dependants, periodic detention costs about one-third of that of full-time imprisonment. Any saving, however, is contingent upon the absence of net-widening, Le. a term of periodic detention is imposed instead of an equivalent term of full-time imprisonment. The cost of corrections could be further reduced by expanding the use of periodic detention to a post-imprisonment or half-way-out option (periodic detention as a reestablishment programme). It is suggested that this could be offered to offenders who: have served at least one half their full-time sentences, have demonstrated acceptable behaviour in gaol, and are considered to be of minimal risk to the community. A study was undertaken in order to determine what proportion of offenders successfully complete their term of periodic detention. . . A failure rate of 16.4% was calculated by dividing the number of failures (ie 321) by the sum of the number of failures and successes (ie 1956). . . It is suggested that the failure rate for women might be decreased significantly if child care facilities were available. Id at 458-460. See Potas, I. L., Cumines, S., & Takach, R. (1992). A critical review of periodic detention in New South Wales. Judicial Commission of New South Wales. 38 39 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 21 Another evaluation from 2018 in Québec City, Canada found the following: 40 The problems of people serving intermittent sentences are numerous. Given the shortage of staff during peak periods (Saturdays and Sundays), often there are no information sessions or documents for these detainees. As a result, their management is often inadequate. Furthermore, detention areas are limited or poorly adapted because of the large number of people there at the same time. As a result, they must sleep on mattresses on the floor, crammed into gymnasiums or visiting rooms. Sometimes these areas do not have washrooms. Overcrowding can also lead to inter-facility transfers when the number of detainees exceeds the maximum occupancy rate. This means that there are more strip searches, a procedure that detainees must undergo when they enter and leave a facility. Women serving intermittent sentences in outlying regions are usually detained at the male correctional facility closest to where they live. Since, most of the time, the gymnasiums and other detention areas are set aside for male inmates, the women are housed under poor conditions, in holding cells or visiting rooms, for example. IV. WEEKEND-ONLY INMATES IN U.S. JAILS Table 29 displays counts, percentages, and measures of statistical significance for individuals serving weekend-only sentences from 2005 to 2019. The data in table 29 represents national data of individuals held in U.S. jails. 41 As shown, the number of persons serving weekend-only sentences significantly decreased in several years (when compared to 2019). Updated numbers of weekend inmates have been made available, and that data shows that the number of weekend sentences continues to decline. 42 Table 29. Persons serving weekend-only sentences on the weekend before midyear, 2005-2019. 43 Year Total Jail Population Weekend-Only Percent Weekend-Only 2005 805,300 14,100 1.8 2006 814,600 11,400 1.4 2007 838,000 10,500 1.3 2008 846,000 12,300 1.5 2009 826,400 11,200 1.4 2010 799,500 9,900 1.2 2011 787,000 11,400 1.4 2012 798,200 10,400 1.3 2013 779,700 11,000 1.4 2014 798,400 9,700 1.2 See https://protecteurducitoyen.qc.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/rapports_speciaux/consequences-increase-intermittent-sentences.pdf. See https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/ji19.pdf for detailed methodology. 42 Year 2020 = 2,200 weekend inmates, year, 2021 = 2,100 weekend inmates, and year 2022 = 1,300 weekend inmates. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Survey of Jails, 2012–2018 and 2020–2022; and Census of Jails, 2019. 43 Data are based on the number of inmates supervised on the last weekday in June, unless specified. Data are rounded to the nearest 100. Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. See appendix table 7 for standard errors. Includes persons who served their sentences of confinement on weekends only (i.e., Friday to Sunday) on the weekend before the last weekday in June. In 2015 and 2016, the number of weekenders was collected for the weekend before December 31. 2019 is the comparison year. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Survey of Jails, 2006-2018; and Census of Jails, 2005 and 2019. https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/jail-inmates-2019. 40 41 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 22 Year Total Jail Population Weekend-Only Percent Weekend-Only 2015 774,500 7,800 1.0 2016 789,400 5,500 0.7 2017 794,300 6,800 0.9 2018 790,400 5,900 0.7 2019 773,200 4,500 44 0.8 Table 30 displays whether states had jails that possessed weekend programs on the weekend prior to June 30, 2021. As shown, all states had at facilities with at least one weekend program. However, most states had more facilities without a weekend program. Data was also available displaying the number of inmates in each facility for the weekend prior to June 30, 2021. The number of weekend-only inmates ranged from 0 to 87. The average number of weekend-only inmates was 3.42. Table 30. On the weekend prior to June 30, 2021, did your jail facility have a weekend program? Organization State Missing No Yes Total Alabama 1 (4%) 14 (56%) 10 (40%) 25 (100%) Arizona 0 (0%) 2 (33.33%) 4 (66.67%) 6 (100%) Arkansas 0 (0%) 10 (76.92%) 3 (23.08%) 13 (100%) California 0 (0%) 27 (75%) 9 (25%) 36 (100%) Colorado 0 (0%) 11 (78.57%) 3 (21.43%) 14 (100%) District of Columbia 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 1 (100%) Florida 2 (4.65%) 25 (58.14%) 16 (37.21%) 43 (100%) Georgia 5 (8.06%) 37 (59.68%) 20 (32.26%) 62 (100%) Idaho 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 9 (100%) 9 (100%) Illinois 0 (0%) 9 (47.37%) 10 (52.63%) 19 (100%) Indiana 0 (0%) 13 (38.24%) 21 (61.76%) 34 (100%) Iowa 0 (0%) 9 (75%) 3 (25%) 12 (100%) Kansas 1 (7.69%) 7 (53.85%) 5 (38.46%) 13 (100%) Kentucky 0 (0%) 16 (43.24%) 21 (56.76%) 37 (100%) Louisiana 0 (0%) 35 (89.74%) 4 (10.26%) 39 (100%) Maine 0 (0%) 3 (75%) 1 (25%) 4 (100%) Maryland 0 (0%) 9 (60%) 6 (40%) 15 (100%) 44 The 2019 report showed this number as 6,500; however, updated reports show this number as 4,500. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Survey of Jails, 2012–2018 and 2020–2022; and Census of Jails, 2019. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 23 Organization State Missing No Yes Total Massachusetts 0 (0%) 9 (90%) 1 (10%) 10 (100%) Michigan 0 (0%) 11 (57.89%) 8 (42.11%) 19 (100%) Minnesota 0 (0%) 10 (71.43%) 4 (28.57%) 14 (100%) Mississippi 0 (0%) 19 (76.00%) 6 (24.00%) 25 (100%) Missouri 0 (0%) 10 (52.63%) 9 (47.37%) 19 (100%) Montana 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 2 (50%) 4 (100%) Nebraska 0 (0%) 7 (87.50%) 1 (12.50%) 8 (100%) Nevada 0 (0%) 1 (20%) 4 (80%) 5 (100%) New Hampshire 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (100%) 4 (100%) New Jersey 0 (0%) 5 (45.45%) 6 (54.55%) 11 (100%) New Mexico 0 (0%) 6 (75%) 2 (25%) 8 (100%) New York 1 (5.56%) 5 (27.78%) 12 (66.67%) 18 (100%) North Carolina 0 (0%) 9 (39.13%) 14 (60.87%) 23 (100%) North Dakota 0 (0%) 5 (55.56%) 4 (44.44%) 9 (100%) Ohio 0 (0%) 31 (73.81%) 11 (26.19%) 42 (100%) Oklahoma 0 (0%) 9 (75%) 3 (25%) 12 (100%) Oregon 0 (0%) 7 (63.64%) 4 (36.36%) 11 (100%) Pennsylvania 0 (0%) 20 (60.61%) 13 (39.39%) 33 (100%) South Carolina 0 (0%) 8 (42.11%) 11 (57.89%) 19 (100%) South Dakota 0 (0%) 3 (60%) 2 (40%) 5 (100%) Tennessee 0 (0%) 18 (41.86%) 25 (58.14%) 43 (100%) Texas 0 (0%) 34 (56.67%) 26 (43.33%) 60 (100%) Utah 0 (0%) 5 (62.50%) 3 (37.50%) 8 (100%) Virginia 0 (0%) 11 (29.73%) 26 (70.27%) 37 (100%) Washington 0 (0%) 11 (78.57%) 3 (21.43%) 14 (100%) West Virginia 0 (0%) 1 (9.09%) 10 (90.91%) 11 (100%) Wisconsin 1 (6.25 %) 14 (87.50%) 1 (6.25%) 16 (100%) Wyoming 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%) 4 (100%) Total 11 (1.26%) 499 (57.09%) 364 (41.65%) 874 (100%) DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 24 Table 31 displays the number of jails within a state that have 10 or more weekend-only inmates for the weekend prior to June 30, 2021. As shown, Virginia had the most jails with 10 or more weekend-only inmates for the weekend prior to June 30, 2021. Table 31. The number of jails within a state that have 10 or more weekend-only inmates for the weekend prior to June 30, 2021. Facility State Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department California San Diego County Sheriff’s Department California Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office Colorado Broward Sheriff’s Office Florida Henry County Sheriff’s Department Georgia St. Joseph County Police Department Indiana Shawnee County Department of Corrections Kansas Marion County Detention Center Kentucky Hopkins County Jail Kentucky Anne Arundel County Department of Detention Facilities Maryland Macomb County Sheriff’s Office Michigan Issaquena County Correctional Facility Mississippi Daviess-Dekalb Regional Jail Missouri Jackson County Department of Corrections Missouri Burlington County Department of Corrections New Jersey Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office Oregon Franklin County Jail Pennsylvania Washington County Sheriff’s Office Tennessee Sumner County Sheriff’s Office Tennessee Sullivan County Sheriff’s Office Tennessee Davidson County Sheriff’s Office Tennessee Marshall County Sheriff’s Office Tennessee Kaufman County Sheriff’s Office Texas Brazos County Sheriff’s Office Texas Tarrant County Sheriff’s Department Texas Galveston County Sheriff’s Office Texas Johnson County Sheriff’s Office Texas DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 25 Facility State Virginia Beach Sheriff’s Office Virginia Newport News Sheriff’s Office Virginia Southwest Virginia Regional Jail Authority Virginia Chesterfield County Sheriff’s Office Virginia Piedmont Regional Jail Authority Virginia Norfolk Sheriff’s Office Virginia Henrico County Sheriff’s Office Virginia Northwestern Regional Adult Detention Center Virginia Rappahannock Regional Jail Authority Virginia Meherrin River Regional Jail Virginia Riverside Regional Jail Authority Virginia V. SURVEY OF FEDERAL PROBATION OFFICERS Methods A list of federal probation officers was secured from safetysource.com, a company who compiled lists of criminal justice personnel. From the safetysource.com list, we identified 374 federal probation officers who had an associated email address. We utilized Qualtrics to develop and distribute the survey. The survey was piloted with a federal criminal justice professional before distribution. The survey was distributed in November 2023 and data collection concluded in December 2023 after three reminder emails. Our final sample included 16 respondents. Results Table 32. Jurisdiction of employment. Response Northern District of Florida Mississippi Southern Central Illinois Colorado Southern Ohio Kansas Western Arkansas Southern Ohio - Probation DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 26 Response Montana New Mexico north carolina middle Utah SD/IN SM/MS Florida Southern Table 33. Are you aware that intermittent confinement is a sentencing option under federal law? Answer % Count Yes 100.00% 15 No 0.00% 0 Total 100% 15 Table 34. Have you ever recommended intermittent confinement as a sentencing option to a judge? Answer % Count Yes 46.67% 7 No 53.33% 8 Unsure 0.00% 0 Total 100% 15 Table 35. How likely is it that you would recommend intermittent confinement as a sentencing option to a judge? Answer % Count Very unlikely 26.67% 4 Somewhat unlikely 6.67% 1 Somewhat likely 13.33% 2 Very likely 20.00% 3 Neither likely or unlikely 33.33% 5 Total 100% 15 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 27 Table 36. Approximately how many defendants do you generally have under your supervision? Response 35 0 45 none at this time; in leadership position None I am the Chief Probation Officer so I do not directly supervise individuals on supervision. None at this time--I am the Deputy Chief 1,500 throughout the state 52 45 40 55 0 Table 37. Have you ever had anyone under your supervision sentenced to intermittent confinement? Answer % Count Yes 60.00% 9 No 40.00% 6 Unsure 0.00% 0 Total 100% 15 Table 38. How many defendants do you currently have under supervision that were sentenced to intermittent confinement? If unsure, please write unsure. Response unsure 0 none, in leadership position currently/ no caseload 0 None Unsure, but if any it's very very few DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 28 Response Unsure 0 none Table 39. Have other probation officers in your jurisdiction had defendants under their supervision sentenced to intermittent confinement? Answer % Count Yes 78.57% 11 No 7.14% 1 Unsure 14.29% 2 Total 100% 14 Table 40. Do you feel that judges in your jurisdiction use intermittent confinement with roughly similar frequency? Answer % Count Yes 27.27% 3 No 45.45% 5 Unsure 27.27% 3 Total 100% 11 Table 41. Please indicate below to what extent to you agree or disagree with the following statements: Question Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Neither agree or disagree Total Intermittent confinement can serve as just punishment for a defendant. 6 (46.15%) 6 (46.15%) 0 (0.00%) 1 (7.69%) 0 (0.00%) 13 Intermittent confinement can be an adequate deterrent for the defendant. 4 (30.77%) 6 (46.15%) 1 (7.69%) 1 (7.69%) 1 (7.69%) 13 Intermittent confinement can adequately protect public safety. 2 (15.38%) 6 (46.15%) 4 (30.77%) 1 (7.69%) 0 (0.00%) 13 Intermittent confinement allows for effective rehabilitation of the defendant. 1 (7.69%) 5 (38.46%) 1 (7.69%) 2 (15.38%) 4 (30.77%) 13 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 29 Question Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Neither agree or disagree Total Intermittent confinement creates an unnecessary security risk at incarceration facilities. 1 (7.69%) 4 (30.77%) 3 (23.08%) 3 (23.08%) 2 (15.38%) 13 Intermittent confinement overburdens staff at incarceration facilities. 2 (15.38%) 3 (23.08%) 2 (15.38%) 2 (15.38%) 4 (30.77%) 13 Table 42. Please indicate below to what extent to you agree or disagree with the following statements: Question Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Neither agree or disagree Total Intermittent confinement helps convicted individuals keep their jobs. 6 (46.15%) 4 (30.77%) 1 (7.69%) 0 (0.00%) 2 (15.38%) 13 Intermittent confinement helps convicted individuals with serious or chronic medical conditions get proper medical care. 1 (7.69%) 4 (30.77%) 2 (15.38%) 1 (7.69%) 5 (38.46%) 13 Intermittent confinement helps convicted individuals maintain their familial relationships. 1 (7.69%) 6 (46.15%) 2 (15.38%) 0 (0.00%) 4 (30.77%) 13 Table 43. In your opinion, how important should the following factors be when judges are deciding whether a defendant should be sentenced to intermittent confinement? Question Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Neither agree or disagree Total Seriousness of current offense. 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 2 (18.18%) 9 (81.82%) 11 Type of current offense (e.g., violent, drug, fraud, theft, etc.). 0 (0.00%) 1 (8.33%) 1 (8.33%) 2 (16.67%) 8 (66.67%) 12 Criminal history of the defendant. 0 (0.00%) 1 (8.33%) 0 (0.00%) 1 (8.33%) 10 (83.33%) 12 Defendant has children or other dependents. 3 (25.00%) 2 (16.67%) 0 (0.00%) 5 (41.67%) 2 (16.67%) 12 Defendant is employed. 2 (16.67%) 2 (16.67%) 0 (0.00%) 4 (33.33%) 4 (33.33%) 12 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 30 Question Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Neither agree or disagree Total Defendant has serious and chronic medical conditions. 1 (8.33%) 2 (16.67%) 3 (25.00%) 3 (25.00%) 3 (25.00%) 12 Table 44. Please indicate below to what extent do you agree that your jurisdiction’s incarceration facilities are able to receive individuals who have been sentenced to intermittent confinement. Answer % Count Strongly agree 0.00% 0 Somewhat agree 46.15% 6 I do not know 7.69% 1 Somewhat disagree 15.38% 2 Strongly disagree 30.77% 4 Total 100% 13 Table 45. Please indicate below to what extent do you agree with the following statement: I would be concerned about defendants failing to report to the incarceration facility for their terms of intermittent confinement. Answer % Count Strongly agree 0.00% 0 Somewhat agree 30.00% 3 Neither agree nor disagree 40.00% 4 Somewhat disagree 30.00% 3 Strongly disagree 0.00% 0 Total 100% 10 Table 46. Please indicate below to what extent do you agree with the following statement: In my opinion, intermittent confinement should be used with greater frequency in my jurisdiction. Answer % Count Strongly agree 10.00% 1 Somewhat agree 50.00% 5 Neither agree nor disagree 10.00% 1 Somewhat disagree 20.00% 2 Strongly disagree 10.00% 1 Total 100% 10 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 31 Table 47. Please share any other thoughts or concerns that you have regarding intermittent confinement. Response Has only been used as part of a revocation sentence, to my knowledge. There are no federal facilities in the Southern District of OH and no local jails can house intermittent confinement inmates I believe it is a useful tool that should be used Intermittent confinement is not available in my district because none of the contracted jails offer it. One challenge is that USM has only one contracted jail facility for the central and northern part of the state, and it's overcrowded. Plus not a lot of confidence in their medical facilities for inmates It’s really based on the situation as mentioned in the survey. I especially think it is useful for reentry and specialty courts. Intermittent confinement in the federal system is too difficult to coordinate with BOP and the USMS. On the supervision side it is nearly impossible to use intermittent confinement as a sanction. It is because of coordinating with BOP and USMS won’t take them into their contracted facilities. Intermittent confinement cause too many issues and does not have deterrent affect on the case that have received this sentence. Not worth all the issues it causes. VI. DISCUSSION OF SURVEY RESULTS One hundred percent of respondents (15) noted that they were aware of intermittent confinement as a sentencing option, while only 47% noted that they had recommended intermittent confinement. Approximately 45% of respondents (5) felt that judges do not use intermittent confinement with roughly the same frequency. Most respondents agreed (strongly agree or somewhat agree) that intermittent confinement can serve as a just punishment, can be an adequate deterrent, can adequately protect public safety, can allow for effective rehabilitation of the defendant, and can overburden incarceration facilities. Additionally, most respondents disagreed (strongly disagree or somewhat disagree) that intermittent confinement causes a security risk for incarceration facilities. Most respondents also agreed that intermittent confinement helps people keep their jobs, maintain familial relationships, and maintain medical care for serious medical issues. Seriousness of the current offense, criminal history of the defendant, and type of crime were deemed very important factors (majority or more of respondents noted very important) for who should receive intermittent confinement. Finally, while most respondents noted that intermittent confinement should be used more often in their jurisdiction, some respondents noted that they currently do not have incarceration facilities that are able to receive individuals serving intermittent confinement sentences, that their facilities are already overcrowded, and that the logistical difficulties with intermittent confinement outweigh the effort it takes to effectuate that sentence. VII. CONCLUSION In the current study, we provided an overview of federal law on intermittent confinement, presented data on the use of intermittent confinement in the federal system and weekend incarceration in the state system, discussed existing research on intermittent confinement and weekend incarceration, and presented results of a survey of federal probation officers on their opinions of intermittent confinement. Overall, the results of the study indicated that intermittent confinement and weekend sentences are rarely used in federal and state systems (relative to traditional incarceration sentences). Additionally, the results indicated that a single federal district (Texas West) accounted for the majority of federal intermittent DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 32 confinement cases across several years of data. Results of the survey of federal probation officers indicated that logistical issues with intermittent confinement and incarceration facility availability may be a cause for low numbers of intermittent confinement sentences. The majority of survey respondents agreed that intermittent confinement can serve as a just punishment, can be an adequate deterrent, can adequately protect public safety, can allow for effective rehabilitation of the defendant, and can overburden incarceration facilities. The majority of respondents also agreed that intermittent confinement helps people keep their jobs, maintain familial relationships, and maintain medical care for serious medical issues. Seriousness of the current offense, criminal history of the defendant, and type of crime were deemed important factors for who should receive intermittent confinement. Finally, a majority of respondents noted that intermittent confinement should be used more often in their jurisdiction and disagreed that intermittent confinement causes a security risk for incarceration facilities. The above results inform several areas of future research. First, researchers should seek to identify the number of federal incarceration facilities that are capable of handling intermittent confinement sentences. Second, researchers should further explore potential logistical or security issues with intermittent confinement or weekend sentences. Third, and perhaps most important, researchers should explore whether there are meaningful differences in various outcomes (e.g., recidivism, employment, health, and housing stability) between those who receive intermittent confinement sentences and similarly situated individuals who receive traditional incarceration sentences. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 33 TECHNICAL APPENDIX To request a fully accessible version of the technical appendix, please email depc@osu.edu. 2019-2020 IC Sentences . tab MOINTCON if INTDUM==1 TERM OF INTERMITTENT CONFINEMENT | ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------1 | 30 31.58 31.58 2 | 15 15.79 47.37 3 | 7 7.37 54.74 4 | 2 2.11 56.84 6 | 2 2.11 58.95 12 | 2 2.11 61.05 20 | 1 1.05 62.11 Intermittent confinement ordered, but n | 36 37.89 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 95 100.00 . tab MOINTCON TERM OF INTERMITTENT CONFINEMENT | ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------No intermittent confinement ordered | 64,470 99.85 99.85 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 34 1 | 30 0.05 99.90 2 | 15 0.02 99.92 3 | 7 0.01 99.93 4 | 2 0.00 99.94 6 | 2 0.00 99.94 12 | 2 0.00 99.94 20 | 1 0.00 99.94 Intermittent confinement ordered, but n | 36 0.06 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 64,565 100.00 . tab INTDUM RECEIPT OF | INTERMITTEN | T | CONFINEMENT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------No | 64,470 Yes | 95 99.85 0.15 99.85 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 64,565 100.00 Demographics DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 35 . tab AGECAT if INTDUM ==1 DEFENDANT'S | AGE AT TIME | OF | SENTENCING | CATEGORIZED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------< 20 | 10 10.53 10.53 21 thru 25 | 15 26 thru 30 | 9 31 thru 35 | 10 10.53 46.32 36 thru 40 | 18 18.95 65.26 41 thru 50 | 19 20.00 85.26 51 thru 60 | 9 > 61 | 5 15.79 9.47 35.79 9.47 5.26 26.32 94.74 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 95 100.00 . tab NEWEDUC if INTDUM ==1 EDUCATION OF DEFENDANT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------------------+----------------------------------Less than H.S. graduate | 24 28.92 28.92 H.S. graduate | 26 31.33 60.24 Some college | 26 31.33 91.57 8.43 100.00 College graduate | 7 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 36 ------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 83 100.00 . tab NEWRACE if INTDUM ==1 RACE OF | DEFENDANT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------White | 34 36.96 36.96 Black | 12 13.04 50.00 Hispanic | Other | 45 1 48.91 1.09 98.91 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 92 100.00 . tab NUMDEPEN if INTDUM ==1 NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS WHOM DEFENDANT | SUPPORTS | Freq. Percent Cum. --------------------------------------+----------------------------------No dependents | 36 43.90 1 | 11 13.41 57.32 2 | 14 17.07 74.39 3 | 5 4 | 10 5 | 2 2.44 95.12 6 | 3 3.66 98.78 6.10 12.20 43.90 80.49 92.68 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 37 11 | 1 1.22 100.00 --------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 82 100.00 . . tab CITIZEN if INTDUM ==1 NATURE OF DEFENDANT'S CITIZENSHIP | Freq. Percent Cum. --------------------------------------+----------------------------------United States citizen | 88 Resident/legal alien | 1 Illegal alien | 3 94.62 1.08 3.23 Not a US citizen/alien status unknown | 94.62 95.70 98.92 1 1.08 100.00 --------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 93 100.00 . tab MONSEX if INTDUM ==1 DEFENDANT'S | GENDER | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------Male | Female | 72 23 75.79 24.21 75.79 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 95 100.00 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 38 Sentencing Court Information . tab DISTRICT if INTDUM ==1 DISTRICT IN WHICH | DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------------------+----------------------------------Rhode Island | 1 New York South | Maryland | 1.05 1 1 1.05 1.05 North Carolina East | 6 South Carolina | 3 Virginia East | 6.32 2 1 1 Florida Middle | 1 Georgia Middle | 2.11 1.05 2 Georgia South | 1.05 2 2.11 2.11 Texas East | 1 Texas West | 37 38.95 Kentucky West | 1 1.05 Ohio North | 1.05 2 Tennessee East | 2.11 3 3.16 9.47 12.63 20.00 2.11 1.05 2 Florida South | 3.16 7.37 West Virginia South | Florida North | 2.11 3.16 7 Alabama Middle | 1.05 22.11 23.16 24.21 26.32 27.37 29.47 31.58 32.63 71.58 72.63 74.74 77.89 Tennessee Middle | 1 1.05 78.95 Illinois Central | 3 3.16 82.11 Wisconsin East | 2 2.11 84.21 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 39 Arkansas East | 1 1.05 85.26 Minnesota | 2 2.11 87.37 Nebraska | 1 1.05 88.42 California Central | 1 California South | Nevada | 3 2 Oklahoma West | Utah | 1.05 1 3.16 2.11 1 3 92.63 94.74 1.05 1.05 District of Columbia | 89.47 95.79 96.84 3.16 100.00 ------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 95 100.00 . tab MONCIRC if INTDUM ==1 CIRCUIT IN | WHICH | DEFENDANT | WAS | SENTENCED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------0 | 3 3.16 3.16 1 | 1 1.05 4.21 2 | 1 1.05 5.26 4 | 19 20.00 25.26 5 | 38 40.00 65.26 6 | 7 7.37 72.63 7 | 5 5.26 77.89 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 40 8 | 4 4.21 82.11 9 | 6 6.32 88.42 10 | 2 2.11 90.53 11 | 9 9.47 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 95 100.00 Additional Sentencing Factors . tab FINE if INTDUM==1 DOLLAR | AMOUNT OF | FINE | ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------No fine | 72 75.79 75.79 245 | 1 1.05 76.84 300 | 1 1.05 77.89 390 | 1 1.05 78.95 400 | 2 2.11 81.05 500 | 2 2.11 83.16 600 | 1 1.05 84.21 805 | 1 1.05 85.26 1000 | 2 2.11 87.37 1200 | 1 1.05 88.42 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 41 1500 | 1 1.05 89.47 2000 | 1 1.05 90.53 2500 | 1 1.05 91.58 3000 | 1 1.05 92.63 3100 | 1 1.05 93.68 4000 | 1 1.05 94.74 5500 | 2 2.11 96.84 20000 | 2 2.11 98.95 50000 | 1 1.05 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 95 100.00 . tab AMTREST if INTDUM==1 DOLLAR AMOUNT OF | RESTITUTION | Freq. Percent Cum. -----------------------+----------------------------------No restitution ordered | 78 84.78 178 | 1 1.09 85.87 2500 | 1 1.09 86.96 2951 | 1 1.09 88.04 5242 | 1 1.09 89.13 11669 | 1 1.09 90.22 13373 | 1 1.09 91.30 21520 | 1 1.09 92.39 41333 | 1 1.09 93.48 91615 | 1 1.09 94.57 84.78 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 42 102000 | 1 1.09 95.65 159927 | 1 1.09 96.74 395402 | 1 1.09 97.83 403720 | 1 1.09 98.91 534848 | 1 1.09 100.00 -----------------------+----------------------------------Total | 92 100.00 . tab TYPEMONY if INTDUM==1 FINE/COST OF SUPERVISION OR RESTITUTION | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------No fine / cost of supervision, nor rest | 52 Restitution ordered, no fine / cost of | 12 Fine / cost of supervision, no restitut | 26 Both fine / cost of supervision and res | 5 54.74 12.63 27.37 5.26 54.74 67.37 94.74 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 95 100.00 . tab CASETYPE if INTDUM==1 TYPE OF CASE | Freq. Percent Cum. -----------------------------------+----------------------------------Felony | Misdemeanor A | 81 85.26 14 85.26 14.74 100.00 -----------------------------------+----------------------------------- DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 43 Total | 95 100.00 . tab CASETYPE if INTDUM==1 TYPE OF CASE | Freq. Percent Cum. -----------------------------------+----------------------------------Felony | 81 Misdemeanor A | 85.26 14 85.26 14.74 100.00 -----------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 95 100.00 . tab CRIMHIST if INTDUM==1 DOES DEFENDANT HAVE ANY CRIMINAL | HISTORY | Freq. Percent Cum. ---------------------------------+----------------------------------No criminal history | 27 Yes, there is a criminal history | 32.53 56 32.53 67.47 100.00 ---------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 83 100.00 . tab OFFGUIDE if INTDUM==1 PRIMARY TYPE OF CRIME FOR | THE CASE | Freq. Percent Cum. -----------------------------+----------------------------------Administration of Justice | 5 5.26 5.26 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 44 Assault | 1 1.05 Bribery/Corruption | 4 Drug Possession | 2 Drug Trafficking | 20 Environmental | 1 Firearms | 6.32 4.21 10.53 2.11 12.63 21.05 1.05 7 33.68 34.74 7.37 42.11 Forgery/Counter/Copyright | 1 1.05 Fraud/Theft/Embezzlement | 11 11.58 Immigration | 21 22.11 Money Launder | 6 6.32 1 Prison Offenses | 2.11 Robbery | Tax | Other | 1 2 10 1.05 2.11 10.53 54.74 76.84 83.16 Obscenity/Other Sex Offenses | 2 43.16 1.05 84.21 86.32 87.37 89.47 100.00 -----------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 95 100.00 . tab OFFTYPE2 if INTDUM==1 variable OFFTYPE2 not found r(111); . tab XCRHISSR if INTDUM==1 DEFENDANTS | FINAL | CRIMINAL | DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 45 HISTORY | CATEGORY | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------1 | 64 71.11 71.11 2 | 10 11.11 82.22 3 | 9 10.00 4 | 2 2.22 94.44 5 | 4 4.44 98.89 6 | 1 1.11 100.00 92.22 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 90 100.00 . tab XFOLSOR if INTDUM==1 FINAL | OFFENSE | LEVEL | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------2 | 1 1.11 1.11 4 | 6 6.67 7.78 7 | 1 1.11 8.89 8 | 9 10.00 9 | 4 4.44 11.11 18.89 23.33 10 | 10 34.44 11 | 5 5.56 40.00 12 | 6 6.67 46.67 13 | 6 6.67 53.33 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 46 14 | 3 3.33 56.67 15 | 2 2.22 58.89 16 | 1 1.11 60.00 17 | 5 5.56 65.56 18 | 2 2.22 67.78 19 | 7 7.78 75.56 21 | 3 3.33 78.89 23 | 6 6.67 85.56 24 | 2 2.22 87.78 25 | 5 5.56 93.33 26 | 1 1.11 94.44 27 | 2 2.22 96.67 29 | 1 1.11 97.78 31 | 1 1.11 98.89 34 | 1 1.11 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 90 100.00 . tab OFFTYPSB if INTDUM ==1 variable OFFTYPSB not found r(111); . tab ZONE if INTDUM ==1 SENTENCE | DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 47 TABLE GROUP | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------A | 12 13.33 13.33 B | 20 22.22 35.56 C | 11 12.22 47.78 D | 47 52.22 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 90 100.00 2018-2019 IC Sentences tab MOINTCON if INTDUM==1 TERM OF INTERMITTENT CONFINEMENT | ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------1 | 59 44.36 44.36 2 | 16 12.03 56.39 3 | 6 4.51 60.90 4 | 6 4.51 65.41 5 | 1 0.75 66.17 6 | 3 2.26 68.42 8 | 1 0.75 69.17 10 | 1 0.75 69.92 12 | 1 0.75 70.68 Intermittent confinement ordered, but n | 39 29.32 100.00 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 48 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 133 100.00 . tab MOINTCON TERM OF INTERMITTENT CONFINEMENT | ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------No intermittent confinement ordered | 76,404 1 | 59 0.08 99.90 2 | 16 0.02 99.92 3 | 6 0.01 99.93 4 | 6 0.01 99.94 5 | 1 0.00 99.94 6 | 3 0.00 99.95 8 | 1 0.00 99.95 10 | 1 0.00 99.95 12 | 1 0.00 99.95 Intermittent confinement ordered, but n | 39 99.83 0.05 99.83 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 76,537 100.00 . tab INTDUM RECEIPT OF | INTERMITTEN | T | CONFINEMENT | Freq. Percent Cum. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 49 ------------+----------------------------------No | 76,404 Yes | 133 99.83 0.17 99.83 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 76,537 100.00 Demographics . tab AGECAT if INTDUM ==1 DEFENDANT'S | AGE AT TIME | OF | SENTENCING | CATEGORIZED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------< 20 | 5 3.76 3.76 21 thru 25 | 19 14.29 18.05 26 thru 30 | 31 23.31 41.35 31 thru 35 | 23 17.29 58.65 36 thru 40 | 12 9.02 41 thru 50 | 23 17.29 84.96 51 thru 60 | 14 10.53 95.49 > 61 | 6 4.51 67.67 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 133 100.00 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 50 . . . tab NEWEDUC if INTDUM ==1 EDUCATION OF DEFENDANT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------------------+----------------------------------Less than H.S. graduate | 26 23.01 23.01 H.S. graduate | 39 34.51 57.52 Some college | 35 30.97 88.50 College graduate | 13 11.50 100.00 ------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 113 100.00 . tab NEWRACE if INTDUM ==1 RACE OF | DEFENDANT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------White | 34 26.77 26.77 Black | 31 24.41 51.18 Hispanic | Other | 56 6 44.09 4.72 95.28 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 127 100.00 . tab NUMDEPEN if INTDUM ==1 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 51 NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS WHOM DEFENDANT | SUPPORTS | Freq. Percent Cum. --------------------------------------+----------------------------------No dependents | 49 43.75 43.75 1 | 15 13.39 57.14 2 | 17 15.18 72.32 3 | 15 13.39 85.71 4 | 7 6.25 91.96 5 | 4 3.57 95.54 6 | 3 2.68 98.21 8 | 1 0.89 99.11 11 | 1 0.89 100.00 --------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 112 100.00 . tab CITIZEN if INTDUM ==1 NATURE OF DEFENDANT'S CITIZENSHIP | Freq. Percent Cum. --------------------------------------+----------------------------------United States citizen | 127 Resident/legal alien | 4 Not a US citizen/alien status unknown | 96.21 3.03 1 96.21 99.24 0.76 100.00 --------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 132 100.00 . tab MONSEX if INTDUM ==1 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 52 DEFENDANT'S | GENDER | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------Male | Female | 83 62.88 49 62.88 37.12 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 132 100.00 Sentencing Court Information . tab DISTRICT if INTDUM ==1 DISTRICT IN WHICH | DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------------------+----------------------------------Rhode Island | 1 New York South | Maryland | 0.75 4 7 3.01 5.26 North Carolina East | 6 North Carolina Middle | 15 Alabama North | 1 3.76 9.02 4.51 2 Virginia East | 0.75 13.53 1.50 11.28 0.75 15.04 26.32 27.07 Alabama Middle | 3 2.26 29.32 Florida Middle | 5 3.76 33.08 Georgia Middle | 3 2.26 35.34 Georgia South | 4 3.01 38.35 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 53 Mississippi North | 1 0.75 39.10 Mississippi South | 1 0.75 39.85 Texas West | 40 30.08 Kentucky East | 4 3.01 72.93 Kentucky West | 2 1.50 74.44 Michigan West | 2 1.50 75.94 Tennessee East | 1 69.92 0.75 76.69 Tennessee Middle | 1 0.75 77.44 Illinois Central | 1 0.75 78.20 Illinois South | 3 2.26 80.45 Wisconsin East | 1 0.75 81.20 Iowa South | 1 Nebraska | 0.75 2 81.95 1.50 83.46 California North | 1 0.75 84.21 California South | 5 3.76 87.97 Idaho | 1.50 2 Nevada | 7 Washington East | Oklahoma West | 89.47 5.26 1 3 District of Columbia | 94.74 0.75 2.26 3 95.49 97.74 2.26 100.00 ------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 133 100.00 . tab MONCIRC if INTDUM ==1 CIRCUIT IN | WHICH | DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 54 DEFENDANT | WAS | SENTENCED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------0 | 3 2.26 2.26 1 | 1 0.75 3.01 2 | 4 3.01 6.02 4 | 30 22.56 28.57 5 | 42 31.58 60.15 6 | 10 7.52 7 | 5 3.76 71.43 8 | 3 2.26 73.68 9 | 16 12.03 10 | 3 2.26 11 | 16 67.67 12.03 85.71 87.97 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 133 100.00 Additional Sentencing Factors . tab FINE if INTDUM==1 DOLLAR | AMOUNT OF | FINE | ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------- DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 55 No fine | 104 78.20 78.20 25 | 1 0.75 78.95 150 | 1 0.75 79.70 200 | 1 0.75 80.45 250 | 3 2.26 82.71 300 | 1 0.75 83.46 350 | 1 0.75 84.21 500 | 7 5.26 89.47 600 | 1 0.75 90.23 1000 | 3 2.26 92.48 1500 | 2 1.50 93.98 2000 | 2 1.50 95.49 4000 | 1 0.75 96.24 4369 | 1 0.75 96.99 5000 | 1 0.75 97.74 6533 | 1 0.75 98.50 10000 | 2 1.50 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 133 100.00 . tab AMTREST if INTDUM==1 DOLLAR AMOUNT OF | RESTITUTION | Freq. Percent Cum. -----------------------+----------------------------------No restitution ordered | 75 | 1 106 0.77 81.54 81.54 82.31 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 56 1753 | 1 0.77 83.08 8092 | 1 0.77 83.85 10000 | 1 0.77 84.62 19542 | 1 0.77 85.38 21384 | 1 0.77 86.15 24158 | 1 0.77 86.92 60000 | 1 0.77 87.69 66646 | 1 0.77 88.46 75312 | 1 0.77 89.23 82565 | 1 0.77 90.00 98000 | 1 0.77 90.77 122648 | 1 0.77 91.54 123176 | 1 0.77 92.31 133924 | 1 0.77 93.08 184003 | 1 0.77 93.85 198354 | 1 0.77 94.62 230480 | 1 0.77 95.38 236000 | 1 0.77 96.15 268797 | 1 0.77 96.92 358454 | 1 0.77 97.69 405000 | 2 1.54 99.23 406726 | 1 0.77 100.00 -----------------------+----------------------------------Total | 130 100.00 . tab TYPEMONY if INTDUM==1 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 57 FINE/COST OF SUPERVISION OR RESTITUTION | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------No fine / cost of supervision, nor rest | 71 Restitution ordered, no fine / cost of | 21 Fine / cost of supervision, no restitut | 35 Both fine / cost of supervision and res | 6 53.38 15.79 26.32 4.51 53.38 69.17 95.49 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 133 100.00 . tab CASETYPE if INTDUM==1 TYPE OF CASE | Freq. Percent Cum. -----------------------------------+----------------------------------Felony | 104 Misdemeanor A | 78.20 29 78.20 21.80 100.00 -----------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 133 100.00 . tab CASETYPE if INTDUM==1 TYPE OF CASE | Freq. Percent Cum. -----------------------------------+----------------------------------Felony | 104 Misdemeanor A | 78.20 29 78.20 21.80 100.00 -----------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 133 100.00 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 58 . tab CRIMHIST if INTDUM==1 DOES DEFENDANT HAVE ANY CRIMINAL | HISTORY | Freq. Percent Cum. ---------------------------------+----------------------------------No criminal history | 32 27.12 Yes, there is a criminal history | 86 27.12 72.88 100.00 ---------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 118 100.00 . tab OFFGUIDE if INTDUM==1 PRIMARY TYPE OF CRIME FOR | THE CASE | Freq. Percent Cum. -----------------------------+----------------------------------Administration of Justice | 2 1.50 1.50 Bribery/Corruption | 2 1.50 3.01 Child Pornography | 2 1.50 4.51 Drug Trafficking | 36 27.07 Environmental | 3 2.26 Extortion/Racketeering | 1 Firearms | 9.77 13 31.58 33.83 0.75 34.59 44.36 Forgery/Counter/Copyright | 1 0.75 Fraud/Theft/Embezzlement | 24 18.05 Immigration | 18 13.53 45.11 63.16 76.69 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 59 Kidnapping | 1 Money Launder | 4 Prison Offenses | Robbery | 1 80.45 0.75 0.75 1 5 Other | 77.44 3.01 1 Sex Abuse | Tax | 0.75 18 81.95 0.75 3.76 81.20 82.71 86.47 13.53 100.00 -----------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 133 100.00 . tab OFFTYPE2 if INTDUM==1 variable OFFTYPE2 not found r(111); . tab XCRHISSR if INTDUM==1 DEFENDANTS | FINAL | CRIMINAL | HISTORY | CATEGORY | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------1 | 98 77.78 77.78 2 | 13 10.32 88.10 3 | 11 8.73 4 | 2 1.59 98.41 5 | 1 0.79 99.21 96.83 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 60 6 | 1 0.79 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 126 100.00 . tab XFOLSOR if INTDUM==1 FINAL | OFFENSE | LEVEL | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------2 | 1 0.79 4 | 12 6 | 2 1.59 11.90 7 | 1 0.79 12.70 8 | 11 9.52 8.73 11.11 0.79 10.32 21.43 10 | 14 11 | 4 12 | 16 13 | 9 7.14 55.56 14 | 1 0.79 56.35 15 | 8 6.35 62.70 16 | 4 3.17 65.87 17 | 10 18 | 1 0.79 74.60 19 | 6 4.76 79.37 21 | 10 22 | 2 3.17 12.70 7.94 7.94 1.59 32.54 35.71 48.41 73.81 87.30 88.89 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 61 23 | 5 3.97 92.86 24 | 1 0.79 93.65 25 | 3 2.38 96.03 27 | 2 1.59 97.62 28 | 2 1.59 99.21 34 | 1 0.79 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 126 100.00 . tab OFFTYPSB if INTDUM ==1 variable OFFTYPSB not found r(111); . . tab ZONE if INTDUM ==1 SENTENCE | TABLE GROUP | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------A | 23 18.25 18.25 B | 18 14.29 32.54 C | 27 21.43 53.97 D | 58 46.03 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 126 100.00 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 62 2017-2018 IC Sentences tab MOINTCON if INTDUM==1 TERM OF INTERMITTENT CONFINEMENT | ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------1 | 74 48.37 48.37 2 | 14 9.15 57.52 3 | 11 7.19 64.71 4 | 5 3.27 67.97 5 | 2 1.31 69.28 6 | 4 2.61 71.90 7 | 3 1.96 73.86 8 | 1 0.65 74.51 Intermittent confinement ordered, but n | 39 25.49 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 153 100.00 . tab MOINTCON TERM OF INTERMITTENT CONFINEMENT | ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------No intermittent confinement ordered | 1 | 74 0.11 69,272 99.78 99.78 99.89 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 63 2 | 14 0.02 99.91 3 | 11 0.02 99.92 4 | 5 0.01 99.93 5 | 2 0.00 99.93 6 | 4 0.01 99.94 7 | 3 0.00 99.94 8 | 1 0.00 99.94 Intermittent confinement ordered, but n | 39 0.06 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 69,425 100.00 . tab INTDUM RECEIPT OF | INTERMITTEN | T | CONFINEMENT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------No | 69,272 Yes | 153 99.78 0.22 99.78 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 69,425 100.00 Demographics . tab AGECAT if INTDUM ==1 variable AGECAT not found DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 64 r(111); . tab YEARS if INTDUM ==1 CATEGORIES OF | AGE RANGES | Freq. Percent Cum. --------------+----------------------------------<21 | 8 5.23 5.23 21 through 25 | 26 16.99 22.22 26 through 30 | 23 15.03 37.25 31 through 35 | 24 15.69 52.94 36 through 40 | 29 18.95 71.90 41 through 50 | 29 18.95 90.85 >50 | 14 9.15 100.00 --------------+----------------------------------Total | 153 100.00 . tab NEWEDUC if INTDUM ==1 EDUCATION OF DEFENDANT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------------------+----------------------------------Less than H.S. graduate | 25 19.23 19.23 H.S. graduate | 39 30.00 49.23 Some college | 48 36.92 86.15 College graduate | 18 13.85 100.00 ------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 130 100.00 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 65 . tab NEWRACE if INTDUM ==1 RACE OF | DEFENDANT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------White | 57 39.31 39.31 Black | 41 28.28 67.59 Hispanic | Other | 40 7 27.59 4.83 95.17 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 145 100.00 . tab NUMDEPEN if INTDUM ==1 NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS WHOM DEFENDANT | SUPPORTS | Freq. Percent Cum. --------------------------------------+----------------------------------No dependents | 49 38.28 1 | 21 16.41 54.69 2 | 25 19.53 74.22 3 | 19 14.84 89.06 4 | 5 3.91 92.97 5 | 7 5.47 98.44 6 | 2 1.56 100.00 38.28 --------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 128 100.00 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 66 . tab CITIZEN if INTDUM ==1 NATURE OF DEFENDANT'S CITIZENSHIP | Freq. Percent Cum. --------------------------------------+----------------------------------United States citizen | 145 Resident/legal alien | 5 Illegal alien | 1 96.03 3.31 0.66 96.03 99.34 100.00 --------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 151 100.00 . tab MONSEX if INTDUM ==1 DEFENDANT'S | GENDER | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------Male | Female | 107 46 69.93 69.93 30.07 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 153 100.00 Sentencing Court Information . tab DISTRICT if INTDUM ==1 DISTRICT IN WHICH | DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------------------+----------------------------------- DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 67 Rhode Island | 2 1.31 1.31 New York North | 8 5.23 6.54 New York South | 3 1.96 8.50 Pennsylvania West | Maryland | 2 9 1.31 5.88 North Carolina East | 3 North Carolina Middle | 15.69 1.96 1 Virginia East | 21 Virginia West | 4 13.73 1 2 Alabama Middle | 3.27 18.30 32.03 34.64 0.65 1.31 5 17.65 0.65 2.61 West Virginia South | Alabama North | 9.80 35.29 36.60 39.87 Alabama South | 1 0.65 40.52 Florida North | 1 0.65 41.18 Florida Middle | 6 Florida South | 3 Georgia Middle | 1.96 1 Georgia South | 3 Louisiana West | 3.92 0.65 1.96 1 Mississippi North | 1 0.65 0.65 47.06 47.71 49.67 50.33 50.98 Texas South | 1 Texas West | 34 22.22 Kentucky East | 3 1.96 75.82 Kentucky West | 1 0.65 76.47 Michigan West | 1 0.65 77.12 Tennessee East | Tennessee Middle | 0.65 45.10 3 3 1.96 1.96 51.63 73.86 79.08 81.05 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 68 Illinois Central | 1 Illinois South | 0.65 1 81.70 0.65 82.35 Arkansas East | 2 1.31 83.66 Missouri East | 1 0.65 84.31 Nebraska | 1 South Dakota | 0.65 1 0.65 California Central | 2 4 Idaho | 0.65 Oregon | 1 Colorado | Oklahoma West | 90.85 91.50 5.23 District of Columbia | 5 89.54 90.20 0.65 8 86.93 2.61 0.65 1 85.62 1.31 California South | 1 84.97 96.73 3.27 100.00 ------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 153 100.00 . tab MONCIRC if INTDUM ==1 CIRCUIT IN | WHICH | DEFENDANT | WAS | SENTENCED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------0 | 5 3.27 3.27 1 | 2 1.31 4.58 2 | 11 7.19 11.76 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 69 3 | 2 1.31 4 | 39 25.49 38.56 5 | 37 24.18 62.75 6 | 11 7.19 7 | 2 1.31 71.24 8 | 5 3.27 74.51 9 | 8 5.23 79.74 10 | 9 11 | 22 13.07 69.93 5.88 85.62 14.38 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 153 100.00 Additional Sentencing Factors . tab FINE if INTDUM==1 DOLLAR | AMOUNT OF | FINE | ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------No fine | 125 81.70 81.70 100 | 1 0.65 82.35 250 | 3 1.96 84.31 300 | 1 0.65 84.97 350 | 1 0.65 85.62 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 70 400 | 1 0.65 86.27 500 | 7 4.58 90.85 600 | 1 0.65 91.50 750 | 1 0.65 92.16 1200 | 2 1.31 93.46 1500 | 1 0.65 94.12 2000 | 1 0.65 94.77 2500 | 1 0.65 95.42 3000 | 1 0.65 96.08 3500 | 1 0.65 96.73 4000 | 1 0.65 97.39 5000 | 1 0.65 98.04 10000 | 2 1.31 99.35 20000 | 1 0.65 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 153 100.00 . tab AMTREST if INTDUM==1 DOLLAR AMOUNT OF | RESTITUTION | Freq. Percent Cum. -----------------------+----------------------------------No restitution ordered | 115 76.16 132 | 1 0.66 76.82 4679 | 1 0.66 77.48 6525 | 1 0.66 78.15 8665 | 1 0.66 78.81 76.16 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 71 9000 | 1 0.66 79.47 13772 | 1 0.66 80.13 16965 | 1 0.66 80.79 20285 | 1 0.66 81.46 26829 | 1 0.66 82.12 28532 | 1 0.66 82.78 30650 | 1 0.66 83.44 31210 | 1 0.66 84.11 35000 | 1 0.66 84.77 39019 | 1 0.66 85.43 53553 | 1 0.66 86.09 65014 | 1 0.66 86.75 69428 | 1 0.66 87.42 70000 | 1 0.66 88.08 70599 | 1 0.66 88.74 70870 | 1 0.66 89.40 75357 | 1 0.66 90.07 75398 | 1 0.66 90.73 86153 | 1 0.66 91.39 91185 | 1 0.66 92.05 92579 | 1 0.66 92.72 93882 | 1 0.66 93.38 112613 | 1 0.66 94.04 124479 | 1 0.66 94.70 136732 | 1 0.66 95.36 193708 | 1 0.66 96.03 217366 | 1 0.66 96.69 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 72 217367 | 1 0.66 97.35 306524 | 1 0.66 98.01 344172 | 1 0.66 98.68 949102 | 1 0.66 99.34 987500 | 1 0.66 100.00 -----------------------+----------------------------------Total | 151 100.00 . tab TYPEMONY if INTDUM==1 FINE/COST OF SUPERVISION OR RESTITUTION | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------No fine / cost of supervision, nor rest | 72 Restitution ordered, no fine / cost of | 30 Fine / cost of supervision, no restitut | 43 Both fine / cost of supervision and res | 8 47.06 19.61 28.10 5.23 47.06 66.67 94.77 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 153 100.00 . tab CASETYPE if INTDUM==1 TYPE OF CASE | Freq. Percent Cum. -----------------------------------+----------------------------------Felony | 123 Misdemeanor A | 80.39 30 80.39 19.61 100.00 -----------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 153 100.00 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 73 . tab CRIMHIST if INTDUM==1 DOES DEFENDANT HAVE ANY CRIMINAL | HISTORY | Freq. Percent Cum. ---------------------------------+----------------------------------No criminal history | 38 27.94 Yes, there is a criminal history | 98 27.94 72.06 100.00 ---------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 136 100.00 . tab OFFGUIDE if INTDUM==1 PRIMARY TYPE OF CRIME FOR | THE CASE | Freq. Percent Cum. -----------------------------+----------------------------------Administration of Justice | Assault | 1 3 1.96 0.65 Child Pornography | 1 Drug Possession | 4 Drug Trafficking | 39 2.61 0.65 2.61 3.27 5.88 25.49 Extortion/Racketeering | 1 Firearms | 6.54 10 31.37 0.65 32.03 38.56 Forgery/Counter/Copyright | 3 1.96 Fraud/Theft/Embezzlement | 34 22.22 Immigration | 21 1.96 13.73 40.52 62.75 76.47 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 74 Individual Rights | 2 Money Launder | 2 1.31 1.31 Obscenity/Other Sex Offenses | Robbery | Tax | 1 4 Other | 2.61 25 79.08 2 0.65 77.78 1.31 80.39 81.05 83.66 16.34 100.00 -----------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 153 100.00 . tab OFFTYPE2 if INTDUM==1 variable OFFTYPE2 not found r(111); . tab XCRHISSR if INTDUM==1 DEFENDANTS | FINAL | CRIMINAL | HISTORY | CATEGORY | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------1 | 101 67.79 67.79 2 | 20 13.42 81.21 3 | 13 8.72 4 | 9 6.04 95.97 5 | 3 2.01 97.99 6 | 3 2.01 100.00 89.93 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 75 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 149 100.00 . tab XFOLSOR if INTDUM==1 FINAL | OFFENSE | LEVEL | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------2 | 3 2.01 4 | 22 5 | 2 1.34 18.12 6 | 2 1.34 19.46 7 | 2 1.34 20.81 8 | 5 3.36 24.16 9 | 3 2.01 26.17 14.77 12.08 2.01 16.78 10 | 18 11 | 3 12 | 21 14.09 13 | 10 6.71 14 | 5 15 | 10 16 | 3 2.01 73.15 17 | 7 4.70 77.85 18 | 3 2.01 79.87 19 | 13 20 | 1 2.01 3.36 6.71 8.72 0.67 38.26 40.27 54.36 61.07 64.43 71.14 88.59 89.26 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 76 21 | 1 0.67 89.93 23 | 6 4.03 93.96 24 | 1 0.67 94.63 25 | 1 0.67 95.30 27 | 1 0.67 95.97 29 | 2 1.34 97.32 31 | 1 0.67 97.99 34 | 1 0.67 98.66 35 | 1 0.67 99.33 36 | 1 0.67 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 149 100.00 . tab OFFTYPSB if INTDUM ==1 variable OFFTYPSB not found r(111); . tab ZONE if INTDUM ==1 SENTENCE | TABLE GROUP | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------A | 24 16.11 16.11 B | 30 20.13 36.24 C | 29 19.46 55.70 D | 66 44.30 100.00 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 77 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 149 100.00 2016-2017 IC Sentences tab MOINTCON if INTDUM==1 TERM OF INTERMITTENT CONFINEMENT | ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------1 | 80 49.38 49.38 2 | 22 13.58 62.96 3 | 5 3.09 66.05 4 | 5 3.09 69.14 5 | 1 0.62 69.75 6 | 3 1.85 71.60 12 | 2 1.23 72.84 25 | 1 0.62 73.46 Intermittent confinement ordered, but n | 43 26.54 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 162 100.00 . tab MOINTCON TERM OF INTERMITTENT CONFINEMENT | DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 78 ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------No intermittent confinement ordered | 66,711 1 | 80 0.12 99.88 2 | 22 0.03 99.91 3 | 5 0.01 99.92 4 | 5 0.01 99.93 5 | 1 0.00 99.93 6 | 3 0.00 99.93 12 | 2 0.00 99.93 25 | 1 0.00 99.94 Intermittent confinement ordered, but n | 43 99.76 0.06 99.76 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 66,873 100.00 . tab INTDUM RECEIPT OF | INTERMITTEN | T | CONFINEMENT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------No | 66,711 Yes | 162 99.76 0.24 99.76 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 66,873 100.00 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 79 Demographics . tab YEARS if INTDUM ==1 CATEGORIES OF | AGE RANGES | Freq. Percent Cum. --------------+----------------------------------<21 | 12 7.41 7.41 21 through 25 | 31 19.14 26.54 26 through 30 | 24 14.81 41.36 31 through 35 | 19 11.73 53.09 36 through 40 | 22 13.58 66.67 41 through 50 | 34 20.99 87.65 >50 | 20 12.35 100.00 --------------+----------------------------------Total | 162 100.00 . tab AGECAT if INTDUM ==1 variable AGECAT not found r(111); . tab NEWEDUC if INTDUM ==1 EDUCATION OF DEFENDANT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------------------+----------------------------------Less than H.S. graduate | 35 25.55 25.55 H.S. graduate | 46 33.58 59.12 Some college | 35 25.55 84.67 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 80 College graduate | 21 15.33 100.00 ------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 137 100.00 . tab NEWRACE if INTDUM ==1 RACE OF | DEFENDANT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------White | 48 30.38 30.38 Black | 48 30.38 60.76 Hispanic | Other | 57 5 36.08 3.16 96.84 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 158 100.00 . tab NUMDEPEN if INTDUM ==1 NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS WHOM DEFENDANT | SUPPORTS | Freq. Percent Cum. --------------------------------------+----------------------------------No dependents | 52 37.68 1 | 29 21.01 58.70 2 | 22 15.94 74.64 3 | 18 13.04 87.68 4 | 9 6.52 94.20 5 | 5 3.62 97.83 37.68 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 81 6 | 1 0.72 98.55 7 | 2 1.45 100.00 --------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 138 100.00 . tab CITIZEN if INTDUM ==1 NATURE OF DEFENDANT'S CITIZENSHIP | Freq. Percent Cum. --------------------------------------+----------------------------------United States citizen | 152 Resident/legal alien | 6 Illegal alien | 1 95.00 3.75 0.63 Not a US citizen/alien status unknown | 95.00 98.75 99.38 1 0.63 100.00 --------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 160 100.00 . tab MONSEX if INTDUM ==1 DEFENDANT'S | GENDER | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------Male | Female | 106 55 65.84 34.16 65.84 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 161 100.00 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 82 Sentencing Court Information . tab DISTRICT if INTDUM ==1 DISTRICT IN WHICH | DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------------------+----------------------------------Massachusetts | 1 0.62 0.62 Rhode Island | 1 0.62 1.23 New York North | 6 3.70 4.94 New York South | 2 1.23 6.17 New York West | 1 0.62 6.79 Pennsylvania East | 1 0.62 7.41 Pennsylvania West | 1 0.62 8.02 Maryland | 6 3.70 North Carolina East | 7 Virginia East | 11 Alabama North | 3 11.73 4.32 6.79 1.85 16.05 22.84 24.69 Alabama Middle | 4 2.47 27.16 Florida Middle | 2 1.23 28.40 Florida South | 6 3.70 32.10 Georgia North | 1 0.62 32.72 Georgia Middle | 1 Georgia South | 5 Mississippi North | 0.62 3.09 3 1.85 33.33 36.42 38.27 Texas North | 1 0.62 38.89 Texas East | 3 1.85 40.74 Texas West | 46 28.40 69.14 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 83 Michigan West | 9 5.56 74.69 Tennessee East | 9 5.56 80.25 Illinois North | 2 1.23 81.48 Arkansas East | 3 Minnesota | 1.85 1 Missouri West | 0.62 1 Nebraska | 5 1 1 Nevada | 2 1 90.74 91.98 0.62 1.23 3 6 92.59 93.83 1.85 0.62 District of Columbia | 89.51 90.12 1.23 1 Oklahoma West | Utah | 0.62 2 Colorado | 86.42 3.09 0.62 Washington West | 85.80 0.62 California South | Idaho | 85.19 0.62 1 Hawaii | 84.57 0.62 1 Arizona | 83.95 0.62 1 South Dakota | 83.33 95.68 96.30 3.70 100.00 ------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 162 100.00 . tab MONCIRC if INTDUM ==1 CIRCUIT IN | WHICH | DEFENDANT | WAS | DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 84 SENTENCED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------0 | 6 3.70 3.70 1 | 2 1.23 4.94 2 | 9 5.56 10.49 3 | 2 1.23 11.73 4 | 24 14.81 26.54 5 | 53 32.72 59.26 6 | 18 11.11 70.37 7 | 2 1.23 71.60 8 | 7 4.32 75.93 9 | 11 6.79 82.72 10 | 6 3.70 86.42 11 | 22 13.58 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 162 100.00 Additional Sentencing Factors . tab FINE if INTDUM==1 DOLLAR | AMOUNT OF | FINE | ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------No fine | 123 75.93 75.93 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 85 200 | 1 0.62 76.54 250 | 5 3.09 79.63 300 | 3 1.85 81.48 500 | 7 4.32 85.80 600 | 1 0.62 86.42 800 | 1 0.62 87.04 1000 | 6 3.70 90.74 1500 | 1 0.62 91.36 2000 | 5 3.09 94.44 3000 | 1 0.62 95.06 4000 | 3 1.85 96.91 5000 | 1 0.62 97.53 8800 | 1 0.62 98.15 22291 | 1 0.62 98.77 25000 | 1 0.62 99.38 30000 | 1 0.62 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 162 100.00 . tab AMTREST if INTDUM==1 DOLLAR AMOUNT OF | RESTITUTION | Freq. Percent Cum. -----------------------+----------------------------------No restitution ordered | 119 75.32 225 | 1 0.63 75.95 1200 | 2 1.27 77.22 75.32 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 86 3798 | 1 0.63 77.85 5811 | 1 0.63 78.48 6696 | 1 0.63 79.11 18474 | 1 0.63 79.75 30712 | 1 0.63 80.38 31213 | 1 0.63 81.01 32002 | 1 0.63 81.65 40219 | 1 0.63 82.28 41075 | 1 0.63 82.91 42743 | 1 0.63 83.54 43705 | 1 0.63 84.18 44287 | 1 0.63 84.81 52135 | 1 0.63 85.44 69156 | 1 0.63 86.08 70097 | 1 0.63 86.71 72971 | 1 0.63 87.34 76476 | 1 0.63 87.97 79563 | 1 0.63 88.61 89882 | 1 0.63 89.24 120544 | 1 0.63 89.87 132893 | 1 0.63 90.51 137897 | 1 0.63 91.14 140298 | 1 0.63 91.77 149962 | 1 0.63 92.41 150000 | 1 0.63 93.04 181000 | 1 0.63 93.67 184871 | 1 0.63 94.30 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 87 209566 | 1 0.63 94.94 245181 | 1 0.63 95.57 460707 | 1 0.63 96.20 503028 | 1 0.63 96.84 538948 | 1 0.63 97.47 602730 | 1 0.63 98.10 616289 | 1 0.63 98.73 636278 | 1 0.63 99.37 1188729 | 1 0.63 100.00 -----------------------+----------------------------------Total | 158 100.00 . tab TYPEMONY if INTDUM==1 FINE/COST OF SUPERVISION OR RESTITUTION | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------No fine / cost of supervision, nor rest | Restitution ordered, no fine / cost of | 75 35 Fine / cost of supervision, no restitut | 44 Both fine / cost of supervision and res | 8 46.30 21.60 27.16 4.94 46.30 67.90 95.06 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 162 100.00 . tab CASETYPE if INTDUM==1 variable CASETYPE not found r(111); DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 88 . tab CRIMHIST if INTDUM==1 DOES DEFENDANT HAVE ANY CRIMINAL | HISTORY | Freq. Percent Cum. ---------------------------------+----------------------------------No criminal history | 43 30.28 Yes, there is a criminal history | 99 30.28 69.72 100.00 ---------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 142 100.00 . tab OFFGUIDE if INTDUM==1 variable OFFGUIDE not found r(111); . tab OFFTYPE2 if INTDUM==1 PRIMARY OFFENSE TYPE GENERATED FROM | CONVICTION WITH HIGHEST STATUTORY MAX | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Sexual abuse | Assault | 2 1 Drugs: trafficking | 1.23 0.62 1.85 43 26.54 Drugs: communication facilities | Drugs: simple possession | 1.23 2 3 Firearms: use (incld offtype=14, firear | Larceny | 4 2.47 Fraud | 25 15.43 28.40 1.23 1.85 10 29.63 31.48 6.17 37.65 40.12 55.56 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 89 Embezzlement | 2 1.23 Forgery/counterfeiting | Bribery | 1 4 0.62 2.47 Tax offenses | 9 Money laundering | 56.79 59.88 5.56 6 65.43 3.70 Racketeering (includes offtype=8, extor | Civil rights offenses | Immigration | 2 13 57.41 69.14 1 1.23 8.02 0.62 69.75 70.99 79.01 Admin just (inc access after fact, misp | 7 4.32 83.33 Environmental, game, fish, and wildlife | 1 0.62 83.95 National defense offenses | 0.62 1 Antitrust violations | 1 0.62 Traf viols other offns (incld offtype=3 | Child Pornography | 1 0.62 84.57 85.19 23 14.20 99.38 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 162 100.00 . tab XCRHISSR if INTDUM==1 DEFENDANTS | FINAL | CRIMINAL | HISTORY | CATEGORY | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------1 | 117 76.97 76.97 2 | 23 15.13 92.11 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 90 3 | 8 5.26 97.37 4 | 1 0.66 98.03 5 | 2 1.32 99.34 6 | 1 0.66 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 152 100.00 . tab XFOLSOR if INTDUM==1 FINAL | OFFENSE | LEVEL | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------2 | 2 1.32 4 | 16 5 | 1 0.66 12.50 6 | 2 1.32 13.82 7 | 1 0.66 14.47 8 | 4 2.63 17.11 10.53 9.87 1.32 11.84 10 | 15 11 | 2 12 | 25 16.45 44.74 13 | 19 12.50 57.24 14 | 1 15 | 10 16 | 3 1.97 66.45 17 | 9 5.92 72.37 1.32 0.66 6.58 26.97 28.29 57.89 64.47 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 91 18 | 1 0.66 73.03 19 | 6 3.95 76.97 20 | 2 1.32 78.29 21 | 10 22 | 1 0.66 85.53 23 | 6 3.95 89.47 24 | 1 0.66 90.13 25 | 2 1.32 91.45 26 | 4 2.63 94.08 28 | 2 1.32 95.39 29 | 1 0.66 96.05 30 | 1 0.66 96.71 31 | 2 1.32 98.03 36 | 1 0.66 98.68 37 | 1 0.66 99.34 38 | 1 0.66 100.00 6.58 84.87 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 152 100.00 . tab ZONE if INTDUM ==1 SENTENCE | TABLE GROUP | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------A | 25 16.45 16.45 B | 16 10.53 26.97 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 92 C | 39 25.66 52.63 D | 72 47.37 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 152 100.00 2015-2016 IC Sentences . tab INTDUM RECEIPT OF | INTERMITTEN | T | CONFINEMENT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------No | 67,579 Yes | 163 99.76 0.24 99.76 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 67,742 100.00 tab MOINTCON if INTDUM==1 TERM OF INTERMITTENT CONFINEMENT | ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------1 | 97 59.51 59.51 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 93 2 | 19 11.66 71.17 3 | 2 1.23 72.39 4 | 7 4.29 76.69 5 | 1 0.61 77.30 6 | 2 1.23 78.53 7 | 2 1.23 79.75 8 | 1 0.61 80.37 Intermittent confinement ordered but no | 32 19.63 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 163 100.00 . tab MOINTCON TERM OF INTERMITTENT CONFINEMENT | ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------No intermittent confinement ordered | 67,579 1 | 97 0.14 99.90 2 | 19 0.03 99.93 3 | 2 0.00 99.93 4 | 7 0.01 99.94 5 | 1 0.00 99.95 6 | 2 0.00 99.95 7 | 2 0.00 99.95 8 | 1 0.00 99.95 Intermittent confinement ordered but no | 32 99.76 0.05 99.76 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------- DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 94 Total | 67,742 100.00 Demographics . tab YEARS if INTDUM ==1 CATEGORIES OF | AGE RANGES | Freq. Percent Cum. --------------+----------------------------------<21 | 7 4.29 4.29 21 through 25 | 27 16.56 20.86 26 through 30 | 18 11.04 31.90 31 through 35 | 29 17.79 49.69 36 through 40 | 22 13.50 63.19 41 through 50 | 34 20.86 84.05 >50 | 26 15.95 100.00 --------------+----------------------------------Total | 163 100.00 . tab NEWEDUC if INTDUM ==1 EDUCATION OF DEFENDANT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------------------+----------------------------------Less than H.S. graduate | 28 21.21 21.21 H.S. graduate | 41 31.06 52.27 Some college | 43 32.58 84.85 College graduate | 20 15.15 100.00 ------------------------+----------------------------------- DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 95 Total | 132 100.00 . tab NEWRACE if INTDUM ==1 RACE OF | DEFENDANT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------White | 67 42.68 42.68 Black | 37 23.57 66.24 Hispanic | Other | 50 3 31.85 1.91 98.09 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 157 100.00 . tab NUMDEPEN if INTDUM ==1 NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS WHOM DEFENDANT | SUPPORTS | Freq. Percent Cum. --------------------------------------+----------------------------------No dependents | 44 33.08 1 | 30 22.56 55.64 2 | 29 21.80 77.44 3 | 17 12.78 90.23 4 | 6 4.51 94.74 5 | 5 3.76 98.50 6 | 1 0.75 99.25 8 | 1 0.75 100.00 33.08 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 96 --------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 133 100.00 . tab CITIZEN if INTDUM ==1 NATURE OF DEFENDANT'S CITIZENSHIP | Freq. Percent Cum. --------------------------------------+----------------------------------United States citizen | 154 Resident/legal alien | 3 98.09 1.91 98.09 100.00 --------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 157 100.00 . tab MONSEX if INTDUM ==1 DEFENDANT'S | GENDER | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------Male | Female | 111 52 68.10 31.90 68.10 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 163 100.00 Sentencing Court Information . tab DISTRICT if INTDUM ==1 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 97 DISTRICT IN WHICH | DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------------------+----------------------------------New York North | 6 New York East | 3.68 1 New York South | 0.61 1 New jersey | 1 5 5.52 0.61 3.07 North Carolina East | 4 North Carolina Middle | 27 Virginia West | 1 2.45 16.56 1 3 2 Florida Middle | 1.84 5.52 Georgia South | 6 3.68 Texas West | 32 19.63 Kentucky East | 1 0.61 1 0.61 12.88 29.45 30.06 0.61 1.23 9 11.66 1.23 0.61 West Virginia North | Alabama Middle | 6.13 9.20 2 Virginia East | Ohio South | 4.91 0.61 Pennsylvania East | Florida North | 4.29 0.61 1 Maryland | 3.68 30.67 32.52 33.74 39.26 42.94 62.58 63.19 63.80 Tennessee East | 1 0.61 64.42 Tennessee West | 1 0.61 65.03 Illinois North | 1 0.61 65.64 Illinois Central | Illinois South | Indiana South | 2 1 2 1.23 0.61 1.23 66.87 67.48 68.71 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 98 Wisconsin East | 1 0.61 69.33 Arkansas East | 1 0.61 69.94 Arkansas West | 1 0.61 70.55 Iowa North | 2 Minnesota | 1.23 4 71.78 2.45 74.23 Missouri East | 2 1.23 75.46 Missouri West | 3 1.84 77.30 Nebraska | 12 Arizona | 7.36 2 1.23 California East | 1 California Central | 1 Idaho | 1.84 Utah | 6 2 Virgin Islands | 87.12 0.61 3.68 93.25 94.48 8 1 87.73 89.57 1.23 District of Columbia | 86.50 0.61 1 Oklahoma West | 85.89 0.61 California South | 3 84.66 4.91 0.61 99.39 100.00 ------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 163 100.00 . tab MONCIRC if INTDUM ==1 CIRCUIT IN | WHICH | DEFENDANT | WAS | SENTENCED | Freq. Percent Cum. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 99 ------------+----------------------------------0 | 8 4.91 4.91 2 | 8 4.91 9.82 3 | 3 1.84 11.66 4 | 40 24.54 36.20 5 | 32 19.63 55.83 6 | 4 2.45 58.28 7 | 7 4.29 62.58 8 | 25 9 | 8 15.34 4.91 10 | 8 11 | 20 77.91 82.82 4.91 87.73 12.27 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 163 100.00 Additional Sentencing Factors . tab FINE if INTDUM==1 DOLLAR | AMOUNT OF | FINE | ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------No fine | 121 74.23 74.23 100 | 1 0.61 74.85 200 | 3 1.84 76.69 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 100 250 | 5 3.07 79.75 300 | 3 1.84 81.60 350 | 1 0.61 82.21 390 | 1 0.61 82.82 400 | 1 0.61 83.44 450 | 1 0.61 84.05 500 | 4 2.45 86.50 600 | 2 1.23 87.73 1000 | 12 7.36 95.09 1500 | 1 0.61 95.71 1800 | 1 0.61 96.32 2000 | 2 1.23 97.55 2300 | 1 0.61 98.16 3000 | 1 0.61 98.77 5000 | 1 0.61 99.39 10000 | 1 0.61 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 163 100.00 . tab AMTREST if INTDUM==1 DOLLAR AMOUNT OF | RESTITUTION | Freq. Percent Cum. -----------------------+----------------------------------No restitution ordered | 20 | 1142 | 1 1 114 0.62 0.62 70.81 70.81 71.43 72.05 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 101 3673 | 1 0.62 72.67 4195 | 1 0.62 73.29 4259 | 1 0.62 73.91 8590 | 1 0.62 74.53 12971 | 1 0.62 75.16 15001 | 1 0.62 75.78 18991 | 1 0.62 76.40 20545 | 1 0.62 77.02 27200 | 1 0.62 77.64 32732 | 1 0.62 78.26 51362 | 1 0.62 78.88 51500 | 1 0.62 79.50 54032 | 1 0.62 80.12 54600 | 1 0.62 80.75 55179 | 1 0.62 81.37 57564 | 1 0.62 81.99 60750 | 1 0.62 82.61 61046 | 1 0.62 83.23 61342 | 1 0.62 83.85 80000 | 1 0.62 84.47 89461 | 1 0.62 85.09 92064 | 1 0.62 85.71 100000 | 1 0.62 86.34 105958 | 1 0.62 86.96 108905 | 1 0.62 87.58 109139 | 1 0.62 88.20 111903 | 1 0.62 88.82 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 102 127489 | 1 0.62 89.44 138658 | 1 0.62 90.06 153435 | 1 0.62 90.68 153754 | 1 0.62 91.30 168481 | 1 0.62 91.93 171914 | 1 0.62 92.55 192762 | 1 0.62 93.17 225000 | 1 0.62 93.79 247269 | 1 0.62 94.41 265483 | 1 0.62 95.03 368889 | 1 0.62 95.65 482568 | 1 0.62 96.27 496667 | 1 0.62 96.89 531844 | 1 0.62 97.52 756694 | 1 0.62 98.14 1451410 | 1 0.62 98.76 1865231 | 1 0.62 99.38 14092205 | 1 0.62 100.00 -----------------------+----------------------------------Total | 161 100.00 . tab TYPEMONY if INTDUM==1 FINE/COST OF SUPERVISION OR RESTITUTION | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------No fine / cost of supervision, nor rest | 68 41.72 41.72 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 103 Restitution ordered, no fine / cost of | 40 24.54 Fine / cost of supervision, no restitut | 46 Both fine / cost of supervison and rest | 9 66.26 28.22 5.52 94.48 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 163 100.00 . tab CRIMHIST if INTDUM==1 DOES DEFENDANT HAVE ANY CRIMINAL | HISTORY | Freq. Percent Cum. ---------------------------------+----------------------------------No criminal history | 49 Yes, there is a criminal history | 35.25 90 35.25 64.75 100.00 ---------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 139 100.00 . tab OFFTYPE2 if INTDUM==1 PRIMARY OFFENSE TYPE GENERATED FROM | CONVICTION WITH HIGHEST STATUTORY MAX | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------- DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 104 Assault | 1 0.61 0.61 36 22.09 Drugs: trafficking | Drugs: communication facilities | 2 Drugs: simple possession | 22.70 1.23 6 3.68 Firearms: use (incld offtype=14, firear | 8 Larceny | 6.75 39.26 22.70 61.96 11 Fraud | 37 Embezzlement | 2 1.23 Forgery/counterfeiting | Bribery | 2 2 Tax offenses | 5 Money laundering | Immigration | 8 32.52 63.19 64.42 65.64 3.07 6 27.61 4.91 1.23 1.23 23.93 68.71 3.68 4.91 72.39 77.30 Admin just (inc access after fact, misp | 7 4.29 81.60 Environmental, game, fish, and wildlife | 1 0.61 82.21 National defense offenses | 0.61 82.82 28 17.18 1 Traf viols other offns (incld offtype=3 | 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 163 100.00 . tab XCRHISSR if INTDUM==1 DEFENDANTS | FINAL | CRIMINAL | HISTORY | CATEGORY | Freq. Percent Cum. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 105 ------------+----------------------------------1 | 123 77.85 77.85 2 | 14 8.86 86.71 3 | 15 9.49 96.20 4 | 1 0.63 96.84 5 | 3 1.90 98.73 6 | 2 1.27 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 158 100.00 . tab XFOLSOR if INTDUM==1 FINAL | OFFENSE | LEVEL | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------2 | 3 1.90 4 | 27 6 | 2 1.27 20.25 7 | 3 1.90 22.15 8 | 9 5.70 27.85 9 | 2 1.27 29.11 17.09 15.19 1.90 18.99 10 | 24 11 | 6 12 | 16 10.13 58.23 13 | 17 10.76 68.99 14 | 5 3.80 3.16 44.30 48.10 72.15 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 106 15 | 12 7.59 79.75 16 | 2 1.27 81.01 17 | 9 5.70 86.71 18 | 3 1.90 88.61 19 | 5 3.16 91.77 20 | 1 0.63 92.41 21 | 6 3.80 96.20 22 | 1 0.63 96.84 23 | 2 1.27 98.10 26 | 1 0.63 98.73 27 | 1 0.63 99.37 43 | 1 0.63 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 158 100.00 . tab ZONE if INTDUM ==1 SENTENCE | TABLE GROUP | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------A | 38 24.05 24.05 B | 35 22.15 46.20 C | 29 18.35 64.56 D | 56 35.44 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 158 100.00 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 107 2014-2015 IC Sentences . tab INTDUM RECEIPT OF | INTERMITTEN | T | CONFINEMENT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------No | 70,874 Yes | 129 99.82 0.18 99.82 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 71,003 100.00 . tab MOINTCON if INTDUM==1 TERM OF INTERMITTENT CONFINEMENT | ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------1 | 83 64.34 64.34 2 | 19 14.73 79.07 3 | 6 4.65 83.72 4 | 6 4.65 88.37 5 | 1 0.78 89.15 6 | 1 0.78 89.92 9 | 1 0.78 90.70 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 108 12 | 1 0.78 91.47 14 | 1 0.78 92.25 Intermittent confinement ordered but no | 10 7.75 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 129 100.00 . tab MOINTCON TERM OF INTERMITTENT CONFINEMENT | ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------No intermittent confinement ordered | 70,874 1 | 83 0.12 99.94 2 | 19 0.03 99.96 3 | 6 0.01 99.97 4 | 6 0.01 99.98 5 | 1 0.00 99.98 6 | 1 0.00 99.98 9 | 1 0.00 99.98 12 | 1 0.00 99.98 14 | 1 0.00 99.99 Intermittent confinement ordered but no | 10 99.82 0.01 99.82 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 71,003 100.00 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 109 Demographics . tab YEARS if INTDUM ==1 CATEGORIES OF | AGE RANGES | Freq. Percent Cum. --------------+----------------------------------<21 | 3 2.34 2.34 21 through 25 | 10 7.81 26 through 30 | 33 25.78 35.94 31 through 35 | 13 10.16 46.09 36 through 40 | 18 14.06 60.16 41 through 50 | 28 21.88 82.03 >50 | 23 17.97 10.16 100.00 --------------+----------------------------------Total | 128 100.00 . tab NEWEDUC if INTDUM ==1 EDUCATION OF DEFENDANT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------------------+----------------------------------Less than H.S. graduate | 16 15.24 15.24 H.S. graduate | 30 28.57 43.81 Some college | 37 35.24 79.05 College graduate | 22 20.95 100.00 ------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 105 100.00 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 110 . tab NEWRACE if INTDUM ==1 RACE OF | DEFENDANT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------White | 56 45.16 45.16 Black | 35 28.23 73.39 Hispanic | Other | 24 9 19.35 7.26 92.74 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 124 100.00 . tab NUMDEPEN if INTDUM ==1 NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS WHOM DEFENDANT | SUPPORTS | Freq. Percent Cum. --------------------------------------+----------------------------------No dependents | 40 38.10 1 | 17 16.19 54.29 2 | 21 20.00 74.29 3 | 16 15.24 89.52 4 | 8 7.62 97.14 5 | 2 1.90 99.05 6 | 1 0.95 100.00 38.10 --------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 105 100.00 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 111 . tab CITIZEN if INTDUM ==1 NATURE OF DEFENDANT'S CITIZENSHIP | Freq. Percent Cum. --------------------------------------+----------------------------------United States citizen | 120 Resident/legal alien | 2 Not a US citizen/alien status unknown | 96.77 1.61 2 96.77 98.39 1.61 100.00 --------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 124 100.00 . tab MONSEX if INTDUM ==1 DEFENDANT'S | GENDER | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------Male | Female | 106 23 82.17 17.83 82.17 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 129 100.00 Sentencing Court Information . tab DISTRICT if INTDUM ==1 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 112 DISTRICT IN WHICH | DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------------------+----------------------------------Rhode Island | 2 New York North | 1.55 1 New jersey | 1 0.78 2.33 0.78 Pennsylvania Middle | Maryland | 1.55 1 5 3.10 0.78 3.88 North Carolina East | 1 North Carolina Middle | 7.75 0.78 1 Virginia East | 34 Virginia West | 1 8.53 0.78 26.36 3 9.30 35.66 0.78 West Virginia North | 3.88 36.43 2.33 38.76 Alabama Middle | 5 3.88 42.64 Florida Middle | 2 1.55 44.19 Florida South | 5 3.88 48.06 Georgia North | 1 0.78 48.84 Georgia Middle | 1 Georgia South | 3 Louisiana East | 2.33 1 Mississippi North | 0.78 2 0.78 1.55 49.61 51.94 52.71 54.26 Texas East | 1 0.78 55.04 Texas South | 1 0.78 55.81 Texas West | 10 7.75 63.57 Kentucky East | 3 2.33 65.89 Kentucky West | 1 0.78 66.67 Michigan West | 1 0.78 67.44 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 113 Ohio North | 1 0.78 Illinois North | 3 Illinois Central | 2.33 2 Illinois South | 72.09 0.78 1 Iowa North | 70.54 1.55 1 Arkansas West | 68.22 72.87 0.78 1 73.64 0.78 74.42 Missouri East | 1 0.78 75.19 Missouri West | 1 0.78 75.97 Nebraska | 3 South Dakota | 2.33 2 California North | Idaho | 2 Oklahoma West | Utah | 0.78 2 1 89.15 District of Columbia | 90.70 0.78 0.78 10 86.82 87.60 1.55 1 86.05 0.78 1.55 Colorado | 81.40 4.65 1 1 80.62 0.78 6 California South | 79.84 0.78 1 California Central | Hawaii | 1.55 1 California East | 78.29 91.47 92.25 7.75 100.00 ------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 129 100.00 . tab MONCIRC if INTDUM ==1 CIRCUIT IN | WHICH | DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 114 DEFENDANT | WAS | SENTENCED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------0 | 10 7.75 7.75 1 | 2 1.55 9.30 2 | 1 0.78 10.08 3 | 2 1.55 11.63 4 | 45 34.88 46.51 5 | 15 11.63 58.14 6 | 6 4.65 62.79 7 | 6 4.65 67.44 8 | 9 6.98 74.42 9 | 12 9.30 83.72 10 | 4 3.10 86.82 11 | 17 13.18 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 129 100.00 Additional Sentencing Factors . tab FINE if INTDUM==1 DOLLAR | AMOUNT OF | FINE | DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 115 ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------No fine | 92 71.32 71.32 50 | 1 0.78 72.09 100 | 1 0.78 72.87 125 | 1 0.78 73.64 150 | 1 0.78 74.42 200 | 1 0.78 75.19 250 | 2 1.55 76.74 300 | 3 2.33 79.07 350 | 1 0.78 79.84 390 | 1 0.78 80.62 400 | 1 0.78 81.40 500 | 4 3.10 84.50 800 | 1 0.78 85.27 1000 | 4 3.10 88.37 1250 | 1 0.78 89.15 2793 | 1 0.78 89.92 3000 | 1 0.78 90.70 4000 | 1 0.78 91.47 5000 | 3 2.33 93.80 6000 | 1 0.78 94.57 10000 | 1 0.78 95.35 15000 | 2 1.55 96.90 20000 | 1 0.78 97.67 100000 | 2 1.55 99.22 175000 | 1 0.78 100.00 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 116 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 129 100.00 . tab AMTREST if INTDUM==1 DOLLAR AMOUNT OF | RESTITUTION | Freq. Percent Cum. -----------------------+----------------------------------No restitution ordered | 73 58.87 350 | 1 0.81 59.68 530 | 1 0.81 60.48 765 | 1 0.81 61.29 2396 | 1 0.81 62.10 2564 | 1 0.81 62.90 3765 | 1 0.81 63.71 3979 | 1 0.81 64.52 5001 | 1 0.81 65.32 5354 | 1 0.81 66.13 5435 | 1 0.81 66.94 5447 | 1 0.81 67.74 8900 | 2 1.61 69.35 14890 | 1 0.81 70.16 19350 | 1 0.81 70.97 20000 | 1 0.81 71.77 25200 | 1 0.81 72.58 30401 | 1 0.81 73.39 51439 | 1 0.81 74.19 58.87 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 117 51480 | 1 0.81 75.00 56508 | 2 1.61 76.61 62020 | 1 0.81 77.42 78282 | 1 0.81 78.23 85879 | 1 0.81 79.03 99286 | 1 0.81 79.84 104820 | 1 0.81 80.65 108478 | 1 0.81 81.45 110066 | 1 0.81 82.26 110705 | 1 0.81 83.06 118085 | 1 0.81 83.87 127957 | 1 0.81 84.68 134377 | 1 0.81 85.48 145351 | 1 0.81 86.29 146941 | 1 0.81 87.10 158033 | 1 0.81 87.90 238600 | 1 0.81 88.71 300600 | 1 0.81 89.52 328238 | 1 0.81 90.32 353506 | 1 0.81 91.13 466562 | 1 0.81 91.94 487370 | 1 0.81 92.74 924529 | 1 0.81 93.55 1000000 | 1 0.81 94.35 1015756 | 1 0.81 95.16 1667900 | 1 0.81 95.97 1972486 | 1 0.81 96.77 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 118 2206931 | 1 0.81 97.58 3122162 | 1 0.81 98.39 4523777 | 1 0.81 99.19 7359791 | 1 0.81 100.00 -----------------------+----------------------------------Total | 124 100.00 . tab TYPEMONY if INTDUM==1 FINE/COST OF SUPERVISION OR RESTITUTION | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------No fine / cost of supervision, nor rest | 38 Restitution ordered, no fine / cost of | 38 29.46 29.46 29.46 58.91 Fine / cost of supervision, no restitut | 35 27.13 86.05 Both fine / cost of supervison and rest | 18 13.95 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 129 100.00 . tab CRIMHIST if INTDUM==1 DOES DEFENDANT HAVE ANY CRIMINAL | HISTORY | Freq. Percent Cum. ---------------------------------+----------------------------------No criminal history | 30 Yes, there is a criminal history | 26.55 83 26.55 73.45 100.00 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 119 ---------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 113 100.00 . tab OFFTYPE2 if INTDUM==1 PRIMARY OFFENSE TYPE GENERATED FROM | CONVICTION WITH HIGHEST STATUTORY MAX | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Assault | 2 1.55 1.55 14 10.85 Drugs: trafficking | Drugs: simple possession | 3 12.40 2.33 Firearms: use (incld offtype=14, firear | 7 Larceny | 7.75 27.91 28.68 56.59 10 Fraud | 37 14.73 5.43 Embezzlement | 2 1.55 58.14 Tax offenses | 6 4.65 62.79 Money laundering | 6 4.65 Racketeering (includes offtype=8, extor | Gambling/lottery | 1 Civil rights offenses | Immigration | 2 67.44 1 0.78 1 0.78 69.77 71.32 Admin just (inc access after fact, misp | 3 National defense offenses | 0.78 74.42 32 24.81 1 Traf viols other offns (incld offtype=3 | Child Pornography | 1 68.22 68.99 0.78 1.55 20.16 0.78 2.33 73.64 99.22 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 129 100.00 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 120 . tab XCRHISSR if INTDUM==1 DEFENDANTS | FINAL | CRIMINAL | HISTORY | CATEGORY | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------1 | 98 77.17 77.17 2 | 9 7.09 84.25 3 | 9 7.09 91.34 4 | 7 5.51 96.85 5 | 1 0.79 97.64 6 | 3 2.36 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 127 100.00 . tab XFOLSOR if INTDUM==1 FINAL | OFFENSE | LEVEL | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------2 | 1 4 | 23 5 | 1 0.79 18.11 0.79 0.79 18.90 19.69 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 121 6 | 3 2.36 22.05 8 | 3 2.36 24.41 9 | 1 0.79 25.20 10 | 8 6.30 31.50 11 | 5 3.94 35.43 12 | 15 11.81 47.24 13 | 17 13.39 60.63 14 | 2 1.57 62.20 15 | 7 5.51 67.72 16 | 2 1.57 69.29 17 | 9 7.09 76.38 18 | 2 1.57 77.95 19 | 4 3.15 81.10 20 | 4 3.15 84.25 21 | 2 1.57 85.83 23 | 2 1.57 87.40 24 | 1 0.79 88.19 25 | 4 3.15 91.34 27 | 7 5.51 96.85 28 | 2 1.57 98.43 30 | 1 0.79 99.21 35 | 1 0.79 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 127 100.00 . tab ZONE if INTDUM ==1 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 122 SENTENCE | TABLE GROUP | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------A | 24 18.90 18.90 B | 18 14.17 33.07 C | 31 24.41 57.48 D | 54 42.52 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 127 100.00 2013-2014 IC Sentences . tab INTDUM RECEIPT OF | INTERMITTEN | T | CONFINEMENT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------No | 75,708 Yes | 128 99.83 0.17 99.83 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 75,836 100.00 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 123 tab MOINTCON if INTDUM==1 TERM OF INTERMITTENT CONFINEMENT | ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------1 | 63 49.22 49.22 2 | 26 20.31 69.53 3 | 8 6.25 75.78 4 | 1 0.78 76.56 5 | 1 0.78 77.34 6 | 4 3.13 80.47 9 | 2 1.56 82.03 30 | 1 0.78 82.81 Intermittent confinement ordered but no | 22 17.19 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 128 100.00 . tab MOINTCON TERM OF INTERMITTENT CONFINEMENT | ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------No intermittent confinement ordered | 75,708 1 | 63 0.08 99.91 2 | 26 0.03 99.95 3 | 8 0.01 99.83 99.83 99.96 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 124 4 | 1 0.00 99.96 5 | 1 0.00 99.96 6 | 4 0.01 99.97 9 | 2 0.00 99.97 30 | 1 0.00 99.97 Intermittent confinement ordered but no | 22 0.03 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 75,836 100.00 Demographics . tab YEARS if INTDUM ==1 CATEGORIES OF | AGE RANGES | Freq. Percent Cum. --------------+----------------------------------<21 | 3 2.36 2.36 21 through 25 | 19 14.96 17.32 26 through 30 | 23 18.11 35.43 31 through 35 | 19 14.96 50.39 36 through 40 | 14 11.02 61.42 41 through 50 | 32 25.20 86.61 >50 | 17 13.39 100.00 --------------+----------------------------------Total | 127 100.00 . tab NEWEDUC if INTDUM ==1 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 125 EDUCATION OF DEFENDANT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------------------+----------------------------------Less than H.S. graduate | 27 25.47 25.47 H.S. graduate | 27 25.47 50.94 Some college | 31 29.25 80.19 College graduate | 21 19.81 100.00 ------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 106 100.00 . tab NEWRACE if INTDUM ==1 RACE OF | DEFENDANT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------White | 49 41.53 41.53 Black | 25 21.19 62.71 Hispanic | Other | 37 7 31.36 5.93 94.07 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 118 100.00 . tab NUMDEPEN if INTDUM ==1 NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS WHOM DEFENDANT | SUPPORTS | Freq. Percent Cum. --------------------------------------+----------------------------------- DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 126 No dependents | 33 31.73 31.73 1 | 19 18.27 50.00 2 | 21 20.19 70.19 3 | 19 18.27 88.46 4 | 6 5.77 94.23 5 | 1 0.96 95.19 7 | 1 0.96 96.15 8 | 2 1.92 98.08 11 | 2 1.92 100.00 --------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 104 100.00 . tab CITIZEN if INTDUM ==1 NATURE OF DEFENDANT'S CITIZENSHIP | Freq. Percent Cum. --------------------------------------+----------------------------------United States citizen | 98 Resident/legal alien | 8 Illegal alien | 14 81.67 6.67 11.67 81.67 88.33 100.00 --------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 120 100.00 . tab MONSEX if INTDUM ==1 DEFENDANT'S | GENDER | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------- DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 127 Male | Female | 90 70.87 37 70.87 29.13 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 127 100.00 Sentencing Court Information . tab DISTRICT if INTDUM ==1 DISTRICT IN WHICH | DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------------------+----------------------------------Massachusetts | 2 1.56 1.56 Rhode Island | 1 0.78 2.34 New York North | 6 New York East | 4.69 2 New York South | 1.56 5 New jersey | 1 Pennsylvania Middle | 2 North Carolina Middle | West Virginia South | 1.56 2 1 17.97 0.78 16.41 1 14.84 16.41 1 21 14.06 0.78 1.56 North Carolina East | Florida North | 13.28 0.78 1 2 Alabama Middle | 12.50 0.78 Pennsylvania East | Virginia East | 8.59 3.91 1 Maryland | 7.03 0.78 1.56 0.78 18.75 35.16 35.94 37.50 38.28 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 128 Georgia South | 4 3.13 41.41 Mississippi North | 1 0.78 42.19 Mississippi South | 1 0.78 42.97 Texas North | 1 Texas West | 24 18.75 Kentucky East | 1 0.78 Ohio North | 0.78 2 43.75 63.28 1.56 Tennessee East | 1 Tennessee Middle | 62.50 64.84 0.78 2 65.63 1.56 67.19 Illinois North | 1 0.78 67.97 Illinois South | 2 1.56 69.53 Indiana South | 1 0.78 70.31 Missouri East | 1 0.78 71.09 Arizona | 1 0.78 California North | California East | 2 1.56 2 California Central | 1.56 2 California South | 71.88 73.44 75.00 1.56 3 2.34 76.56 78.91 Hawaii | 5 3.91 82.81 Nevada | 2 1.56 84.38 Oklahoma West | Utah | 16 1 12.50 0.78 District of Columbia | 3 96.88 97.66 2.34 100.00 ------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 128 100.00 . tab MONCIRC if INTDUM ==1 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 129 CIRCUIT IN | WHICH | DEFENDANT | WAS | SENTENCED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------0 | 3 2.34 2.34 1 | 3 2.34 4.69 2 | 13 3 | 3 4 | 27 21.09 38.28 5 | 27 21.09 59.38 6 | 6 4.69 64.06 7 | 4 3.13 67.19 8 | 1 0.78 67.97 9 | 17 10 | 17 11 | 7 10.16 2.34 14.84 17.19 13.28 81.25 13.28 5.47 94.53 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 128 100.00 Additional Sentencing Factors . tab FINE if INTDUM==1 DOLLAR | DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 130 AMOUNT OF | FINE | ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------No fine | 103 80.47 80.47 100 | 1 0.78 81.25 250 | 1 0.78 82.03 300 | 2 1.56 83.59 350 | 1 0.78 84.38 375 | 1 0.78 85.16 390 | 1 0.78 85.94 500 | 4 3.13 89.06 600 | 1 0.78 89.84 775 | 1 0.78 90.63 800 | 1 0.78 91.41 1000 | 2 1.56 92.97 1665 | 1 0.78 93.75 2700 | 1 0.78 94.53 4000 | 1 0.78 95.31 5000 | 3 2.34 97.66 10000 | 2 1.56 99.22 25000 | 1 0.78 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 128 100.00 . tab AMTREST if INTDUM==1 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 131 DOLLAR AMOUNT OF | RESTITUTION | Freq. Percent Cum. -----------------------+----------------------------------No restitution ordered | 82 64.57 1005 | 1 0.79 65.35 7515 | 1 0.79 66.14 8000 | 1 0.79 66.93 9372 | 1 0.79 67.72 9424 | 1 0.79 68.50 10420 | 1 0.79 69.29 13095 | 1 0.79 70.08 15600 | 1 0.79 70.87 16245 | 1 0.79 71.65 18993 | 1 0.79 72.44 21000 | 1 0.79 73.23 21164 | 1 0.79 74.02 34903 | 1 0.79 74.80 38753 | 1 0.79 75.59 39282 | 1 0.79 76.38 39375 | 1 0.79 77.17 42401 | 1 0.79 77.95 43865 | 1 0.79 78.74 48902 | 1 0.79 79.53 56626 | 1 0.79 80.31 61543 | 1 0.79 81.10 61993 | 1 0.79 81.89 72859 | 1 0.79 82.68 64.57 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 132 73570 | 1 0.79 83.46 75000 | 1 0.79 84.25 88451 | 1 0.79 85.04 104220 | 1 0.79 85.83 114166 | 1 0.79 86.61 137016 | 1 0.79 87.40 152925 | 1 0.79 88.19 159884 | 1 0.79 88.98 161554 | 1 0.79 89.76 187916 | 1 0.79 90.55 196245 | 1 0.79 91.34 200254 | 1 0.79 92.13 209673 | 1 0.79 92.91 222068 | 1 0.79 93.70 242685 | 1 0.79 94.49 290635 | 1 0.79 95.28 298784 | 1 0.79 96.06 301736 | 1 0.79 96.85 352598 | 1 0.79 97.64 611320 | 1 0.79 98.43 1172000 | 1 0.79 99.21 13531112 | 1 0.79 100.00 -----------------------+----------------------------------Total | 127 100.00 . tab TYPEMONY if INTDUM==1 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 133 FINE/COST OF SUPERVISION OR RESTITUTION | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------No fine / cost of supervision, nor rest | 61 Restitution ordered, no fine / cost of | 40 47.66 47.66 31.25 Fine / cost of supervision, no restitut | 21 Both fine / cost of supervison and rest | 6 78.91 16.41 4.69 95.31 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 128 100.00 . tab CRIMHIST if INTDUM==1 DOES DEFENDANT HAVE ANY CRIMINAL | HISTORY | Freq. Percent Cum. ---------------------------------+----------------------------------No criminal history | 36 31.03 Yes, there is a criminal history | 80 31.03 68.97 100.00 ---------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 116 100.00 . tab OFFTYPE2 if INTDUM==1 PRIMARY OFFENSE TYPE GENERATED FROM | CONVICTION WITH HIGHEST STATUTORY MAX | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Bank robbery (includes offtype=7, other | Drugs: trafficking | 28 Drugs: communication facilities | 1 21.88 1 0.78 0.78 22.66 0.78 23.44 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 134 Drugs: simple possession | 3 2.34 Firearms: use (incld offtype=14, firear | Auto theft | 2 6 4.69 Fraud | 26 20.31 Embezzlement | 3 54.69 9 57.03 2.34 1.56 Tax offenses | 59.38 60.94 7.03 67.97 Money laundering | 3 2.34 70.31 Gambling/lottery | 1 0.78 71.09 Civil rights offenses | Immigration | 1 12 0.78 9.38 Admin just (inc access after fact, misp | Food and drug offenses | 28.13 34.38 3 2 2.34 29.69 2.34 Forgery/counterfeiting | Bribery | 3 1.56 Larceny | 25.78 1 Traf viols other offns (incld offtype=3 | 71.88 81.25 3 0.78 20 2.34 83.59 84.38 15.63 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 128 100.00 . tab XCRHISSR if INTDUM==1 DEFENDANTS | FINAL | CRIMINAL | HISTORY | CATEGORY | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------- DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 135 1 | 99 79.20 79.20 2 | 14 11.20 90.40 3 | 8 6.40 96.80 4 | 3 2.40 99.20 5 | 1 0.80 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 125 100.00 . tab XFOLSOR if INTDUM==1 FINAL | OFFENSE | LEVEL | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------2 | 2 1.60 4 | 21 6 | 2 1.60 20.00 8 | 4 3.20 23.20 9 | 1 0.80 24.00 16.80 9.60 1.60 18.40 10 | 12 11 | 4 12 | 14 11.20 13 | 12 9.60 14 | 5 15 | 22 16 | 2 1.60 80.80 17 | 6 4.80 85.60 3.20 4.00 17.60 33.60 36.80 48.00 57.60 61.60 79.20 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 136 18 | 3 2.40 88.00 19 | 2 1.60 89.60 20 | 1 0.80 90.40 21 | 3 2.40 92.80 22 | 1 0.80 93.60 23 | 4 3.20 96.80 25 | 1 0.80 97.60 27 | 1 0.80 98.40 31 | 1 0.80 99.20 33 | 1 0.80 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 125 100.00 . tab ZONE if INTDUM ==1 SENTENCE | TABLE GROUP | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------A | 23 18.40 18.40 B | 22 17.60 36.00 C | 24 19.20 55.20 D | 56 44.80 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 125 100.00 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 137 2012-2013 IC Sentences . tab INTDUM RECEIPT OF | INTERMITTEN | T | CONFINEMENT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------No | 79,919 Yes | 116 99.86 0.14 99.86 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 80,035 100.00 tab MOINTCON if INTDUM==1 TERM OF INTERMITTENT CONFINEMENT | ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------1 | 65 56.03 56.03 2 | 19 16.38 72.41 3 | 9 4 | 10 5 | 2 1.72 90.52 6 | 1 0.86 91.38 7.76 8.62 80.17 88.79 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 138 12 | 1 0.86 92.24 Intermittent confinement ordered but no | 9 7.76 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 116 100.00 . tab MOINTCON TERM OF INTERMITTENT CONFINEMENT | ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------No intermittent confinement ordered | 79,919 1 | 65 0.08 99.94 2 | 19 0.02 99.96 3 | 9 4 | 10 5 | 2 0.00 99.99 6 | 1 0.00 99.99 12 | 0.01 99.86 99.97 0.01 1 99.86 99.98 0.00 99.99 Intermittent confinement ordered but no | 9 0.01 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 80,035 100.00 Demographics . tab YEARS if INTDUM ==1 CATEGORIES OF | AGE RANGES | Freq. Percent Cum. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 139 --------------+----------------------------------<21 | 2 1.72 1.72 21 through 25 | 9 26 through 30 | 22 18.97 28.45 31 through 35 | 18 15.52 43.97 36 through 40 | 17 14.66 58.62 41 through 50 | 30 25.86 84.48 >50 | 18 7.76 15.52 9.48 100.00 --------------+----------------------------------Total | 116 100.00 . tab NEWEDUC if INTDUM ==1 EDUCATION OF DEFENDANT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------------------+----------------------------------Less than H.S. graduate | 10 9.80 9.80 H.S. graduate | 37 36.27 46.08 Some college | 30 29.41 75.49 College graduate | 25 24.51 100.00 ------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 102 100.00 . tab NEWRACE if INTDUM ==1 RACE OF | DEFENDANT | Freq. Percent Cum. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 140 ------------+----------------------------------White | 52 50.49 50.49 Black | 24 23.30 73.79 Hispanic | Other | 17 16.50 10 9.71 90.29 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 103 100.00 . tab NUMDEPEN if INTDUM ==1 NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS WHOM DEFENDANT | SUPPORTS | Freq. Percent Cum. --------------------------------------+----------------------------------No dependents | 33 33.00 1 | 27 27.00 60.00 2 | 16 16.00 76.00 3 | 10 10.00 86.00 4 | 8 8.00 94.00 5 | 4 4.00 98.00 6 | 2 2.00 100.00 33.00 --------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 100 100.00 . tab CITIZEN if INTDUM ==1 NATURE OF DEFENDANT'S CITIZENSHIP | Freq. Percent Cum. --------------------------------------+----------------------------------- DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 141 United States citizen | 100 Resident/legal alien | 3 Illegal alien | 1 95.24 2.86 0.95 Not a US citizen/alien status unknown | 95.24 98.10 99.05 1 0.95 100.00 --------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 105 100.00 . tab MONSEX if INTDUM ==1 DEFENDANT'S | GENDER | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------Male | Female | 77 70.00 33 70.00 30.00 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 110 100.00 Sentencing Court Information . tab DISTRICT if INTDUM ==1 DISTRICT IN WHICH | DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------------------+----------------------------------Massachusetts | New York North | 2 14 1.72 12.07 1.72 13.79 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 142 New York East | 1 New York South | 0.86 1 New jersey | 0.86 1 Maryland | 14.66 15.52 0.86 2 16.38 1.72 North Carolina East | 2 North Carolina Middle | 18.10 1.72 1 Virginia East | 17 0.86 14.66 West Virginia South | 19.83 1 20.69 35.34 0.86 36.21 Alabama Middle | 4 3.45 39.66 Georgia Middle | 3 2.59 42.24 Georgia South | 2 1.72 Mississippi South | 1 43.97 0.86 Texas East | 1 Texas West | 10 8.62 54.31 Kentucky East | 7 6.03 60.34 Kentucky West | 1 0.86 61.21 Michigan West | 1 0.86 62.07 Ohio North | 0.86 44.83 2 45.69 1.72 Tennessee East | 3 Tennessee Middle | 63.79 2.59 2 66.38 1.72 68.10 Illinois North | 1 0.86 68.97 Illinois South | 2 1.72 70.69 Indiana South | 2 1.72 72.41 Arkansas East | 1 0.86 73.28 Iowa North | 1 Minnesota | 1 Missouri East | 0.86 0.86 1 0.86 74.14 75.00 75.86 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 143 Arizona | 2 1.72 California East | 1 California South | Hawaii | Idaho | 5 5.17 3 1 3 84.48 89.66 93.97 2.59 0.86 District of Columbia | 78.45 6.03 4.31 Oklahoma West | Utah | 0.86 7 6 77.59 96.55 97.41 2.59 100.00 ------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 116 100.00 . tab MONCIRC if INTDUM ==1 CIRCUIT IN | WHICH | DEFENDANT | WAS | SENTENCED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------0 | 3 2.59 2.59 1 | 2 1.72 4.31 2 | 16 3 | 1 4 | 23 19.83 38.79 5 | 12 10.34 49.14 6 | 16 13.79 62.93 7 | 5 13.79 0.86 4.31 18.10 18.97 67.24 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 144 8 | 4 3.45 70.69 9 | 21 18.10 10 | 4 3.45 92.24 11 | 9 7.76 100.00 88.79 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 116 100.00 Additional Sentencing Factors . tab FINE if INTDUM==1 DOLLAR | AMOUNT OF | FINE | ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------No fine | 83 71.55 71.55 100 | 1 0.86 72.41 150 | 1 0.86 73.28 250 | 4 3.45 76.72 400 | 1 0.86 77.59 500 | 4 3.45 81.03 550 | 1 0.86 81.90 1000 | 6 5.17 87.07 1500 | 2 1.72 88.79 2000 | 1 0.86 89.66 2500 | 2 1.72 91.38 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 145 3000 | 4 3.45 94.83 5000 | 2 1.72 96.55 10000 | 3 2.59 99.14 15000 | 1 0.86 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 116 100.00 . tab AMTREST if INTDUM==1 DOLLAR AMOUNT OF | RESTITUTION | Freq. Percent Cum. -----------------------+----------------------------------No restitution ordered | 76 65.52 218 | 1 0.86 66.38 500 | 1 0.86 67.24 1625 | 1 0.86 68.10 2600 | 1 0.86 68.97 4045 | 1 0.86 69.83 5000 | 2 1.72 71.55 6212 | 1 0.86 72.41 6945 | 1 0.86 73.28 9751 | 1 0.86 74.14 9923 | 1 0.86 75.00 17877 | 1 0.86 75.86 19615 | 1 0.86 76.72 20678 | 1 0.86 77.59 23917 | 1 0.86 78.45 65.52 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 146 28276 | 1 0.86 79.31 28505 | 1 0.86 80.17 34945 | 1 0.86 81.03 35707 | 1 0.86 81.90 35708 | 1 0.86 82.76 47373 | 1 0.86 83.62 58633 | 1 0.86 84.48 64336 | 1 0.86 85.34 66400 | 1 0.86 86.21 68000 | 1 0.86 87.07 87596 | 1 0.86 87.93 110581 | 1 0.86 88.79 125756 | 1 0.86 89.66 137016 | 2 1.72 91.38 147440 | 1 0.86 92.24 225000 | 1 0.86 93.10 277262 | 1 0.86 93.97 311210 | 1 0.86 94.83 321366 | 1 0.86 95.69 449570 | 1 0.86 96.55 535435 | 1 0.86 97.41 594073 | 1 0.86 98.28 1131645 | 1 0.86 99.14 1736251 | 1 0.86 100.00 -----------------------+----------------------------------Total | 116 100.00 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 147 . tab TYPEMONY if INTDUM==1 FINE/COST OF SUPERVISION OR RESTITUTION | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------No fine / cost of supervision, nor rest | 48 Restitution ordered, no fine / cost of | 32 41.38 41.38 27.59 Fine / cost of supervision, no restitut | 28 Both fine / cost of supervison and rest | 8 68.97 24.14 6.90 93.10 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 116 100.00 . tab CRIMHIST if INTDUM==1 DOES DEFENDANT HAVE ANY CRIMINAL | HISTORY | Freq. Percent Cum. ---------------------------------+----------------------------------No criminal history | 31 Yes, there is a criminal history | 29.25 75 29.25 70.75 100.00 ---------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 106 100.00 . tab OFFTYPE2 if INTDUM==1 PRIMARY OFFENSE TYPE GENERATED FROM | CONVICTION WITH HIGHEST STATUTORY MAX | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------- DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 148 Sexual abuse | 1 Assault | 1 0.86 0.86 0.86 1.72 24 20.69 Drugs: trafficking | Drugs: communication facilities | 2 Drugs: simple possession | 4 9 7.76 Fraud | 34 29.31 Embezzlement | 1 Bribery | 3 70.69 71.55 72.41 2.59 75.00 Money laundering | 3 2.59 77.59 Gambling/lottery | 2 1.72 79.31 Immigration | 2 1.72 81.03 Admin just (inc access after fact, misp | 5 Traf viols other offns (incld offtype=3 | 16 Prostitution | 1 32.76 69.83 0.86 0.86 Tax offenses | 5.17 40.52 1 1 24.14 27.59 6 0.86 Forgery/counterfeiting | 1.72 3.45 Firearms: use (incld offtype=14, firear | Larceny | 22.41 0.86 4.31 13.79 85.34 99.14 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 116 100.00 . tab XCRHISSR if INTDUM==1 DEFENDANTS | FINAL | CRIMINAL | HISTORY | DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 149 CATEGORY | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------1 | 91 80.53 80.53 2 | 8 7.08 87.61 3 | 5 4.42 92.04 4 | 6 5.31 97.35 5 | 1 0.88 98.23 6 | 2 1.77 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 113 100.00 . tab XFOLSOR if INTDUM==1 FINAL | OFFENSE | LEVEL | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------2 | 3 4 | 13 5 | 2 1.77 15.93 6 | 8 7.08 23.01 7 | 1 0.88 23.89 8 | 5 4.42 28.32 9 | 3 2.65 30.97 10 | 10 11 | 4 12 | 11 2.65 11.50 8.85 3.54 9.73 2.65 14.16 39.82 43.36 53.10 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 150 13 | 12 10.62 63.72 14 | 1 15 | 10 16 | 2 1.77 75.22 17 | 4 3.54 78.76 18 | 1 0.88 79.65 19 | 5 4.42 84.07 20 | 1 0.88 84.96 21 | 3 2.65 87.61 22 | 1 0.88 88.50 23 | 5 4.42 92.92 24 | 1 0.88 93.81 25 | 3 2.65 96.46 27 | 2 1.77 98.23 29 | 1 0.88 99.12 33 | 1 0.88 100.00 0.88 64.60 8.85 73.45 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 113 100.00 . tab ZONE if INTDUM ==1 SENTENCE | TABLE GROUP | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------A | 26 23.01 23.01 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 151 B | 22 19.47 42.48 C | 23 20.35 62.83 D | 42 37.17 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 113 100.00 2011-2012 IC Sentences . tab INTDUM RECEIPT OF | INTERMITTEN | T | CONFINEMENT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------No | 84,058 Yes | 109 99.87 0.13 99.87 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 84,167 100.00 tab MOINTCON if INTDUM==1 TERM OF INTERMITTENT CONFINEMENT | ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------1 | 65 59.63 59.63 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 152 2 | 13 11.93 71.56 3 | 9 8.26 79.82 4 | 6 5.50 85.32 5 | 2 1.83 87.16 6 | 9 8.26 95.41 7 | 1 0.92 96.33 12 | 1 0.92 97.25 18 | 1 0.92 98.17 Intermittent confinement ordered but no | 2 1.83 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 109 100.00 . tab MOINTCON TERM OF INTERMITTENT CONFINEMENT | ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------No intermittent confinement ordered | 84,058 1 | 65 0.08 99.95 2 | 13 0.02 99.96 3 | 9 0.01 99.97 4 | 6 0.01 99.98 5 | 2 0.00 99.98 6 | 9 0.01 99.99 7 | 1 0.00 100.00 12 | 1 0.00 100.00 18 | 1 0.00 100.00 99.87 99.87 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 153 Intermittent confinement ordered but no | 2 0.00 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 84,167 100.00 Demographics . tab YEARS if INTDUM ==1 CATEGORIES OF | AGE RANGES | Freq. Percent Cum. --------------+----------------------------------<21 | 2 1.85 1.85 21 through 25 | 17 15.74 17.59 26 through 30 | 15 13.89 31.48 31 through 35 | 21 19.44 50.93 36 through 40 | 23 21.30 72.22 41 through 50 | 12 11.11 83.33 >50 | 18 16.67 100.00 --------------+----------------------------------Total | 108 100.00 . tab NEWEDUC if INTDUM ==1 EDUCATION OF DEFENDANT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------------------+----------------------------------Less than H.S. graduate | 9 10.84 10.84 H.S. graduate | 32 38.55 49.40 Some college | 34 40.96 90.36 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 154 College graduate | 8 9.64 100.00 ------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 83 100.00 . tab NEWRACE if INTDUM ==1 RACE OF | DEFENDANT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------White | 48 57.14 57.14 Black | 16 19.05 76.19 Hispanic | Other | 11 9 13.10 10.71 89.29 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 84 100.00 . tab NUMDEPEN if INTDUM ==1 NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS WHOM DEFENDANT | SUPPORTS | Freq. Percent Cum. --------------------------------------+----------------------------------No dependents | 25 30.49 1 | 23 28.05 58.54 2 | 13 15.85 74.39 3 | 14 17.07 91.46 4 | 5 6.10 97.56 5 | 1 1.22 98.78 30.49 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 155 7 | 1 1.22 100.00 --------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 82 100.00 . tab CITIZEN if INTDUM ==1 NATURE OF DEFENDANT'S CITIZENSHIP | Freq. Percent Cum. --------------------------------------+----------------------------------United States citizen | 76 Resident/legal alien | 4 Illegal alien | 2 90.48 4.76 2.38 Not a US citizen/alien status unknown | 90.48 95.24 97.62 2 2.38 100.00 --------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 84 100.00 . tab MONSEX if INTDUM ==1 DEFENDANT'S | GENDER | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------Male | Female | 65 35 65.00 35.00 65.00 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 100 100.00 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 156 Sentencing Court Information . tab DISTRICT if INTDUM ==1 DISTRICT IN WHICH | DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------------------+----------------------------------New York North | 13 New York East | 3 New York South | Maryland | 11.93 2.75 4 1 North Carolina East | 2 North Carolina Middle | 1.83 23 Virginia West | 3 Florida North | 1 Georgia Middle | 3 Louisiana West | 2.75 2.75 2.75 1 Mississippi South | 21.10 0.92 3 Georgia South | 0.92 2.75 3 1 21.10 0.92 1 Virginia East | 18.35 19.27 1 North Carolina West | 14.68 3.67 0.92 Alabama Middle | 11.93 0.92 0.92 22.02 22.94 44.04 46.79 49.54 50.46 53.21 55.96 56.88 57.80 Texas East | 3 2.75 60.55 Texas South | 2 1.83 62.39 Texas West | 1 0.92 63.30 Kentucky East | 5 4.59 67.89 Kentucky West | 2 1.83 69.72 Ohio North | 1 0.92 70.64 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 157 Tennessee East | 7 6.42 77.06 Wisconsin East | 2 1.83 78.90 Arkansas East | 3 Iowa North | 2.75 3 81.65 2.75 84.40 Missouri West | 1 0.92 85.32 South Dakota | 1 0.92 86.24 California South | Hawaii | 2 2 Idaho | 1.83 1 1 New Mexico | Oklahoma West | 91.74 0.92 5 District of Columbia | 2 90.83 0.92 1 92.66 4.59 1 1.83 88.07 89.91 0.92 Colorado | Guam | 1.83 97.25 0.92 98.17 100.00 ------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 109 100.00 . tab MONCIRC if INTDUM ==1 CIRCUIT IN | WHICH | DEFENDANT | WAS | SENTENCED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------0 | 1 2 | 20 0.92 18.35 0.92 19.27 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 158 4 | 31 28.44 5 | 8 6 | 15 7 | 2 1.83 70.64 8 | 8 7.34 77.98 9 | 7 6.42 84.40 7.34 47.71 55.05 13.76 10 | 7 11 | 10 68.81 6.42 9.17 90.83 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 109 100.00 Additional Sentencing Factors . tab FINE if INTDUM==1 DOLLAR | AMOUNT OF | FINE | ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------No fine | 80 73.39 73.39 25 | 1 0.92 74.31 50 | 1 0.92 75.23 75 | 1 0.92 76.15 100 | 2 1.83 77.98 150 | 2 1.83 79.82 225 | 2 1.83 81.65 250 | 5 4.59 86.24 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 159 325 | 1 0.92 87.16 475 | 1 0.92 88.07 500 | 4 3.67 91.74 725 | 1 0.92 92.66 1000 | 2 1.83 94.50 1100 | 1 0.92 95.41 20000 | 1 0.92 96.33 22000 | 1 0.92 97.25 25000 | 1 0.92 98.17 50000 | 1 0.92 99.08 261483 | 1 0.92 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 109 100.00 . tab AMTREST if INTDUM==1 DOLLAR AMOUNT OF | RESTITUTION | Freq. Percent Cum. -----------------------+----------------------------------No restitution ordered | 23 | 1 67 0.93 62.04 62.04 62.96 684 | 1 0.93 63.89 1592 | 1 0.93 64.81 6575 | 1 0.93 65.74 7609 | 1 0.93 66.67 9627 | 1 0.93 67.59 9956 | 1 0.93 68.52 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 160 11850 | 1 0.93 69.44 12275 | 1 0.93 70.37 14403 | 1 0.93 71.30 16975 | 1 0.93 72.22 17992 | 1 0.93 73.15 19819 | 1 0.93 74.07 20500 | 1 0.93 75.00 20676 | 1 0.93 75.93 21705 | 1 0.93 76.85 23420 | 1 0.93 77.78 26728 | 1 0.93 78.70 28526 | 1 0.93 79.63 28980 | 1 0.93 80.56 32244 | 1 0.93 81.48 40137 | 1 0.93 82.41 47756 | 1 0.93 83.33 50000 | 1 0.93 84.26 50212 | 1 0.93 85.19 52442 | 1 0.93 86.11 59740 | 1 0.93 87.04 71023 | 1 0.93 87.96 74290 | 1 0.93 88.89 106844 | 1 0.93 89.81 117392 | 1 0.93 90.74 127919 | 1 0.93 91.67 167325 | 1 0.93 92.59 177096 | 1 0.93 93.52 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 161 179280 | 1 0.93 94.44 214495 | 1 0.93 95.37 221818 | 1 0.93 96.30 255065 | 1 0.93 97.22 700536 | 1 0.93 98.15 1436508 | 1 0.93 99.07 1942484 | 1 0.93 100.00 -----------------------+----------------------------------Total | 108 100.00 . tab TYPEMONY if INTDUM==1 FINE/COST OF SUPERVISION OR RESTITUTION | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------No fine / cost of supervision, nor rest | Restitution ordered, no fine / cost of | 37 37 Fine / cost of supervision, no restitut | 30 Both fine / cost of supervison and rest | 5 33.94 33.94 27.52 4.59 33.94 67.89 95.41 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 109 100.00 . tab CRIMHIST if INTDUM==1 DOES DEFENDANT HAVE ANY CRIMINAL | HISTORY | Freq. Percent Cum. ---------------------------------+----------------------------------- DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 162 No criminal history | 30 31.58 Yes, there is a criminal history | 65 31.58 68.42 100.00 ---------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 95 100.00 . tab OFFTYPE2 if INTDUM==1 PRIMARY OFFENSE TYPE GENERATED FROM | CONVICTION WITH HIGHEST STATUTORY MAX | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Assault | 3 2.75 2.75 18 16.51 Drugs: trafficking | Drugs: communication facilities | 1 Drugs: simple possession | 1 1 Larceny | Fraud | 11 21 2 Bribery | 3 Tax offenses | 28.44 10.09 38.53 3 Money laundering | 2 62.39 65.14 66.97 3.67 Racketeering (includes offtype=8, extor | Immigration | 59.63 1.83 4 27.52 57.80 2.75 2.75 2 6.42 0.92 1.83 Forgery/counterfeiting | 20.18 21.10 7 19.27 Embezzlement | 0.92 0.92 Firearms: use (incld offtype=14, firear | Auto theft | 19.27 1.83 70.64 1 0.92 71.56 73.39 Admin just (inc access after fact, misp | 5 4.59 77.98 Environmental, game, fish, and wildlife | 1 0.92 78.90 Traf viols other offns (incld offtype=3 | 23 21.10 100.00 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 163 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 109 100.00 . tab XCRHISSR if INTDUM==1 DEFENDANTS | FINAL | CRIMINAL | HISTORY | CATEGORY | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------1 | 72 67.29 67.29 2 | 16 14.95 82.24 3 | 7 4 | 10 5 | 1 0.93 99.07 6 | 1 0.93 100.00 6.54 88.79 9.35 98.13 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 107 100.00 . tab XFOLSOR if INTDUM==1 FINAL | OFFENSE | LEVEL | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------4 | 25 23.36 23.36 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 164 5 | 1 0.93 24.30 6 | 3 2.80 27.10 7 | 1 0.93 28.04 8 | 5 4.67 32.71 9 | 2 1.87 34.58 10 | 9 8.41 42.99 12 | 7 6.54 49.53 13 | 14 14 | 1 0.93 63.55 15 | 4 3.74 67.29 16 | 2 1.87 69.16 17 | 9 8.41 77.57 18 | 1 0.93 78.50 19 | 6 5.61 84.11 20 | 2 1.87 85.98 21 | 4 3.74 89.72 23 | 5 4.67 94.39 24 | 1 0.93 95.33 25 | 2 1.87 97.20 26 | 1 0.93 98.13 27 | 1 0.93 99.07 34 | 1 0.93 100.00 13.08 62.62 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 107 100.00 . tab ZONE if INTDUM ==1 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 165 SENTENCE | TABLE GROUP | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------A | 23 21.50 21.50 B | 21 19.63 41.12 C | 18 16.82 57.94 D | 45 42.06 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 107 100.00 Texas West Results for 2020-2021 tab INTDUM if DISTRICT==42 RECEIPT OF | INTERMITTEN | T | CONFINEMENT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------No | 5,190 Yes | 53 98.99 1.01 98.99 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 5,243 100.00 . tab MOINTCON if DISTRICT==42 & INTDUM==1 TERM OF INTERMITTENT CONFINEMENT | DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 166 ORDERED | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------1 | 1 12 | 1.89 2 1.89 3.77 5.66 Intermittent confinement ordered, but n | 50 94.34 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 53 100.00 . tab AGECAT if DISTRICT==42 & INTDUM==1 DEFENDANT'S | AGE AT TIME | OF | SENTENCING | CATEGORIZED | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------< 20 | 10 18.87 18.87 21 thru 25 | 10 18.87 37.74 26 thru 30 | 14 26.42 64.15 31 thru 35 | 4 7.55 71.70 36 thru 40 | 2 3.77 75.47 41 thru 50 | 8 15.09 51 thru 60 | 3 5.66 > 61 | 2 3.77 90.57 96.23 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 53 100.00 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 167 . tab NEWEDUC if DISTRICT==42 & INTDUM==1 EDUCATION OF DEFENDANT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------------------+----------------------------------Less than H.S. graduate | 20 37.74 37.74 H.S. graduate | 21 39.62 77.36 Some college | 11 20.75 98.11 1.89 100.00 College graduate | 1 ------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 53 100.00 . tab NEWRACE if DISTRICT==42 & INTDUM==1 RACE OF | DEFENDANT | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------White | 8 15.09 Black | 2 3.77 Hispanic | 43 15.09 18.87 81.13 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 53 100.00 . tab NUMDEPEN if DISTRICT==42 & INTDUM==1 NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS WHOM DEFENDANT | SUPPORTS | Freq. Percent Cum. --------------------------------------+----------------------------------- DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 168 No dependents | 21 39.62 1 | 11 20.75 60.38 2 | 10 18.87 79.25 3 | 7 13.21 4 | 1 1.89 94.34 5 | 2 3.77 98.11 6 | 1 1.89 100.00 39.62 92.45 --------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 53 100.00 . tab CITIZEN if DISTRICT==42 & INTDUM==1 NATURE OF DEFENDANT'S CITIZENSHIP | Freq. Percent Cum. --------------------------------------+----------------------------------United States citizen | 53 100.00 100.00 --------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 53 100.00 . tab MONSEX if DISTRICT==42 & INTDUM==1 DEFENDANT'S | GENDER | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------Male | Female | 26 27 49.06 50.94 49.06 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 53 100.00 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 169 . tab TYPEMONY if DISTRICT==42 & INTDUM==1 FINE/COST OF SUPERVISION OR RESTITUTION | Freq. Percent Cum. ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------No fine / cost of supervision, nor rest | 41 Restitution ordered, no fine / cost of | 4 77.36 7.55 Fine / cost of supervision, no restitut | 7 13.21 Both fine / cost of supervision and res | 1 1.89 77.36 84.91 98.11 100.00 ----------------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 53 100.00 . tab CASETYPE if DISTRICT==42 & INTDUM==1 TYPE OF CASE | Freq. Percent Cum. -----------------------------------+----------------------------------Felony | 53 100.00 100.00 -----------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 53 100.00 . tab CRIMHIST if DISTRICT==42 & INTDUM==1 DOES DEFENDANT HAVE ANY CRIMINAL | HISTORY | Freq. Percent Cum. ---------------------------------+----------------------------------No criminal history | 19 Yes, there is a criminal history | 35.85 34 35.85 64.15 100.00 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 170 ---------------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 53 100.00 . tab OFFGUIDE if DISTRICT==42 & INTDUM==1 PRIMARY TYPE OF CRIME FOR | THE CASE | Freq. Percent Cum. -----------------------------+----------------------------------Child Pornography | 1 1.89 Drug Trafficking | 39 73.58 Fraud/Theft/Embezzlement | Immigration | 2 11 1.89 75.47 3.77 20.75 79.25 100.00 -----------------------------+----------------------------------Total | 53 100.00 . tab XCRHISSR if DISTRICT==42 & INTDUM==1 DEFENDANTS | FINAL | CRIMINAL | HISTORY | CATEGORY | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------1 | 38 71.70 2 | 5 9.43 3 | 7 13.21 4 | 2 3.77 71.70 81.13 94.34 98.11 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 171 5 | 1 1.89 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 53 100.00 . tab XFOLSOR if DISTRICT==42 & INTDUM==1 FINAL | OFFENSE | LEVEL | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------6 | 1 1.89 1.89 8 | 2 3.77 5.66 10 | 6 11.32 11 | 4 7.55 24.53 12 | 1 1.89 26.42 13 | 3 5.66 32.08 17 | 1 1.89 33.96 19 | 1 1.89 35.85 20 | 1 1.89 37.74 23 | 6 11.32 24 | 4 7.55 56.60 25 | 3 5.66 62.26 26 | 4 7.55 69.81 27 | 11 28 | 2 3.77 94.34 29 | 3 5.66 100.00 20.75 16.98 49.06 90.57 ------------+----------------------------------- DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 172 Total | 53 100.00 . tab ZONE if DISTRICT==42 & INTDUM==1 SENTENCE | TABLE GROUP | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------A | 3 5.66 B | 9 16.98 C | 4 7.55 D | 37 5.66 22.64 30.19 69.81 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------Total | 53 100.00 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND POLICY CENTER | THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4723504 173