This article is written by I.P. Brinck, Risk Management Director at the Washington State Department of Corrections. The author wrote this article as a private individual, not in their official capacity as an employee of the Department. All errors and omissions are theirs.

On December 14, 2020, The Atlantic published an important piece by Judge Pierre Bergeron with the Ohio Appeals Court and Justice Michael Donnelly with the Ohio Supreme Court. In their article, ‘How a Spreadsheet Could Change the Criminal-Justice System’, they eloquently articulate — with compelling evidence — why courts need to jump on the transformation bandwagon.

They write: "A lack of data collection and analysis is a nationwide problem. Many states, including Ohio, where we serve, do not have reliable statewide numbers on the criminal sentences they impose. The states that do compile statistics have significant gaps. The problem extends beyond sentencing — many states also can’t measure, for instance, what the average bail rate is for various offenses, or even the effectiveness of the bail system."

To support the argument the authors make in their article, I provide an example from my home state of Washington. My goals are to illustrate how different branches of government intersect in a seemingly mundane, but in fact highly risky and complex process, and how digital transformation could significantly improve the process. Digital transformation enables processes to be streamlined across multiple entities and provides for necessary and low-cost collaboration.

Calculating and Re-calculating Sentence End Dates

In Washington state, the Department of Corrections (DOC) is responsible for calculating and re-calculating the sentence end date for every incarcerated individual, except for those under the jurisdiction of the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board.

Sentence end dates (SEDs) are the dates that each incarcerated individual is scheduled to be released from prison. The dates are calculated and recalculated throughout an individual’s period of incarceration based on numerous factors including the Court’s sentence, credits earned while being held in county jail, ‘earned time’ for good behaviour and good performance during incarceration and sanctions for committing certain infractions.

The SED calculation process starts upon intake. Any individual convicted of a felony and sentenced to more than 365 days confinement is transferred to DOC custody. Those that are sentenced to less than 365 days remain in county jail. DOC staff calculate each individual’s initial SED using two documents:

  • The Judgment & Sentence (J&S) form, which details the sentence imposed by the court or negotiated between the prosecutor and defence attorney

  • The jail certification form, which is provided by county jails and indicates how many days the individual spent in jail and whether their behaviour was acceptable.

It is important to get the initial calculation right because it serves as the basis upon which any future changes to the SED are made, and also when DOC begins its work to support the individual’s return to the community. Because SEDs can change several times before an individual is released, if the initial calculation is wrong, then all subsequent re-calculations will be incorrect as well.

SEDs can change for a variety of reasons including updated sentencing/jail information, court decisions, agency decisions and state statutes that create opportunities to reduce or lengthen an individual’s sentence. The changes are not tracked electronically and thus sentence calculations cannot be adjusted automatically.

A system could guide courts, prosecutors and defence attorneys in their sentencing decisions and thus reduce or even eliminate sentencing errors

In some cases, individuals are sentenced to more than 365 days, but earn enough jail credits to complete their sentences in county jail. Unfortunately, most of those individuals are sent to DOC, only to be processed and turned right back around to the county. The overall system lacks a process for DOC to conduct the calculations prior to receiving the individual, which would prevent a transfer to DOC. It is an unnecessary and not insignificant cost, and also delays the individual’s release to the community.

Computerising the process would improve it significantly. If courts, county jails and DOC worked within the same system or had inter-operable systems, it would at least be technologically possible for DOC to complete the initial calculation prior to the individual’s transfer. There are other important benefits of creating a streamlined electronic process:

1. Establishing statewide standards

Washington state does not have universal J&S or jail certification forms. Each of the 39 counties has their own forms and processes for completing and transmitting them to DOC. The variability in forms and processes creates confusion, errors and extra work for DOC staff. A single shared system would enable the creation of standard forms and processes across the state.

2. Eliminating the need for paper

DOC receives the J&S and jail certification forms by multiple methods — some are scanned and emailed, some are mailed and some arrive with the individual. A digital process would eliminate the need for paper and eliminate the variability in how the documents are received, which makes the process harder to manage and more vulnerable to errors.

3. Eliminating errors caused by illegible handwriting and manual calculations

DOC reviews the forms to determine whether the data can be entered in the DOC system, or if additional information is needed. Many forms arrive with perceived errors or require follow-up for clarification. The forms are often completed by hand and sometimes the handwriting is illegible.

Additionally, the forms often require some calculation, which is often completed by hand and is therefore prone to human error. Using an electronic process would eliminate errors and extra work caused by illegible handwriting. These calculations could be easily and accurately completed by the system.

The process of gathering additional information or clarification can take weeks. Meanwhile, the incarcerated individual is waiting to learn their scheduled release date. Since 2015, DOC has educated prosecutors, defence attorneys, and judges about the impact to DOC regarding problematic J&S documents. The presentations have been well received and some improvements to the documents have been made.

4. Reducing or eliminating sentencing errors

Some J&S forms contain sentencing errors — sentences are imposed that are not in line with state statutes. This isn’t surprising given that the WA State Adult Sentencing Guidelines Manual for 2020 was 486 pages and is updated every year to reflect statutory and other changes. It is hard to keep up with the influx of annual changes for even the most diligent public servant. A system could guide courts, prosecutors and defence attorneys in their sentencing decisions and thus reduce or even eliminate sentencing errors.

5. Reducing the risk of early or late releases from prison

Once the information has been entered in the DOC system, what follows is a continuous process of updating the SEDs throughout each individual's period of confinement based on the calculus of good and bad behaviour and what the law says about how much time gets taken away or added. Additionally, the legislature or courts could enact new laws or issue new rulings that require DOC to change sentences.

With the right technology, the calculations could be handled by the system, which would significantly reduce the likelihood of errors and thus reduce the risk that individuals are released too early or too late.

Technology and collaboration are needed

Although the process is primarily the result of legislative and judicial actions, the cost of the errors lives with DOC. DOC must allocate precious staff resources to the calculations effort and has paid out tort claims related to SED errors. Its legacy system is designed to apply statutory or other changes pro-actively, not retroactively. So if a new law or court decision is applied retroactively, DOC must manually review and recalculate every impacted sentence. With a current Average Daily Population of over 15,000 incarcerated individuals, there is an enormous number of SEDs to recalculate by hand.

Whenever an agency considers purchasing a new technology system, it’s important to ensure — or at least explore — how it could interface with other systems

The legislature, courts and executive branch can leverage technology and data to improve processes that live at the intersection of law, policy implementation and judicial rulings. But it requires a system-wide willingness to invest in such technology and perhaps more importantly, a willingness among the different entities to collaborate. Whenever an agency considers purchasing a new technology system, it’s important to ensure — or at least explore — how it could interface with other systems. We need not only for each branch of government to better engage data and technology, we must integrate systems across the branches as well. — I.P. Brinck

We want to hear what you think about this article. Pitch an article to us or send your comments to hello@apolitical.co

(Picture credit: Unsplash)

Make sure to share your own thoughts with the author by leaving a comment below