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