Home      Login

Abstract: 

Thorough pre-sentence reports are essential for just and effective sentencing decisions, rehabilitative programming in prison, and post-release supervision. For over 40 years, however, federal pre-sentence practice has been dominated by the United States Sentencing Guidelines. These Guidelines, initially imputed from federal sentencing data, make little reference to correctional science or evidence-based practices. However, the accumulating evidence of what works in rehabilitation has become robust. A few federal probation offices have augmented pre-sentence practices, borrowing from the evidence to enhance content, individualize assessments, and tailor recommendations that match the unique circumstances of each defendant. Likewise, under the First Step Act of 2018, Congress directed the Bureau of Prisons to assess risk beyond the likelihood of institutional misconduct, and to conduct individualized assessment of each person in its custody. The Bureau now assesses 13 different criminogenic needs, relying on an assessment tool called the SPARC-13. This battery of assessments is intended to guide case managers as they match individuals to appropriate in-prison programs. This paper considers how the sentencing process could be improved if federal probation officers were to assess defendants’ individual circumstances in similar fashion during the pre-sentence investigation, potentially leading to improved sentencing outcomes and reduced risk of recidivism. Note: James C. Oleson of the University of Auckland was also a contributing author to this article.

Keywords: Pre-sentence report (PSR), United States Sentencing Guidelines, First Step Act, Bureau of Prisons, risk assessment

Affiliations:  1: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (Ret’d); 2: U.S. Probation, Eastern District (MO); 3: U.S. Probation, Nevada; 4: Federal Bureau of Prisons (Ret’d); 5: U.S. Probation Office, Mass. (Ret’d).