Oregon's Sanction Units Exchange System for Felony Sentencing Guidelines

Abstract

Oregon has had a long-standing commitment to use of local sanctions. Minnesota was first state, in 1973, to enact a Community Corrections Act and shift funding and responsibility for sanctioning of some felons from state to counties. Oregon adopted a community corrections act four years later, in 1977. Minnesota and Washington were pioneers in use of state prison capacity calculations in construct ing guidelines.1 The legislation directing develop ment of Oregon's felony sentencing guidelines in 1987 was unique in calling for a structure sensitive not just to amount of state prison space available, but also to the effective capacity of . . . local correc tions facilities and other sentencing sanctions available. As informal advisors to Oregon process, guideline commission staffs in Minnesota and Washington were generous with their sugges tions. A structured sentencing microcomputer simulation model, developed jointly by states of Oregon, Louisiana, and Tennessee and District of Columbia under Bureau of Justice Assistance's 1987-89 Structured Sentencing Program, enabled Oregon Criminal Justice Council to model effects of probationary sentences and alternative sanctions on local caseloads and programs. The Association of Oregon Counties, a powerful state legislative force, supported effort. The Association was sensitive to potential guidelines pressures on county-funded jails and corrections programs. In 1987, when Oregon began to develop its felony sentencing guidelines, 18 of its 33 county jails were under federal court orders related to population. Also, more than 80% of Oregon felons receive non-prison sentences. Developing an elaborate guidelines system to deal with only 20% of offenders who were prison-bound seemed, to Criminal Justice Council, to be addressing only a small part of problem, as well as only a portion of issues related to structured sentencing.2