Tracking Outcomes: Collecting Data on Amendment 821 Retroactivity

The recent passage of Amendment 821 to the federal sentencing guidelines has major implications for many currently incarcerated individuals. Parts A and B, Subpart 1 of the amendment, relating to reducing the impact of criminal history points and expanding eligibility for the “safety valve” provision, have been approved for retroactive application beginning November 1, 2023.

This means that incarcerated persons can petition courts to have their sentences reconsidered based on the updated guidelines. However, tracking the outcomes of these petitions and analyzing the effects of retroactivity will be an important process. Collecting comprehensive data can help assess whether the intended benefits are being achieved and identify any issues needing improvement.

Why Data Collection Matters

In determining whether to apply Amendment 821 retroactively, the U.S. Sentencing Commission considered the amendment’s purpose, the magnitude of change to guideline ranges, and the feasibility of retroactive application. The Commission estimated over 10,000 incarcerated individuals could receive reduced sentences averaging 14 months less under the change [see p.8].

While estimates provide a helpful projection, systematically tracking real-world outcomes is key to understanding the amendment’s impacts. Collecting data can:

• Help assess whether intended benefits are being achieved
• Identify any issues or barriers preventing full realization of benefits
• Inform future policy improvements to enhance effectiveness
• Increase transparency and accountability around implementation

What Data to Collect

Several key data points are important to track to fully analyze Amendment 821 retroactivity outcomes:

Petitions Filed and Granted

Documenting the number of sentence reduction petitions filed and granted under the retroactive policy provides insight into process outcomes. Higher petition rates and grant rates suggest broader accessibility and impact.

Reductions in Sentence Lengths

Tracking the amount of sentence reduction achieved for granted petitions shows the magnitude of change. Larger average reductions indicate more substantive impact.

Demographic Data

Collecting demographic information – like race, ethnicity, gender, age, and geographic location – allows assessing equity of outcomes across different groups.

Nature of Original Offense

Documenting the type of offense involved in each case can help analyze differences based on offense characteristics. For example, drug offenses may see different results than weapons charges.

Guideline Provisions Applied

Noting which specific guideline provisions are being used provides insight into how different parts of the amendment are being applied in practice.

Reasons for Denials

Understanding the rationales given when petitions are denied, such as public safety factors, can reveal potential barriers to broader retroactive impact.

How to Collect Data

Responsibility for gathering data on Amendment 821 retroactivity falls across multiple entities in the criminal justice system:

U.S. Sentencing Commission

The Commission should track and publish aggregate statistics on retroactivity outcomes nationally, such as number of petitions, reductions granted, and average decrease in sentences.

Federal Courts

Individual federal district courts should compile data on petitions filed and outcomes in their jurisdictions, including specifics of each case.

Federal Public Defenders

Defense attorneys assisting clients through the petition process should document case details to help identify trends and problem areas.

DOJ and BOP

The Department of Justice and Bureau of Prisons should provide data from their case management systems to contribute to the overall picture.

Outside Researchers

Academics and policy analysts can synthesize data from public sources or via open records requests to provide independent analysis.

Challenges and Limitations

While comprehensive data collection is ideal, there are some inherent challenges and limitations to tracking retroactivity outcomes:

• Decentralized petition process makes aggregating data difficult
• Privacy protections may limit access to detailed case information
• Resource constraints on data collection and reporting capacity
• Time lags in reporting and analyzing data

Despite these constraints, striving to gather as much quality data as possible within ethical bounds remains important for maximizing the policy’s intended benefits.

The Path Ahead

Amendment 821’s retroactivity represents a significant criminal justice reform with the potential to reduce sentences for thousands of incarcerated individuals. But realizing its full, equitable impact requires collecting and analyzing reliable data on real-world outcomes. Tracking retroactivity results can inform critical improvements to help make the policy as effective as possible.