NCJ Number
196009
Date Published
April 2001
Length
44 pages
Annotation
This report identifies the factors that influence outcome differences for two methods of forecasting needed prison capacity in the Netherlands.
Abstract
One way to measure the need for prison capacity is to calculate capacity on the basis of sentences given; this is the WODC method. Another method is to count how many prison cells are actually occupied and how many people still have to be imprisoned; this is the DJI method (department responsible for prisons in the Netherlands). The need for prison capacity according to the WODC method deviates significantly from that projected by the DJI method. In the period 1993-99, the average difference was 2,700 prison cells, with the DJI method projecting a much higher level than the WODC method. The factors that contribute to the forecast differences in the two methods are in four categories. First, there may be errors in the calculation of the need for prison capacity in the past; second, someone may be sentenced to imprisonment but may not ultimately go to prison; third, it is possible that someone originally not sentenced to prison may still go to prison; fourth, there may be shifts in time. All the factors reviewed may have had a significant influence on the differences between the DJI and WODC methods; however, due to policy changes, some of these factors will not play an important role in the future. The capacity margin, failed task sanctions, unjust remands, and unpaid fines, however, will always constitute a significant part of the difference between the DJI method and the WODC method. This report advises that when making forecasts for prison capacity, it is especially important to take into account the failed task sanctions and unpaid fines that can result in imprisonment. The WODC intends to make this needed improvement in its forecast models in the near future. More research is required in the area of unjust remands. 15 tables, 3 figures, and 14 references