Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sentencing Database topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
UConn researcher outlines lessons from other states on building sentencing databases
Summary
A UConn law professor presented preliminary findings June 17 from interviews with states that have developed sentencing databases, highlighting three themes: varied data uses (dashboards, forecasting), judicial trust challenges, and practical advice for Connecticut including stable identifiers and cross‑agency relationships.
A law professor from the University of Connecticut presented preliminary results on June 17 from a study of how other states have built and used sentencing databases to support evidence-based policy.
The presenter (introduced as Professor Pandia) told the Connecticut Sentencing Commission that although the commission was charged in statute with developing a statewide sentencing database when it was created in 2010, it still does not have its own database: “the commission still does not have its own sentencing database.” He said that absence obliges staff to negotiate ad hoc data-sharing agreements case by case, which consumes time and prevents prompt, exploratory analysis.
Pandia described three themes from 22 interviews (conducted 2023–2025): (1) data uses — commissions that have databases use them for forecasting fiscal impacts of bills, producing public-facing dashboards, and answering time-sensitive legislative questions; (2) judicial trust — some judges resist data projects for fear of being decontextualized or politically exposed, while others volunteer for pilots, so building trust (for example by removing judge identifiers) is essential; and (3) concrete advice for Connecticut — use stable individual identifiers, build cross-agency relationships to assure data quality, collect granular fields, document system changes, and develop some in-house IT capacity.
Pandia said the research team will draft a report and circulate it to the commission for review; the presentation included examples of Pennsylvania’s and Virginia’s approaches to dashboards and forecasting models.
Next step: the research team will produce a draft report for the commission to review and consider as it contemplates how to leverage existing state infrastructure for a sentencing database.
