PCS RFP - Application Design.pdf

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL:

APPLICATION DESIGN SERVICES

Proposals Due: March 4, 2022

UPDATED: FEBRUARY 11, 2022

PENNSYLVANIA COMMISSION ON SENTENCING

204 E. Calder Way, Suite 400, State College, PA 16804-1200

1 | P a g e

Table of Contents

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.2 Project Objectives

2 Scope of Work

2.1 Current Functionality

2.2 Desired Changes

2.2.1 User Experience

2.2.2 8th Edition Guidelines

2.2.3 Parole Guidelines

2.2.4 Parole Recommitment Ranges

2.3 Project Phases

2.4 Deliverables

3 Proposal Details

3.1 RFP Overview

3.1.1 Terms and Conditions

3.1.2 Project Schedule

3.1.3 Designated Contact

3.1.4 Questions

3.1.5 Evaluation Process

3.2 Response Requirements

3.2.1 Cover Letter

3.2.2 Firm Information

3.2.3 Project Plan

3.2.4 Project Team Members

3.2.5 Similar Project Experience

3.2.6 Availability

3.2.7 References

3.2.8 Project Cost

3.2.9 Additional Information

3.3 Submission of Proposal

4 Appendix: SGS Web Processes

4.1 Pre-Sentencing Guideline Generation Process

4.1.1 Process Overview

4.1.2 Screenshots

4.2 Sentencing Process

4.2.1 Process Overview

2 | P a g e

4.2.2 Screenshots

4.3 Probation Violation Process (Pre-Resentencing)

4.3.1 Process Overview

4.3.2 Screenshots

4.4 Revocation/Resentencing Process

4.4.1 Process Overview

4.4.2 Screenshots

4.5 Additional Screens

3 | P a g e

1 Introduction The Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing invites proposals from qualified web application design firms for the redesign of the Commission’s sentencing guidelines software application (SGS Web) in compliance with the requirements and terms set forth in this RFP.

1.1 Background

The Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (“Commission”) is a legislative agency responsible for advancing effective, humane, and rational policies that promote fairer and more uniform decisions at sentencing, resentencing, and parole. The Commission achieves this through the development, implementation and monitoring of compliance with guidelines for sentencing, resentencing, and parole, as well as risk assessments that support pretrial and sentencing decisions.

SGS Web is the Commission’s web application used by courts of record to calculate Sentencing Guidelines for consideration at the time of sentencing and Resentencing Guidelines at the time of resentencing following a revocation of probation. SGS Web also provides an automated process for generating a sentencing risk assessment recommendation. Information on the actual sentence or resentence imposed is submitted to the Commission by the Courts via SGS Web. The sentencing data collected by SGS Web provide the foundation for much of the Commission’s work. The Commission uses sentencing data to assess judicial conformity to the Sentencing Guidelines, to monitor sentencing trends, to project impacts of changes in the law, policy, or practice on the criminal justice system, to assess the effect of guideline revisions and mandatory sentences, and to inform public policy discussion and decisions.

SGS Web is housed in the secure environment available through the Pennsylvania Justice Network (JNET). SGS Web integrates with the court case management system managed by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) to access up-to-date offender information, offense information, and criminal history.

SGS Web is used in all 67 counties in Pennsylvania by approximately 1,000 users. On average, 140,000 offenses are processed in SGS Web each year (prior to the coronavirus pandemic).

SGS Web is an evolving application and has been updated regularly since its creation in the early 2000s. Revisions to the application have been made to improve functionality in response to changes in the sentencing guidelines, changes in statute, and new responsibilities added to the Commission’s statutory duties.

The Commission’s 2019 Annual Report, which includes a comprehensive description of the work of the Commission, is available on the Commission’s website at https://pcs.la.psu.edu/policy-administration.

https://pcs.la.psu.edu/policy-administration

4 | P a g e

1.2 Project Objectives

The project outlined in this RFP is part of a larger initiative (SGS Web NextGen) to redesign and reengineer SGS Web, in addition to constructing new functionality to support the Commission’s upcoming 8th Edition of the sentencing guidelines and new guidelines for parole and recommitment. The rebuild will provide the opportunity to update the technology, modernize the user interface, and transition to an offender-based view that will facilitate tracking an individual throughout the criminal justice process, e.g., pretrial to sentencing to parole.

The goal of the project defined by this RFP is to create a blueprint for the future state of the SGS Web application. The blueprint will be used to guide future development of the application. The proposed design will be implemented through a series of initiatives rather than a monolithic replacement.

2 Scope of Work For this RFP, the Commission is specifically looking for a vendor’s assistance with:

• Auditing the existing application [section 2.1] resulting in a proposal for improving user experience by implementing a modern and responsive design, intuitive application navigation, and well-organized pages, forms, and reports [section 2.2.1].

• Developing an application design/architecture for implementing the 8th Edition of the sentencing guidelines [section 2.2.2] while continuing to support the 7th Edition.

• Developing an application design/architecture for incorporating parole guidelines, recommitment ranges, and the reporting of parole decisions [sections

2.2.3 and 2.2.4].

• Providing a UX style guide and pattern library that will be used to guide future development of the application, including meeting existing accessibility standards, e.g., Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The implementation of the proposed design is not part of this RFP. The development and programming of the application will be completed by the Commission’s Application and Information Technology unit, supplemented by external consultants as needed.

2.1 Current Functionality

The redesign of the user interface and addition of new functionality, as detailed below, must retain the current functionality of SGS Web.

Refer to Appendix: SGS Web Processes to see an overview of the tasks that users perform in SGS Web, along with accompanying screenshots.

5 | P a g e

2.2 Desired Changes

2.2.1 User Experience

• Develop a modern and responsive design for implementation that incorporates accessibility best practices.

• Improve data entry processes by streamlining interfaces and leveraging data integrations [see 2.2.1.1].

• Implement an offender-based view to facilitate tracking of individuals.

• Create a home page that promotes efficiency by providing search options, task shortcuts, and data representations.

• Optimize navigational elements to be more intuitive and to help guide users through processes.

• Reformat printable guideline sentence forms to improve readability and usability.

2.2.1.1 AOPC Data Integration

SGS Web already integrates with the court case management system managed by AOPC via JNET web services to access up-to-date offender information, offense information, and criminal history. There are several improvements that are being considered by the Commission to leverage the data available through the integration with AOPC to reduce redundant data entry.

• Instead of a Court Case Event Request/Reply initiated by the user entering an OTN, all Common Pleas cases can be imported into SGS Web and the user would have the ability to select from the open cases related to the offender.

• Import sentencing data from AOPC so that the screens used for reporting sentences are pre-populated for the user to verify and correct in SGS Web before submitting to the Commission.

2.2.2 8th Edition Guidelines The 8th Edition of the sentencing guidelines is currently under development and targeted for implementation on or after July 2023. SGS Web will continue to support the 7th Edition of the sentencing guidelines along with the 8th Edition.

The major changes being proposed for the 8th Edition guidelines are revisions to the offense gravity score (OGS)1 and the prior record score (PRS)2, which are the primary

1 Offense gravity score (OGS) is an assignment in the sentencing guidelines reflecting the seriousness of a conviction offense.

2 Prior record score (PRS) reflects the offender's criminal history based on the type and number of prior convictions and prior juvenile adjudications.

Information about the forthcoming 8th edition is available on the Commission’s website at https://pcs.la.psu.edu/guidelines-statutes/sentencing/comprehensive-review-of-sentencing-guidelines. The 7th Edition Sentencing Guidelines are available on the Commission’s website at https://pcs.la.psu.edu/guidelines-statutes/sentencing/7th-edition-sentencing-guidelines.

https://pcs.la.psu.edu/guidelines-statutes/sentencing/comprehensive-review-of-sentencing-guidelines/ https://pcs.la.psu.edu/guidelines-statutes/sentencing/comprehensive-review-of-sentencing-guidelines/ https://pcs.la.psu.edu/guidelines-statutes/sentencing/7th-edition-sentencing-guidelines/ https://pcs.la.psu.edu/guidelines-statutes/sentencing/7th-edition-sentencing-guidelines/

6 | P a g e determinants of a sentence recommendation. The sentence recommendation is a fundamental feature of SGS Web, so these changes will have a significant impact on the application.

The proposed changes to OGS will:

• Expand the number OGS categories from 14 to 30+ to allow for narrower standard ranges and a more granular OGS assignment process.

• Provide specific sentencing recommendations for restorative sanctions (e.g., probation, community service, fines).

• Allow for a consistent OGS step-up or step-down approach for sentence enhancements, and other adjustments.

The proposed changes to PRS will:

• Reduce the number of prior record score categories from eight to four.

• Move from point-based to categorical (zero, low, medium, high) that are based upon the highest statutory maximum of all prior adjudications and convictions and the number of prior offenses of similar classification.

• Expand the criteria for assessing which prior juvenile adjudications and prior adult convictions count towards the PRS calculation.

Currently, the data entry required for the PRS calculation is completely manual in SGS Web. As part of the redesign, the calculation should leverage criminal history data available via an existing integration with the court case management system managed by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) in order to facilitate automation of the calculation. Manual data entry for some factors may still be required, e.g., prior out-of-state convictions or adjudications.

2.2.3 Parole Guidelines

The Commission is currently developing guidelines that shall be considered by the Pennsylvania Parole Board and any other paroling entity when exercising its power to parole and re-parole all persons sentenced by any court in Pennsylvania to imprisonment in any correctional institution.

The guidelines that are currently under development only apply to sentences being served in state correctional institutions under the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC). However, the Commission’s mandate includes parole for sentences being served in county facilities. As such, parole-related functionality in SGS Web should consider both state and county parole.

The proposed state parole guidelines are based on two dimensions. As the primary factor considered in the parole decision is public and victim safety, the first dimension

Information about the proposed state parole guidelines is available on the Commission’s website at https://pcs.la.psu.edu/guidelines-statutes/state-parole.

https://pcs.la.psu.edu/guidelines-statutes/state-parole

7 | P a g e considered is risk. A score is assigned to this factor based on a risk assessment tool (i.e., LSI-R). The second dimension is preparedness, which is how well an offender is prepared for parole release. It is based on pre-interview factors and interview factors.

The intersection of risk and preparedness is the parole recommendation to grant or refuse parole. The recommendations differ between violent and non-violent offenders.

Currently, there is no functionality in SGS Web to support Parole Guidelines. At a minimum, SGS Web will need to provide the following functions.

2.2.3.1 Collect information required to generate State Parole Guidelines recommendation.

Data needed to generate the recommended state parole guidelines recommendation include, but not limited to:

• Determination of offender category (violent or non-violent): Based upon a classification list of criminal offenses.

• Risk Category (low, medium, high): Based upon LSI-R score.

• Preparedness Category (low, medium, high): There are six pre-interview factors related to the offender’s behavior and compliance, as well as a recommendation from the Department of Corrections. There are four interview factors that are based on the professional judgment of the decision maker(s).

Some data may already be available in SGS Web or via an integration with the DOC’s inmate management system, CAPTOR. If so, the data should be made available to the user to verify, add, or correct the information before submitting in SGS Web.

2.2.3.2 Generate the State Parole Guidelines recommendation.

The State Parole Guidelines recommendation (i.e., grant or refuse parole) is based on the Risk Category, Preparedness Category, and whether the offender is classified as violent or non-violent.

2.2.3.3 Record parole decision, reasons for decision and deviation from the guidelines.

In every case in which the Parole Board renders a state parole decision, the decision (i.e., grant or refuse parole) must be recorded along with the reasons for the decision. If the Parole Board deviates from the guidelines, the override factors or reasons for departure must also be recorded. State parole decision data available via an integration with CAPTOR should be utilized but still allow the user to verify, add, or correct the information before submitting in SGS Web.

SGS Web should also provide the ability to record county parole decisions.

2.2.3.4 Generate the State Parole Guidelines worksheet/form.

Slight variations of the worksheet may be required (e.g., violent offender vs. non-violent offender, pre-hearing version, post-decision version).

8 | P a g e

2.2.4 Parole Recommitment Ranges

The Commission is currently developing recommendations for recommitment ranges to be considered by the Pennsylvania Parole Board following revocation of parole when exercising its power to re-parole, commit, and recommit for parole violations. The recommitment range is a range of time within which a parole violator may be recommitted to serve an additional part of the term the parole violator would have been compelled to serve had the parole violator not been paroled.

The recommendations for state parole recommitment ranges that are currently under development only apply to sentences being served in state correctional institutions under the jurisdiction of the DOC. However, the Commission’s mandate includes recommitment to county facilities. As such, recommitment-related functionality in SGS Web should consider both state and county sentences.

The proposed state parole recommitment ranges take into account: 1) the seriousness of the initial conviction offense, 2) the level of seriousness of the violation, and 3) the rehabilitative needs of the defendant.

Currently, there is no functionality in SGS Web to support Parole Recommitment Ranges.

At a minimum, SGS Web will need to provide the following functionality.

2.2.4.1 Collect information required to generate State Parole Recommitment Ranges recommendation.

Data needed to generate the recommended recommitment ranges include, but not limited to:

• Seriousness of original conviction offense.

• Original sentence.

• Determination of type of violation: technical or new conviction.

• Offense attributes (e.g., sexual in nature) and OGS assigned to the new conviction offense.

• Number of times the offender has violated parole.

• Aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

2.2.4.2 Generate the Parole Recommitment Ranges recommendation.

For state parolees with a technical violation, the Parole Recommitment Ranges recommendation is based on the number of times that the offender has violated parole and whether certain conditions are present (e.g., violation involved assault, a weapon, etc.).

For state parolees with a violation for a new conviction, the Parole Recommitment Ranges recommendation is based on the Offense Gravity Score of the new offense.

Information about the proposed state parole recommitment ranges is available on the Commission’s website at https://pcs.la.psu.edu/guidelines-statutes/state-parole.

https://pcs.la.psu.edu/guidelines-statutes/state-parole

9 | P a g e

Aggravating circumstances will increase the upper limit of the recommitment range recommendation, while mitigating circumstances will decrease the lower limit.

2.2.4.3 Record the decision to revoke parole and recommit, the recommitment time ordered, any credit awarded for time spent on parole, and reasons for deviation from the recommitment range recommendation.

In every case in which the Parole Board renders a decision to revoke parole and recommit the violator, the decision must be recorded along with the recommitment time ordered and any credit awarded for the time spend at liberty on parole. If the Parole Board deviates from the guidelines, the override factors or reasons for departure must be recorded.

SGS Web should also provide the ability to record county recommitment decisions.

2.2.4.4 Generate a Parole Recommitment Ranges worksheet/form.

The guidelines do not include requirements for a Parole Recommitment Ranges worksheet, however it is anticipated that one will be needed.

2.3 Project Phases

The implementation of the 8th Edition Guidelines is the highest priority. It is the desire of the Commission to focus on the design of the screens and forms that will be affected by the new guidelines as a first phase of the proposed project outlined in this RFP. These are primarily the screens and form detailed in the Pre-Sentencing Guideline Generation Process section of the Appendix: SGS Web Processes.

Ideally, the development team would be able to start work on these screens and forms while the design work for other areas is completed.

2.4 Deliverables

The primary deliverable for this project is an application design proposal that considers current functionality of the application and incorporates new requirements and future needs.

Design proposal should include:

• Documented findings from subject matter expert and stakeholder interviews/workshops conducted by vendor (any recordings should be shared with the Commission).

• UX design system.

• Sitemap and navigation.

• User/process flow diagrams.

• High-fidelity prototype (wireframes and mock-ups can be used for discussion and design validation purposes throughout project).

10 | P a g e

3 Proposal Details

3.1 RFP Overview

3.1.1 Terms and Conditions

The Commission reserves the right to amend or cancel this RFP at any time prior to a signed contract.

The Commission reserves the right to accept or reject any proposal at any time prior to selection.

The Commission is not responsible for any costs incurred in the preparation of a response to this RFP.

The Commission reserves the right to cancel and terminate any resulting contract, with a 30-day written notice to the vendor. Any contract cancellation notice will not relieve the vendor of the obligation to deliver and/or perform on all services prior to the effective date of cancellation. Cancellation of the contract would become effective the thirty-first day after notification.

3.1.2 Project Schedule

This schedule is based on our current timelines but is subject to change.

Milestone Deadline

RFP Delivered to Vendors January 25, 2022

RFP Question Period Ends February 4, 2022

Proposal Due Date March 4, 2022

Award Contract to Vendor March 18, 2022

Tentative Project Start Date April 1, 2022

Phase 1 Completion Date [see section 2.3] June 30, 2022

Tentative Project Completion Date October 30, 2022

All deliverables are required to be completed and approved by this date.

3.1.3 Designated Contact

Any communication required by this RFP should be sent via email to Kristie Bundro at PCSRFP@psu.edu.

mailto:PCSRFP@psu.edu

11 | P a g e

3.1.4 Questions

Any questions regarding this RFP should be sent via email to Kristie Bundro at PCSRFP@psu.edu by February 4, 2022. All questions and responses will be posted on the Commission’s website at https://pcs.la.psu.edu/news/pcs-rfp by February 9, 2022.

3.1.5 Evaluation Process

In order to evaluate the vendors, the Commission will consider capabilities or advantages that are clearly described in the proposal, which may be confirmed by meetings, virtual presentations, and references contacted by the Commission. The Commission reserves the right to contact individuals, entities, or organizations that have had dealings with vendor.

The following evaluation criteria will be used:

• Successful public-sector web application design experience.

• Competency of firm, including reputation and integrity.

• Professional background and success of key project team members.

• Ability to complete the project in a reasonable time frame.

• The contract will be awarded to the responsible, responsive firm whose proposal, conforming to this solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Commission, price and other factors considered.

3.2 Response Requirements

Proposals should demonstrate the qualifications, experience, service level, cost of services, competence, and capacity of the firm. The Commission considers qualified firms to be those that demonstrate the appropriate experience, capability, knowledge, and financial ability to implement the Scope of Work outlined in this RFP.

Submission should include the information detailed in the following sections.

3.2.1 Cover Letter

The letter should include a project statement, describing the applicant's understanding of the goals and objectives, as well as the approach and philosophy regarding the project.

3.2.2 Firm Information

• Full Name and address of the firm.

• Short description of the firm.

• Year established.

• Federal ID number.

• Firm’s legal formation (e.g., corporation, sole proprietor, etc.)

• State of incorporation, if applicable.

• List of firm’s officers.

• Most recent annual financial report or year-end financial statements.

https://pcs.la.psu.edu/news/pcs-rfp

12 | P a g e

• Proof of liability insurance.

3.2.3 Project Plan

Provide a proposed task plan and timeline for the project. Clearly describe activities and deliverables associated with each phase/task.

3.2.4 Project Team Members

Provide name, role, and responsibilities of each team member. Include information on the background of key members and their contributions to past projects, as related to this project.

3.2.5 Similar Project Experience

Provide examples of similar successful projects executed by the firm.

3.2.6 Availability

Detail any restrictions or constraints related to project start date.

3.2.7 References

Include at least 3 references, for similar projects completed within the past five years.

Include the name, telephone number, and email address for the client contact. List services provided to each client.

3.2.8 Project Cost

Include a cost proposal showing a not-to-exceed cost of your proposed services.

Include a breakdown of cost for each task or deliverable.

3.2.9 Additional Information

Additional suggested steps, actions, or deliverables which members of the firm deem advisable, along with associated costs, are welcome.

3.3 Submission of Proposal

All responses to this RFP should be sent via email to Kristie Bundro at PCSRFP@psu.edu.

The deadline for submission is February 25, 2022.

13 | P a g e

4 Appendix: SGS Web Processes This appendix provides vendors with a high-level overview of existing functionality in SGS Web.

4.1 Pre-Sentencing Guideline Generation Process

4.1.1 Process Overview

Prior to sentencing, the user accesses SGS Web to calculate the sentencing guidelines, determine the sentence risk assessment recommendation, and print a guideline sentence form for the judge's consideration at the time of sentence. To produce the sentencing guideline recommendation, the user enters the offender's demographic information, completes the Prior Record Score worksheet based on the offender's criminal history, and records the offenses for which an offender has been convicted that will be sentenced on the same date. Offender, offense, and criminal history data retrieved from the AOPC Common Pleas Case Management System (CPCMS) is used to facilitate the data entry process. SGS Web includes logic to ensure valid and reliable offender and offense information.

The tasks performed by the user in SGS Web include:

1. User enters Offense Tracking Number (OTN) to retrieve offender and offense data from CPCMS.

2. User uses results to create Offender and Judicial Proceeding (JP).

3. User enters criminal history information for Offender to calculate the Prior Record

Score (PRS).

4. User enters current offenses to be sentenced.

5. User may review the Guideline Recommendations for each offense.

6. User may review the Risk Assessment recommendation which is generated automatically by SGS Web.

7. User generates the Pre-Sentence version of the Guideline Sentence form for each offense (provided to judge for consideration during sentencing hearing).

14 | P a g e

4.1.2 Screenshots

1. User enters Offense Tracking Number (OTN) to retrieve offender and offense data from CPCMS.

Figure 1: AOPC OTN Search screen

15 | P a g e

2. User uses results to create Offender and Judicial Proceeding (JP).

Figure 2: AOPC OTN Search Results screen

Figure 3: Add Offender & JP screen

16 | P a g e

3. User enters criminal history information for Offender to calculate the Prior Record Score (PRS).

Figure 4: Prior Record Score - 7th Edition screen

17 | P a g e

4. User enters current offenses to be sentenced.

Figure 5: Offense Summary screen (Select an Offense screen)

Figure 6: Search for Offense screen (Search Criteria)

18 | P a g e

Figure 7: Search for Offense (Search Results)

Figure 8: Create an Offense screen

19 | P a g e

Figure 9: Offense Summary screen (after Offense added)

5. User may review the Guideline Recommendations for each offense.

Figure 10: Guideline Recommendations screen

20 | P a g e

6. User may review the Risk Assessment recommendation which is generated automatically by SGS Web.

Figure 11: Risk Assessment screen

7. User generates the Pre-Sentence version of the Guideline Sentence form for each offense (provided to judge for consideration during sentencing hearing).

Figure 12: Select Offense for Guideline Sentence Form screen

Figure 13: Guideline Request Results screen

21 | P a g e

Figure 14: Pre-Sentence version of Guideline Sentence Form

22 | P a g e

4.2 Sentencing Process

4.2.1 Process Overview

After an offender has been sentenced, the user reports sentence information for each offense included in the Judicial Proceeding. Along with the sanctions imposed, information is collected pertaining to drug and alcohol assessments and dependency, pre-sentence investigation report completion, sexually violent predator hearings and determinations, county reentry, and Department of Corrections’ program eligibility (e.g., State Motivation Boot Camp, State Drug Treatment Program). The user is required to provide a reason if a sentence does not conform with the sentencing guideline recommendation. The sentence information must be submitted electronically to the Commission via SGS Web within 30 days after sentencing. SGS Web includes logic to ensure valid and legal sentencing information.

The tasks performed by the user in SGS Web include:

1. User enters information about the sentence.

2. User enters specific sanctions ordered for each offense.

3. User supplies a reason if sentence does not fall within sentence guideline recommendations.

4. User enters additional information regarding the sentence.

5. User “officially” submits the sentence from the Judicial Proceeding screen.

6. User may generate the Post-Sentence version of the Guideline Sentence form for each offense.

23 | P a g e

4.2.2 Screenshots

1. User enters information about the sentence.

Figure 15: Sentencing Dashboard screen

24 | P a g e

2. User enters specific sanctions ordered for each offense.

Figure 16: Sentence - Sanction Manager screen

25 | P a g e

3. User supplies a reason if sentence does not fall within sentence guideline recommendations.

Figure 17: Guideline Conformity - Reasons screen (canned list)

Figure 18: Guideline Conformity - Reasons screen (free text)

Figure 19: Guideline Conformity - Reasons screen (narrative)

26 | P a g e

4. User enters additional information regarding the sentence.

Figure 20: Sentence - Module Complete screen

5. User “officially” submits the sentence from the Judicial Proceeding screen.

Figure 21: Judicial Proceeding screen (submit sentence)

27 | P a g e

8. User may generate the Post-Sentence version of the Guideline Sentence form for each offense.

Figure 22: Post-Sentence version of Guideline Sentence Form

28 | P a g e

Figure 23: Post-Sentence version of Guideline Sentence Form (Reasons for Sentence and Narrative)

29 | P a g e

4.3 Probation Violation Process (Pre-Resentencing)

4.3.1 Process Overview

Prior to resentencing for a probation violation, the user uses SGS Web to calculate the resentencing guidelines and print a guideline revocation/resentence form for the judge's consideration at the time of sentence. To produce the resentencing guideline recommendation, the user enters information about the violation that resulted in the revocation of probation.

The tasks performed by the user in SGS Web include:

1. User enters information about the violation that resulted in revocation of probation.

2. User generates the Pre-Sentence version of the Guideline Revocation/Resentence form for each offense (provided to judge for consideration during resentencing hearing).

30 | P a g e

4.3.2 Screenshots

1. User enters information about the violation that resulted in revocation of probation.

Figure 24: Probation Violation Dashboard

31 | P a g e

2. User generates the Pre-Sentence version of the Guideline Revocation/Resentence form for each offense (provided to judge for consideration during resentencing hearing).

Figure 25: Pre-Sentence version of Guideline Revocation/Resentence Form

32 | P a g e

Figure 26: Guideline Revocation/Resentence Form (Offense Sentence History)

33 | P a g e

4.4 Revocation/Resentencing Process

4.4.1 Process Overview

After an offender has been resentenced, the user reports sentence information for each offense with probation sentences that are being revoked/resentenced. The user is required to provide a reason if a sentence does not conform with the resentencing guideline recommendation. The sentence information must be submitted electronically to the Commission via SGS Web within 30 days after sentencing.

The tasks performed by the user in SGS Web include:

1. User enters information about the new sentence and selects the offenses with probation sentences that are being revoked/resentenced.

2. User enters specific sanctions ordered for each offense.

3. User supplies a reason if sentence does not fall within sentence guideline recommendations.

4. User enters additional information regarding the sentence.

5. User “officially” submits the sentence from the Judicial Proceeding screen.

6. User may generate the Post-Sentence version of the Guideline

Revocation/Resentence form for each offense.

34 | P a g e

4.4.2 Screenshots

1. User enters information about the new sentence and selects the offenses with probation sentences that are being revoked/resentenced.

Figure 27: Revocation Dashboard screen

35 | P a g e

2. User enters specific sanctions ordered for each offense.

Figure 28: Revocation - Sanction Manager screen

36 | P a g e

3. User enters additional information regarding the sentence.

Figure 29: Sentence - Module Complete screen

4. User “officially” submits the sentence from the Judicial Proceeding screen.

Figure 30: Judicial Proceeding screen

37 | P a g e

5. User may generate the Post-Sentence version of the Guideline Revocation/Resentence form for each offense.

Figure 31: Post-Sentence version of Guideline Revocation/Resentence Form

38 | P a g e

Figure 32: Guideline Revocation/Resentence Form (Offense Sentence History)

39 | P a g e

4.5 Additional Screens

1. View home page.

Figure 33: Digital Dashboard screen (home page)

2. View an Offender record.

Figure 34: View Offender screen

40 | P a g e

3. Search for existing records.

Figure 35: Offender Search screen

Figure 36: Judicial Proceeding Search / Results screen

Figure 37: Search for an Offense screen

41 | P a g e

4. Generate a report.

Figure 38: Report Request screen

Figure 39: Report Results screen

42 | P a g e

5. View JP Summary.

Figure 40: JP Summary screen

3.3 Submission of Proposal

4.5 Additional Screens