Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:50 am
Time: 11:50 am
Results for corrections (california)
7 results foundAuthor: Butcher, Kristin F. Title: Crime, Corrections, and California: What Does Immigration Have to Do With It Summary: This report examines the effects of immigration on public safety in California. The assessment uses measures of incarceration and institutionalization as proxies for criminal involvement. Findings show that the foreign-born, who make up about 35 percent of the adult population in California, constitute only 17 percent of the adult prison population. Thus, immigrants are underrepresented in California prisons compared to their representation in the overall population. Details: San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California, 2008. 23p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 114919 Keywords: Alien Criminals (California)Corrections (California)Criminal Statistics (California)Immigrants (California) |
Author: California. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Office of Research Title: 2010 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report Summary: To comport with national best practices, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) now measures recidivism by tracking arrests, convictions and returns to prison. Although all three measures are displayed in charts and tables in Appendix A, CDCR uses the latter measure, returns to prison, as the primary measure of recidivism for the purpose of this report. We chose this measure because it is the most reliable measure available and is well understood and commonly used by most correctional stakeholders. CDCR has reported recidivism rates for felons released from custody since 1977. Prior to this report, CDCR provided recidivism rates only for felons paroled for the first time on their current term during a specified calendar year. Parolees were only tracked until they discharged from parole. CDCR is now expanding the cohort to include direct discharge, first-release and re-released felons who are released during a State Fiscal Year (FY), beginning with FY 2005-06. All felons are tracked for the full follow-up period, regardless of their status as active or discharged. In addition, recidivism rates are presented based on numerous characteristics (e.g., commitment offense, length-of-stay). This report is intended to provide more detailed information about recidivism to CDCR executives and managers, lawmakers and other correctional stakeholders who have an interest in the dynamics of reoffending behavior and recidivism reduction. Details: Sacramento: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2010. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 16, 2011 at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/ARB_FY0506_Outcome_Evaluation_Report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/ARB_FY0506_Outcome_Evaluation_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 121369 Keywords: Corrections (California)InmatesPrisonersRecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Males, Mike Title: Jail Needs Assessment for San Mateo County: A preliminary analysis Summary: On April 5, 2011, Governor Edmund G. Brown signed into law Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109) codifying, one of history’s most sweeping reforms of California’s criminal justice system. This landmark legislation comes 35 years after then Governor Brown signed the Determinant Sentencing Law (DSL) of 1976, ushering in an era of unprecedented prison population expansion. Under the DSL, rehabilitation was eliminated as a goal of sentencing in California in favor of more punitive practices that emphasized incarceration. With the shift to more punitive policies, incarceration rates soared resulting in inevitable overcrowding and a deterioration of conditions within the state’s prisons and jails. As result present day criminal justice stakeholders in each of California’s 58 counties are addressing the challenge of how to serve an increased number of individuals under their supervision. The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) produced this report at the request of San Mateo County’s Controller’s Office. The intention of the analysis is to explore San Mateo County’s current and historic criminal justice system trends and determine the future necessity of additional county jail construction. This report provides San Mateo County criminal justice stakeholders with a data-driven analysis that explores targeted areas to apply model interventions that reduce unnecessary incarceration while promoting public safety. San Mateo County is one of the most affluent counties in California, with 2010 median household incomes ($82,750) well above the state average ($57,700). Additionally, the percentage of residents with incomes below poverty thresholds (6.8%) is well below the state as a whole (15.8%). For every race and age level, San Mateo County residents have poverty levels less than half the state average. The county’s population has stabilized, with current and projected growth levels (1% to 1.5% per decade) that are much slower than California as a state (10%) (Demographic Research Unit, 2010). The county thus has (with a few exceptions) generally lower crime rates and social problems, as well as more resources available to apply to reducing them. However, within these apparently stabilizing factors lies great change. Like other major counties, San Mateo County has undergone a dramatic population shift in recent decades, with a significant increase in minority populations. Thirty years ago, three-fourths of the county’s adults age 18-69 was White, of European origin.1 After declines of 30% and 40% in the white and black populations respectively, a 260% rise in the Latino population, and a quadrupling in the Asian population, today there are 80,000 more San Mateo County adults than in 1980, 6 in 10 of whom are Asian, Hispanic, African-American, and other nonwhites. The state Demographic Research Unit (2011) projects continued slow population growth, with declining white populations offset by continued increases in Asians and Latinos. Details: San Francisco, California: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2011. 15p. Source: Policy Brief: Internet Resource: Accessed February 18, 2012 at http://www.cjcj.org/files/San_Mateo_County_Sentencing_Practices_and_Trends.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/San_Mateo_County_Sentencing_Practices_and_Trends.pdf Shelf Number: 124171 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCorrections (California)JailsPrison Population |
Author: Misczynski, Dean Title: Rethinking the State-Local Relationship: Corrections Summary: California is changing the way it manages its adult prisons and jails more comprehensively than at any time since statehood. The legislature has passed and Governor Jerry Brown has signed legislation (AB 109) to send roughly 30,000 prisoners to county jail rather than state prison. It makes counties responsible for supervising roughly 60,000 offenders released from state prisons after serving their sentences—offenders who would have been supervised by state parole officers in the past. It also makes it more difficult to return parolees to incarceration, and generally sends them to county jail rather than state prison if they are returned. These changes begin to take effect on October 1, 2011. Although nearly uniformly described as a realignment, these changes to California’s correctional system are more than that. To reduce crowding and costs throughout the jail and prison system, this year’s legislation, together with related bills enacted since 2009, reduce the time a prisoner will actually spend in prison (through increased sentence reductions for good behavior), reduce the likelihood of a return to prison for parole violations, increase the likelihood of forms of punishment short of incarceration, and increase the likelihood of early release for at least some prisoners. These changes reflect a long-dormant reality—that tough sentencing laws require money for adequate prisons and jails, more money than California has been willing to raise or spend. California has some experience with realigning corrections programs. An important example is the California Probation Subsidy Act, which was in effect from 1965 through 1978. Under this law, the state calculated the number of convicted felons who were likely to have been punished with jail time and county probation instead of being sent to state prison, based on each county’s historical record. It paid counties $4,000 for each additional convicted felon kept under county jurisdiction above this rate. This reduced state prison costs and overcrowding. The program was effective in that state prison admissions declined by 20 percent by 1970. However, state costs for this program increased rapidly with rising crime rates at the time. Counties complained that funding (which stayed at $4,000 per case) did not cover rapidly inflating program costs. Reformers complained that counties were not providing increased rehabilitative services. Sheriffs complained that keeping these offenders in the community increased local crime. This program is instructive. Perhaps most important is that long-term realignment success requires good-faith adaption to changing circumstances and program experiences—in addition to adequate funding in both the short and long term. This report offers background for this adult corrections realignment effort, briefly describes these complex changes, reviews how they may work out from the perspective of the state and the counties, and identifies important next steps, in terms of implementation and evaluation. Details: San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California, 2011. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 15, 2012 at http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_811DMR.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_811DMR.pdf Shelf Number: 124950 Keywords: Corrections (California)Corrections Reform (California) |
Author: California. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation Title: The Future of California Corrections: A blueprint to save billions of dollars, end federal court oversight and improve the prison system Summary: For years, California’s prison system has faced costly and seemingly endless challenges. Decades-old class-action lawsuits challenge the adequacy of critical parts of its operations, including its health care system, its parole-revocation process, and its ability to accommodate inmates with disabilities. In one case, a federal court seized control over the prison medical care system and appointed a Receiver to manage its operations. The Receiver remains in place today. The state’s difficulty in addressing the prison system’s multiple challenges was exacerbated by an inmate population that—until recently—had been growing at an unsustainable pace. Overcrowded prison conditions culminated in a ruling last year by the United States Supreme Court ordering the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to reduce its prison population by tens of thousands of inmates by June 2013. At the same time that prison problems were growing, California’s budget was becoming increasingly imbalanced. By 2011, California faced a $26.6 billion General Fund budget deficit, in part because the department’s budget had grown from $5 billion to over $9 billion in a decade. To achieve budgetary savings and comply with federal court requirements, the Governor proposed, and the Legislature passed, landmark prison realignment legislation to ease prison crowding and reduce the department’s budget by 18 percent. Realignment created and funded a community-based correctional program where lower-level offenders remain under the jurisdiction of county governments. In the six months that realignment has been in effect, the state prison population has dropped considerably—by approximately 22,000 inmates. This reduction in population is laying the groundwork for sustainable solutions. But realignment alone cannot fully satisfy the Supreme Court’s order or meet the department’s other multi-faceted challenges. This plan builds upon the changes brought by realignment, and delineates, for the first time, a clear and comprehensive plan for the department to save billions of dollars by achieving its targeted budget reductions, satisfying the Supreme Court’s ruling, and getting the department out from under the burden of expensive federal court oversight. Details: CA: California Department of Corrections & Rehabilition, 2012. 244p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 7, 2012 at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/2012plan/docs/plan/complete.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/2012plan/docs/plan/complete.pdf Shelf Number: 125339 Keywords: Correctional Administration (California)Correctional Health Care (California)Correctional Programs (California)Corrections (California)Corrections Reform (California)Parole (California) |
Author: Krisberg, Barry Title: Getting the Genie Back in the Bottle: California's Prison Gulag Summary: The California prison population pushed past 172,000 in 2006, even though it rarely exceeded 30,000 during most of the 20th century. In fact, as late as 1976, the inmate population was just above 20,000 (NCCD, 2008). While there are several reasons for this phenomenal growth in the prison population, there is little doubt that changes in sentencing laws enacted by the Legislature or passed through voter initiatives fed the ever larger correctional leviathan. Crime rates actually declined during these three decades, with the largest declines occurring between 1991 and 2000; crime rates have remained low since the mid-1990s. Details: Berkeley, CA: The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy, University of California, Berkeley School of Law, 2011. 6p. Source: Issue Brief: Internet Resource: Accessed August 22, 2012 at http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Krisberg_-_Getting_the_Genie_Back_in_the_Bottle_-_101711.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Krisberg_-_Getting_the_Genie_Back_in_the_Bottle_-_101711.pdf Shelf Number: 126095 Keywords: Corrections (California)Determinate Sentencing (California)Indeterminate Sentences (California)Prison Population (California)Sentencing (California) |
Author: Quan, Lisa T. Title: Reallocation of Responsibility: Changes to the Correctional System in California Post-Realignment Summary: On October 1, 2011, California's long troubled correctional system began operating under a new framework created by Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109). Formally known as the 2011 Public Safety Realignment Act, AB 109 was largely a result of the state's failure to control overcrowding and its consequences for inmates in California's 33 state prisons. In 2009, a three-judge federal panel ordered the state to reduce its prison population to 137.5% of design capacity-a reduction of about 30,000 people-within two years. In mid-2011, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that order in Brown v. Plata. By signing the Realignment bill, Governor Jerry Brown put the state on the path toward compliance with the court order. More broadly, his action launched a titanic policy shift in California criminal justice, perhaps the most sweeping such change since the adoption of determinate sentencing in the 1970's. Once known as a state that relied heavily on prison to punish parole violators and other lower-level offenders, California under Realignment began shifting responsibility for most non-serious, non-violent, non-sexual (N3) felons from the state to the counties. Through the initiative's first two years, counties have received more than $2 billion to manage the new load of offenders in jails, on probation, and through evidence-based programs in the community. While several other states have also begun favoring the use of local sanctions over prison for less serious offenders, the scale of California's effort makes it an experiment of unparalleled national significance. Although it is too early to draw solid conclusions about Realignment's effects on long-term crime and recidivism, at least one outcome is clear: As the Legislature intended, AB 109 has shifted a large share of correctional control from the state to the local level. Two years after the law's implementation, the majority of California adults in the correctional system has been "realigned" and now undergoes local supervision as jail inmates and probationers. As a result, California now ranks below the national average in the proportion of adults it imprisons and places on parole. The state's probation population, meanwhile, has ballooned, with the number of probationers per 100,000 jumping 30% from 2010 to 2012. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, Stanford Criminal Justice Center, 2014. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 25, 2014 at: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/458403/doc/slspublic/CC%20Bulletin%20Jan%2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/458403/doc/slspublic/CC%20Bulletin%20Jan%2014.pdf Shelf Number: 132777 Keywords: Corrections (California)Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformPrison OvercrowdingProbationersPublic Safety Realignment Sentencing |