Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 11:02 pm
Time: 11:02 pm
Results for public safety realignment
20 results foundAuthor: Lofstrom, Magnus Title: Is Public Safety Realignment Reducing Recidivism in California? Summary: California has had one of the highest recidivism rates in the nation for more than a decade. This contributed to overcrowding in the state's expensive prison system and helped to motivate wide-ranging corrections reform legislation in 2011, commonly referred to as public safety realignment. Realignment essentially halted the practice of sending parole violators back to state prison and instead made counties responsible for supervising and sanctioning most released offenders. It also cut in half the maximum sentence for a supervision violation-from one year to six months. How are these changes affecting the state's recidivism rates? We find that the post-realignment period has not seen dramatic changes in arrests or convictions of released offenders. In the context of realignment's broad reforms to the corrections system, our findings suggest that offender behavior has not changed substantially. Overall arrest rates of released offenders are down slightly, with the proportion of those arrested within a year of release declining by 2 percentage points. At the same time, the proportion of those arrested multiple times has increased noticeably, by about 7 percentage points. These higher multiple arrest rates may reflect the substantial increase in the time that released offenders spend on the streets-a result of counties' limited jail capacity (Lofstrom and Raphael 2013). Convictions among released offenders have increased, but this increase does not appear to reflect changes in offender behavior so much as changes in arrest procedures and prosecutorial approaches. The likelihood that an arrest will lead to a conviction has increased by roughly 3 percentage points. Furthermore, the proportion of released offenders who are actually convicted has increased about 1.2 percentage points-a small but statistically significant rise-and nearly all of these new convictions are for felonies. Together, these findings suggest that new offenses are increasingly being processed through the courts as formal felony charges and convictions, rather than as technical violations through the Board of Parole Hearings. Finally, our analysis shows that realignment has, as intended, led to a considerable 33 percentage point drop in the proportion of released inmates who are returned to state prison. This demonstrates that realignment has made substantial progress in one of its main goals: reducing the use of prison as a sanction for parole violations and minor criminal offenses. Taken together, our findings suggest that county efforts are at least partly offsetting the effects of increased street time among released offenders. Changes in arrest and conviction rates have been modest-but these rates remain high in the post-realignment period. State and local authorities need to develop more effective, targeted policies aimed at both deterring crime and connecting released offenders to rehabilitative services. California needs such strategies to bring recidivism rates down to levels that will relieve pressure on state prison and county jails, and help the state reach the federally mandated prison population threshold. Details: Sacramento: Public Policy Institute of California, 2014. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 17, 2014 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_614MLR.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_614MLR.pdf Shelf Number: 132704 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformParole SupervisionParoleesPrison OvercrowdingPublic Safety RealignmentRecidivism |
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 |
Author: Austin, James Title: Contra Costa County: A Model for Managing Local Corrections Summary: Before and since Public Safety Realignment, an increasing number of California counties have faced litigation regarding overcrowding, including court-ordered population caps. In light of these pressures, it is important to note successful models for reducing jail populations, costs and recidivism rates. Contra Costa, California's ninth most populous county, offers such a model, especially since the County has crime and arrest rates similar to the rest of the state. Specifically: 1. In Contra Costa County, individuals are incarcerated and placed on probation and parole at a rate that is one-half the rest of the state of California. 2. Before Public Safety Realignment, the County sent only 13% of people convicted of a felony to prison, versus the statewide average of 20%. 3. Over a three-year period, people on felony probation in the County had a recidivism rate of 20% - far lower than the 60% or higher rates statewide found in other studies. 4. Contra Costa County has the state's highest rate of split sentences (when a judge divides a sentence between a jail term and supervised probation). The County splits nine out of 10 sentences (far higher than the 28% state average), which has effectively neutralized the impact of AB 109 on its jail population. 5. Unlike other jurisdictions, Contra Costa County issues shorter probation terms. For example, neighboring Alameda County typically gives a five-year probation term for individuals convicted of a felony crime. In Contra Costa, most probation terms are within the 24-36 month range, matching a growing body of evidence that longer terms can not only be unnecessary (for public safety gains) but actually can have negative effects. Details: Denver, CO: JFA Institute, 2014. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 14, 2014 at: http://www.jfa-associates.com/new%20from/JFA%20doc06.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.jfa-associates.com/new%20from/JFA%20doc06.pdf Shelf Number: 134089 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCriminal Justice PolicyJailsPrisons (California)Public Safety Realignment |
Author: Davis, Ashly Nikkole Title: The Effect of Realignment on Mentally Ill Offenders Summary: With the recent Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Plata, "realignment" seems to be California's new criminal justice buzzword. Underlying the Court's decision in Brown, however, lay two important class action suits - Coleman v. Brown and Plata v. Brown - that served as the driving forces behind the Court's decision. These cases alleged Eighth Amendment violations in California's prison system based on deficiencies in mental health care and medical care, respectively. With the Court crediting the Constitutional violations and lack of adequate care alleged in Coleman and Plata to an oversized prison population, overcrowding emerged as the issue of the day. State legislators responded to the Court's directive to rapidly decrease California's prison population with AB 109, public safety realignment legislation geared toward ameliorating prison overcrowding. Ironically, though they were the impetus behind this legislation, the mentally ill have largely been left out of the realignment conversation. Little mention - if any - has been made of how AB 109 improves or even addresses the treatment of the mentally ill. This paper will analyze AB 109 to determine how closely it rings true to the spirit behind the Brown v. Plata litigation - namely, providing mentally ill offenders with adequate medical and psychiatric care - and what impact the bill will have on the mentally ill. More specifically, this paper will assess whether AB 109 marks yet another in a long series of failed attempts by the state to appropriately address the treatment of mentally ill individuals in state custody. One of the basic themes behind this paper is a recognition of the importance of mentally ill offenders in California, not only in terms of the litigation that sparked realignment, but also from a general corrections standpoint. Research shows that mentally ill offenders recidivate at a much higher rate than non-mentally ill offenders. Therefore, it is crucial from a public safety perspective to determine where realignment is going to place these individuals. Further, AB 109 is not the first alignment of state and local fiscal and administrative responsibility in California that implicates the treatment of the mentally ill. It is necessary to attempt to determine what effects realignment will have on California's mental health resources, which have been scarce for much of the state's history. While not the focus of this paper, underlying much of the discussion will be the disturbing, yet generally accepted fact that prisons and jails in the United States largely operate as de facto mental hospitals. In California in particular, well-intentioned efforts to deinstitutionalize the mentally ill from state hospitals have had disastrous consequences, with the result being that many mentally ill individuals have ended up in the one place that accepts almost everyone: the criminal justice system. If there is one thing that most people seem to agree on, it is that many of the state's previous attempts to address this population have been ineffective. Mentally ill offenders are likely to struggle in the correctional system, whether at the state or local level. This paper explores, but does not intend to answer important questions such as: How do you hold mentally ill offenders accountable? Is this a population that we should even be seeking to imprison? Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, Criminal Justice Center, 2012. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 25, 2014 at: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/child-page/183091/doc/slspublic/Davis_AB109_And_Mentally_Ill_Offenders.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/child-page/183091/doc/slspublic/Davis_AB109_And_Mentally_Ill_Offenders.pdf Shelf Number: 134245 Keywords: Correctional ReformMental Health TreatmentMentally Ill Offenders (California)Prison Health CarePrison OvercrowdingPrisonersPublic Safety Realignment |
Author: Lofstrom, Magnus Title: Realignment, Incarceration, and Crime Trends in California Summary: When California's historic public safety realignment was implemented in October 2011, many were concerned about the impact it would have on crime rates. In a 2013 report, we found that realignment did not increase violent crime in its first year, but that it did lead to an increase in auto thefts. In this report, we assess whether these trends continued beyond realignment's first year. We find that both the prison and jail populations increased slightly since 2012, which means that the number of offenders on the street did not rise from the 18,000 during realignment's first year. This is likely to change with the implementation of Proposition 47, which further reduces California's reliance on incarceration. Our analysis of updated state-level crime data from the FBI confirms our previous findings. Violent crime rates remain unaffected by realignment, and although California's property crime rate decreased in 2013, it did not drop more than in comparable states-so the auto theft gap that opened up in 2012 has not closed. Research indicates that further reductions in incarceration may have a greater effect on crime trends; the state needs to implement effective crime prevention strategies-and it can learn about alternatives to incarceration successfully implemented by the counties as well as other states. Details: Sacramento: Public Policy Institute of California, 2015. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 27, 2015 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_515MLR.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_515MLR.pdf Shelf Number: 135791 Keywords: Crime RatesCriminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice Reform Parole SupervisionParolees Prison Overcrowding Public Safety Realignment Recidivism |
Author: Turner, Susan Title: Public Safety Realignment in Twelve California Counties Summary: Following long bouts of litigation among inmates, prison guards, and state officials, in May 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of a three-judge panel that imposed a cap on California's prison population and ordered the state to reduce its prison population to 137.5 percent of "design capacity" within two years. The primary basis for the court ruling was that the overcrowded prison system violated inmates' constitutional right to adequate health care. In response to the 2011 Supreme Court decision, California adopted two measures, Assembly Bill (AB) 109 and AB 117, collectively known as realignment. These measures shift responsibility for certain low-level offenders, parole violators, and parolees, previously the state's responsibility, to California counties. Realignment gives counties a great deal of flexibility in how they treat these offenders and allows them to choose alternatives to custody for realignment offenders. As time has passed since realignment began in October 2011, several studies have evaluated various aspects of the planning and implementation of realignment. The study reported here focused on the flexibility that the state granted counties in implementing realignment. In particular, the authors wanted to determine whether counties essentially continued and expanded what they were already doing in county corrections or whether they used realignment as an opportunity to change from "business as usual." Key Findings Counties Encounter Unanticipated Challenges and Find That There Are Many Unknowns About Strategies' Effects - Realignment appears to have shifted the responsibility for, but not the total numbers of, offenders in the system (at least those under the primary forms of supervision and incarceration). Many Things That Are Being Implemented Are Enhancements of Existing Programs or Policies - Both probation and sheriff's department representatives mentioned a focus on providing services and expanding evidence-based practices, although clearly sheriff's departments often focused on adding jail capacity. Every county voiced concern about realigned offenders' increased risk levels and need profiles: They required more mental and other health services, and high proportions were rated as high risk on assessment instruments. There Is Evidence of Movement Toward Co-locating Service Provision - A movement toward the delivery of services in a one-stop location was evident in both probation and sheriff's departments. Reentry units - specialized areas in the jails - are gaining momentum for inmates near the ends of their sentences in an effort to provide them with the skills, services, and connections to outside agencies. Recommendations - Longer-term follow-up will be able to provide a more comprehensive analysis of system changes. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2015. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 21, 2015 at: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR800/RR872/RAND_RR872.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR800/RR872/RAND_RR872.pdf Shelf Number: 136837 Keywords: Criminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice ReformOffender SupervisionParole Supervision Parolees Prison Overcrowding Public Safety Realignment |
Author: Lofstrom, Magnus Title: Public Safety Realignment and Crime Rates in California Summary: Public safety realignment substantially reduced the state's prison population. Between 2011 and 2012, property crime increased in California as a result of this policy change. Auto theft increased most dramatically, by 14.8 percent-or about 24,000 per year. By contrast, violent crime rates did not appear to be affected Details: San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2013. 24p., app. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2015 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1213MLR.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1213MLR.pdf Shelf Number: 136924 Keywords: Crime RatesCriminal Justice PolicyPrison OvercrowdingPrisonersPrisonsPublic Safety Realignment |
Author: Lofstrom, Magnus Title: Public Safety Realignment: Impacts So Far Summary: Prompted by a federal court order to reduce prison overcrowding, California's 2011 historic public safety realignment shifted many correctional responsibilities for lower-level felons from the state to counties. The reform was premised on the idea that locals can do a better job, and it was hoped that incarceration rates and corrections costs would fall. At the same time, critics predicted crime would rise. Four years since its implementation, realignment has made several important impacts: Realignment significantly reduced the prison population, but the state did not reach the court-mandated population target until after the passage of Proposition 47 in November 2014, which reduced penalties for many property and drug offenses. The reform challenged county jails and probation departments by making them responsible for a greater number of offenders with a broader range of backgrounds and needs. The county jail population did not rise nearly as much as the prison population fell, reducing the total number of people incarcerated in California. Realignment did not increase violent crime, but auto thefts rose. Research so far shows no dramatic change in recidivism rates. State corrections spending remains high, but there is reason to believe expenditures could drop in the future. Realignment has largely been successful, but the state and county correctional systems face significant challenges. The state needs to regain control of prison medical care, which is now in the hands of a federal receiver. And the state and counties together must make progress in reducing stubbornly high recidivism rates. Details: San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2015. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2015 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_915MLR.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_915MLR.pdf Shelf Number: 136925 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCrime RatesCriminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice Reform Jails Prison Overcrowding Public Safety Realignment Recidivism |
Author: Lawrence, Sarah Title: What's Next? Priority Issues for the Next Phase of Public Safety Realignment: A Report by the Stanford Executive Session on Public Safety Realignment Summary: Since Public Safety Realignment implementation began in October 0211, California's criminal justice system has experienced remarkable change along a variety of dimensions. And it will be some time before we understand the entirety of the consequences of Realignment, both intended and unintended. We are lonely two and a half years into reforms of a criminal justice system that was decades in the making. We are only just beginning to understand the ripple effects Realignment is having on the day-to-day functioning of California's criminal justice system. We should view these early stages of major criminal justice reform as key opportunities to make continued improvements. We need to continue to learn from our mistakes and strive for a criminal justice system that is balanced, equitable, cost-effective, and just. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Criminal Justice Center, Stanford Law School, 2014. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 26, 2015 at: https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ES-Consensus-Report-final-report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ES-Consensus-Report-final-report.pdf Shelf Number: 137059 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsPublic Safety Realignment |
Author: Lawrence, Sarah Title: Court-Ordered Population Caps in California County Jails Summary: California is in the midst of a reform era that is unprecedented both in depth and in scope. Public Safety Realignment, passed and implemented in 2011, has shifted thousands of non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders from state-level jurisdiction to county-level jurisdiction. Arguably, California's county jail systems have been one of the most significantly altered components of the criminal justice system and Realignment is exacerbating some of the biggest challenges facing jails prior to October 2011 when Realignment began. Since the start of Realignment county jails have experienced increased pressure to house larger populations. In the quarter preceding the start of Realignment the average daily population (ADP) for California's jails was 71,293 (see Figure 1). By the first quarter of 2014, ADP had increased to 82,527, an additional 11,234 individuals compared to pre-Realignment. The diversity of California's counties means that the way in which these increased pressures manifest in each county varies greatly and is based on a multitude of factors such as the extent to which the county previously sent people to state prison, the local jail incarceration rate, the operating capacity of the jail, and whether the county jail system is operating under a court-ordered population cap. This report focuses on court-ordered population caps. Understanding some of the history and current context of existing court-ordered population caps can be helpful as the effects of Realignment continue to unfold. First, as will be discussed below, county court-ordered population caps have generally been in place for decades, long before Plata v. Brown and the Public Safety Realignment Act. Are the population caps forcing, or perhaps even allowing, counties to with caps to respond in notably different ways than counties without caps? Second, there is concern that Plata v. Brown has the potential to lead to "county-level Platas" as a result of increased attention to jail conditions in the context of these growing populations. Some believe that Realignment has created an environment where 58 counties are at risk of developing jail conditions that are unconstitutional and lawsuits related to jail conditions and overcrowding may be on the horizon. In fact, lawsuits related to jail conditions and overcrowding have been filed in several counties since the start of Realignment: Alameda, Fresno, Monterey and Riverside. Can counties at risk of new litigation - or even at risk of a revival of "orphaned jail cases" learn from past experiences? Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Criminal Justice Center, Stanford Law School, 2014. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 26, 2015 at: https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Jail-popn-caps-1.15.15.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Jail-popn-caps-1.15.15.pdf Shelf Number: 137060 Keywords: County JailsCriminal Justice ReformJail OvercrowdingJailsPublic Safety Realignment |
Author: Ball, W. David Title: The New Normal? Prosecutorial Charging in California After Public Safety Realignment Summary: On April 4, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 109, the 2011 Public Safety Realignment Act ("Realignment" or "AB 109"), into law. AB 109 was one response to the 2009 Three-Judge Court Order for California to significantly reduce its prison population to 110,000 people, or 137.5% of design capacity, by year-end 2013. Affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 in Brown v. Plata, the Three-Judge Court Order determined prison overcrowding to be "the primary cause of the state's unconstitutional failure to provide adequate medical and mental health care to California prisoners," concluding that population reduction was the most narrowly drawn, least intrusive remedy. Realignment shifts the responsibility of supervising, tracking and imprisoning specified non-serious, non-violent, non-sexual ("triple-nons" or "N3 felonies" or "non-non-nons") offenders previously bound for state prison to county jails and probation (see Overview of Public Safety Realignment. The law states that "the purpose of justice reinvestment is to manage and allocate criminal justice populations more cost-effectively, generating savings that can be reinvested in evidence-based strategies that increase public safety while holding offenders accountable." The implementation of Realignment in California is the largest correctional experiment of its kind. Through AB 109, the Legislature has allocated over $2 billion in the first two years of implementation to assist California's 58 counties in carrying out the legislation's provisions. In addition, more than 100,000 offenders have had their sentences altered through mid-2013. The advent of Realignment, of course, affected the decision-making of all the official actors in the criminal justice system. But the prosecutor's role is unique in one clear sense: Prosecutors have, in formal legal terms, virtually un-reviewable autonomy in the choice to charge or not charge an offender (so long as any charge matches provable facts with statutory elements). Traditionally, in deciding whether to charge as high as the provable facts allow, they consider contextual aspects of the commission of the offense itself but also any relevant background aspects and criminal record of the offender. How does this power operate in the wake of AB 109? On the one hand, AB 109 simply classified a large number of pre-existing felonies under California Penal Code S1170(h) because they were deemed "triple-nons." In that sense, prosecutors in theory might be indifferent to the change; they would continue to charge these felonies according to the same factors as they always had, and the changes in site of incarceration and possible change in de facto length of sentences would happen of their own accord. In a sense, the only mandated change in prosecutorial choice here had to do with sentence recommendation: Because judges now have the power to impose a split sentence for an AB 109 conviction - fractioning the sentence between jail time and community supervision - when prosecutors exercise their usual function of recommending sentences, they now have to build the matter of split versus straight sentences into that responsibility. Prosecutors have also always been free to consider such resource factors as their own and other agencies' budgets and crowding in jails and prisons. But many aspects of AB 109 were likely from the start to weigh significantly on the decisions made by prosecutors as they exercise their traditional charging and recommendation choices after October 2011. The most salient aspects were the change in site and de facto length of incarceration, as well as the secondary effects of new county responsibilities for post-release supervision of many prisoners returning home. In particular, in exercising discretion, prosecutors might be influenced by their views on the differences in the severity of experience of incarceration in jail as opposed to prison, or by their concerns about jail crowding or the extra costs that county jails and other county agencies might have to absorb under AB 109. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Criminal Justice Center, Stanford Law School, 2014. 187p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 28, 2015 at: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/publication/513777/doc/slspublic/DA%20report%20Feb%202014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/publication/513777/doc/slspublic/DA%20report%20Feb%202014.pdf Shelf Number: 137169 Keywords: CorrectionsCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentPrison OvercrowdingPrison ReformPrisonsProsecutionProsecutorial DiscretionProsecutorsPublic Safety Realignment |
Author: Lawrence, Sarah Title: Managing Jail Populations to Enhance Public Safety: Assessing and Managing Risk in the Post-Realignment Era Summary: Just 20 months after Public Safety Realignment began, the effects of the legislation on California's criminal justice system are unprecedented both in depth and in scope. And they are still taking shape. Arguably, county jail systems have been one of the most significantly altered components of the criminal justice system. The management of county jail systems in California is a challenging, dynamic, and complex undertaking. Realignment is exacerbating some of the challenges and accelerating some of the changes that county jails were facing before October 2011 when Realignment began. The number of individuals in jail has been growing; the status of individuals held in jail custody has been changing; and the length of time individuals stay in jail is getting longer. In short, almost every aspect of California's jail population has been in a state of flux since Realignment was implemented. An examination of all of the contributing factors and criminal justice tools related to jail management is beyond the scope of this effort. The focus here is on a handful of selected topics that 1) are considered to play an important role in the management of jails, 2) have been directly affected by AB 109 or have newly emerged as a result of the new regime, and 3) are thought to be ripe subjects for law and policy debate and reform. We approach these topics by breaking down jail populations into two groups (non-sentenced versus sentenced) and the issue into two stages (assessment of risk and management of risk). The first section presents an overview of who is in jail in California based on the most recently available data. The second section examines how the risk profiles of defendants are assessed during the pretrial phase, and what we know from research to be the most effective approaches to addressing risk. Next, risk management options in the form of detention, bail release, own recognizance release, and pretrial services supervision are discussed. The attention then shifts to the sentenced population in California jails and some of the tools available to criminal justice practitioners to manage jail populations, including, split sentences, electronic monitoring, and early release. This paper is intended to help lay the foundation for the first meeting of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center's Executive Session on the Front-End Issues of Public Safety Realignment (see sidebar). The first of these four, day-long meetings will focus on issues related to jail management. A group of experts from across California representing a variety of perspectives will be convened to discuss some of the pressing issues related to Realignment's effect on jails. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, Stanford Criminal Justice Center, 2013. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 12, 2016 at: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/440504/doc/slspublic/Paper%20on%20jail%20mgmt%20July%202013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/440504/doc/slspublic/Paper%20on%20jail%20mgmt%20July%202013.pdf Shelf Number: 138635 Keywords: County JailsCriminal Justice ReformJail PopulationPretrial ServicesPublic Safety RealignmentRisk Assessment |
Author: Caudill, Jonathan W. Title: Breaking Ground: Preliminary Report of Butte County Sheriff's Alternative Custody Supervision Program Summary: In January 2012, Sally Parker organized, at the request of Jon Caudill, a meeting between them, Undersheriff Kory Honea, Captain Andy Duch, Lt. Brian Flicker, and Ryan Patten. Recent AB 109 developments, including creation of the Butte County Sheriff's Office Alternative Custody Supervision (ACS) Program, led the legislated shift of prisoners from the state prison system to the county jail systems to the center stage across the state. From the meeting originated a research agreement between the Principle Investigator, Jonathan Caudill, and the Butte County Sheriff's Office (BCSO) including three specific projects: a) identify county prisoner inmate needs, b) establish a recidivism measure, and c) evaluate implementation of the ACS Program. These specific projects, however, also relate to a general philosophy of managing the jail population and improving public safety, while providing offenders with appropriate tools for success. The balance between public safety, managing jail resources, and offender treatment has been the focus of many discussions and the focal point of the BCSO Executive Command. The key to balancing these foci is understanding their interconnectedness. The overarching goals of these projects have been to understand this interconnectedness and identify specific adjustments. As explained in the findings section, we found some anticipated and some unexpected results. First and as expected, we found that many of the surveyed inmates expressed a desire for services while incarcerated and continued assistance during reentry. Several theoretical frameworks may explain these findings; however, the underlying desire for a continuum of services remains. While these are preliminary findings and should be interpreted as such, these findings are commonsensical as we know that approximately two-thirds of inmates were unemployed when arrested. If an individual is unemployed prior to a new felony conviction and incarceration, they are even less employable afterwards. Given these findings, we recommend the BCSO staff conduct a supervision and treatment plan for all potential ACS eligible inmates. Implemented correctly, this strategy will increase treatment accuracy and gauge supervision needs. Our second expected finding was the limitations of the current data collection strategy and offender management system. We knew at the onset that intensive community supervision was a new concept for the BCSO and, therefore, they lacked appropriate software. The BCSO, at the time of this report, has an active jail information management system request for proposal and requested that this study's PI consult in the proposal scoring process. We recommend that the BCSO continue their search for an appropriate offender management system that has the capacity to store historical data and network with other county systems. Third, we discovered that the BCSO implemented the ACS Program in an efficient manner and is now prepared to proceed to the formalization phase. In fact, the projected one-year recidivism estimation suggested the ACS program has a lower recidivism rate than the most recent California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) one-year recidivism rate. Our analyses revealed the current ACS six-month recidivism rate just below 20 percent (0.19). Based on this number and previous time-to-recidivism research, we estimated the ACS program one-year recidivism rate at 0.327, while the most recent CDCR recidivism estimate for property and drug offenders was 0.492. Additionally, the data suggest that officers are maintaining a service orientation (67 percent of all officer-participant encounters were service, as opposed to enforcement). This trend, however, has the potential to wane once the program newness expires. New programs produce excitement and enthusiasm, but the natural conflict accompanying offender management can generate "burnout" and depersonalization. Depersonalization can hinder service provision and supervision strategies. To protect ACS officers from unnecessary occupational stress, we recommend that the BCSO further formalize the ACS program, to include additional officer training and a comprehensive, evidence-based supervision strategy. Beyond the anticipated preliminary findings, we also discovered two unanticipated findings. First, both the logistic regression model and survival analysis revealed an opportunity to make the ACS risk assessment tool more efficient. Although the estimated coefficients were in the appropriate direction (positive correlation between risk scores and recidivism), the unadjusted risk scores lacked consistency across time (see Graph 1 for a visual representation of risk scores regressed on time to failure). These findings suggest that the BCSO can use proper data, a comprehensive understanding of crime and its correlates, and advanced statistics to improve public safety through recidivism reduction and resource management. To improve the risk assessment tool, we recommend that the BCSO explore a population-validated risk assessment tool. Our last two findings are of methodological concerns. We discovered during the preliminary analysis that the inmate needs survey design and delivery required adjustment. Specifically, the results suggest two previous treatment questions produced poor response rates and at least one current needs question confused interview sessions. The research team is considering both of these issues and they anticipate a new version of the inmate needs survey. Related to survey delivery, there remains confusion among jail staff and inmates as to the project goals, thereby making this process somewhat inefficient. The research team implemented an alternative survey strategy and, after evaluation of the response rates, they may recommend further data collection adjustments. The second methodological concern focuses mainly on evaluation resources. The preliminary results provide several interesting outcomes and important corollary projects. The additional pressures of county prison on the BCSO jail have generated further interest in resource management strategies and efficient alternative custody programs. For example, the BCSO administrative staff approved an experimental research design assessing the efficiencies of flash incarceration as an intermediate sanction. Unfortunately, the research team lacks resources beyond the current evaluation plan to conduct this study given their other professional demands. Based on the gravity and complexity of AB 109 legislation and the innovative strategy spearheaded by the BCSO in response to resource re-alignment, we recommend the BCSO work proactively to prioritize research projects promoting public safety and resource management. Related, the BCSO has the potential to move from a state best-practices model6 to a national model of best practices, but this may require additional evaluation resources. Based on this logic, the BCSO should continue external funding activities that include evaluation resources. Collectively, the preliminary findings are positive for BCSO's goal of balancing public safety, jail resources, and offender treatment. The American Civil Liberties Union of California recently released a county-level analysis of best practices, Public Safety Realignment: California at a Crossroads. The terminology "at a crossroads" suggests what occurs now will have a profound influence on the future of offender management. We find value in this idea, but also assert that offender management is dynamic and requires recursive evidence-based program models. The BCSO is breaking ground with an unparalleled, innovative approach to public safety, jail resource management, and offender treatment. For the BCSO, the next logical step is to utilize these preliminary findings as a guidepost for program development. Details: Chico, CA: California State University, Chico, 2012. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 3, 2016 at: https://www.csuchico.edu/pols/documents/breaking-ground-final-report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.csuchico.edu/pols/documents/breaking-ground-final-report.pdf Shelf Number: 139275 Keywords: Corrections OfficersCriminal Justice ReformJail InmatesJailsOffender SupervisionPublic Safety RealignmentRecidivismUnemployment and Crime |
Author: Caudill, Jonathan W. Title: Navigating the Storm: An Empirical Assessment of the Local Effects of California's Criminal Justice Realignment Summary: October 1st of 2014 marked the third-year implementation anniversary of California's Criminal Justice Realignment (AB 109) legislation. California's AB 109 realigned sentencing options for certain non-violent, non-sexual, and non-serious felony offenses, precluding incarceration in state prison. This less punishment, more rehabilitation sentencing structure shifted correctional supervision to county criminal justice systems (namely, county jails and probation departments) across the State. Along with this widespread jurisdictional decentralization, came many concerns regarding the impact of such a dramatic shift in correctional supervision. Reported here are the results of a three-year evaluation that uniquely included both quantitative and qualitative research methods to assess the impact of AB 109 on Butte County criminal justice organizations. First examined is the change in workload for the District Attorney's Office, focusing on outcomes such as the number of case filings by specific offense categories, failure to appear charge accumulation, and total number of charges over time. Second, this report demonstrates through comparison of recidivism outcomes of pre-AB 109 offenders to recidivism outcomes of post-AB 109 offenders a continuity of supervision during the implementation of Realignment. Results here also highlight factors that increased the likelihood of new arrests and/or probation violations for probation offenders. The empirical work then turns to a small cohort of Post-Release Community Supervision (PCS) offenders. These PCS offenders were tracked for three years to better understand their recidivism outcomes and impact on the local criminal justice system. Their cumulative impact on the jail and overall recidivism was assessed through exploring their total number of times entering the county jail, the proportion of those bookings that turned into formalized charges, and the proportion of those charges that ultimately became convictions. Finally, the report presents findings from two qualitative studies: the level of service orientation across supervision organizations and offenders' perceptions of the utility of home visits' Details: Chico, CA: California State University, Chico, 2015. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 8, 2016 at: https://www.csuchico.edu/pols/documents/Navigating%20the%20storm%20three%20years%20after%20109.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.csuchico.edu/pols/documents/Navigating%20the%20storm%20three%20years%20after%20109.pdf Shelf Number: 139318 Keywords: Community SupervisionCommunity-Based CorrectionsCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformProbationersPublic Safety RealignmentRecidivism |
Author: Bird, Mia Title: Funding Public Safety Realignment Summary: California's recent public safety realignment transferred substantial authority and funds from the state to the counties to manage lower-level felon populations. The success or failure of this experiment will have profound implications throughout the state, beyond just the realm of public safety. If counties are able to handle these new populations and improve upon the state's record of reducing recidivism, the results could include declining crime rates, lower-cost supervision of offenders, and the liberation of state resources to devote to other concerns. If the counties' efforts are insufficient or misdirected, crime rates could stagnate or grow worse, prompting more costly measures such as jail capacity expansion or more intensive supervision, while also shifting the prison overcrowding problem from the state to the county level with all of the attendant implications for county budget priorities. Each count'’s experience with realignment will depend, in part, on whether it has sufficient resources to carry out its plan. That is the subject of this report: the state's provision of realignment funds to the counties, the changing allocations of those funds among the counties, and our own proposal for a funding allocation model to use in the future. Our aim is to illuminate the development of the initial and current funding models, to carefully consider their key elements and their shortcomings, and to propose a new model that addresses these shortcomings. We begin with an examination of the state's mechanism for funding public safety realignment, including the overall funding level, state revenue sources, and the categories of state funding streams. We then turn to our main topic—the allocation of realignment funds across counties. We explain the initial model developed by the Realignment Allocation Committee to determine the share of total funding for realignment that each county would receive. The Year 1 model allocated funding based primarily on the projected increase in counties' offender populations that realignment would induce. The committee balanced the model somewhat by also considering each county’s estimated overall adult population and the county’s success in reducing returns to prison for probation revocations under SB 678. However, concerns emerged among some county officials that this model rewarded counties with high pre-realignment prison use. In the Year 2–3 model, the committee attempted to address that concern by introducing greater flexibility into the formula—as a result, counties with low levels of state prison use prior to realignment received relatively large increases in their allocations. Nonetheless, questions about the fairness and efficacy of the allocation persist as the committee continues to work on the development of a permanent allocation model. We argue that the ideal components of such a model must include differences across counties in the burden of realignment, differences in the capacities of counties to manage their realignment populations, and the inclusion of recidivism reduction bonuses to incentivize state goals. Finally, as a practical consideration, we recognize that developing and using such a funding model requires access to appropriate, high-quality data. To this end, we identify publicly available data to measure these components and use them to calculate recommended allocation shares, which we compare with the allocations from previous years' models. Our proposed Year 4 model consists of a base allocation, adjustments for county characteristics, and incentive bonuses for reductions in recidivism. We believe that our model will prove useful to policymakers—not only as they develop their Year 4 strategies for distributing realignment allocations to the counties, but also as a sound foundation for building a permanent allocation model. Details: Sacramento: Public Policy Institute of California, 2013. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 17, 2016 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1113MBR.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1113MBR.pdf Shelf Number: 144944 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformPublic Safety realignment |
Author: Rogers, Ashley Title: The First Fifty: A Study of Summary: Assembly Bill 109 ("AB 109") and the subsequent amending legislation (collectively, "The 2011 Realignment Legislation Addressing Public Safety" or "Realignment") seismically shifted the way California structures and manages its criminal justice system. Effective October 1, 2011, AB 109 redefined more than 500 felonies and "realigned" responsibility for the incarceration and supervision of a significant population of specified adult felony offenders from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") to county-based corrections programs. In brief, AB 109 altered both sentencing and post-prison supervision for the newly statutorily classified "non-serious, non-violent, non-sex" offenses and offenders. While the legislation is comprehensive and complex, two major groups are affected by these changes. First, offenders convicted of qualifying felonies are now incarcerated in county jails instead of in state prisons. Second - and perhaps most critically-released prisoners who would have previously been placed on state parole but now qualify as so-called "non-non-non" offenders are diverted to the supervision of county probation departments under "Post Release Community Supervision” ("PRCS"). Because of its import and controversial surrounding it, the latter population-prisoners released under PRCS-is the focus of this paper. On October 1, 2011, California counties assumed responsibility for supervising approximately 60,000 offenders from 33 California prisons who qualified for PRCS. While some have remained neutral, responses to the PRCS component of AB 109 have been largely as passionate as they have been mixed. Supporters note that, because the offenders were to be released into counties anyway, PRCS simply shifts who will do the supervising. They assert that the shift is more technical than substantive: because the offenders to be supervised by PRCS were incarcerated for a relatively low-level "non-non-non" felony, probation offers should be equipped to handle the risks and needs of a population nearly identical to those they already supervise. Prior to AB 109's implementation, Governor Brown expressed confidence that counties were prepared to assume the targeted populations, adding, "It's bold, it's difficult and it will continuously change as we learn from experience. But we can't sit still and let the courts release 30,000 serious prisoners. We have to do something, and this is the most-viable plan that I've been able to put together." Critics of AB 109, however, assert with equal confidence that the plan as it relates to PRCS is far from "viable." They emphasize that under AB 109, offenders are classified only by the present committed offense, meaning that it is possible that a person with a history of violent, serious, or sex offenses-or even a lengthy criminal history-may technically qualify as a "non-non-non" offender under AB 109. The shift in supervisory responsibility from parole to probation departments becomes important. Probation officers, critics argue, may be ill-equipped to address the great risks and significant needs of a potentially a dramatically different population than that contemplated by the legislature. Indeed, several counties have asserted that they are unprepared and under-financed, and some are even bracing for a spike in crime. (See "Part II: The Counties' Responses to AB 109" for further discussion.) b. Scope of the Paper What is missing from these charged debates, however, is data. Speculation about the population is insufficient to spur any informed changes, and a lack of data could lead to rash, harmful decisions based on isolated incidents or conjecture alone. Answers to critical questions - Who are these offenders to be supervised by PRCS? What are their risks? What are their needs? - must be answered. This paper examines these questions in the context of one county - Santa Clara County. In this paper, we first provide an overview of the history and legislative rationale of AB 109, the provisions governing the scope of PRCS, and the CDCR's procedures regarding the determination screening process and data provided to the counties ("Part I: The Legislative Intent of AB 109 and Post-Release Community Supervision"). Second, we provide further context on the various responses to AB 109 as depicted in the media ("Part II: The Counties' Responses to AB 109"). Third, we answer the aforementioned questions (Who are these offenders? What are their risks? What are their needs?) by analyzing the demographics, risks, and needs of the first fifty offenders released to Santa Clara County under PRCS ("Part III: Describing the PRCS Population: The First Fifty Released in Santa Clara"). We then compare the results of the study with the legislative intent and the counties' various responses and predictions ("Part IV: Comparing the First Fifty to the Legislative Intent and Counties' Responses"). Finally, we offer an analysis of the limitations of the study ("Part V: Limitations of the Study") and offer conclusions on the implications of the findings ("Conclusion: Implications of the Study"). Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, 2012. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Draft report: Accessed May 13, 2017 at: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/183091/doc/slspublic/The_First_Fifty_Rogers.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/183091/doc/slspublic/The_First_Fifty_Rogers.pdf Shelf Number: 131360 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCommunity SupervisionCriminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice Reform Prison Overcrowding Probation Public Safety Realignment Recidivism |
Author: Males, Mike Title: Most California Jurisdictions Show Declines in Property Crime During Justice Reform Era, 2010-2016 Summary: This report from the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice examines local trends in California's property crime from 2010 through 2016, a period marked by major justice system reform, including Public Safety Realignment, Prop 47, and Prop 57. Despite the relative stability of recent property crime trends, the report finds substantial variation in crime at the local level, which suggests that recent crime patterns may result from local policies rather than state policy reform. The report finds: From 2010 to 2016, property crime rates fell more than 3 percent statewide despite the implementation of large-scale criminal justice reforms. For every major crime except vehicle theft, more California jurisdictions reported decreases than increases in their crime rates from 2010 to 2016. For example, just 141 jurisdictions reported increased rates of burglary, while 367 jurisdictions showed decreases. Across California, crime trends have been highly localized. Of the 511 cities and local areas included in this analysis, 42 percent showed rising rates of property crime from 2010 to 2016, with an average increase of 12.8 percent, and 58 percent showed decreases, with an average decline of 18.1 percent. Many jurisdictions, especially those that began with higher rates of property crime, have devised successful policies and practices that are improving local safety. Jurisdictions that showed decreasing rates of property crime between 2010 and 2016 had higher rates at the start of the reform era than those showing increases. Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2017. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 20, 2017 at: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/most_california_jurisdictions_show_declines_in_property_crime_during_justice_reform_era.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/most_california_jurisdictions_show_declines_in_property_crime_during_justice_reform_era.pdf Shelf Number: 148269 Keywords: BurglaryCrime StatisticsCrime TrendsProperty CrimePublic Safety Realignment |
Author: Bird, Mia Title: Realignment and Recidivism in California Summary: California has experienced significant changes in its criminal justice landscape since the 2011 implementation of public safety realignment-which shifted the management of lower-level offenders from the state prison and parole system to county jail and probation systems. The prison population has dropped dramatically, and though jail populations rose, overall incarceration levels have declined. One goal of realignment was to reduce California's persistently high recidivism rates. Using data from 12 counties representative of the state, this report examines rearrest and reconviction rates after release from custody for two groups of offenders affected by realignment: those on post-release community supervision (PRCS) and those sentenced under section 1170(h) of the California Penal Code. Overall, we find realignment had modest effects on recidivism, with considerable variation across offender groups and counties. Specifically: Individuals on PRCS have somewhat higher recidivism than similar individuals released before realignment. PRCS offenders are released from state prison after serving time for certain lower-level felonies and receive supervision by county probation agencies. In the two years following realignment, we find that 71.9 percent of these individuals were rearrested (2.6 percentage points higher than before realignment), and 56.4 percent were reconvicted (2.4 points higher). Realignment did not have a consistent effect on recidivism for individuals sentenced under 1170(h). These offenders are sentenced for a specific set of lower-level felonies and, under realignment, serve time in county jail rather than state prison. In the two years following realignment, we find that 74.5 percent of these individuals were rearrested (2.3 percentage points higher than their pre-realignment counterparts) and 54.9 percent were reconvicted (2.0 points lower). Offenders who received straight sentences have the same or lower rates of recidivism. Realignment created two types of 1170(h) offenders: those who receive both jail time and probation supervision (known as a "split" sentence) and those who receive jail time with no supervision (known as a "straight" sentence). The group serving "straight" sentences had the best outcomes: the same two-year rearrest rates and lower two-year reconviction rates (by 3.0 percentage points). Those who received "split" sentences had higher rates of rearrest (by 7.8 points) but lower rates of reconviction (by 3.4 points) compared with similar individuals before realignment. The effects of realignment on recidivism vary substantially across counties. For example, overall we find reconviction rates were higher for those on PRCS after realignment, but in fact nine counties saw lower rates of reconviction-indicating that the overall finding is driven by a small number of counties. County variation in recidivism outcomes is likely linked to demographic, economic, and geographic differences, as well as the range of county capacity and experiences providing evidence-based interventions before realignment. However, some of this variation may be due to different intervention strategies, creating the potential for counties to learn from each other over time. Notably, offenders who received a jail term and no supervision stand out as having better outcomes on all measures of recidivism, when compared with similar individuals released before realignment. This finding suggests we need to carefully consider the complex relationship between supervision and recidivism. While it could simply be easier to detect reoffending when an individual is under supervision, the requirements of supervision could also create more opportunities for non-criminal violations. With a longer follow-up window and more recent data, the relationship between supervision and recidivism, as well as the overall effects of realignment, may change as counties build capacity and experience with evidence-based practices. Policymakers, practitioners, and researchers must continue to work together to develop the data and expertise necessary to understand the impacts of California's corrections reforms and to identify effective strategies to reduce recidivism. Details: San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2017. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 12, 2018 at: http://www.ppic.org/publication/realignment-and-recidivism-in-california/ Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/publication/realignment-and-recidivism-in-california/ Shelf Number: 150170 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformPrison reformPrisonsPublic Safety RealignmentRecidivism |
Author: Bird, Mia Title: Evaluating the Effects of Realignment Practices on Recidivism Outcomes Summary: In 2011, California enacted Public Safety Realignment, a historic policy reform that resulted in dramatic reductions to the state prison population. Realignment shifted responsibility and authority over lower-level felons from the state prison and parole system to county jail and probation systems. From our current vantage point, it is clear that the changes brought by realignment paved the way for a series of subsequent reforms. 1 Together, these reforms reflect two key features of the state's changing approach to criminal justice policy. First, the state has altered system incentives and rules to reduce its overall reliance on incarceration. Second, the state has increased the emphasis on the use of evidence-based interventions to reduce crime and criminal justice involvement. Despite the emphasis on data-driven policy and practice, dedicated resources to support data collection, evaluation, or research have not been provided. In the case of realignment, this is particularly problematic given that data capturing individuals moving through state and county criminal justice systems are kept in separate systems. Evaluating the effects of realignment or identifying effective recidivism-reduction interventions would not be possible without finding a way to collect and integrate data from these disparate systems. In 2013, PPIC initiated the Multi-County Study (MCS), a data collection effort aimed at producing an integrated dataset to address these gaps. NIJ provided support for our first phase of analytic work drawing on the MCS dataset. The planned work would focus on the following research questions: (1) What was the impact of realignment on recidivism statewide? (2) How did the effects of realignment vary across counties? (3) How have service and sanction interventions affected recidivism outcomes? Details: San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2018. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 31, 2018 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251627.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251627.pdf Shelf Number: 150412 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformPrison reformPrisonsPublic Safety RealignmentRecidivism |
Author: Bird, Mia Title: The Impact of Proposition 47 on Crime and Recidivism Summary: Passed by voters in November 2014, Proposition 47 brought broad and significant changes to California's criminal justice system. Undertaken in the wake of public safety realignment in 2011, Proposition 47 reduced the penalties for certain lower-level drug and property offenses and represented a further step in prioritizing prison and jail space for higher-level offenders. The policy has sparked continued debate around two key questions: Did Proposition 47 increase crime? We find no evidence that violent crime increased as a result of Proposition 47. While California saw an uptick in the violent crime rate from 2014 to 2016, this trend appears to have preceded the reform and is due in large part to unrelated changes in crime reporting after 2014. We find some evidence that Proposition 47 affected property crime. Statewide, property crime increased after 2014. While the reform had no apparent impact on burglaries or auto thefts, it may have contributed to a rise in larceny thefts, which increased by roughly 9 percent (about 135 more thefts per 100,000 residents) compared to other states. Crime data show that thefts from motor vehicles account for about three-quarters of this increase. Despite recent upticks, California's crime rates remain comparable to the low rates observed in the 1960s-even with the dramatic reductions in incarceration ushered in by recent criminal justice reforms. Did Proposition 47 reduce recidivism? Recidivism rates decreased due to Proposition 47. Using data from 12 California counties, we find that among individuals released after serving sentences for Proposition 47 offenses, the two-year rearrest rate was 70.8 percent, 1.8 percentage points lower than for similar individuals released before the reform. The two-year reconviction rate for individuals released under Proposition 47 was 46.0 percent, 3.1 percentage points lower than their pre-reform counterparts. These overall declines were driven by substantial reductions in recidivism rates for Proposition 47 offenses. Rearrest and reconviction rates for these offenses were 10.3 and 11.3 percentage points lower, respectively, than for similar individuals before the reform. Our findings suggest that the measure reduced both arrests by law enforcement and convictions resulting from prosecutions by district attorneys. However, we are not able to separate the reform's effects on reoffending from its effects on the practices of criminal justice agencies. Proposition 47 redirected the savings from reduced incarceration to treatment interventions, with the goal of reducing recidivism. While it is too early to know if this shift in funding has affected recidivism rates, in the coming years the state and counties will be better able to assess the impact of increased interventions and to identify promising strategies. As California continues to pursue criminal justice reforms, understanding the effects of Proposition 47 and local treatment programs will be essential to achieving further reductions in recidivism and maintaining public safety. Details: San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2018. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 13, 2018 at: http://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/r_0618mbr.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/r_0618mbr.pdf Shelf Number: 150527 Keywords: Crime RatesCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsProposition 47Public Safety RealignmentRecidivismTreatment Programs |