3/28/2013
1
3/28/2013
2
3/28/2013
3
High Recidivism RatesHigh Recidivism RatesWithin three years, almost two-thirds of CDCR parolees returned to
prison (45% were for parole violations).
100%Three-Year Recidivism Rates by FY
A t C i ti R t t P i
76.2% 76.4% 77.0%77.2%
76.6% 75.8%
66.2% 65.6% 66.8% 67.5%65.1% 63.7%
60%
70%
80%
90%Arrests Convictions Returns to Prison
47.7%48.5% 49.2% 48.7%
51.5% 49.6%
30%
40%
50%
2002‐03 2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08
Data Source: 2012 Outcome Evaluation Report.
3/28/2013
4
3/28/2013
5
Inmates with DisabilitiesArmstrong (1994)
Inmates with Developmental
Use of Force and Employee Discipline
Madrid (1995)Inmates with Developmental Disabilities
Clark (1996)
Medical CarePlata (2001)
Mental Health CareC l (1991)
Parole Due ProcessValdivia (1996)
Juvenile Justice SystemFarrell (2003)
Juvenile Parole ViolationsColeman (1991)
Dental CarePerez (2005)
L.H. (2006)
$11,000,000,000
Expenditures
$7 977 202 000
$9,139,447,000
$9,864,301,000
$10,579,658,000
$8,000,000,000
$9,000,000,000
$10,000,000,000
$7,977,202,000
$7,000,000,000FY 05/06 FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09
3/28/2013
6
3/28/2013
7
Created Financial Incentives for Counties to Reduce Probation Revocations (SB 678)
Adjusted Property Crime Thresholds
E t bli h d N R bl
Parole Reentry Courts
Milestone Completion Credits
Alternative Custody Program
Medical ParoleEstablished Non-Revocable Parole
3/28/2013
8
U.S. Supreme Court affirmed order by three-judge panel for California y j g pto reduce its prison population
California’s fiscal crisis required dmajor reductions
3/28/2013
9
Enacted on October 1, 2011
L l l ff d th i t l llLower-level offenders serve their sentences locally
Offenders convicted of violent, sex-related, or other serious offenses continue to serve sentences in prison
Certain offenders released from state prison supervised by local county probation instead of state parole agents
Parole violators can no longer be returned to state prison
3/28/2013
10
County Responsibilities
Local custody for non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders
Local post-release community supervision
Enhanced local custody and supervision tools, such as alternative custody; home detention for low-level offenders; and local jail credits
Responsibility for parole violators
Who is Sentenced to State Prison?
Off nd h h i u nt Offender who has a prior or current serious or violent felony
Offender who is required to register as a sex offender
Certain excluded crimesExamples of Excluded Crimes:
Felony physical abuse of an elder or dependentelder or dependentAssault on a peace officerBribing a legislator
3/28/2013
11
State Parole Supervision
Whether offender will be subject to state parole supervision is j p pdetermined by the offender’s commitment offense.
Commitment Offenses with State Parole Supervision
Current serious or violent felonyLiferMentally disordered offender (MDO)Mentally disordered offender (MDO)High-risk sex offender
180 000
Monthly Institution PopulationOctober 2008 – September 2012
140,000
150,000
160,000
170,000
180,000Public Safety Realignment
100,000
110,000
120,000
130,000
3/28/2013
12
PostPost‐‐Realignment State Parolee PopulationRealignment State Parolee Population
Office of Inspector General (OIG) Medical Inspection ScoreOffice of Inspector General (OIG) Medical Inspection Score
Medical inspections designed to assess whether the care provided to offenders in custody at CDCR institutions meets medical community standards.
Results are reported by OIG as a percentage of “adherence” score for each institution.
Inspection team consists of physicians, registered nurses, deputy inspectors general, and analysts. p y p g , y
Source: “Medical Inspection Results: Comparative Summary and Analysis of the First and Second Medical Inspection Cycles of California’s 33 Adult Institutions” (July 2012).
3/28/2013
13
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
High Adherence
Moderate Adherence
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Sep‐2008 Sep‐2009 Sep‐2010 Sep‐2011 Sep‐2012
Monthly Average of All 33 Prisons
Low Adherence
OIG Prison Medical Adherence ScoresOIG Prison Medical Adherence ScoresAdherence scores Post‐Realignment for all 33 institutions are notably above the 75% minimum / moderate adherence cutoff.
Monthly Average of All 33 PrisonsSource: Office of the Inspector General (www.oig.ca.gov/pages/reports/medical‐inspections.php)
PostPost‐‐Realignment Release DemographicsRealignment Release Demographics
Examination of post-Realignment demographics for offenders released to either PRCS or State Parole:
GenderAge at ReleaseAge at ReleaseRace/EthnicityCommitment Offense CategoryRelease TypeCalifornia Static Risk Assessment (CSRA) Score at ReleaseSerious and/or Violent
Release period: October 1, 2011 through Release period: October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2012
3/28/2013
14
89.0%
94.2%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Gender
11.0%
5.8%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0% PRCS
Parole
Male Female
• More male than female offenders were released.• There are slightly more male offenders under State supervision than there are under PRCS.• In contrast, there are more female PRCS offenders than there are female State Parolees.
60.0 %
70.0 %
80.0 %
90.0 %
100.0 %
Age at Release
0.6%
10.8% 17.8%
18.6% 13.9% 13.2% 11.5%
8.2%
3.6% 1.9% 1.3%
19.0% 19.7% 17.0%
11.4% 10.0% 9.2% 6.7%
3.1% 2.6%
0.0 %
10.0 %
20.0 %
30.0 %
40.0 %
50.0 %
18‐19 20‐24 25‐29 30‐34 35‐39 40‐44 45‐49 50‐54 55‐59 60 +
Age Group
PRCS
Parole
• The age groups from 18 to 29 and those over 60 are represented by more State Parolees than PRCS Offenders.
• From age 30 to 59, there is a greater percentage of PRCS offenders than State Parolees
Age Group
3/28/2013
15
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Race/Ethnicity Distribution of Released Offenders
31.4%
39.6%
24.2%
0.7% 0.6% 0.1% 3.3%
25.8%
41.7%
27.1%
1.0% 0.7% 0.2% 3.4%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
White Hispanic/Latino Black/African American
Native American/Alaska
Native
Asian Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
Other
PRCS
Parole
• Most Post‐Realignment releases were Hispanic/Latino, White, or Black/African American.• There are 2.1% more Hispanic/Latino and 2.9% more Black/African American State Parolees than PRCS Offenders.• There are 5.6% more White PRCS Offenders than State Parolees for the same racial/ethnic group.
Native Islander
58.2% 60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Commitment Offense Category
13.4%
36.4%
21.2%
35.2%
8.3%
15.0% 12.2%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
PRCS Parole
Crimes Against Persons Property Crimes Drug Crimes Other Crimes Missing
• State Parolees are much more likely than PRCS Offenders to have been committed to CDCR for “Crime Against Persons.
• By comparison, PRCS Offenders are much more likely to have been committed for “Property Crimes” or “Drug Crimes”.
Crimes Against Persons Property Crimes Drug Crimes Other Crimes Missing
3/28/2013
16
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
CSRA Scores
14.6%
24.5%25.4% 25.6%22.9%
29.5%
19.6%
9.0%12.2%
5.2%5.2% 6.3%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
PRCS Parole
Release Category
Low Medium High‐Violent High‐Property High‐Drug NA
• The CSRA measures risk of reconviction.• State Parolees are more likely to have a “Low” CSRA score, whereas PRCS Offenders are more likely
to have a “High” score.
g g p y g g
67.9 %
32.1 %
Parole
egory
Serious and/or Violent Classification
0.3 %
99.7 %
PRCS
0.0 % 10.0 % 20.0 % 30.0 % 40.0 % 50.0 % 60.0 % 70.0 % 80.0 % 90.0 % 100.0 %
Release Ca
te
No
Yes
The greatest percentage of offenders classified as serious and /or violent remain under the supervision of CDCR.
3/28/2013
17
PostPost--RealignmentRealignmentReduction in CDCR’s Budget
Constitutional level of health care to end costly lawsuits yand court oversight
Improved prison operationsNew staffing standardsImproved classification system eliminates need for 12,000 celled bedsImproved gang management
Expanded rehabilitative programs to help reduce recidivism and save long-term costs
3/28/2013
18
Top Related