Category: Criminal Justice

Preliminary Data Show Higher Crime Rates in 2015

Preliminary data from the FBI offer discouraging news about crime trends in California’s largest cities. A number of cities—such as Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Riverside—reported increases in violent crime in 2015. The recently released FBI data also show that California cities are seeing property crime increases. These increases, particularly in property crime, are widespread and not trivial in magnitude. However, the data also show that cities in other states are also experiencing increases, especially in violent crime.

The FBI crime numbers cover January through June 2015 and are limited to cities with populations of at least 100,000 that report crime data to the FBI. In total, the data allow us to calculate year-over-year changes for 245 cities in 41 states throughout the country. The 66 California cities included in the FBI data contain about half of the state’s total population. The most recent statewide crime numbers showed that California’s crime rates continued to drop in 2014 and were at historic lows.

Comparing January through June 2015 to the same months in 2014 reveals that many US cities included in the preliminary FBI data saw increases in crime. Of the 66 California cities in the data, 49 saw increases in violent crime and 48 experienced increases in property crimes. Many of these cities saw double digit percent increases—34 in violent crime and 24 in property crime.

Violent crime rates went up in 24 of the 41 states included in the FBI data, and property crime increased in 14 states. However, the property crime rate for the included US cities with populations of 100,000 or more decreased by 29.6 per 100,000 residents, while the property crime rate for the California cities increased by 116.9. The increase in property crime in California cities stands in sharp contrast to the other four states with the highest populations: large cities in Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois saw decreases of between 111.1 (Texas) and 47.7 (New York) property crimes per 100,000 residents.

Among the 41 states with cities that are included in the FBI data, California’s property crime increase ranked 6th, while its violent crime increase ranked 12th. Most of California’s larger cities (46 of 66) were among the 100 cities nationwide that saw the largest property crime increases. Close to half (32, to be precise), were in the top 100 in violent crime increases. When we look at the data for the 25 largest US cities, we see that the biggest increases in violent and property crime rates occurred in Sacramento and San Francisco, respectively. California has six cities in this group, and all are among the ten that saw the largest increases in the property crime rate.

Again, these FBI numbers are preliminary, and they cover only about half of the state’s population. But they are a strong indication that recent crime increases have occurred across the state. They underscore the importance of monitoring crime trends and the need for careful analysis to identify key causes. If we can identify the factors that are contributing to higher crime rates, we can implement effective crime-preventive strategies.

Chart note: Changes in the number of violent and property crimes per 100,000 residents, January–June 2015 compared to January–June 2014. The table includes the 25 largest US cities included in the FBI data with crime statistics for both 2014 and 2015, ranging from New York City, with a population of 8,473,938, to Kansas City, MO, with a population of 468,417.
Chart source: FBI’s Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report, January–June, 2015.

Public Opinion and Sentencing Reform

Governor Brown has proposed a ballot initiative that would reform prison sentencing in California, increasing parole opportunities for non-violent felons. Our January PPIC Statewide Survey findings show a public opinion environment that may be favorable to the governor’s proposal.

Our survey shows that many Californians believe—incorrectly—that prisons and corrections account for the largest share of state spending. When asked to select the largest spending area of the state budget, California likely voters are most likely to choose prisons and corrections (41%)—this is consistent with our findings over the past several years. In fact, the allocation for prisons and corrections in the governor’s 2016–17 budget proposal ($10.6 billion) comes in behind higher education ($14.6 billion), health and human services ($33.7 billion), and K–12 education ($51.2 billion).

If the governor’s sentencing reform proposal is perceived as a way to reduce spending on prisons and corrections, it could benefit from this overestimation of state corrections spending. The proposal could also benefit from a contrasting opinion: only 3 percent of likely voters say that prisons and corrections should be the highest spending priority.

Californians’ current attitudes toward crime may also bode well for sentencing reform. Just 3 percent of likely voters name crime, gangs, or drugs as the most important issue for the governor and legislature to work on this year. And only 15 percent of likely voters say violence and street crime are a big problem in their communities today—down somewhat from January 2015 (22%). Furthermore, a solid majority of likely voters (63%) say that the criminal justice system is biased against blacks and other minorities, a share that is somewhat larger than it was last January (55%).

Given these attitudes toward crime and the criminal justice system, along with Californians’ desire to see less spending on prisons and corrections, the governor’s proposal for sentencing reform could be well received.

Putting the Governor’s Sentencing Proposal in Context

Governor Brown has proposed a ballot measure—the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act—that could significantly alter sentencing in California. If it qualifies for the ballot—which seems likely—and is approved by voters in November, the measure would allow non-violent felons who have earned enough credits for good behavior to spend less time in state prison. It would also shift the power to determine whether juveniles should be tried as adults from prosecutors to judges. The measure follows the path of decreased reliance on incarceration that California has been on since 2009.

Motivated primarily by a federal court’s 2009 mandate to improve health care and reduce overcrowding in the state’s prison system, California has implemented a number of measures that have considerably reduced the prison population. Since reaching a historic high in 2006, the prison population has dropped by 45,000, a decrease of about 26 percent, and the state’s overall incarceration rate is down to levels not seen since the early 1990s.

Although a number of policies have contributed to this decline, it is largely attributable to two recent major reforms: the 2011 Public Safety Realignment Act, or AB 109, which shifted responsibility for many non-serious, non-violent, and non-sexual offenders to county jail and probation systems; and Proposition 47, which reclassified some drug and property felonies as misdemeanors. Since January 2015, two months after voters approved Prop 47, the prison population has remained below the court-mandated target. That is good news for the state. However, the institutional population is only about 1.1 percent, or 900 inmates, below the target. Given this slim margin—and given the fact that the state still needs to show that it is providing adequate health care—the pressure is still on.

Californians appear to be supportive of lessening penalties for crime and downsizing state prisons. Recent criminal justice initiatives, such as Proposition 36 in 2012 (which revised California’s three-strikes law) and Proposition 47 in 2014, passed by rather wide margins—close to 70 percent and around 60 percent respectively.

Voters may well be inclined to see reductions in spending on prisons, and with good reason. California’s corrections budget continues to grow, with the governor requesting $10.6 billion from the General Fund for 2016–17—a historic high. This amount does not include more than $1 billion annually that the state transfers to counties to implement realignment. For 2016–17, the state is projecting the cost of the prison system to be almost $70,000 per prisoner. A significant reduction in the prison population could finally allow the state to stop the use of out-of-state contract beds and possibly close a state prison. These actions could potentially lead to hundreds of millions of dollars in annual savings. Without further reductions in the prison population, it will be difficult for the state to stop using contract beds and remain below the court-ordered population cap.

Finally, it should be noted that, unlike realignment and Propositions 36 and 47, which implemented changes based on the kind of offenses committed, this measure focuses mainly on the behavior of the offenders. After they earn enough credits for good behavior and achievements in education and rehabilitation, non-violent prison inmates can be paroled and released early. If this incentive is accompanied by effective educational and rehabilitative programs, it could reduce recidivism. More broadly, this measure, combined with the redirection of spending toward cost-effective crime preventive strategies, could help California use its corrections resources more wisely.

Chart source (TOP): California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) monthly population reports.

Chart source (BOTTOM): California Department of Finance.

Video: Governing in a Time of Change

At a time when economic, environmental, and demographic forces are changing California, Governor Jerry Brown’s chief aide, Nancy McFadden, was asked to describe three administration priorities requiring bold leadership.

The first priority is keeping the state on a fiscally stable road, she told PPIC president and CEO Mark Baldassare before a Sacramento audience last week. This requires tough choices, she said, as the governor demonstrated when he vetoed bills that were worthy ideas but had budget implications for the state General Fund.

“Sometimes bold leadership means saying no,” she said.

Second, the administration will continue to implement the far-reaching changes adopted in past years, such as corrections realignment and the Local Control Funding Formula for schools, which targets money to the state’s neediest students and shifts funding control to the local level.

McFadden said the third priority is the “whole panoply of climate change and environment issues facing not only our state but our world.” Extreme weather events—drought, wildfires, and flooding—pose immediate challenges that have to be managed.

McFadden’s conversation with Baldassare was followed by a panel discussion about leadership—what it takes and when elected officials have demonstrated it. The panelists were Jim Brulte, chair of the California Republican Party and former state senate Republican leader; state senators Loni Hancock and Carol Liu; and Darrell Steinberg, chair of the California Government Law and Policy Practice at Greenberg Traurig and former senate president pro tem. The moderator was John Myers, Sacramento bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times.

Proposition 47 and Crime

Last November, voters approved Proposition 47, which reclassified a number of drug and property offenses from felonies to misdemeanors. As a result, inmate populations have dropped in California’s capacity-challenged state prisons and county jails. Reports of increases in violent crime in some areas have raised concerns, and the significant drawdown in the jail and prison populations—by roughly 17,000 inmates so far—certainly carries the risk of increased crime. But it would be premature to blame Proposition 47 for the uptick.

Proposition 47 helped bring down the prison population by about 8,000 inmates, below the mandated target of 137.5 percent of design capacity (the number of inmates that facilities were designed to house). The target was set by a federal court in 2009 in the wake of lawsuits over prison conditions; at the time, it meant a reduction of almost 40,000 prisoners. The prison population has remained below the target since January 2015. This is a key requirement for the state to regain control of prison health care, which is currently overseen by a court-appointed receiver. The total prison population has dropped by slightly more than 45,000 inmates since it peaked in 2006.

Proposition 47 also helped bring the jail population below the statewide rated capacity (here again, the number of inmates facilities are designed to hold), after three years of increases that were driven by public safety realignment. In stark contrast to the increase of about 11,000 inmates between September 2011 and October 2014, the county jail population dropped by almost 9,000 inmates, or 10.7 percent, between October 2014 and March 2015 (the most recent month of available data).

As we noted above, reports of increased crime in a number of cities and counties in 2015 have fueled concerns about the impact of these population reductions. Between January and August, violent crime in Sacramento was up by 24 percent compared to the same months in 2014. In Riverside County, violent crime was up almost 11 percent in the first six months of 2015. In the City of Los Angeles, it was up almost 21 percent in the same time period.

There are good reasons to be cautious about attributing these upticks to Proposition 47. Crime trends fluctuate frequently and widely and it is challenging to pinpoint specific causes. The first year of realignment provides a good example of this. After a long decline, both violent and property crime in California increased in 2012, the year after realignment was implemented, and many blamed the reform. However, as our careful analysis has shown, there is no evidence that realignment led to more violent crime, and the only uptick that can be attributed to the reform is auto theft. Another reason to be cautious is that other states have seen increases in crime this year—the New York Times recently reported that violent crime, as represented by murder rates, has gone up noticeably in a number of US cities. With all this in mind, at this time we urge against drawing any firm conclusions about Proposition 47’s impact on crime.

Chart sources: (TOP) California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, monthly population reports. (BOTTOM) Board of State and Community Corrections, jail profile surveys.

Video: Rating Realignment

Local law enforcement and corrections officials have risen to the challenge of public safety realignment, a panel of local and state officials concluded last week. They also concurred that big challenges remain.

Four years ago, local officials had to adapt—and adapt quickly—to this historic policy shift in California. Prompted by a federal court order to reduce prison overcrowding, the state shifted responsibility for incarcerating and supervising low-level felons from the state to the counties, based on the idea that the locals could do a better job. The panelists at a PPIC event in Sacramento assessed the hurdles they’ve had to overcome and the challenges that remain.

“We’ve adapted and we are adapting,” said Lee Seale, Sacramento County’s chief probation officer. “We’re better as a result of it,” he said, noting that hundreds of offenders are enrolled in drug treatment or other rehabilitative programming who did not get these services before. Among the issues corrections officials are still coping with, according to Seale and the other panelists, is a jail population with many challenges, including mental health issues.

Linda Penner, chair of the Board of State and Community Corrections, serves as the governor’s liaison on realignment issues with county law enforcement officials statewide. When realignment began, she was the chief probation officer of Fresno County. She likened the magnitude and speed of realignment to “drinking from a fire hose.”

“Counties had to demonstrate their nimbleness and creativity,” she said. Initially, case files were transferred from the state to the county using manila envelopes because computer systems were incompatible. The incompatibility problem was resolved in about a year, she said.

Adam Christianson, now serving his third term as sheriff of Stanislaus County, was a realignment skeptic. The governor, he said, knew him as “the difficult sheriff from Stanislaus County.” His county’s jail was already at maximum capacity before realignment began. The jail, built in 1954, had no space for treatment or the programs that realignment’s proponents envisioned as key in reducing recidivism.

Things have changed, he said, and so has the department’s culture. The county is building new facilities with program and treatment areas, classroom space, and a mental health care unit. Partnerships with community-based organizations—which the sheriff says are essential—are helping the county provide program opportunities for offenders.

As a result, he said, “The difficult sheriff from Stanislaus County isn’t so difficult anymore.”

Before the discussion, PPIC senior fellow Magnus Lofstrom presented the findings of Public Safety Realignment: Impacts So Far, which he authored with PPIC research associate Brandon Martin.

Proposition 47 Brought Decreases to Both Prison and Jail Populations

Two major criminal justice reforms—realignment and Proposition 47—have brought California’s incarcerated population down to levels not seen since the mid-1990s. This drawdown in both the state prison and the county jail populations addresses some of the serious capacity challenges the systems have faced.

As of August 2015, the total prison population had dropped by almost 45,000 inmates from its 2006 peak. The majority (about 55%) of the decline was a result of realignment, which was implemented in October 2011 in response to a court order to improve prison conditions by reducing overcrowding. However, it took the passage of Proposition 47 last November—which reclassified a number of felony drug and property offenses as misdemeanors—and building and renting additional prison beds to reach the court-ordered population target of 137.5 percent of design capacity. The prison population has declined by almost 7,700 since November and has remained below the mandated target since January 2015. This is a key requirement for the state to regain control over prison health care—currently, a court-appointed receiver oversees health care in the system.

Proposition 47 appears to have relieved some of the pressure on county jail systems created by the shift of responsibility for lower-level offenders from the state to the counties during the first few years of realignment. The average daily jail population dropped by almost 10,000 inmates after the passage of Proposition 47 last November. As of December 2014, there were about 72,500 inmates in county jails, down from about 82,000 in October. This brought the jail population back under the statewide rated capacity of nearly 80,000 beds. Another sign that Proposition 47 has relieved some pressure is that the number of inmates released early due to housing constraints decreased noticeably (by almost 20% as of December 2014 compared to December 2013), to levels well below those observed in the months before realignment was implemented.

Although we can see that prison population numbers have dropped in each of the nine months since Proposition 47 passed, we need to be more cautious about the measure’s impact on jail population numbers because we only have jail data for the first two months. Also, counties have been working to implement and refine new jail policies and procedures, and these may be having an impact on jail populations. For instance, data through March 2015 for Los Angeles County show that the jail population dipped below 16,000 inmates in December (down from more than 18,000 in October), but rose above 17,000 in January and stayed above 17,000 through March. This increase is related to the sheriff requiring that inmates serve a larger percentage of their sentences before release. We may see similar developments in other counties. Nonetheless, even in Los Angeles there was a noticeable drop in the jail population compared to months before passage of Proposition 47.

Clearly, California is moving away from incarceration, in line with research that has shown that incarceration is not a cost-effective tool for crime prevention, at least not at the high levels in the state before realignment. The changes implemented so far may help improve prison and jail conditions and may also help the state and counties handle their corrections responsibilities more effectively. However, research also suggests that there may be a greater upward pressure on crime with incarceration reductions at lower levels of incarceration, which heightens the need to identify and implement effective crime preventive strategies. As we continue to monitor crime trends, it will be important to determine whether their long-term decline has been reversed.

Expanding Education, Reducing Recidivism

This month, the Obama administration unveiled a pilot program to allow access to Pell Grants to those incarcerated in state or federal prison. In addition to expanding access to higher education, this program presents a new opportunity to leverage federal dollars to improve public safety and generate savings in the form of reduced correctional costs.

The federal program complements a bill passed last fall by the California Legislature aimed at increasing educational programming to prison inmates. Authored by State Senator Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley), SB 1391 allocates $2 million to create and fund higher education programs for inmates in four pilot sites, under the leadership of the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).

These federal and state policy initiatives come in response to mounting evidence that education—particularly at the post-secondary level—reduces recidivism and related correctional costs. Inmates who participated in education programs had 43% lower odds of reoffending after being released into the community, according to a 2013 RAND report funded by the U.S. Department of Justice. This reduction in recidivism translates to $5 in direct correctional cost savings for every $1 spent on educational programming. Efforts to take advantage of these potential returns are in line with other recent initiatives, such as California’s public safety realignment, that emphasize the use of evidence-based practices to address the state’s historically high rates of recidivism.

However, past efforts to provide educational services to inmates in California—and elsewhere—have not always been successful. Numerous studies have documented the growth of private companies that have profited from providing a range of correctional services—including secondary education, GED classes, and vocational training—with little oversight or evaluation to ensure that public money is well spent. As the federal government makes additional funds available for higher education in prison, some of these service providers will likely seek to expand into post-secondary programming. At the same time, new players, both public and private, attracted by a promising new revenue stream may well enter the field. This means it is critical to ensure that the institutions receiving Pell Grants for inmate education have sufficient and appropriate training, staff, and capacity to offer high-quality college classes and student support services. A 2015 report from UC Berkeley’s Warren Institute and Stanford’s Criminal Justice Center outlines key recommendations for improving and ensuring the quality of inmate education programs, including an emphasis on face-to-face instruction inside prison and transitional programs on the outside for students.

Given their experience in providing a range of educational services, the California Community College (CCC) and California State University (CSU) systems stand out as promising candidates to lead efforts to increase post-secondary education among inmates. The map below shows the close proximity of these educational institutions to prisons across the state.

California currently supports community college education for all low-income students, including inmates, through fee waivers. However, these waivers are not available for students who wish to pursue four-year degrees. These students rely on other forms of aid, including federal Pell Grants. The Pell Grant pilot program presents an opportunity for CSU to begin working with CDCR to leverage federal dollars to expand access to high-quality, onsite higher education for inmates in state prison.

The security and operational constraints of correctional facilities pose unique challenges to service providers. It is likely that even organizations with experience providing quality education programs, such as well-performing state universities and community colleges, may find that they have a steep learning curve when it comes to operating within a prison. Careful planning, detailed oversight, and rigorous evaluation therefore will be critical to ensuring that SB 1391 and the Pell Grant pilot achieve their goals.

Chart Source: California Post-Secondary Education Commission and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Video: Realignment and Crime

Since 2011, when California shifted responsibility for tens of thousands of lower-level felons from the state to the local level, there is evidence that property crime remains higher than it would have been without the realignment policy. But there has been no observable impact on violent crime.

The findings of the report, Realignment, Incarceration and Crime Trends in California, were presented in Sacramento last week by the authors, Magnus Lofstrom, PPIC senior research fellow, and Steve Raphael, PPIC adjunct fellow. Among the issues that emerged in discussion with the audience, were the causes of the property crime increase and additional research that indicates higher staffing for police departments is an effective deterrent for crime.

Video: Alternatives to Incarceration

Under continuing pressure to reduce its prison and jail populations, California is expanding alternatives that hold offenders accountable, are cost-effective, and do not harm public safety. At a Sacramento event last week, PPIC researcher Brandon Martin summarized a new PPIC report about the potential impact of this expansion. His presentation was followed by panel discussion in which state and local corrections officials talked about their own experience and provided examples of success.

Jeremy Verinsky, undersheriff of Santa Cruz County, said his department has long had a work release program— having offenders clean up graffiti in county parks, for example. The county has increasingly paired work release with home detention and electronic monitoring since corrections realignment began in 2011. Offenders in Santa Cruz are required to be involved in programs based on their needs and risk factors, Verinksy said.

“We aren’t putting people out on a monitor so they can stay home and play Xbox all day,” he said.

Carol Paris of the Sacramento County Probation Department says her department has expanded its use of adult day reporting centers, which provide resources for offenders. Asked how her department handles probation violations, she said the strategy is to engage early. Intake officers visit prisons to meet with inmates before their release to talk about specific needs and housing issues. Offenders are also transported directly from custody to the probation office for assessment—an effort “to counteract those days of the person being released at one o’clock in the morning,” she said.

Robin Harrington, chief deputy warden of the Female Offenders Programs and Services/Special Housing Mission at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, described the department’s alternative custody programs. Eligible offenders can apply to serve their sentences—supervised and electronically monitored—at home, in a private alternative custody program, or in a training and employment program.