jails – Public Policy Institute of California

What COVID-19 Budget Cuts Mean for Public Safety Spending

State funding aimed at programs and supervision for some jail inmates in jails and others on probation will drop sharply as a result of the COVID-19 crisis. While spending on the state correctional system will decrease less than 1% under recently announced cuts to the California state budget, funding for counties may drop 24%.

Probable cuts now loom over local budgets as well, and spending on local public safety may fall significantly. Although lower jail populations during the pandemic could create budget savings, there may also be a higher need for re-entry and community-based services as released individuals return to communities.

In 2011, California enacted sweeping changes to its correctional system to address federal court orders to alleviate severe overcrowding in the prison system. This public safety realignment shifted correctional responsibilities for tens of thousands of offenders, from state prison and parole systems over to county sheriff and probation departments.

To fund the shift, the state created the local community corrections account, with money drawn from a dedicated portion of state sales tax revenue. Voters issued a constitutional guarantee for that portion of tax revenue when they passed Proposition 30 in November 2012. But while the percentage of revenue was guaranteed, the actual amount of sales tax collected can vary. The amount is now changing because of the COVID-19 crisis.

Counties were meant to use these funds to provide supervision and programming to individuals who were realigned from the state to the counties. More specifically, the state expected counties to fund cost-effective, evidence-based programming that improved offender rehabilitation and public safety in local communities. Such programming might include day reporting centers, expanded jail training programs, or specialized courts that handle individuals with drug dependency or mental health disorders.

Each county had the freedom to implement programs that best suited their situation. Community Corrections Partnerships (CCPs)—headed by the chief probation officer, with representatives from law enforcement, health and human services, and community organizations—provide realignment plans and recommend where to allocate funding.

Realignment funding grew 47% from $930 million in 2012–13 to $1.37 billion in 2018–19. In state budget estimates from before COVID-19, sales tax revenue rose steadily, with the local community corrections fund expected to increase to $1.54 billion for fiscal year 2020–21.

However, the pandemic weakened the economy—in updated state budget estimates, the governor predicted a drop in sales tax revenue of more than 27% for 2020–21. The local community corrections account is now estimated to receive only $1.17 billion—a 24% decrease from the earlier estimate and 14% below the 2018–19 fiscal year.

Because revenues are paid to counties monthly, local agencies will feel the effect of sinking revenues almost immediately. The fiscal situation undoubtedly poses challenges for successful community re-entry programs; it is more important than ever to evaluate policies and programs that to lead to cost-effective solutions.

California’s Jail Population Has Plummeted during COVID-19

When the COVID-19 crisis began, state and county governments recognized that overcrowded jail conditions could pose unacceptable health risks for inmates and staff. As the crisis has unfolded, all counties have taken steps to decrease their jail populations. Some have made steeper reductions than others, and some of the measures that have facilitated these reductions—reducing pretrial detention and setting bail at zero for many crimes—may have longer-term significance as California considers whether to eliminate money bail.

In December 2019, the average statewide daily population was 71,200—89% of capacity. However, about one in six county jails were at or over capacity, and twelve were between 120% and 190%. Looking only at numbers of jails understates the scale of the problem, because overcrowding was most prevalent in the biggest ones in a few large counties—Fresno, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego. About four in ten (39%) California inmates—more than 27,000 people—lived in jails that were filled to or beyond capacity just prior to the pandemic.

To reduce their jail populations, many counties began admitting fewer people to jail and releasing some inmates early. From February 29—when the Board of State and Community Corrections began reporting additional data—to April 11, the statewide jail population had fallen by 19%, to about 58,000 inmates. However, two county jail systems (Kings and Los Angeles Counties) remained over capacity and six county systems were at least 85% of capacity, accounting for over 20,000 inmates in total. Social distancing is challenging for inmates and staff at these capacity levels.

Between February 29 and April 11, all of California’s counties reduced their jail populations by releasing more people than they admitted. However, the reductions varied across counties: some lowered their jail populations by less than 10%, whereas others made reductions in excess of 50%.

To encourage further reductions in the jail population, the Judicial Council issued a statewide rule setting bail at $0 for misdemeanors and low-level felonies that went into effect on April 13. The “zero-bail” rule targets pretrial detainees, who historically have been about two-thirds of California’s jail population; many of these detainees are incarcerated mainly because they cannot pay bail. From April 11 to April 25, county jail releases continued to outpace admissions, with 14,154 people admitted and 19,924 released statewide.

Temporary state and county efforts to reduce jail populations come as California considers a permanent shift from cash bail to a risk-based system of determining pretrial release. Given the public safety concerns raised as the zero-bail rule was implemented, and the fact that voters will decide whether to make a permanent shift away from cash bail in November, it is important to assess the impact of zero bail and other emergency measures.

Jail Bookings Down Significantly during COVID-19

In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, California has sought to reduce county jail populations through a range of actions, including a “zero bail” emergency measure. This means that most misdemeanor and lower-level felonies currently have no bail amount associated with them, and that suspects are more likely to be cited and released instead of booked into jail. This new practice, along with decreases in crime and local directives to reduce arrests and bookings, appear to have drastically reduced the number of people sent to jail at this time.

A number of offenses—including felony burglary, driving under the influence, and the most serious sexual and violent crimes—can still receive a bail amount above zero. And law enforcement can still book someone into jail even for a so-called zero bail offense—but the arresting law enforcement agency (or the district attorney) has to request to a judge to set a bail amount. If the court denies the request then the suspect has to be released.

To get a sense of the magnitude of zero bail’s effect on releases and bookings, we looked at data from the Monthly Arrest and Citations Register (from 2016, the most recent available). These data do not perfectly identify zero bail offenses or the offenses excluded from the zero bail list. But they do allow us to identify an upper bound of the impact on jail bookings.

Of the roughly 1,140,000 arrests that we analyzed, about 791,000 were booked into jail (about 69% of arrests). About 317,000 of these bookings (or 40%) were for offenses in which bail is still is an option today. The remaining 474,000 bookings (or 60%) were for zero bail offenses.

This suggests that today, if the arrest offense distribution is currently the same as it was in 2016 and there are practically no requests to set bail for zero bail offenses, then only about 28% of arrests in California would lead to a booking into jail.

In 2016, misdemeanors made up the majority of arrests booked into jail (about 77%) for what are now zero bail crimes. Of these, the most common offenses were drugs (almost 28%), failure to appear in court on a misdemeanor offense (about 21%), drunk and disorderly conduct (12%), and traffic and petty theft (each about 5%). The most common felony offense bookings now set at zero bail were drug offenses (almost 30%), theft (22%), and vehicle theft (roughly 14%).

While crime appears to be down since the COVID-19 outbreak, and the type of crimes committed during the pandemic almost surely have changed, our examination of 2016 arrest data suggests that the implementation of zero bail—in addition to the effects of local directives and fewer crimes—means that far fewer people are being booked into jail at this time.

Recent statewide data from the Board of State and Community Corrections supports this conclusion, as it reveals that weekly jail bookings have dropped from 17,140 the week of February 23 to 6,880 the week of April 12 (a decrease of about 60%, consistent with our data analysis).

These findings suggest that the zero bail measure is playing a significant role in reducing crowding in California’s county jails and helping to make social distancing more achievable. Going forward, it will be important to monitor other possible impacts this reduction in jail bookings might have, including on homelessness, public safety, and access to health care.

Pretrial Risk and Cash Bail

Most of California’s jail inmates are unsentenced defendants awaiting arraignment, trial, or sentencing—and this heavy reliance on pretrial detention has come under scrutiny in recent years. The goals of pretrial detention are to make sure that defendants appear at court hearings and to ensure public safety. But California’s high pretrial detention rates have not been associated with more defendants appearing in court or lower levels of rearrest. Reforming the current system by allowing more defendants to be released pending trial could allow the state to free up scarce jail beds and realize substantial cost savings—while maintaining public safety.

Last year, state lawmakers examined the issue of cash bail, the predominate means by which defendants can be released pretrial. Legislation to change the system is pending. Under cash bail, judges can order defendants to pay a certain amount—which varies based on the alleged offense—in order to secure release. In most cases, defendants contract with bail bond companies to deposit the full amount of the bond with the court in exchange for a service fee (usually 10% of the bond). If the defendant complies with all court orders during the release period, the bond company gets the deposit back and keeps the defendant’s premium as payment. The idea is that the threat of financial penalty helps prevent pretrial misconduct—for example, making offenders less likely to flee the jurisdiction and more likely to appear in court.

However, there are several flaws in the bail system. Bail is calculated by offense, making it more challenging for defendants cited for more serious offenses to obtain release. This may make intuitive sense, but it turns out offense category is not typically a strong predictor of future misconduct. For instance, PPIC research found that misdemeanor probationers were in fact more likely to be booked into jail at least two times after release (19.6%) than felony probationers (17.6%). Moreover, cash bail makes it more difficult for low-income defendants to obtain release, regardless of their risk to public safety, raising concerns about whether the system is treating wealthy and poor individuals equitably.

The primary alternative is a risk-based framework in which law enforcement employs tools called risk assessments to determine which offenders can safely be released pretrial. Risk assessments use demographic data and information pertaining to a defendant’s criminal history to predict a defendant’s probability of disobeying the terms of his or her release. Some of these models show great promise. For example, researchers found judges in New York could reduce the jail population by 42% without affecting crime rates by following their model’s release recommendations.

But these tools have limitations. California already uses a range of risk assessment tools at the state and county levels, but they vary in predictive power based on whether they have been validated. Validating a risk tool means testing it using local data from the community of offenders it will be assessing. Counties using unvalidated, out-of-the-box risk assessments could improve their tools’ predictive powers by following the example of counties like Riverside, where county agencies collaborated with academics to tailor a tool that had been originally developed in Virginia to Riverside’s unique characteristics—boosting the model’s accuracy.

Local validation studies consume a lot of time and resources. Riverside’s took two years and required data from over 500 offenders. However, if the state continues to emphasize risk-based reform and evidence-based practices to improve its corrections system, making these models work for California and its counties should be a priority.

Video: The Impact of Realignment on Recidivism

California embarked on a major public safety reform in 2011, when it shifted responsibility for lower-level felony offenders from the state to the counties. Prompted by a federal court order to reduce prison overcrowding, this realignment resulted in a dramatic drop in the prison population and a decline in overall incarceration levels. A related goal was to reduce the state’s persistently high recidivism rates. Has it worked it out that way?

A new PPIC report looking at the first two years of realignment finds that it has had a modest effect on recidivism, which has varied across counties and groups of offenders. The report is based on data from 12 counties that are representative of the state. It examines recidivism through two measures—rearrest and reconviction rates—for offenders affected by the change. Mia Bird, report coauthor presented the results at a Sacramento briefing last week.

Bird outlined several key findings, including:

Slightly higher recidivism rates among individuals on post-release community supervision (PRCS). These offenders were released from state prison after serving time for certain low-level felonies and then supervised by county probation agencies. Higher rates of recidivism in some counties—notably Los Angeles County, the largest—are a major factor.
No consistent effect on recidivism among individuals sentenced under section 1170(h) of the California Penal Code. These offenders were sentenced for a specific set of lower-level felonies and, under realignment, served time in county jail rather than state prison.
Lower recidivism among 1170(h) offenders who received “straight sentences”—but mixed results among those with “split sentences.” The group serving “straight sentences”—jail time only—had the best outcomes: the same two-year rearrest rates and two-year reconviction rates that are lower. Those who got “split sentences”—jail time followed by probation supervision—had higher rates of rearrest but lower rates of reconviction compared with similar individuals before realignment.

Bird said she expects these results to vary over time as the composition of offenders changes and counties gain experience with evidence-based practices to reduce recidivism. In addition, further study is needed of the higher recidivism rates for groups that are supervised after their release. It could be that more individuals are reoffending—or it could be that their misconduct is more likely to be detected because they are being monitored more closely under probation supervision, Bird said.

New Laws Expand Criminal Justice Reforms

Governor Jerry Brown recently signed a number of bills that extend the state’s efforts to reform California’s adult and juvenile criminal justice system. This legislative package supplements previous reforms; several of the new laws could further reduce the state’s prison population, which remains subject to a court-ordered population target. The bills cover issues at all levels, including arrest, conviction, incarceration, and parole.

Arrest and conviction

SB 395 strengthens protections for arrested minors under the age of 16 by requiring that they confer with an attorney prior to waiving their Miranda rights and being interrogated by police. AB 529 allows juveniles to have their records sealed if they are not convicted. SB 312 allows juvenile offenders convicted of serious or violent offenses committed after the age of 14 to have their records sealed.
SB 393 allows adults to request that the court seal their records if they are arrested but not convicted.

Sentence enhancements

Sentence enhancements allow prosecutors to seek additional prison time in certain circumstances—such as the use of a firearm or gang involvement. The number of enhancements has increased dramatically over the past 30 years. SB 180 eliminates the three-year sentence enhancement for certain circumstances related to selling drugs, though it leaves in place the enhancement for using minors in the sale of illegal drugs. SB 620 allows judges the discretion to dismiss or strike sentence enhancements for offenders who are in possession of a firearm while committing a crime.

Parole

AB 1308 and SB 394 raise the age limit for youth parole from 23 to 25, and grant the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders serving life sentences after they serve at least 25 years.
AB 1448 allows certain offenders older than 60 who have been incarcerated for more than 25 years to be released to parole. It is worth noting that AB 1448 codifies a practice that has been helping the state reduce overcrowding: a total of 557 offenders were released under this program between February 2014 and August 2017.

Impact of supervision on juveniles and families

SB 625 reinstates honorable discharges for juvenile offenders who have “proven their ability to desist from criminal behavior.” An honorable discharge removes long-term penalties, such as the ban on juvenile offenders working as police officers.
SB 190 limits the financial liability of families for the housing, transport, or supervision of juvenile offenders.

The goal of these laws is to improve offender outcomes by emphasizing rehabilitation and reentry to the community—and possibly reducing pressure on the state budget. State lawmakers believe these bills are grounded in evidence-based practices. For example, the reduction of long-term penalties for juveniles and young adults is grounded in neuroscientific evidence that decision-making ability does not mature fully until the mid-20s.

Two bills that aim to reform the state’s bail system, AB 42 and SB 10, did not reach the governor’s desk this legislative year. However, the debate over bail reform will most likely continue in 2018. Advocates for reform believe that evidence-based practices that base pre-trial release decisions on an offender’s likelihood of appearing in court or reoffending—not his or her financial means—could significantly reduce the number of pre-trial offenders held in county jails. Opponents believe that the current bail system is the best way to make pre-trial release decisions while protecting public safety.

Crime Rates Stable Overall, But Some Counties See Big Changes

In 2011, California embarked on a series of criminal justice reforms, decreasing the state’s reliance on costly incarceration—and raising fears about the impact on public safety. A look at recently released crime numbers from the California Department of Justice show that while auto thefts are up almost 10%, the state has not seen a broad surge in crime since the reforms started. The violent crime rate is up 1.1% (and when adjusted for an important definitional change, is in fact down about 1%), while the property crime rate is down 3.2%. However, these statewide numbers mask substantial differences across counties.

Prompted by a federal court mandate to reduce the population of the state’s overcrowded prisons, California enacted public safety realignment in 2011. This historic reform shifted the management of lower-level felons from state prison and parole systems to county jail and probation systems. Since then—with the state still unable to meet the federal mandate—voters have passed three significant initiatives: Proposition 36 in 2012, Proposition 47 in 2014, and Proposition 57 in 2016. Due to the combined impact of these reforms, the state’s incarceration rate has declined dramatically and is now at a level not seen since the early 1990s.

While reforms were unquestionably needed—the state faced a possible federal order to release more than 30,000 prisoners early—critics have voiced concerns that public safety may be negatively affected and have asked whether less incarceration would reverse California’s long-term decline in crime rates.

Have reforms affected crime in California? A comparison of 2016 crime rates to those of 2010, the year before any of these reforms were implemented, provides a useful starting point.

The 2016 violent crime rate of 444 per 100,000 residents is up somewhat (1.1%) from the 2010 rate of 439 per 100,000 residents. However, the FBI implemented a change in 2014 that expanded the definition of sexual crimes that constitute rape. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, the new definition added about 38% to the number of reported rapes in 2014 in California, increasing the violent crime rate by about 8 more violent crimes per 100,000 residents. If we adjust the 2016 violent crime rate accordingly, from 444 to 436 per 100,000 residents, we find that this more comparable measure indicates a slight drop in violent crime (of about 1%) between 2010 and 2016.

The property crime rate in 2016 of 2,545 per 100,000 residents is down 3.2% from 2010 and is the second lowest rate observed since 1960 (the lowest was 2,459 per 100,000 residents in 2014). While the rate of auto theft is up 9.9%, burglaries have been decreasing noticeably since 2012 and are now down 21.9% from 2010. Larceny theft has changed very little (up less than 1%).

The picture is more complicated at the county level. A look at the 15 largest California counties shows that five saw double-digit drops in their violent crime rates between 2010 and 2016: San Mateo, Contra Costa, San Diego, Sacramento, and Alameda. But Ventura and Fresno Counties experienced increases of more than 10%. And while the property crime rate dropped more than 20% in three counties—Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Fresno—it went up a staggering 35.5% in San Francisco. Alameda County saw an increase of almost 10%.

How can we explain these differences? Before rushing to conclusions, there are several questions that need to be answered first. How have reforms affected factors such as arrests and incarceration? Do these differ across counties and what is their relationship to crime rates? Also, California’s crime trends may be affected by factors unrelated to recent reforms. How do statewide trends compare to what other states are seeing? Finally, have California’s reforms improved outcomes for those released from our jails and prisons? If so, this could help lower crime rates in the coming years. Our goal at PPIC is to address these important questions in our upcoming research.

Video: Reforms Challenge County Probation Departments

Changes in criminal justice policy have significantly altered the role of probation in the state and, as documented in a new PPIC report, have put considerable demands on counties.

The report, California Probation in the Era of Reform, is based on data from 12 counties and describes the changing characteristics of individuals under probation supervision. Viet Nguyen, report coauthor and PPIC research associate, presented the findings at a briefing in Sacramento. Among them:

Reforms shifted probation caseloads toward more serious offenders. Public safety realignment—implemented in 2011 and designed to address prison overcrowding—shifted the management of lower-level felons from the state prison and parole systems to county jails and probation departments. After realignment, the number of new probation cases increased steadily because of counties’ new responsibilities in managing two types of offenders: those released from state prison on post-release community supervision and those given “split sentences,” who serve part of their sentence in county jail and then are placed under mandatory supervision. In 2014, Proposition 47—which required that certain drug and property offenses be charged as misdemeanors—resulted in a dramatic decline in new felony and misdemeanor probation cases. But it also further concentrated the probation caseload on individuals who have committed more serious offenses.
Jail bookings are common among the probation population, especially for realigned offenders. Nearly half of people placed under probation supervision were booked into county jail within their first year. Realigned offenders had the highest booking rates, were more likely to enter jail multiple times in their first year, and stayed in jail longer than traditional felony and misdemeanor probation cases.
African Americans are overrepresented among people under probation supervision. African Americans make up 7.9% of the general population but 22.9% of those entering probation supervision. Overall, the shares of Latinos and whites under probation supervision were similar to their shares in the population, while Asian Americans made up a much smaller proportion of new probation cases.

Learn moreRead the report California Probation in the Era of Reform

Grants Awarded to Combat Recidivism

Proposition 47, passed by voters in November 2014, reclassified a number of drug and property offenses from felonies to misdemeanors. Backers of Proposition 47 argued that spending on prisons should be reserved for only the most violent and serious offenders, with more resources directed toward prevention and support programs.

Sentences were immediately reduced after the measure passed, and both the state prison and county jail populations declined. Between October 2014 and December 2016, the overall prison population dropped by 6,664 inmates (4.9%) and the jail population by 8,545 (10.4%). Although all of that decline cannot be attributed to the initiative, both populations have decreased as intended.

Proposition 47 requires any net state savings from the measure—coming from a decrease in the prison population—to go toward grants and programs for K‒12 schools (25% of savings), victim services (10%), and mental health and substance use disorder treatment (65%). It should be noted that the measure did not require counties to report or redirect any local savings that may come from the change in sentencing.

The measure required that the first transfer of savings occur by August 2016. This first transfer totaled more than $67 million and went to the three agencies tasked with distributing the grants (Table 1). The first grants were awarded this month. It’s estimated that nearly $46 million in savings will be transferred for fiscal year 2017–18. By 2019–20, long-term savings will be $75 million annually.

Administration of grants for those with mental health and substance use disorders is the responsibility of the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC). This independent state agency already oversees statewide regulations, inspections, and new construction funding for local jails and juvenile facilities. I focus on the BSCC grant program below because it is the largest category of Proposition 47 savings and is the only grant program that will help current offenders in the criminal justice system. However, it’s important to note that the California Department of Education has recently awarded its first year of grant funding.

All projects funded through the BSCC are required to include some combination of mental health services, substance use disorder treatment, and efforts to work with individuals before arrest or booking into jail. Priority is given to projects that also provide housing-related support and/or other community-based supportive services. At least half of the funds have to go to non-governmental community based organizations.

The BSCC is using the Proposition 47 funds to provide three-year grants, with an estimated $104 million available in funding from June 2017 to August 2020. Fifty-eight public agencies—including superior courts; school districts; district and city attorneys; health and human services; and police, probation, sheriff, and county education offices—submitted proposals. In the end, the BSCC is funding 23 projects across 17 counties, totaling $103.7 million in funding.

Projects are considered small or large depending on their funding level. Fifteen large scale projects (more than $1 million) received funding, including $6 million for the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office to implement a health-focused drug intervention and pre-booking diversion program in five South Los Angeles locations. Eight small scale projects ($1 million) received funding, including $960,667 for Merced County Probation Department to provide mental health and substance treatment for men up to 24 years old in the Los Banos region.

The goals of these programs are twofold: showing successful outcomes for participants, and giving criminal justice practitioners and policymakers more information on effective tools for evidence-based programming. PPIC will continue to describe and follow these projects in the months and years to come.

Women in Jail

Women are the fastest growing segment of America’s jail population, yet the characteristics of female inmates are not well documented. Nationally, their numbers have increased 14-fold from 1970 to 2014. In California, the women’s jail population has risen 6-fold—from 1,725 in 1970 to 12,054 in 2014—twice as much as the male jail population over the same period.

PPIC’s work on jail populations shows that female jail inmates differ in lots of ways from their male counterparts, most notably in the types of offenses they are held on. This work is based on detailed records provided by 11 counties—which contain two-thirds of the state’s jail population—as part of a long term project PPIC has undertaken in collaboration with the California Board of State and Community Corrections to improve outcomes for correctional populations in California.

In the participating counties, women are more likely than men to be booked into jail for misdemeanors (54% of women to 48% of men). They are also more likely than men to be booked for property and drug offenses (46% to 36%). Women also serve less time for drug, property and all other crimes at both misdemeanor and felony levels.

Because of the different offending patterns between men and women, California’s recent corrections reforms have affected them differently. Public safety realignment, which took effect in 2011, transferred authority for thousands of lower-level felons from the state prison system to county correctional systems. Today, many lower-level felons now serve their sentences in jail rather than prison. These offenders have committed crimes considered non-serious, non-violent, and non-sexual—the type women are more likely to commit.

Both male and female offenders charged with these crimes increased in the first three years after realignment. However, a higher proportion of women who would have been sent to state prison before realignment were held in jails after realignment. By September 2014, three years after realignment began, 37% of the female jail population and 30% of the male jail population were charged with lower-level felony offenses.

In 2014, Proposition 47 reclassified several property and drug crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. These offenses are also committed by a greater share of women than men. As with realignment, Proposition 47 had a greater impact on women than men, and women appear to have more greatly benefited. One year after the proposition passed, the percentage of women in custody for Proposition 47 offenses dropped from 32% to 16%. The percentage of men in custody for Proposition 47 offenses dropped from 22% to 12%. In other words, a greater proportion of Proposition 47 offenders were women, and the share of women in jail dropped by a greater percentage after the proposition. The racial and ethnic composition of female offenders did not change across the reforms.

More broadly, research suggests that the reasons for and consequences of female offending are different. Treatment and intervention that will be most effective for women—called “gender responsive” strategies—need to be at the forefront of policy discussions about how to manage female offenders. Moreover, because of the short time most women actually spend in custody, those strategies should not focus solely on jail, but must extend to women’s reentry into the community.