Tag: parole

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.

Next Steps for Proposition 57

The passage of Proposition 57 brings significant changes to California’s criminal justice system. At the same time, the initiative lacks specificity and there is great uncertainty about what its impact might be.

The measure increases the chances for parole of felons in state prison who are convicted of nonviolent crimes and expand inmates’ opportunities to earn credits for good behavior. This loosening of parole rules will ease prison overcrowding through the early release of thousands of inmates. Less controversially, it will also allow judges, rather than prosecutors, to decide if juvenile defendants over age 14 can be tried in adult court.

Proposition 57’s impact will depend on which inmates will be eligible for parole, how early they are released, and the effectiveness of the new credits—which will depend, in part, on whether the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has the capacity to immediately provide effective rehabilitative programs.

The initiative is the latest of a number of reforms adopted since 2009, when a federal court issued a mandate to reduce overcrowding in the state’s prison system to improve inmate health care. Over the past several years, the total prison population has declined by about 41,000. At 113,700, the institutional population is now almost 2,200 below the court-mandated target of 137.5% of design capacity. Early in 2016, however, the prison population began to increase, and is now about 1,900 higher than it was at the end of January. If this average monthly increase of more than 200 inmates continues, the prison population could be above the mandated target within a year.

Proposition 57 gives CDCR two tools to address this population pressure. First, it makes prison inmates serving time for “non-violent” felonies eligible for parole consideration after serving the full sentence for their primary offenses, without having to serve time for additional crimes or enhancements, such as gang affiliation or prior felonies. But it is not clear which specific crimes will make inmates ineligible for early parole. The list of 23 violent felonies in the state penal code does not include crimes such as assault with a deadly weapon, certain rapes, and some gang crimes.

If eligibility is extended to those who have not been convicted of these 23 violent offenses, the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) estimates that about 30,000 inmates currently in state prison would be eligible for early parole, as would an additional 7,500 inmates admitted in each year thereafter. However, the number of inmates who will be granted early release will almost certainly be lower than 30,000. The CDCR has the discretion to determine eligibility, and eligible inmates will be granted parole based on their assessed risk to public safety by the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH). There were 5,300 parole suitability hearings in 2015, and BPH granted parole to only 906 inmates, a rate of about 17%.

Second, and importantly, the initiative gives CDCR authority to award credits for good behavior and rehabilitative or educational achievements. In addition to reducing the prison population, the incentive of early release based on completion of programs aimed at reducing the likelihood of reoffending is also likely to increase inmate demand for approved rehabilitative or educational programming.

The proposition’s advocates hope that more effective programming combined with incentives to participate will better prepare inmates for reentry into the community. They also hope it will lower the state’s high recidivism rates—we recently reported that about two-thirds of inmates released from prison are rearrested within two years and about two-fifths are re-convicted of a new crime.

It will be up to the CDCR secretary to determine which programs are credit-eligible and the size of the credit inmates would receive for participating. It is unclear whether CDCR will have the capacity to meet new demand for these programs—this will be crucial to implementing Proposition 57.

A key question to be answered in the years to come is whether Proposition 57 will affect crime rates. To answer it, we need to know how many inmates are released early, who they are, and to what extent they complete effective programming.

For all of the unknowns, one aspect of Proposition 57 is clear: it does push the state to focus on evaluating, implementing, and meeting the demand for evidence-based programs that help inmates prepare for successful reentry into the community.