Tag: recidivism

Video: Recidivism of Felony Offenders in California

Over the past decade, California has implemented several corrections reforms—including public safety realignment in 2011 and Proposition 47 in 2014. The aim was to reduce incarceration levels and improve offender outcomes without reducing public safety. The rate of rearrest and reconviction, or recidivism—which has long been quite high in California—is an important indicator of the impact of the reforms. At a briefing in Sacramento last Thursday, PPIC researcher Mia Bird outlined the findings of a new report on recidivism among all types of felony offenders—including those sentenced to prison, jail only, jail followed by probation, or probation only.

Recidivism is often used to capture changes in reoffending in response to a policy change. However, it is important to note that these rates may also reflect changes in the practices of criminal justice agencies. The PPIC analysis, which draws on data collected from 12 representative counties, finds that overall recidivism rates for felony offenders declined between 2011 and 2015. Bird outlined several other key findings:

  • Rearrest and reconviction rates fell sharply for felony drug offenses; rearrest rates went up slightly among individuals convicted of offenses against a person (including violent offenses), but the reconviction rate did not change.
  • Recidivism rates declined for all four sentencing groups. Initially, there were increases in recidivism among individuals who were sentenced to probation, with or without jail time, but these rates decreased in later years and under Proposition 47.
  • Individuals released from prison had the highest reconviction rates; this finding is consistent with previous research that has found little evidence of a link between more-severe sanctions and lower recidivism.
  • Rearrest rates for felony offenses increased in the last several months covered by the analysis.

Bird noted that there are several possible interpretations of these findings. There are grounds for optimism: “We do see that we’ve achieved a really large reduction in incarceration and we haven’t seen big increases in recidivism. In many ways that suggests that we’ve managed this transition quite well.”

However, she underlined the need to recognize that recidivism rates are linked to multiple factors: “They may partially represent individual behavior and they may partially represent criminal justice practice.”

Asked what the PPIC analysis indicates about future steps the state should take, Bird said, “Policy that supports data collection, data integration, and monitoring and evaluation . . . is essential. We know we can do better if we know more.”

Video: The Impact of Proposition 47 on Crime and Recidivism

Proposition 47, passed by voters in November 2014, has generated considerable debate. By reducing penalties for some lower-level drug and property offenses, Prop 47 marked another significant step toward reducing California’s reliance on incarceration. Supporters of the reform believe that redirecting money that is no longer being spent on incarceration to behavioral health and other treatment programs would reduce recidivism. Opponents feared that Prop 47 would overburden local law enforcement and lead to increases in crime.

A panel discussion in Sacramento last Thursday encapsulated this debate—but also featured significant areas of agreement. PPIC researcher Mia Bird set the scene by outlining a new report, The Impact of Proposition 47 on Crime and Recidivism. The report finds no evidence that Prop 47 has affected violent crime rates but sees signs that it led to a rise in property crime—driven largely by thefts from motor vehicles. The report also finds a decline in recidivism, driven largely by a drop in rearrest and reconviction rates for offenders covered by Prop 47.

Bird pointed out that “Prop 47 likely sent a signal to law enforcement to reprioritize their resources away from arrests for drug possession toward more serious offenses.”

Fresno police chief Jerry Dyer underlined this point. “Whenever you have laws that take away your ability to arrest certain individuals for a felony, and you know there’s no room in the jail for misdemeanants, you shift your resources [toward] violent criminals.”

For George Gascón, San Francisco’s district attorney, “Prop 47 is a mild beginning of a process where we go back and see where we want to put public resources.” He pointed out that the negative impact of high rates of incarceration has been felt primarily in communities of color, and added that recent crime fluctuations need to be placed in the context of historically low crime rates over the past several years.

For Dyer, reclassifying some drug and property crimes as misdemeanors means that there are “no consequences for individuals who are committing crimes.” Dyer also noted that when Prop 47 passed, local law enforcement was still adjusting to the realignment of corrections responsibilities that was enacted three years earlier. The pace of reform has felt like “trying to take a drink of water out of a fire hose.”

While the panelists had differing views on the state’s shift away from incarceration, they agreed on the importance of treatment programs for mental health and substance abuse disorders. Gascón noted that with funding from Prop 47, “communities are beginning to experiment with different ways of treating the drug addiction and mental health issues that drive many crimes.” Dyer agreed, noting that “jail is no place for people with mental health issues.”

Kate Howard, executive director of the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC), explained how the BSCC developed a process for allocating 65% of the money saved by reductions in incarceration to local programs. The BSCC sought input from across the state, and the grant steering committee includes several ex-offenders, whose experience with the corrections system was “instrumental.” The first 23 grants were awarded in June 2017. While it is too early to measure their impact, Howard said there is “great reason for optimism.”

Tailoring Domestic Violence Programs to Reduce Recidivism

California law requires that all domestic violence offenders who receive a probation sentence participate in a one-year rehabilitation program. A bill (AB 372) currently under consideration in the state legislature would allow five counties (Napa, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Yolo) to pilot a new kind of treatment program tailored to offenders’ risks—their likelihood of reoffending—and needs. This program must include practices that are shown by research to be effective or promising in terms of reducing recidivism.

Domestic violence is a serious public health and safety issue that affects families, communities, and criminal justice systems. Drawing on data collected in 12 California counties through the BSCC–PPIC Multi-County Study, we find domestic violence offenders make up a significant share of local jail populations. From October 2011 to October 2014, 6% of all jail bookings were associated with domestic violence. After the passage of Proposition 47—which reclassified certain drug and property offenses to misdemeanors—in 2014, domestic violence accounted for roughly 8% of jail bookings.

Domestic violence offenders also tend to have high rates of recidivism. Three-fifths of individuals convicted of domestic violence are rearrested within two years—and 67% of this group are rearrested for another domestic violence offense. The large volume of domestic violence offenses combined with high recidivism rates highlight the need to understand and address the factors underlying these offenses.

The demographics and criminal histories of domestic violence offenders vary greatly—suggesting that effective interventions may differ as well. When we examine individuals who received probation sentences between October 2011 and October 2015, the majority (85%) of offenders are men. However, women still represent a significant share of the population, and treatment needs may vary based on gender. In addition, while most of these offenders are age 35 or younger (the average age is 34), a sizable minority are age 46 or above. Older offenders may have distinct needs compared to younger offenders, as problematic relationship patterns may be more difficult to address over time.

Criminal history background may also help determine appropriate interventions. Among domestic violence offenders receiving probation sentences, 18% were convicted of felonies and 82% were convicted of misdemeanors. We find that domestic violence offenders have an average of nine prior arrests for any kind of offense. On average, these offenders have one prior domestic violence arrest; 53% have no prior arrests for domestic violence, while 5% have six or more priors.

This variation suggests that tailoring domestic violence programs based on offenders’ risks and needs could be beneficial. However, there is much to learn. Any effort to address this important problem should include substantial program monitoring and data collection on participants’ characteristics and outcomes—creating the opportunity to learn about effective practices and potentially apply them statewide.

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.

Proposition 57’s Impact on Prisons

Proposition 57 creates opportunities for the release of thousands of state prisoners through the expansion of parole eligibility and good conduct and programming credits. When 64% of voters approved the measure in November 2016, there were few details about how it would be implemented. During the 2017–18 budget process, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) outlined implementation plans and population estimates, and now we have a better sense of the potential impact of this measure on the prison population.

Proposition 57 will significantly reduce the number of prison inmates—and, in combination with other statewide criminal justice reforms over the past six years, it will enable the system to keep its inmate population below the court-ordered cap of 137.5% of design capacity. Overall, Proposition 57 is expected to reduce the population by more than 2,600 inmates in 2017‒18, with a net cost savings of nearly $40 million. Long-term estimates put the population impact at 11,500 by 2020–21, for an annual savings of more than $180 million.

CDCR’s new parole regulations exclude prisoners who are serving a term for a violent felony (as defined by Penal Code 667.5), required to register as sex offenders under Penal Code 290, serving life sentences, or on death row. Eligible offenders receive parole consideration after serving full sentences for their primary offenses (their longest sentences). These offenders are no longer required to serve sentence enhancements for gang activity or prior prison terms. The state estimates that this new process—which went into effect on July 1—will reduce the prison population by almost 500 offenders in fiscal year 2017–18.

CDCR has also created additional educational and rehabilitative programming and increased the amount of credits inmates can earn for both good behavior and program completion. For example, in 2015 there were 95 career technical education programs (including training in auto repair, home construction and maintenance, and office technology); now there are 197 programs, with new classes in almost every career tech area.

Good behavior credits were expanded for almost all eligible inmates on May 1, 2017. The expanded programming credits will take effect August 1, 2017. The state estimates that these additional credit earning opportunities will reduce the prison population by more than 2,100 in the 2017–18 fiscal year.

State officials believe that Proposition 57 will allow them to keep the prison population below the cap while maintaining public safety. In addition to monitoring Proposition 57’s effect on public safety, recidivism, and costs, corrections officials and policymakers should pay close attention to the supply, demand, and—most importantly—effectiveness of the education and rehabilitation programs offered to inmates to ensure that the measure’s goals are realized.

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.

Video: Assessing Corrections Reforms

California leads the nation in correctional reforms. It has dramatically reduced incarceration and done so without a major increase in crime rates, a new PPIC report concludes. But the state and counties still faces major challenges. A panel of state and local experts discussed them in Sacramento last week. Among some of the challenges:

  • Preventing the prison population from increasing. Under federal court order to reduce prison overcrowding, California enacted public safety realignment and quickly reduced the prison population to about 200,000 inmates. But Scott Kernan, secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, said it may be a challenge to keep the number of inmates below the court-mandated target. Based on population projections, the prisons will run out of available beds soon, he said.

  • Continuing to improve prison health care. California continues to operate under a court-ordered federal receivership. Although the state has invested significantly to improve inmate health services, the receiver has turned over management of health care to the state at only 7 of the state’s 34 prisons. Kernan said the state is on a path toward full control.

  • Adapting to changing jail populations. The counties—sheriffs, probation departments, and the courts—have had to quickly adjust, first to an increase in their populations under realignment, then to an decrease under Proposition 47, which reduced penalties on some drug and property crimes. Today, jails built for short stays now house more serious offenders for longer periods. Probation departments had to quickly build relationships with community organizations to develop reentry services, said Wendy Still, Alameda County’s chief probation officer. “What I think is amazing,” she said, “Is just how fast the counties were able to make this shift and to be able to create the partnerships, to break down the barriers and begin to create these systems of care—and also to retrain their staffs.”

  • Understanding the impact of Proposition 47 on crime rates. The PPIC report says the impact of Proposition 47 on crime is not yet clear. Geoff Dean, Ventura County sheriff, argued that it has been significant and that it has clogged courts. He and Still both said that by reducing some felony drug offenses to misdemeanors, Proposition 47 removed incentives for offenders with substance abuse problems to get treatment. Before Proposition 47, certain offenders convicted of felonies went to drug court as an alternative to traditional prosecution, and they were required to get treatment. Misdemeanor offenders don’t face the same sanctions. “There’s a whole segment of that population that’s not getting treatment,” he said. “And the cycle continues.”

Panelists echoed the conclusions of PPIC report coauthor Magnus Lofstrom. The state and counties need to identify and implement cost-effective strategies to reduce re-offending—to reduce pressures on prisons and jails, improve public safety, reduce spending, and improve the lives of those in the corrections system and their families.

Video: County Jails and the ACA

A majority of inmates in California’s jail system are likely to be eligible for Medi-Cal, and providing health care coverage for them could have multiple benefits. These are the key findings of a new PPIC report, Expanding Health Coverage in California: County Jails as Enrollment Sites.

Coauthor Shannon McConville presented the report to a Sacramento audience last week. She noted that the 4 million state residents who are still uninsured will probably be the toughest to reach. The legislature has allocated money to target these Californians and increase enrollment in health coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

At the same time, counties—which have gained new responsibilities for low-level criminal offenders—have new incentives to help inmates successfully transition back into the community and avoid further contact with the criminal justice system.

“Health coverage, newly available under the ACA, could be part of a more comprehensive reentry strategy,” McConville said.

Managed care plans are also increasingly focused on better integrating physical health and behavioral health, providing more mental health and substance abuse treatment—services needed by the jail population.

These policy changes add up to an opportunity to leverage federal and state Medi-Cal resources to improve both public health and safety. Enrolling inmates could improve health care in the jail system, lower county corrections costs, and reduce recidivism.

McConville said the work to achieve these goals is just beginning. Counties are still adjusting to their new responsibilities. As a first step, they will need to identify effective enrollment strategies that improve reentry and reduce recidivism.

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.

Recidivism and Realignment

Early feedback is starting to come in about corrections realignment, the 2011 shift of responsibility for more than 30,000 criminal offenders from the state level to the counties. The issue continues to dominate discussion in the California public safety community. But there are still many questions to be answered about how counties are implementing the changes and what effect realignment is having on criminal behavior.

Last Friday, research fellow Ryken Grattet spoke at a Sacramento briefing about PPIC’s latest research, which looked at recidivism rates for released offenders now being supervised by county probation departments. The study found that offenders released to counties that emphasized reentry services did better than those released to counties that emphasized traditional law enforcement, at least in the first months after realignment. After the briefing, Grattet was joined in the question-and-answer period by his coauthor, research fellow Mia Bird.