Prop 47 Reaps Rewards

Wonderful news via KPCC:

Los Angeles County probation officials reported Thursday that Los Angeles County's jail population is at its lowest level since realignment sent it soaring in 2012 - and they expect it to keep dropping. They credit voter-approved Proposition 47, which lowered penalties for drug crimes.

In a status report to the county Board of Supervisors, officials said L.A. County's jails had fewer than 16,000 inmates at the end of 2014. Just two months earlier, there were more than 19,000 inmates.

L.A.'s jail population was last under 16,000 inmates in 2011. The numbers began to climb when the state launched its massive "realignment" effort. That policy called for sentencing non-serious, non-violent, and non-sexual offenders to county jail, rather than state prison, which led to overcrowding in the county's jails.

Proposition 47 passed in November and has effectively erased the crowding caused by realignment.

Officials said the drop has allowed them to keep more offenders incarcerated for larger portions of their sentence. They still don't have enough space to keep everyone for their entire sentence.

But officials expect the jail population to keep dropping.

About 2,500 jail inmates are likely eligible for re-sentencing and early release, according to the probation department. Inmates must apply for re-sentencing, and have it approved in court.

A few comments:

(1) This is further proof that it pays off to be cheap on crime.
(2) It's beautiful to see Prop 47 do what the realignment could not - put people out of incarceration in the first place, rather than shift them across jurisdictions - and cure some of the financial and physical bulges created by realignment.
(3) I'm now sitting and waiting for the other shoe to drop--the stories analyzing the impact of Prop 47 on crime rates. When these start coming through, be mindful of research quality; a lot has happened since the recession, and since the realignment, that needs to be controlled for.
(4) Plenty of the L.A. jail inmates are pretrial detainees, who of course are not affected by the passage of Prop 47. How about alleviating some of that unnecessary crowding via sensible bail reform?


------------
Props to Francine Lipman for the link.

State Budget 2014-2015

Just in the nick of time, the CA Legislature has approved the 2014-2014 state budget.

The passed budget contains a few highlights pertinent to the criminal justice system, which can be found in the trailer bill, AB 1468:

• Persons with felony drug offenses will now be eligible for CalFRESH & CalWORKS; 
• The budget allocates $2 million for licenses/I.Ds for parolees; and,
• There will be a presumption of split sentencing for realigned offenders. 

The final budget bill, SB 852, can be seen here.

New Bill Proposes Allowing Counties to Import/Export Inmates

One of the declared purposes of the Realignment was to benefit from the added rehabilitative value of doing time within one's community, close to one's family and social network, and in the context of one's future housing and job opportunities upon release. But this concept turns out to be more malleable than we might've thought in 2011. A new bill, AB 1512, aims at allowing counties to import/export inmates from/to other counties. The introduction to the bill elaborates:

Existing law, until July 1, 2015, authorizes the board of supervisors of a county, where, in the opinion of the county sheriff or the director of the county department of corrections, adequate facilities are not available for prisoners, to enter into an agreement with any other county whose county adult detention facilities are adequate for and accessible to the first county and requires the concurrence of the receiving county’s sheriff or the director of the county department of corrections. Existing law also requires a county entering into a transfer agreement with another county to report annually to the Board of State and Community Corrections on the number of offenders who otherwise would be under that county’s jurisdiction but who are now being housed in another county’s facility and the reason for needing to house the offenders outside the county.

This bill would extend the operation of those provisions until July 1, 2020.

Existing law, operative July 1, 2015, authorizes a county where adequate facilities are not available for prisoners who would otherwise be confined in its county adult detention facilities to enter into an agreement with the board or boards of supervisors of one or more nearby counties whose county adult detention facilities are adequate for, and are readily accessible from, the first county for the commitment of misdemeanants and persons required to serve a term of imprisonment in a county adult detention facility as a condition of probation in jail in a county that is party to the agreement. Existing law, operative July 1, 2015, requires these agreements to provide for the support of a person so committed or transferred by the county from which he or she is committed.

This is not a particularly original solution to jail overcrowding. After all, we already export thousands of CA inmates to other states, where they are housed in private facilities. Compared to the uprooting and difficulties of out-of-state incarceration, this is really small potatoes. On the other hand, at least with state prisons there was no pretense of trying to rehabilitate people close to their communities. California is a very large state; a family visit to Corcoran or Pelican Bay requires many, many hours of driving from the Bay Area. Large scale import/export of inmates by counties wishing to utilize their facilities to improve their budgets works against the idea of local justice, frustrating one of the purposes of Realignment.

UPDATE: CURB has circulated a petition against the bill. 

CJCJ Report: No Connection Between Realignment and Crime Rates

There has been a lot of scaremongering in the press about rising crime rates as a result of realignment; these stories often feature a cop offering his opinion about how scary the world has become since 2011. Alas, it seems that a systematic analysis of the data refutes these panicked impressions: a new CJCJ report published today examines the impact of Public Safety Realignment and county dependence on state prison in light of California’s 2012 slight crime increase and finds “no conclusive trends demonstrating a causal relationship between Realignment and crime.”

• Nearly all counties had substantial decreases in prison admissions, but crime trends varied erratically, indicating no general correlation between crime and Realignment. Madera County experienced a 24% increase in overall Part I crime rates, while Placer County experienced a 14% decrease. Violent crime trends were also highly variable, with a 46% increase in Kings County to a 26% decline in Humboldt and Napa counties.

·         Los Angeles County presents a special case with a higher than average proportion of realigned individuals, yet continuing declines in crime worthy of further examination to determine if model practices exist for statewide replication.

• CJCJ found no correlation between high realignment rates and motor vehicle theft. There was also no difference in violent crime rates between high realignment and low realignment counties.
• Highly state-dependent counties experienced a larger increase in property crime. However, that even neighboring counties show large variances in crime trends, indicates factors other than Realignment are at work.

Additionally, the California Sentencing Institute (CASI) released its 2012 adult data, demonstrating the continuing prevalence of geographical disparities in county sentencing practices. New features for 2012 include more breakdowns by race, gender, and offense.

It is still too early to draw definitive conclusions about the impact, if any, of Realignment on crime. Policymakers should be cautious of adopting statewide policies that modify elements of Realignment based on narrow and anecdotal evidence from just one or a handful of counties. Instead, CJCJ recommends policymakers develop state resources to expand research capacity and leadership on tracking the impact of Realignment.

Read the entire thing here.

Gubernatorial Budget 2014-2015

The Governor's proposed budget for 2014-2015 is out and its full text is here. Public safety is addressed on pages 65-88 and the correctional budget is addressed on pages 89-93.

The budget proposes total funding of $9.8 billion ($9.5 billion General Fund and $320 million other funds), which is 9% of the state budget - only slightly less than our expenditures on higher education.

The report reviews the history of realignment and the Plata litigation, mentioning the state prison system's commitment to reentry as per the Blueprint titled The Future of California Corrections (here is the Blueprint, for your convenience.) The report emphasizes CDCR's commitment to expanding the rehabilitation menu to reach 70% of all inmates.

The report goes, at length, into the changes brought about with realignment, including the following useful classification of the prison population:

Still, the state prison population is higher than projected in 2013 - about 135,000 inmates vs. the 129,000 projected. The parolee population is expected to increase in 2013-2014 and decrease in 2014-2015, as a result of realignment and the transference of post-sentence supervisees to the counties. There are also more juvenile wards than projected, as a result of an increase in first admissions and in parole violations.

The budget report explicitly refers to the legal battle waged around the 137.5% capacity cap mandated by the federal court, and assumes that the deadline for meeting the cap will be extended by two years. Remember the $315 million that Governor Brown appropriated at the very last minute of the last legislative session? If there is an extension, the budget will allocate the first $75 million of the money to recidivism reduction (state reentry, substance abuse treatment, services for the mentally ill, and a special reentry facility) and the rest to the general fund. However, should the population cap deadline not be delayed, the money will be invested in private prisons "to avoid the early release of inmates." You can see where this is going; the money is essentially there to more-or-less extort the Three Judge Panel and circumvent its perceived intention. The message is - play nice and give us two more years, in which case we'll invest in rehabilitation, or you'll get private prisons galore.

More interesting stuff: A projected expansion of medical and elderly parole. The age cutoff for the latter is 60, which means 5.4 percent of male inmates and 4.4 percent of female inmates (as of June 30.) If they pushed the age cutoff back to 55, which makes criminological and gerontological sense (people age faster in prison, and people leave crime behind at an earlier age), you'd be releasing 11.2 percent of men and 10.4 percent of women. So - a step in the right direction, but plenty of room for improvement.

The report also mentions two other savings mechanisms: nonviolent third-striker releases per Prop 36 and juvenile parole per SB260. While the report doesn't explicitly take credit for them, it is a bit surprising to read such positive reports of these from an entity that fought the spirit of these initiatives for years.

A considerable amount of the money will be spent on improving health scores in state prisons so they can be wrangled away from the Receiver. Much of the money is allocated to fund litigation, to fight the Receiver and class-action suits in court; the rest of it on improvements to pharmacies, facilities, and staff training. The report mentions the impact of Obamacare on health care for county inmates as opposed to state inmates.

Lastly, there are some notable comments on realignment in the counties. There's a proposal to make split sentences the default, but it still leaves a considerable amount of discretion to county judges, and would still create big disparities between county. Also, the report notes that keeping long-term inmates in county jails is not a great idea, but does not volunteer to take them back into state institutions en masse (as Manuel Perez has just suggested) because of the need to comply with the Plata/Coleman caps. The state is willing to take in offenders who are serving 10 years or more - that's about 300 years annually - but that, of course, raises the question why people receive 10 years in prison for non-non-non offenses in the first place.

Rolling Back Realignment

Yesterday, Assemblymember V. Manuel Perez introduced AB 1449, also to be known as the Realignment Omnibus Act of 2014. The bill, if passed, would significantly regress the achievements of realignment and increase overcrowding in state prisons. Here's what it purports to do:

(1) Under existing law, certain specified felonies are punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, or 2 or 3 years or, where the term is specified, for the term described in the underlying offense. Notwithstanding these provisions, existing law requires that a sentence be served in state prison where the defendant has a prior or current conviction for a serious or violent felony, has a prior felony conviction in another jurisdiction that has all of the elements of a serious or violent felony, is required to register as a sex offender, or has an aggravated white collar crime enhancement imposed as part of the sentence.

This bill would additionally require a sentence to be served in the state prison when the defendant is convicted of a felony or felonies otherwise punishable in a county jail and is sentenced to an aggregate term of more than 3 years.

(2) Existing law requires that all persons released from prison after serving a prison term for a felony, be subject to postrelease community supervision provided by a county agency for a period of 3 years immediately following release, except for persons released after serving a term for a serious felony, a violent felony, an offense for which the person was sentenced pursuant to the 3 strikes law, a crime where the person is classified as a high-risk sex offender, or a crime where the person is required to undergo treatment by the State Department of State Hospitals because the person has a severe mental disorder. Existing law requires these persons to be subject to parole supervision by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation following release from state prison and the jurisdiction of the court in the county in which the parolee is released, resides, or in which an alleged violation of supervision has occurred.

This bill would also require any person who is released from prison who has a prior conviction for any of the above crimes to be subject to parole supervision by the department and the jurisdiction of the court in the county in which the parolee is released, resides, or in which an alleged violation of supervision has occurred.

(3) Existing law, the Postrelease Community Supervision Act of 2011, requires certain inmates released from state prison to be subject to 3 years of supervision by a county agency. The act provides that if the supervising county agency has determined, following application of its assessment processes, that authorized intermediate sanctions are not appropriate, the supervising county agency is required to petition the revocation hearing officer to revoke and terminate postrelease supervision of the inmate. Existing law allows the revocation hearing officer to order the person to confinement in a county jail for a period not to exceed 180 days, among other sanctions. This bill would, if the person has been found to have violated the conditions of postrelease community supervision on 2 or more prior occasions, allow the revocation hearing officer to revoke and terminate postrelease community supervision and order the person to confinement in the state prison for a period of one year.

What this means, in plain speech, is that the definition of "non-non-non" offenses, which now trigger judicial discretion to sentence a person to jail or to mandatory supervision, will dramatically change, sentencing people who received longer prison sentences to state institutions. That may not be all tragic, as many jails are very poorly equipped to handle people who are sentenced for long periods; but many of those folks shouldn't go in for such long sentences in the first place, and this would only solidify that.

It also means that the idea behind realignment, to supervise people locally in their communities, will be rolled back, and state parole will receive some of the power it lost back from county probation departments, some of whom did a stellar job retooling supervision as an instrument of reentry and hope.

This is a very disappointing bill, and for your good deed of the day, please call your representatives in the Assembly and Senate and tell them how you feel.

Community Mobilizing Against San Francisco Jail Expansion

Next Tuesday, San Francisco County Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi will be addressing the Board of Supervisors with a request for $80 million to fund construction of a new San Francisco jail. Construction costs are estimated to be at least $300 million--$700 with debt service--altogether.

Mirkarimi, who faces reelection in 2015 after a controversial arrest and reinstatement, argues that the new jail will be necessary when the seismically vulnerable Hall of Justice, which houses 828 arrestees, will be demolished. But opponents believe that existing facilities are underused, and that not all detainees awaiting trial need to be behind bars. Even law enforcement officials question the need for new construction.

If you are concerned about spending public money to build more jail space, call your supervisor and email to express your concerns.

California Realignment Resources

This post will be continuously updated and serve as a bibliography of published works and works in progress on the California Criminal Justice Realignment. If you are working on similar topics or know of a project not mentioned here, please email me with the details and possibly a link.

Jones, Nicole. 2012. Realignment: California's Criminal Justice Experiment. KALW four-part radio show.

Macallair, Dan, et al. 2012. Lessons Learned:The Santa Cruz County Story, Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice.

Owen, Barbara, and Alan Mobley. 2012. “Realignment in California: Policy and Research Implications.” Western Criminology Review 13(2):46-52.

Schlanger, Margo. 2013. Plata v. Brown and Realignment: Jails, Prisons, Courts, and Politics, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review (CR-CL), 48(1).

Spencer, Jessica, and Joan Petersilia. 2013. Voices from the Field: California Victims’ Rights in A Post-Realignment World. Federal Sentencing Reporter 25(4).

Researching the California Criminal Justice Realignment

I am in Seattle, WA, for the West Coast Law and Society Retreat, where we just finished a panel examining various perspectives on the criminal justice realignment. The panel featured several folks doing work on criminal justice reform from various perspectives: W. David Ball from Santa Clara University, Mona Lynch from UC Irvine, Jonathan Simon from UC Berkeley, and Katherine Beckett from University of Washington. We all talked about the research that is being done, the research that should be done, how the research community can be relevant and influential in making healthy decisions about corrections in California, and the impediments and challenges that lie ahead.

David Ball spoke about the importance of communicating with decisionmakers in the field. His fieldwork (with Bob Weisberg) involves prosecutorial decisionmaking after realignment. They interview prosecutors about the existence, or lack thereof, of consistent prosecutorial guidelines. In presenting prosecutors with a series of hypotheticals, which they ask prosecutors to rate on a seriousness scale, they expose the discretionary nature of realignment prosecution: The choice what to charge a person with could impact whether s/he will be regarded as a "non-non-non" and therefore housed in a jail. They have also uncovered the subtle interactions between prosecutors and the police, primarily areas of non-enforcement and non-prosecution.

Mona Lynch mentioned that the two types of realignment research done most frequently are policy evaluation, which is the only thing that can be funded (and has been done by several organizations, notably CJCJ and the ACLU of Northern CA), and legal research that focuses on Eighth Amendment arguments. The challenges ahead lie in the "hydra risk" of bad conditions in many jails in lieu of a few prisons. She suggested two socio-legal avenues for research: returning to, and revisiting, the classic courtroom ethnographies in a way that would uncover the framing and understanding of offenders (think David Sudnow's Normal Crimes - first deciding what a person deserves based on a typology and then putting it together via the existing sentencing enhancements), and a study of the experience of jail incarceration (jails have been understudied; one great counterexample is Sharon Dolovich's study of the Los Angeles County Jail.) This research may entail access issues we should overcome.

Jonathan Simon reminded us that realignment cannot be framed as an improvement on the system, but rather as a cover-up for a human rights crime that we will some day grow to regret: "torture on the installment plan."He also encouraged us to challenge the assumption that rehabilitation and risk reduction programs need to be in place to combat the threat to public safety, problematizing the correlation CDCR draws between public safety and incarceration (with the drug war in the throes of death, are we reaffirming our commitment to locking up violent offenders for disproportionately long periods of time?).

Katherine Beckett provided a much-needed comparative context. She reminded us that other states are also punting their responsibilities to the county level. Also, many states have wobbler legislation, nonprosecutorial policies that yield county variation, and parole/probation reforms (as in Kansas), as well as drug law reform (New York State is an example). Her current project, reviewing prison admission data from 29 states, indicates that many states have seen a reduction in prison admission through these reforms, but these gains are offset by admissions for violence, public order, and property offenses, which are surprising given that arrest rates are falling. Beckett and other panelists highlighted the problem of entrenching the notion of "dangerous offenders", whose mass incarceration is being
kosherized via the decarceration of the presumably less-dangerous drug offenders.

We had a very lively discussion with audience members:

Are there opportunities for graduate students who want to do empirical qualitative analysis of the realignment? We should know what other people are studying, and maybe throw in some questions in questionnaires (the Federal Sentencing Reporter issue on realignment is a great example.)

What are the interactions with, and effect on, immigration law? Has realignment changed charging practices with offenses that may or may not trigger deportation?

How do institutional pressures - courtroom workgroups, profiteers, unions, the market - play a role? Nobody wants their organization to shrink, and therefore prosecutors have a vested interest in keeping mass incarceration at its current level.

What role does impact litigation and critical resistance play in the process of realignment? We should keep in mind that a third of the jails already have population cap orders.

With regard to policy evaluation studies, those are difficult to do, because realignment is not the only thing that has changed. Some panelists suggested longitudinal studies (following up on cohorts of offenders) and comparative between counties. But there is also a concern about how to frame the dependent variable: What would it mean for realignment to "work"? And from whose perspective? What do we want or expect from our criminal justice policy? And, how to measure recidivism?

One suggestion made on the panel was to look at home detention and GPS as a possible alternative for mass incarceration. While the prison is unique as an institution producing what we now know as a human rights disaster, replacing it by home detention would also have adverse and alienating effects.

We also discussed the problematic aspect of thinking that mass incarceration is "normal", and that we won't be able to really think outside the box given the stake so many institutions and organizations have in the existence of mass incarceration.

Finally, a workshop on realignment is being planned for October 2014, and we hope to be there and be able to say more about how realignment works.

***

I'd very much like to invite the panelists and audience to send over links to research on realignment, so we can have a repository of resources here at the CCC blog.

New CJCJ Data: The Problem is in the Counties

Jerry, hold your horses; perhaps a comprehensive state plan is not what we need. New fact sheets produced by CJCJ based on data from CDCR and the Criminal Justice Statistics Center indicate that the problem with reducing prison population is located at the county level.

The first fact sheet shows the county disparities in incarceration. CDCR data are broken according to prison admission rates. As the fact sheet states, "the 17 counties with higher than average prison admission rates per felony arrest have imprisonment rates 60.7 percent higher than the 40 counties with lower than average rates." Those counties, ranked from the highest to the lowest imprisonment rates, are Kings, Riverside, Butte, Monterey, Yolo, Yuba, Shasta, San Joaquin, San Bernardino, Madera, Amador, Sacramento, Kern, Tehama, Santa Barbara, Merced, and Sutter. Los Angeles County was analyzed separately because of its population size.

Following David Ball's awesome recent paper, which suggests that violence rates are a good way to allocate money to counties because they are good proxy for actual incarceration needs, I would love to see violent crime statistics on these counties, to see whether these incarceration rates are justified.

My concern is that this is actually not about an increase in violent crime. The second fact sheet from CJCJ indicates a disturbing trend of increase in new prison admissions for property and drug crimes (see graph).

Maybe we can save ourselves $350 million of your money and mine by finding a way to incentivize high-incarceration counties to incarcerate less?

0. 
   

Riverside Jail Sends Inmates to Fire Camps

Image courtesy prisontalk.com.

This Wednesday, Riverside County Jail became the first county institution to send inmates to California's fire camps, in which state prisoners help put out fires. Richard de Atley of P.E. bloggers reports:

The 20 inmates were sent Wednesday, June 5 to the CDCR’s Sierra Conservation Camp training facility, in Jamestown. CDCR has agreed to place the trained county inmates in Riverside County fire camps, whenever possible.

. . .

County Supervisors in April approved a Sheriff’s Department proposal to supply county inmates to the fire camp program. More inmates will be sent every two weeks until the program reaches capacity of 200 Riverside County inmates at any time during the next five years.

Riverside County’s five jails have been at capacity shortly after realignment began. More than 10,000 inmates have been released early due to realignment, jail officials have said.

. . .

Riverside County will pay $46.19 daily per inmate. The funds were set aside from realignment money controlled by the Community Corrections Partnership, a joint local agency that includes the probation, sheriff, mental health department and district attorney and public defender’s offices.

Riverside County’s fire camps are located in Norco and Hemet. The county also maintains the Oak Glen camp, located in northern Riverside County inside the San Bernardino National Forest in the San Gorgonio Mountain Range, according to the Riverside County Fire Department’s web site.

In addition to helping fight wildfires, inmate camp members do public road maintenance and community service work.



For readers unfamiliar with California's fire camps, I highly recommend Philip Goodman's work (exhibit A, exhibit B). Not only do the fire camps alleviate prison overcrowding, they provide a much-needed public service. As an interesting aside, the strict racial divisions within the institutions blur when inmates work side by side on life-saving work.

Obtaining a job as a fireman after release from prison, however, may be tricky, as the fire departments run thorough background checks.

-------
Props to Caitlin Henry for the blog link.

Riverside Jail Inmates Sue over Conditions

Breaking news from the Prison Law Office: Three inmates at the Riverside jail have just served a federal action suit over their conditions, particularly the appalling health care. The press release provides two poignant examples:


Angela Patterson, a plaintiff in the case, suffered nearly a year of delays,  cancellations, and inadequate medical care for severe injuries she sustained in a car  accident prior to entering the jail. As a result, a temporary filter implanted near her  heart cannot be removed, and she will suffer a lifetime of anticoagulation  medications and frequent laboratory monitoring, with significant risk of fatal bleeds and other complications. 

Quinton Gray, another plaintiff, was given potent psychotropic medication without  appropriate evaluation or follow-up, placing him at risk for life-threatening  consequences. As a result of the medication mismanagement and treatment  failures, he lives with agonizing side effects: twitching, tongue-biting, increased  seizures and tongue swelling, racing thoughts, disorientation, depression, and  chronic sleep loss. 

The inmates complain that the slashing of medical care budgets in Riverside have yielded unacceptable practices. They are represented by the Prison Law Office and by Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP.


Before Realignment, one of the arguments in favor of shifting inmates from prisons to jails was that surely the counties would do a better job than the overcrowded state institutions. This is not the case in several jails, and we might see an increasing number of lawsuits focused on unacceptable jail conditions.

Join us for California Correctional Crisis: Realignment and Reform for a conversation about county jail conditions.

Realignment and Long Jail Terms

An inmate in the Madera County Jail is taken to the inmate
housing unit. Photo courtesy The Press Enterprise.

Realignment was initiated, in part, as a reaction to the ruling in Brown v. Plata and the belief that, whatever the conditions in local jails, surely nothing could be worse than state prisons. But is that true? The Press Enterprise reports that more than 1,100 people are serving terms between 5 and 10 years in county jails, some of which are seriously ill equipped to handle such long sentences.

Authorities originally believed that the maximum jail sentence under realignment would be three years, and anyone with a lengthier sentence would go to prison.

But judges found no legal grounds to send convicted inmates to state prison for most violations detailed under realignment. The number of inmates getting lengthy sentences to county jails has been rising ever since.

County law-enforcement officials are concerned that increasing the number of long-term jail inmates will lead to a new round of prisoner rights-violation lawsuits. Jails originally were meant to hold sentenced inmates for no more than a year. They don’t have the medical, mental health, disability and work-program facilities found at state prisons

Fresno County already has been sued by inmates claiming mental health and medical care in its jails is inadequate. A prison-rights law firm has been reviewing Riverside County’s facilities.

The piece goes on to document some anti-Realignment bills aimed at minimizing its effects by excluding more categories of offenders or setting a sentencing limit. The fact that there is now one person sentenced to 42 (!) years in L.A. County Jail (presumably for a nonserious, nonviolent, nonsexual offense) should be an indication that reform is being done in a horribly wrong fashion.

--------
Props to Josh Page for the link. Come talk to us about realignment at our conference, California Correctional Crisis: Realignment and Reform, on March 21-22.

Get Tough or Get Smart? Guest Post by Felix Lucero

On February 2nd a panel explored the theme of juvenile justice, from a brief history of reform schools to the over 10,000 adolescents incarcerated in the California Youth Authority by the mid-90’s.  The theme, Get Tough or Get Smart, explored child brain development, socioeconomic background, environmental stressors along with factors that increase the possibilities for rehabilitation and detour future criminal conduct by young offenders.  What stood out was the possibility of change by both youth offenders and the institutions that incarcerate them.  Today, less than 900 youth are incarcerated in CYA and more counties are using restorative justice models to address youth crime.  Innovative programs like the Huckleberry Community Assessment and Referral Center in San Francisco evaluate individual needs of youth offenders and offer solutions that reduce recidivism rates and strengthen the ties between the child and the community.  As a former youth offender and one of the panelists, I can say that I made a rational decision in an irrational situation.  Youth crime and poverty are parallel functions of society; it doesn’t excuse criminal conduct but at the very least we should recognize the transitory qualities of youth and make every effort to correct mal behavior rather than just punish.

-------

Felix Lucero is an activist working in numerous self-help and community service programs, and a former youth offender.

Dan Macallair, mentioned in the panel, will also speak at our upcoming California Correctional Crisis: Realignment and Reform conference, March 21-22, at the State Building.

Is Realignment Obsolete? Harmful?

In recent days, realignment isn't getting much love. A Wall Street Journal story this week blames realignment for a recent rise in property crime. Veteran readers of this blog, read the piece (or the excerpt below) and let's find what's fishy here.

California saw a year-over-year increase of 4.5% in property crime in the fourth quarter of 2011, immediately after the overhaul, marking the first rise since 2004, according to a report from the state attorney general this fall. In contrast, property crime, which includes burglary, auto theft and larceny, fell 2.4% in the nine months before the sentencing changes stemming from a U.S. Supreme Court decision. 

 While the attorney general doesn't release 2012 data until late this year, localities ranging in size from Sacramento to Santa Rosa in Sonoma County saw property crimes rise last year. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, which hasn't reported 2012 crime data, says property crimes fell 0.5% nationally in 2011 from a year earlier. 

. . . 

Known as realignment, the changes are "causing more of these people to be out in society rather than locked up," said Santa Rosa Police Sgt. Michael Lazzarini, and that could be a "pretty good reason" for the rise in property crimes. "Not only is it continued workload for the investigators, but it's also a quality-of-life issue for the citizens," he said. 

Santa Rosa saw property crime rise 5% last year through November to 3,568 crimes, while violent crimes declined 7% to 585 crimes. Sgt. Lazzarini, the head of the property-crimes-investigation team, said detectives have been stretched thin since the new state law, which he neither supported nor opposed. He said he has struggled to decide which crimes to investigate. 

There aren't enough data yet to back up Sgt. Lazzarini's hunch on a statewide basis. Gil Duran, a spokesman for Mr. Brown, said it is impossible to make claims about the reason for the crime increase with limited data. "Any respectable criminologist will tell you that [they] don't determine overall trends in a year or two," he said in an email. "Attempts to tie any increases to realignment are purely political."

Here's what's odd here, from a (respectable?) criminologist:

We're given data on crime in California and on crime in Santa Rosa. What we are not given is a county-by-country breakdown. I'm not just saying this just to take pleasure in countering Sgt. Lazzarini's hunch (since when does the Wall Street Journal write stories based on police officers' hunches, anyway?) Every single report on realignment implementation shows that different counties have been dealing with sentencing reform in different ways. The crime rise might not be a result of people being "out of jail". It might be the result of releasing people after their sentences without any appropriate probation mechanisms to help them find jobs. Or it might be that the recession is hitting some counties worse than others. I want Sgt. Lazzarini to show me that property crime in San Francisco and Alameda is going up (because, supposedly, these counties "let people out") and down in Los Angeles, Riverside, and Orange (where there is an orgy of county jail building). Now that'll be special, and even then, correlation is not causation.

Police hunches are not unimportant. Police hunches in individualized, specific situations, can and do save lives. But hunches have no place when generalizing from data, and people who can't read data carefully should not drive policymaking.

So, apparently Governor Brown also doesn't buy Sgt. Lazzarini's hunch. But he has his own beef with realignment. Here's what Governor Brown said to the federal court this week, as reported by the L.A. Times:

"At some point, the job's done," Brown said at a Capitol news conference before catching a plane for Los Angeles, where he repeated the message. "We spent billions of dollars" complying with the court orders, the governor said. "It is now time to return control of our prison system to California." 

 . . . 

The population now hovers around 119,000 — about 50% more than state facilities were designed to hold. Some prisons are at 180% of their intended capacity. 

The federal courts set a June 2013 deadline to reduce that total to 137.5%. The state says it now expects to exceed the cap by 9,000 inmates. On Tuesday, Brown argued those numbers were meaningless in light of improved inmate healthcare. He further called the design capacity of the state's prisons "an arbitrary number." 

But former state prisons chief Jeanne Woodward disputed the governor's assertion and said she worried that without federal intervention, the governor and Legislature would find it easier to cut funding for improvements such as new healthcare facilities. 

"Without court oversight, resources tend to get taken away," said Woodward, a senior fellow at UC Berkeley School of Law.

This is the most recent attempt by the state to avoid complying with the Plata mandate. Of course the design capacity is an "arbitrary number"; all numbers are arbitrary. What makes this number magical is that it didn't pop out from the sky; it was decided by the court after hearing expert testimony about proper medical care and quality of life.

And here's another reason why this is interesting. As you may recall, the government's solution to depopulation as a response to the Plata order was to combine it with a savings measure. Plans to move inmates from state prisons to jail were in place back in the Schwarzenegger days, before Plata. Now, suddenly we're being told that further depopulation would not save money; it would actually waste money.

I don't think that realignment is the best thing since sliced bread, and I think in some cases jail conditions could be worse than prison conditions. But I do think that, done thoughtfully and thoroughly (like what these folks did), it is a step in the right direction. The state's resistance to the plan as a whole seems misguided. What the state should do instead is guide the counties, with proper fiscal incentives, to do realignment as it should be done.

--------------
Christoffer Lee, David Takacs and Aatish Salvi sent me links. The grumpy commentary is mine and mine alone.

Less Prison, Less Crime: SF Does Things Right

This evening I attended a town hall event with Senator Mark Leno and other guests. The event focused on criminal justice reform in California, but most of the time was spent discussing San Francisco's policies and practices. It was, for the most part, a happy occasion, with plenty of opportunity to celebrate San Francisco's sensible approach to law enforcement and corrections.

Senator Leno opened by giving some historical background. Ten years ago, when he started chairing the Public Safety Committee on the Assembly, California was spending 5.3% of its budget on corrections. That rose to 11% pre-realignment. But we've turned a corner. In 2014, this figure will be lowered to 7%. And, despite not incarcerating as many people (actually, being the county that incarcerates the least amount of people!), San Francisco is experiencing record low rates of violent crime. How are we doing this without recurring to mass incarceration?

There are a few things that are in the works. The unsuccessful attempt to reclassify simple possession, a misdemeanor, as an infraction, might be resuscitated. We're beginning to make use of medical parole (trying to save $150 million dollars spent on health costs and security costs involving treatment of inmates who can't take care of their basic needs, some of whom are actually comatose.)

The main achievement has been the enactment of SB 678, the counterpart to AB 109, which creates community corrections. Shifting the responsibility for the post-sentence phase to the counties was accompanied by a shift in approach. Wendy Still, the Chief Probational Officer, spoke of her 26 years of experience in corrections and of moving to the counties to make a difference before people come to state prison. New admissions to prison are now down 37% statewide, and 47% in San Francisco, which always held the lowest prison rates and has reduced them now even further. The probationers, now addressed as clients, are no longer perceived to require surveillance and supervision, but rather services to help them get their lives on track. The system of incentives has been modified so that reduction in recidivism makes a difference. The money that counties received upfront to set up SB 678 - $45 million in federal stimulus grants - yielded &180 in correctional savings.

David Onek from UC Berkeley's center on criminal justice mentioned the unique nature of San Francisco's criminal justice apparatus and the remarkable collaboration between its different agencies. While it is, he said, too early for a realignment report card, it seems that San Francisco was well ahead of the curve for a long time.

Jeff Adachi talked about the work that still needed doing: Fixing the racial disparity in San Francisco's correctional institutions and seriously improving our reentry services. One measure taken toward the latter is Clean Slate, which helps folks with convictions start anew and put their lives on track.

Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi said that San Francisco jails are remarkable in that they are undercrowded. He also spoke of his wish to be the first sheriff to request less beds, or to rebuild dilapidated institutions with less beds than they had in the first place.

Commander John Murphy of the SFPD talked about the collaboration between the city's different agencies, and of the effective reduction in violent crime (16% less shootings.) The focus is on Anthony Braga's hot spots - apparently, 50% of all violent crime in the city happens in 2% of its geographical area, which allows the police to focus their efforts in this area, involve community organizations, and shift the attention away from low-level drug offending (arrests for drug offenses have gone down from 50-100 a day to less than 10.)

It was a self-congratulatory evening, but rightly so; San Francisco has much to take pride in. And, as a side note, it was rather delightful to see a large contingent of the awesome United Playaz in the audience. So glad to see young people politically involved.

Federal Panel to State: Plata Quotas Will Not Be Reduced

In a story that is getting surprisingly little press, today's Reporter reported on the federal three-judge panel's response to the State's request to modify Plata requirement. The long and the short of it: The answer is no.

A federal three-judge panel has given California corrections officials until January to say how they will reduce the state's inmate population to comply with an order upheld last year by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The state must reduce its prison population by 33,000, to a maximum of 110,000 inmates, by next June.

Corrections officials say they cannot meet that goal if they follow through on their plan to retrieve inmates who are housed in private prisons in other states. They want to do that to save money.

 Bringing back those prisoners would put the state 3,000 inmates over the court-imposed cap. The judges said last month that they would not adjust the inmate cap. 

On Thursday, they told corrections officials to develop a plan to meet the June deadline.

Will the state make its deadline? How would this affect the plan to bring back out-of-state inmates? We'll continue updating on this vein.

Felon Disenfranchisement and the California Realignment

In 1974,  California voters passed a constitutional amendment extending voting rights to all Californians with criminal records, save for those "imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a felony." Prior to the amendment, disenfranchisement was permanent in CA once you were convicted of a crime. The impetus for the amendment was, hard as it may be to believe in the days of public safety rhetoric and redball crime panic, the wish to help people regain their full citizenship after they complete their parole. In a landmark 2006 case, the CA Supreme Court interpreted this provision as follows: Folks in state prison, and under state parole, can't vote. Folks in jail or under probation (or in jail for a probation violation) aren't considered "imprisoned" and therefore can, and do, vote.

A new piece I'm working on (coauthored with Jessica Willis) for the upcoming Loyola Constitutional Law Colloquium examines the application of this provision, and this interpretation, to a new population of offenders created by the Criminal Justice Realignment in California.

Let me present the legal dilemma. In the aftermath of Brown v. Plata, and in order to resolve the serious financial crisis faced by the state (corrections eat up about 7% of CA's entire budget), the California Penal Code has been amended to sentence non-serious, non-violent, non-sexual offenders to do time in county jail rather than in state prison. Are these people "imprisoned" for the purpose of the constitutional provision?
Constitutional provisions that give people fundamental rights should be interpreted broadly, right? Whenever there's ambiguity, we should support people's right ot vote, right? Wrong. The CA Secretary of State instructs felons that, if they are among the realigned group, they cannot vote.

Several civil rights organizations, and several folks doing time in jails or on community supervision, petitioned the CA Court of Appeals for an original writ allowing them to vote (full disclosure - yours truly and coauthor Jessica Willis wrote an amicus brief on behalf of thirty criminal justice scholars in support of the petitioners). The Director of Elections for the City of San Francisco - one of the respondents - actually agreed with petitioners that they should be allowed to vote, and merely asked the Court for instructions what to do. The court threw the case in petitioners' faces with no reasoning. Petitioners took to the CA Supreme Court, and received pretty much the same response.

In the Article I go in depth into what the Court should have weighed and considered if it took these Californian citizens' rights seriously. But in a nutshell, here's what I think is going on: There are two visions of Realignment. You can see it as a technical way to resolve a budgetary problem and warehouse people on someone else's dime. Or, you can see it as  a real opportunity to bring people back to their communities, through a correctional method that actually might make sense for people who will eventually come out of prison and reintegrate into society. And by throwing the case out, the Court has opted, regrettably and apparently without much thought, for the former vision. A huge opportunity has been missed. People who could, and should, have been reintegrated into society; who could've channeled their experiences into civic engagement; and who could've started to care about their communities and neighborhoods will remain isolated and alienated.

In the movie Recount, a fascinating flick about the Bush v. Gore election, a person mistaken for a felon is sitting at home, watching Bush's acceptance speech. His face is difficult to read. Is he angry? Sad? Disillusioned? Robbed of the promise of a voice or full citizenship? When you vote in November, think about the immense number of U.S. citizens behind bars, or under supervision, from whom this right has been denied.
-----------
cross-posted on PrawfsBlawg.

Musical Chairs: Two Visions of Realignment

Credit Michael Czerwonka for WSJ.

A story from early July in the Wall Street Journal looks at the shifts and shuffles in county jails following the realignment. It's a helpful ground-level story on who differently counties have dealt with this. Here's a pretty lengthy excerpt:

California's 58 counties have varied widely in how they manage the inmate shift, known as realignment. Residents in some areas, such as San Francisco, generally have embraced seeking alternatives to incarceration. But as Kern and other counties only begin to experiment with new methods, local residents have protested that people are being let out of jail too early. 

 "I call it 'justice by geography,' depending on where you get arrested," said Barry Krisberg, a criminal-justice expert at the University of California, Berkeley. 

 The total population in the state's 33 prisons has fallen by 16% to 120,946 from 144,138 in late September 2011—days before realignment began, according to the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 

Under realignment, people who would have gone to state prison for low-level crimes in the past will now be kept under county supervision. Low-level crimes range from drug sales to deadly hit-and-run accidents, under the state's classifications. The counties get state money to cover the added costs, and sheriffs are encouraged to avoid overcrowding in their own jails by finding alternatives to locking people up. 

 The change is being closely watched by public-safety experts and other states, which are dealing with their own overcrowded prisons. California's realignment "certainly has to be one of the most dramatic shifts in responsibility in American history," said Adam Gelb, director of the Pew Center on the States' Public Safety Performance Project. 

Mr. Gelb and other experts say there is increasing evidence that programs like the ones Mr. Youngblood is trying—such as electronic monitoring along with special types of counseling—can keep people from re-offending more effectively than keeping them behind bars. Still, the policies have been met with skepticism in many California counties. 

 In Merced County, southeast of San Francisco, residents slammed officials in May after a woman convicted of driving under the influence in an accident that killed a local firefighter was sent home on electronic monitoring after serving less than a day of her sentence, according to a spokesman for the county sheriff. In San Joaquin County, residents protested in April when a man who had been released early from jail then tried to kill his girlfriend. 

 Officials in Calaveras County disagreed so strongly over whether to allot a big portion of state money for rehabilitation programs for offenders that the county was left unable to spend about $475,000 until they resolved the fight in April. 

 The stakes are particularly high in Kern County, with a population of about 840,000. The county has the second-highest per capita property-crime rate and the sixth-highest violent-crime among the state's counties, according to 2009 state data. 

 So far, under realignment, the number of people in Mr. Youngblood's jails has risen to 2,410 on average from 2,121 last October. The sheriff is seeking funding for a 790-bed jail. 

 At the same time, 981 inmates are supervised with electronic monitoring and other out-of-custody programs—almost double the 499 in October. "This is our virtual jail," said Sgt. Greg Gonzales, Mr. Youngblood's realignment coordinator. 

 Rudy Herrera is among those inmates. The 24-year-old, who had already been to state prison and county jail several times, was convicted in February of possessing stolen property. Under the old system, he would have been sent to a state lockup for as long as several years. Under realignment, he served less than four months in a Bakersfield jail, including 90 days in a drug-abuse treatment program. Now Mr. Herrera stays at home with a monitor strapped to his ankle, typically leaving only for work and his drug-treatment sessions. "It keeps me focused," he said. 

While every county is its own universe, I think we can discern two main approaches. The old-school approach, which dangerously resembles that of state prisons of yesteryear, is to just build and expand, to counter the short-term expansion in inmate numbers. The new approach is to find alternatives to incarceration and to invest in rehabilitation and reintegration with the hopes of reducing recidivism in the long run. Which approach do you think is wiser?
-------
props to David Greenberg for the story.

Housing People of Imperfection

The Bay Guardian features an interesting insider look at correctional policy and realignment by Eugene Alexander Day, a three-striker in Soledad Prison. It's worth a read in its entirety. Here's a short excerpt:

It took some of the sting off my life sentence when the Supreme Court smashed the CDCR in 2011. Systemic mismanagement corrupted a generation of salvageable prisoners. As someone who lives, breathes, and sleeps the politics of justice, the Legislature didn't simply kick the can down the road – it pushed the state closer to the precipice. State leaders have set a poor example. By failing to follow the evidence in 2007, all 58 counties had Realignment shoved down their throats in 2011.


This lens through which I see the world is depicted as “synchronized drowning” by Attorney General Kamala Harris. For the last 13 years, I've struggled to keep my wits in this sea of despair. Deviants need structured treatment, not more of the same. Shifting the responsibility of tens of thousands of offenders away from CDCR is an idea of brilliant simplicity.


Local law enforcement, prosecutors, and the courts are better suited to solve local problems. These offenders are members of your community. The next time the task force stomps through the ghetto snatching up people of color, they must think about how to house all of these people of imperfection. Good. Most need help, not a jackboot.


. . .


The counties might hate Realignment, but I hate the fact it took so long. Marking a happy day in this collaborator's miserable life, a whole class of offenders have been diverted away from the Monster Factory. Excellent. Realignment is not some hug-a-thug program. It's basic math. So used to being treated like shit, I will die before I advocate for mollycoddling prisoners. Using offenders as earmarks to maintain an unsustainable status quo is a feeling worse than death. Fix the problem.


My dreams are skewed. In my way of thinking, prisons should become factories that turn monsters into advocates for social justice. Offenders need to learn the difference between pro-social and antisocial behavior, not how to shove dope up their asses or participate in a riot.

I'm not sure whether Day will be pleased or disappointment with the results of the realignment experiment. The intent, to produce jails as instruments of rehabilitation, is laudable, but only if the jails really are up to the task. So far, some initiatives look promising, while others, such as jail building initiatives, absurd cost-rolling measures, and health care fiascos, do not. I guess time will tell.