Interaction Between Post-Release Community Supervision and Ex-Offenders: The Effects of Rehabilitation on Recidivism

Rates

Lorena FletesMarch 11, 2016

Introduction:

California has been dealing with overcrowding in prisons for the last few decades, as

living standards of inmates are unhealthy, unsafe, and inhumane. Not only has this

overpopulation caused health concerns, it has also put into question the system’s effectiveness.

Over the past three decades, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

(CDCR) has made efforts to counterbalance the spike of inmates. However, the CDCR has only

been able to mask the problem by spreading inmates out, while maintaining problematic rates of

recidivism contributing to the failure of inmate rehabilitation while hindering their transition

back to society.

The prison system was designed to not only bring a sense of security to its law-abiding

citizens while penalize its offenders, but also to rehabilitate these individuals. Unfortunately,

upon release, former offenders not only face recidivism; but also a much higher rate of mortality

than the average citizen, due to their limited resources (Binswanger ). While in prison, inmates

lack freedom and opportunities to make decisions for themselves losing their basic sense of

responsibility. For many ex-offenders, reintegration becomes even more difficult as society

shuns them as a result of previous convictions. With little to no support upon release, it becomes

difficult for them to obtain housing, food, and employment in order to survive. It becomes

unrealistic for them to reintegrate into society and maintain low recidivism rates, when they lack

money, training and support upon release.

In recent years, California has been setting in place population reduction measures. In

2011, California enacted Public Safety Realignment with the passage of Assembly Bill 109 (AB

109), moving many offenders from state prisons to county jails. This measure was not only

intended to shift individuals from the prison level to county jails, but also intended to provide

better rehabilitation measures to reduce recidivism rates (Public Safety Realignment Year-Three

Report ).

Significance:

Since the 1980’s American, in particular California has witnessed an exponential increase

in its prison population. In 2010, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

(CDCR) population was 287,444; of these individuals 162,821 were currently serving their

sentence while 123,578 were on parole (Krimetz). In recent years, realignment has drastically

decreased the prison population. According to the weekly summaries from CDCR, in February

2016 the total individuals currently serving a prison sentences were 127,326 (Weekly Report of

Population). Since 2011, California has engaged in countless efforts to realign, although it is

important to meet quotas, it is also important to ensure that individuals receive proper services to

successful reintegrate.

Many times communities become reluctant to provide the services needed to rehabilitate

individuals. They become fearful that by providing treatment and employment services, they will

be opening the doors to an influx of criminals who can potentials put their well being at risk or

become competition in the job market, if rehabilitated. However, according to Penal Code

Section 3003(a) an inmate who is released on parole shall be returned to the county, which was

the last legal residence of the individual prior to incarceration ("Division of Adult Parole

Operations Statutory Parole Requirements"). As individuals will be returning to the county in

which they last resided in, it becomes optimal to provide the necessary resources for

reintegration.

After being in prison, where they lived on a set routine many individuals find themselves

at a crossroads within the first few hours upon release as they must find immediate shelter to

spend the night. Unfortunately, this decision does not come with many alternatives, as the

financial resources of those who do not have a home to return to, are limited. Many are forced to

stay in shelters or spend the night on the streets considering the many barriers that exist to access

public housing. Being on the streets not only hinders community supervision, but it also creates

obstacles for rehabilitation, employment, and education, enabling old habits to reemerge. It

becomes critical that we prepare ex-offenders to properly reintegrate into society upon release to

reduce their possibility of recidivating.

Since 2011, the Board of Supervisors in Los Angeles County introduced the Public

Safety Realignment Team (PSRT), which focuses on coordinating and implementing a

realignment plan. The purpose of PSRT is to involve departments and criminal justice agencies

that are impacted by realignment in order to produce the best outcomes for the community

(Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report). It is important to examine the impact that Post-

Release Community Supervision (PRCS) programs are having, to better determine how they can

be improved or expanded in other counties. It is important that California not only focus on

reducing prison overcrowding, but also takes strides in rehabilitate individuals who have been

released to ensure they do not return to prison.

Background:

In 2009, the United States had the highest incarceration rates internationally, housing

about 2.3 million people in prisons and jails, while California alone housed about 171,281

inmates (Monthly Report of Population). According to the most recent California Prisoners and

Parolees report conducted by CDCR, prior to Realignment, in 2010 the number of

institutionalized offenders had dropped to 162,821, while the active parolee population consisted

of 123,578 individuals (Krimetz). During the 2009-10 fiscal year, 42 percent had recidivated

Figure 2:

within the first year of release and within three years of release this percentage had increased to

54.3 percent. As we can see in Figure 1, there was a decrease from previous years; however,

recidivism rates along with prison overcrowding are still significant matters to deal with (Beard).

California is now in its fifth year of one of its most endeavoring correctional reforms it known as

“Public

Safety

Realignment” (AB 109). Although realignment is still in early stages it is difficult to denote the

impact it is having on recidivism rates statewide. However, what we do know is that California’s

prison population has significantly decreased in the years since realignments as noted in Figure

2. With realignment in place individuals are receiving new opportunities to reintegrate, as AB

109 was motivated with the idea that counties can better target recidivism rates (Public Safety

Realignment Year-Three Report). However, as a state our obligations do not stop once

individuals are released, it is important to help them successfully reintegrate into society.

Prison population has significantly dropped to 127,312 individuals since its peak in 2009.

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

66.2% 65.6% 66.8% 67.5% 65.1% 63.7% 61.0%54.3%

Return to Prison

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

Total CDCR Population

Total CDCR Population at the Beginning of the Year

Source: CDCR 2014 Outcome Evaluation Report

With the passage of AB 109 the state created legislation, which transferred authority over

lower-level felons from state prisons to county jails, and from the parolee system to the probation

system. Lower-level felons were classified as those convicted of non-violent, non-serious, non-

sex offenses (Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report). AB 109 creates Post-Release

Community Supervision (PRCS), causing county probation departments to become responsible

for the supervision of eligible offenders after their release from prison (Public Safety

Realignment Year-Three Report ). PRCS become responsible for the coordination’s of

rehabilitation services for eligible offenders.

Although AB 109 created a significant decrease in prison population it has caused great

pressures on county jail systems. According to Los Angeles County Public Safety Realignment

Year-Three Report jail population has seen a drastic increase from 15,463 inmates the month

before realignment to 19,600 inmates in March 2014. Within the following months this

population once again dropped to about 15,770 inmates due to the implementation of Proposition

47. Prop 47, reclassified several felony drug and theft-related offenses to misdemeanors,

allowing some individuals who were previously convicted as felons to be resentences for

misdemeanor (Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report ).

With the vast changes our prison and jail system are undertaking we must not only focus

on the extensive reduction of inmates made over the last few years. Releasing so many

individuals’ calls for an urgent evaluation of the programs offered at the county level, which are

intended to rehabilitate and easy individuals reintegration while reducing recidivism rates. As

prisoners are released they are immediately challenged to find appropriate housing. Their efforts

to find housing are generally hindered by their lack of financial means. Which in turn hinders

their ability to enroll in course work, apply for jobs, and enter rehabilitation services, leaving

them in a vicious cycle, which threatens their successful reintegration.

Research Design:

Since the introduction of realignment counties have been delegated the task of

introducing or expanding their rehabilitation services to better serve their populations needs.

Several counties have introduced Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS) programs since

the passage of AB 109, making it becomes important to examine the effectiveness of the

programs offered. Effectiveness can be measured in a variety of ways: cost effective, reduction

in prison population, recidivism, effect on crime rates, and impact on the local communities

("Californians for Safety and Justice"). For the purpose of this research, effectiveness will be

measured based on the total number of participants who successfully completely different

portions of the program and the impact the integration of these participants had on Los Angeles

County.

As L.A. County holds about one-fourth of California’s population and also has the largest

jail and prison population, I believe it is important to take a closer look. L.A. County is

demographically diverse, making it a culturally rich county, which provides an immense number

of employment opportunities: construction, tourism, entertainment, manufacturing, and retail to

name a few. Although the variety of employment opportunities in L.A. County are rather large

there are several obstacles to those with limited resources as housing cost have been increasing at

a faster rate in the county that across the state. Generally the more affordable regions in Los

Angeles County are also the regions, which lack employment opportunities. Considering public

transportation in L.A. County is not very convenient or highly accessible it becomes difficult to

get around and seek employment opportunities that are not within ones proximity. With limited

mobility and ability to pay bills, L.A. County residents are forced on to the streets. Considering

Los Angeles County is one of the leading economies it however, has numerous restrictions for

those with limited resources. I believe the diversity and constraints LA County offers, makes it

an excellent county to examine the impact of its PRCS program, as it can serve others as a

benchmark to produce improvements in their PRCS programs.

For any rehabilitation program to be successful it is important to have a suitable

environment to maximize the benefits received by those partaking in PRCS programs. Given the

unemployment rates, median monthly housing cost, poverty levels, and homeless rates in Los

Angeles County, we can begin to examine the effectiveness and possible negative impacts this

can cause on treatment and services provided. Looking at the PRCS program L.A. County

currently has in place, I will look at the substance abuse, mental health, and housing/employment

components the program offers to its participants. I will, look at the total number of people who

entered the program, the number of people who completed the program, and those who have

violated the program. Taking into account the currently circumstances in the county it will be

easier to denote the effectiveness of the services while looking at the effects that PRCS programs

have had on Los Angeles County.

Methods:

I reviewed the Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report released by the County of

Los Angeles to determine the number of participates each program accepts, along with the

positive and negative outcomes of each program. This will allow for a better understanding of

the effects realignment has had on L.A. County and how other counties can use these finding to

implement better programs. It is necessary to take into account L.A. County’s poverty levels and

median monthly housing cost as those determined by the U.S. Census, homeless rates determined

by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and unemployment rates which are

determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in order determine any possible impact they might

have on the programs effectiveness. It is central to compare the numbers before and after

realignment to determine the impact realignment has had on this county.

Unemployment:

Not only does Los Angeles County house the largest population in California it also

operates the world’s largest jail system involving more than 30 criminal courthouses and eight

jail facilities (Los Angeles County Jail Overcrowding Reduction ). Prior to realignment, L.A.

County jail facilities contained approximately 15,463 individuals, which were largely composed

of pretrial, sentences with a pending charges, and sentenced individuals (Austin, et al ).

Simultaneously, around this same timeframe California was recovering from the Great Recession

with an annual unemployment rates of 12.1 percent in 2010, Los Angeles County had a very

similar unemployment rate of 12.5 percent (“Local Area Unemployment Statistics Map”). This

made many fearful that releasing so many individuals would cause unemployment rates to

maintain themselves at high levels. High unemployment rates would create larger pools of

competitors in the job market. Others feared for their safety, as they believed individuals would

return to unlawful activities in a matter of time since they would not be able to find employment.

During the months following realignment L.A. County began to see a steady decrease in

unemployment rates reaching 8.2 percent in 2014 and 6.7 percent in 2015. During the first three

years, which is what we will focus on, crime rates maintained themselves at steady levels. In

2015, crime rates in LA County peaked, but according to the mayor this crime spike can be

attributed to Proposition 47, which changed some nonviolent crimes from felonies to

misdemeanors.

Economic Wellbeing:

During the recovery period after the Great Recession, 2010 to 2014, California

experienced a gradual increase in median monthly housing cost from $1,381 to $1,399 (U.S.

Census Bureau ). Unfortunately, L.A. County has experience an increase in median monthly

housing cost at much higher rates increasing from $1,347 to $1,412 (U.S. Census Bureau ). With

approximately 18 percent of its population living in below poverty standards, the lack of

affordable housing in L.A. County has driven many individuals into homelessness. Prior to

realignment Los Angeles County’s homeless population stood at about 33,243 individuals,

increasing to about 34,393 individuals in 2014 (“Continuum of Care Homeless Populations and

Subpopulations Reports").

Although poverty rates, median housing cost, and homelessness in L.A. County are

alarming they have maintained themselves rather stable with minimal increases over time.

However, unemployment rates have dropped by nearly half making for promising conditions for

those entering the work force. As the conditions in L.A. County have remained rather stable the

effectiveness of Los Angeles’ PRCS program will be minimally impacted but the changing

conditions the county experienced.

Los Angeles PRCS:

To obtain a preliminary understanding of the effectiveness of L.A.’s PRCS program, I

will examine the different treatment options provided, along with the outcomes each program has

had over the last few years. Considering realignment is in its early stages, many see it as a means

to allow inmates early release, as this is not the case it is important to examine the services the

county has set in place along with the various social economic factors that might influence the

outcome of the program (Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report ).

Individuals released from county jails are placed in PRCS, unless their most recent prison

conviction was for a serious or violent felony, they are high-risk offenders, or are designated

with mental disorders (Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report). Felons currently in state

prison will continue to carry out their sentence in state prison. PRCS will be offered to

individuals for no more than three years, with the opportunity to terminate early if there are no

probation violations (Luhrs).

Over the course of the past four years (2011-2014) Los Angeles County has accepted a

total of 24,947 participants, of which they have been able to terminate 13,559 cases (Figure 3).

The 8,128 cases that are currently still active have been accumulated from all three years (Public

Safety Realignment Year-Three Report ). The prime rehabilitation services offered to PRCS

participants are substance abuse, mental health, health care, employment and housing services.

Detoxification locations

have also largely

increased their

availability in L.A.

County, adding about

180 treatment facilities

(Public Safety

Realignment Year-

Three Report ).

Assembly Bill 109 has emphasized the importance of accessible office locations through

the County in order to better serve this population. As noted on the map below, there are several

probation offices, substance abuse prevention and control sites, mental health clinics, and

8%

33%

5%15%

34%

6%

PRCS ParticipantsOutstanding Warrants at End of Year

Active Cases at End of Year

Deported

Termination due to a New Crime

Succesful Termination

Other Termination

Figure 3:

housing/employment providers spread throughout the county (Public Safety Realignment Year-

Three Report ). As we can see in Map 1, the AB 109 Locations are distributed largely around the

areas where Postrelease Supervised Person’s (PSP) are concentrated. However, the locations are

evidently out-numbered by they number of PSP. Although the department has gradually

increased staff, it appears that we also need an increase in service locations to better serve this

population.

Substance Abuse Treatment:

Source: Countywide Criminal Justice Coordination Committee 2015

PSP are assessed by Community Assessment Services Centers (CASC) for substance

abuse use disorders and referred to treatment when appropriate. Between 2011-2014,

approximately 18,000 individuals

were assessed, from this population

5,755 (32 percent) were

determined to not need treatment,

while 10,414 (58 percent)

individuals required treatment

(Public Safety Realignment Year-

Three Report). Yet, it is interesting

that during the programs first year,

there were 11,513 total accepted

cases into the PRCS program, however only 4,481 were actually assessed (Figure 5). The second

year witnessed a 53 percent increase in assessment while an 83 percent increase in substance use

disorder referrals (2,210 to 4,046).

During the second year there was only 6,865 cases accepted in the PRCS program in

addition to the 9,109 active cases carried over from the first year (Public Safety Realignment

Year-Three Report). As there is a combinations of newly accepted plus a carry over from the

previous year it is understandable that the number of cases assessed and the number of

58%32%

6% 4%CASC Assessment Activity

Treatment Required No Treatment Required

Other (Transfers) Refused Treatment

Figure 4:

Figure 5:

Population Year One Year Two Year Three TotalTotal Cases Accepted 11,513 6,865 6,569 24,947Active Cases at End of Year 9,109 7,957 8,128 8,128CASC Total Cases 4,481 6,875 6,639 17,995Treatment Required(Referred to Treatment) 2,210 4,046 4,158 10,414

individuals who require treatment would substantially change increase during the second year.

Not to mention, as the program progresses and resources evolve, it becomes easier to address the

needs of more individuals. Nevertheless, it becomes unfortunate that only about half of the

individuals who require treatment actually receive this treatment as illustrated in Figure 6.

It is important to further develop research in order to determine why only about half of

the individuals who are identified as requiring treatment actually receive the treatment needed. It

is vital to conclude why individuals who are referred to treatment are not actually admitted.

Substance abuse can lead to a number of behavioral problems including aggressiveness,

hallucinations, and loss of self-control to name a few. If only a fourth of those assessed properly

complete treatment it is imperative to examine the disconnect between those assessed and those

admitted. It appears that those who are admitted and discharged with a positive compliance in

treatment have significant decreases in homeless status (21 percent), emergency room visits (36

percent) and physical health problems (30 percent) (Public Safety Realignment Year-Three

Report).

Substance abuse treatment in L.A. County has proven to have a positive impact on those

who take part in the program. Individuals with positive compliance to treatment present less risk

(44 percent) of being arrested for a new crime, than those with negative compliance (58 percent)

(Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report). Similarly those who participate in social support

recovery activities were more likely to be discharged with positive compliance (61 percent) than

those who did not participate in social recovery activities (47 percent). While individuals engage

Population Year One Year Two Year Three TotalAdmissions 1,434 2,185 2,279 5,898Discharge 1,266 1,992 1,538 4,796 Positive Treatment Compliance 658 930 641 2,229 Negative Treatment Compliance 526 916 741 2,183 Other 82 146 156 384

in recovery programs it is imperative that they become involved in social recovery activities, not

only does it increase their change of having successfully completing the program, it also

significantly reduces their chance of a new arrest. Social recovery activities enable a support

system while allowing individuals to build skills, which will become essential for reintegrating.

Mental Health Treatment:

The Department of Mental Health (DMH) provides the AB 109 population with mental

health and co-occurring mental health- substance use disorder services. For individuals who are

eligible, the DMH screens and identifies

PSP’s prior to release from prison

(Public Safety Realignment Year-Three

Report). Since 2011, the DMH has

determined that 7,052 individuals in

PRCS required treatment. The number of

individuals who were assessed and

referred to mental health treatment is

only 1,051, substantially lower than the

5,992 individuals who were assessed and referred to treatment for co-occurring disorders (Figure

7).

Unfortunately, with mental health treatment services, it is significantly more difficult to

assess the positive and negative compliance rates. Nevertheless, the DMH witnessed an increase

in treatment engagement from 45 to 67 percent in the second year, yet the third year witnessed a

decline to 46 percent. Although there is a considerable decrease during the third year, this can be

attributed to those released because of Proposition 36. Having data from a few more years would

15%

85%

Individuals Assessed and Referred

Mental Health Treatment Co-Occuring Disorders

Figure 7:

allow us to better assess the impact of mental health treatments as we would be allowed to out

weigh the effects of Proposition 36, making more accurate correlations between mental health

treatments and arrests rates. Currently re-arrest rates for PSPs in mental health treatment are at

26 percent for those released in the first year, and 14 percent for those released in the third year

(Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report). Unfortunately, these are not comparable groups

since re-arrest rates for those released in the first year are an aggregate of all three years they

have been out.

In order to be able to determine the correlation between treatment compliance and arrest

rates and an in-depth research study needs to be completed. It is essential to determine the exact

number of individuals who were assessed, those who were referred to treatment, admitted to

treatment, and compliance with treatment in order to determine the success rates between those

who entered treatment versus those who did not enter treatment, but were referred to treatment. It

is also critical to define how many individuals were re-arrested in the first, second and third year

of their release.

Housing and Employment:

Housing and job readiness services are provided to PRCS participants through Health

RIGHT 360 (HR360). HR 360 provided participants sober living, transitional housing, shelter,

skilled nursing facilities, and recuperative housing services. As we can see in Figure 8, use for

most resources begins to increase from year to year. Unfortunately, once again it is unclear if

those utilizing the resources in year two and three are solely from the PSPs who were admitted in

that year or if year two and three figures include participants whose cases were still active from

the previous year.

Board and Care Sober Living Sober Living with Child

Transitional Housing

Transitional Housing with

Children

0 204 4

1912

150702

15

4809

255

854

1

4647

15

Supportive Housing Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

This problem is once again presented within those taking advantage of HR 360

transportation and job readiness services. HR 360 also provides employment programs: job skills

training, employment preparation, and employment placement to name a few. As public

transportation in Los Angeles County is not very accessible the fact that transportation is

provided to individuals is indispensible when searching for employment. Nevertheless, it is

puzzling to see a decrease in demand for these services. Although unemployment rates for the

county have substantially lowered, it brings to question if job readiness

services are witnessing a decrease

because ex-offenders do not have

such a hard time obtaining

employment or if there is another

reason as to why this service is not

being utilized.

Referring back to Map 1, we

can see that Housing/Employment Transportation Job Readiness

358

3318

699

2330

197

2131

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Figure 8:

Transportation & EmploymentFigure 9:

Service Providers are largely provided to PRCS participants and there location also seems to be

highly accessible, however the data available is minimal. It becomes difficult to assess the

effectiveness of job readiness since there is no explicate data as to how individuals are qualify to

take part of HR360 employment opportunities or whether this component of the program is open

to all individuals.

Policy Suggestions:

As we can see the effects of Assembly Bill 109 “Public Safety Realignment” have had

minimal effects on the economic well being of Los Angeles County. One of the largest

oppositions many had was the lack of currently employment. As those on the lower end of the

spectrum have a difficult time obtaining employment in L.A. they feared that releasing a large

number of individuals will only hinder their opportunities. This common misconception is

reinforces as Penal Code Section 3003(a) states that an inmate who is released on parole shall be

returned to the county, which was their last legal residence prior to incarceration ("Division of

Adult Parole Operations Statutory Parole Requirements"). However, under AB 109 individuals

are not being released early. AB 109 simply creates Post-Release Community Supervision

(PRCS) in which eligible offenders are placed under county probation supervision.

Unfortunately, AB 109 did not have much impact on L.A. County as its unemployment

rate largely decreased and began to stabilize itself after the Great Recession. Median monthly

housing cost in L.A. County increase by about sixty-five dollars, this can also be attributed to the

stabilization of the market, and not necessarily an increase in demand from those being released.

Los Angeles County residents appear to have been impacted on a larger magnitude by the market

than by the release of individuals, however it is those released that experienced the largest impact

by the existing conditions of the county.

With the passage of AB 109 in 2011, Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS)

programs came into effect, as it is believed that counties can have a greater impact on recidivism

rates statewide. At this stage, it is still a bit early to determine whether L.A. County’s PRCS

program had the intended outcome.

With current statistics we can draw minimal conclusions, it appears that L.A.’s PRCS

program is having positive effects on its participants. Individuals who engage in treatment appear

to be doing better off reducing their rate of arrest and likelihood of being homeless. Yet, in order

to measure its true effectiveness further data needs to be collected to on the participants who

successfully completely different portions of the program. In the short run, it is essential that the

different treatment and services provided collect data on the individuals who are referred to

treatment but are not admitted. In order to have a lasting impact, the county needs to understand

the disconnect between those referred and those who are admitted to treatment, in order to

develop strategies to have those number resemble each other as best as possible. L.A. County

must also account for the effects of Proposition 47 and Proposition 36 to better understand the

direct impact the county’s efforts are having on rehabilitation.

Employment, being a factor that largely contributes to successful reintegration needs to

be studies in-depth. It is critical to collect, study and examine data on the individuals who enter

PRCS programs based on their rate of employment, the individuals who obtained employment

without the assistance of job readiness services, the individuals who engaged in different

components of job readiness services, along with the rate at which they obtained employment.

In the long term, it would be beneficial to collect data in regards to the number of

individuals who take advantage of more than one component of the different treatments and

services offered by the county. By doing so we would be able to compare the success of

individuals who became involved in more than one component of the program.

If Los Angeles and other counties began to collect extensive data on the individuals who

take part of their services, it would become easier to analyze the services offered to them. As of

now, it is evident that the CDCR has been able to substantially decrease its population, now

counties must focus on their PRCS programs to ensure they are providing individuals with the

best resources possible to reduce their rate of recidivism.

Works CitedAustin, James et al. Evaluation of the Current and Future Los Angeles County Jail Population. Colorado:

The JFA Institute, 2012. Web. 09 Feb. 2016.

Beard, Jeffrey et al. 2014 Outcome Evaluation Report. Sacramento: Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, 2015. Web. 13 Feb. 2016.

Binswanger, Ingrid A., et al. "Release from Prison - A High Risk of Death for Former Inmates." New

England Journal of Medicine. Massachusetts Medical Society, 11 Jan. 2007. Web. 07 Feb. 2016.

"Californians for Safety and Justice." About Public Safety Realignment. N.p., 2013. Web. 11 Feb. 2016.

“Continuum of Care Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports." CoC Homeless Populations

and Subpopulations Reports - HUD Exchange. HUD Exchange, 2014. Web. 11 Feb. 2016.

"Division of Adult Parole Operations Statutory Parole Requirements." DAPO. Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2016. Web. 12 Feb. 2016.

Krimetz, Stephen et al. California Prisoners and Parolees. Sacramento: Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, 2011. Web. 14 Feb. 2016.

"Local Area Unemployment Statistics Map." Map. Bureau of Labor Statistics, n.d. Web. 15 Feb. 2016.

Los Angeles County Jail Overcrowding Reduction. Vera Institute of Justice, 2011. Web. 7 Feb. 2016.

Luhrs, Emily. "Myths vs. Facts -- Clearing up the Realignment Debate." Center on Juvenile and Criminal

Justice. Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 29 July 2011. Web. 10 Feb. 2016.

Monthly Report of Population. Sacramento: Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2016. Web. 15

Feb. 2016.

Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report. Los Angeles: Public Safety Realignment Team, 2015.

Web. 13 Feb. 2016.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates

Weekly Report of Population. Sacramento: Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2016. Web. 21

Feb. 2016.