3/28/2013

1

3/28/2013

2

3/28/2013

3

High Recidivism RatesHigh Recidivism RatesWithin three years, almost two-thirds of CDCR parolees returned to

prison (45% were for parole violations).

100%Three-Year Recidivism Rates by FY

A t C i ti R t t P i

76.2% 76.4% 77.0%77.2%

76.6% 75.8%

66.2% 65.6% 66.8% 67.5%65.1% 63.7%

60%

70%

80%

90%Arrests Convictions Returns to Prison

47.7%48.5% 49.2% 48.7%

51.5% 49.6%

30%

40%

50%

2002‐03 2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08

Data Source:  2012 Outcome Evaluation Report.

3/28/2013

4

3/28/2013

5

Inmates with DisabilitiesArmstrong (1994)

Inmates with Developmental

Use of Force and Employee Discipline

Madrid (1995)Inmates with Developmental Disabilities

Clark (1996)

Medical CarePlata (2001)

Mental Health CareC l (1991)

Parole Due ProcessValdivia (1996)

Juvenile Justice SystemFarrell (2003)

Juvenile Parole ViolationsColeman (1991)

Dental CarePerez (2005)

L.H. (2006)

$11,000,000,000

Expenditures

$7 977 202 000

$9,139,447,000

$9,864,301,000

$10,579,658,000

$8,000,000,000

$9,000,000,000

$10,000,000,000

$7,977,202,000

$7,000,000,000FY 05/06 FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09

3/28/2013

6

3/28/2013

7

Created Financial Incentives for Counties to Reduce Probation Revocations (SB 678)

Adjusted Property Crime Thresholds

E t bli h d N R bl

Parole Reentry Courts

Milestone Completion Credits

Alternative Custody Program

Medical ParoleEstablished Non-Revocable Parole

3/28/2013

8

U.S. Supreme Court affirmed order by three-judge panel for California y j g pto reduce its prison population

California’s fiscal crisis required dmajor reductions

3/28/2013

9

Enacted on October 1, 2011

L l l ff d th i t l llLower-level offenders serve their sentences locally

Offenders convicted of violent, sex-related, or other serious offenses continue to serve sentences in prison

Certain offenders released from state prison supervised by local county probation instead of state parole agents

Parole violators can no longer be returned to state prison

3/28/2013

10

County Responsibilities

Local custody for non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders

Local post-release community supervision

Enhanced local custody and supervision tools, such as alternative custody; home detention for low-level offenders; and local jail credits

Responsibility for parole violators

Who is Sentenced to State Prison?

Off nd h h i u nt Offender who has a prior or current serious or violent felony

Offender who is required to register as a sex offender

Certain excluded crimesExamples of Excluded Crimes:

Felony physical abuse of an elder or dependentelder or dependentAssault on a peace officerBribing a legislator

3/28/2013

11

State Parole Supervision

Whether offender will be subject to state parole supervision is j p pdetermined by the offender’s commitment offense.

Commitment Offenses with State Parole Supervision

Current serious or violent felonyLiferMentally disordered offender (MDO)Mentally disordered offender (MDO)High-risk sex offender

180 000

Monthly Institution PopulationOctober 2008 – September 2012

140,000

150,000

160,000

170,000

180,000Public Safety Realignment

100,000

110,000

120,000

130,000

3/28/2013

12

PostPost‐‐Realignment State Parolee PopulationRealignment State Parolee Population

Office of Inspector General (OIG) Medical Inspection ScoreOffice of Inspector General (OIG) Medical Inspection Score

Medical inspections designed to assess whether the care provided to offenders in custody at CDCR institutions meets medical community standards.

Results are reported by OIG as a percentage of “adherence” score for each institution.

Inspection team consists of physicians, registered nurses, deputy inspectors general, and analysts. p y p g , y

Source: “Medical Inspection Results: Comparative Summary and Analysis of the First and Second Medical Inspection Cycles of California’s 33 Adult Institutions” (July 2012).

3/28/2013

13

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

High Adherence

Moderate Adherence

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Sep‐2008 Sep‐2009 Sep‐2010 Sep‐2011 Sep‐2012

Monthly Average of All 33 Prisons

Low Adherence

OIG Prison Medical Adherence ScoresOIG Prison Medical Adherence ScoresAdherence scores Post‐Realignment  for all 33 institutions are notably above the 75% minimum / moderate adherence cutoff.

Monthly Average of All 33 PrisonsSource: Office of the Inspector General (www.oig.ca.gov/pages/reports/medical‐inspections.php)

PostPost‐‐Realignment Release DemographicsRealignment Release Demographics

Examination of post-Realignment demographics for offenders released to either PRCS or State Parole:

GenderAge at ReleaseAge at ReleaseRace/EthnicityCommitment Offense CategoryRelease TypeCalifornia Static Risk Assessment (CSRA) Score at ReleaseSerious and/or Violent

Release period: October 1, 2011 through Release period: October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2012

3/28/2013

14

89.0% 

94.2% 

60.0% 

70.0% 

80.0% 

90.0% 

100.0% 

Gender

11.0% 

5.8% 

0.0% 

10.0% 

20.0% 

30.0% 

40.0% 

50.0%  PRCS

Parole

Male Female

• More male than female offenders were released.• There are slightly more male offenders under State supervision than there are under PRCS.• In contrast, there are more female PRCS offenders than there are female State Parolees.

60.0 % 

70.0 % 

80.0 % 

90.0 % 

100.0 % 

Age at Release

0.6% 

10.8% 17.8% 

18.6% 13.9%  13.2%  11.5% 

8.2% 

3.6%  1.9% 1.3% 

19.0%  19.7% 17.0% 

11.4%  10.0%  9.2% 6.7% 

3.1%  2.6% 

0.0 % 

10.0 % 

20.0 % 

30.0 % 

40.0 % 

50.0 % 

18‐19 20‐24 25‐29 30‐34 35‐39 40‐44 45‐49 50‐54 55‐59 60 + 

Age Group

PRCS

Parole

• The age groups from 18 to 29  and those over 60 are represented by more State Parolees than PRCS Offenders. 

• From age 30 to 59, there is a greater percentage of PRCS offenders than State Parolees

Age Group

3/28/2013

15

60.0% 

70.0% 

80.0% 

90.0% 

100.0% 

Race/Ethnicity Distribution of Released Offenders

31.4% 

39.6% 

24.2% 

0.7%  0.6%  0.1%  3.3% 

25.8% 

41.7% 

27.1% 

1.0%  0.7%  0.2%  3.4% 

0.0% 

10.0% 

20.0% 

30.0% 

40.0% 

50.0% 

White Hispanic/Latino Black/African American

Native American/Alaska 

Native

Asian Native Hawaiian/Pacific 

Islander

Other

PRCS

Parole

• Most Post‐Realignment releases were Hispanic/Latino, White, or Black/African American.• There are 2.1% more Hispanic/Latino and 2.9% more Black/African American State Parolees than PRCS Offenders.• There are 5.6% more White PRCS Offenders than State Parolees for the same racial/ethnic group.

Native Islander

58.2% 60.0% 

70.0% 

80.0% 

90.0% 

100.0% 

Commitment Offense Category

13.4% 

36.4% 

21.2% 

35.2% 

8.3% 

15.0% 12.2% 

0.0%  0.0% 0.0% 

10.0% 

20.0% 

30.0% 

40.0% 

50.0% 

PRCS Parole

Crimes Against Persons Property Crimes Drug Crimes Other Crimes Missing

• State Parolees are much more likely than PRCS Offenders to have been committed to CDCR for “Crime Against Persons.

• By comparison, PRCS Offenders are much more likely to have been committed for “Property Crimes” or “Drug Crimes”.

Crimes Against Persons Property Crimes Drug Crimes Other Crimes Missing

3/28/2013

16

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

CSRA Scores 

14.6%

24.5%25.4% 25.6%22.9%

29.5%

19.6%

9.0%12.2%

5.2%5.2% 6.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

PRCS Parole

Release Category

Low Medium High‐Violent High‐Property High‐Drug NA

• The CSRA measures risk of reconviction.• State Parolees are more likely to have a “Low” CSRA score, whereas PRCS Offenders are more likely 

to have a “High” score.

g g p y g g

67.9 % 

32.1 % 

Parole

egory

Serious and/or Violent Classification 

0.3 % 

99.7 % 

PRCS

0.0 %  10.0 %  20.0 %  30.0 %  40.0 %  50.0 %  60.0 %  70.0 %  80.0 %  90.0 %  100.0 % 

Release Ca

te

No

Yes

The greatest percentage of offenders classified as serious and /or violent remain under the supervision of CDCR.

3/28/2013

17

PostPost--RealignmentRealignmentReduction in CDCR’s Budget

Constitutional level of health care to end costly lawsuits yand court oversight

Improved prison operationsNew staffing standardsImproved classification system eliminates need for 12,000 celled bedsImproved gang management

Expanded rehabilitative programs to help reduce recidivism and save long-term costs

3/28/2013

18