Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

Realignment and Recidivism in California, Event Slides

Database

This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3711 (44) { ["ImageClass"]=> string(12) "Timber\Image" ["PostClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Post" ["TermClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Term" ["object_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["custom"]=> array(5) { ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(46) "eventbriefing_realignmentandrecidivism1217.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "499659" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(7470) "Realignment and Recidivism in California December 12, 2017 Mia Bird, Ryken Grattet, and Viet Nguyen Supported with funding from the National Institute of Justice Public safety realignment drastically changed California’s criminal justice landscape  Realignment was implemented in 2011 – After a Supreme Court mandate to reduce the prison population – Amid a state budget crisis  The law shifted responsibility for lower-level offenders from state prison and parole to county jail and probation systems – In the first year, the prison population decreased by about 27,000 and the jail population increased by about 9,000 inmates – Overall, incarceration levels declined 2 Realignment created two new populations of offenders  The PRCS population – Individuals on post-release community supervision (PRCS) are released from prison to county probation supervision, rather than state parole – Revocations served in county jail  The 1170(h) population – Individuals sentenced under §1170(h) of the California Penal Code serve time in county jail rather than state prison – Revocations served in county jail 3 The reform prompted considerable debate  Supporters and opponents had different views on whether changes in incarceration levels would affect public safety  One goal of realignment was to reduce the state’s persistently high rates of recidivism – Realignment emphasized the use of evidence-based interventions – Supporters argued that local justice systems are better positioned to provide these interventions 4 Did realignment affect recidivism?  Past research has focused on PRCS offenders released during the first year of realignment – Shows realignment did not reduce recidivism among this group, although outcomes vary by county  This study: – Includes the 1170(h) population – Looks at two years of releases after realignment – Captures revocations to jail custody 5 Outline  Data and methodology  Recidivism among PRCS offenders  Recidivism among 1170(h) offenders  Conclusions 6 The BSCC–PPIC Multi-County Study includes 12 California counties Additional engagement:  California State Association of Counties  County Administrative Officers Association of California  California State Sheriff’s Association  Chief Probation Officers of California  California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation  Department of Justice 7 The Multi-County Study brings together data from state and local sources Criminal history Department of Justice Unique ID County sheriff and probation systems Local custody and supervision; program, service, and sanction interventions State custody and supervision California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Our research takes into account changes in criminal justice systems  Realignment shifted incentives toward pursuing formal prosecutions, rather than revocations, in response to reoffending  We adjust rearrest and reconviction rates to account for this shift in the use of revocations before and after realignment – Adjusted rearrest rates include formal arrests and revocations to prison or jail; adjusted reconviction rates include formal convictions and revocations  We also adjust for differences in the characteristics of pre- and post-realignment offender groups 9 Outline  Data and methodology  Recidivism among PRCS offenders  Recidivism among 1170(h) offenders  Conclusions 10 PRCS offenders differ from those released from prison before realignment  35,218 individuals were released on PRCS to the MCS counties between Oct 2011 and Sept 2013  When compared to the full pre-realignment population (released between Oct 2009 and Sept 2011), PRCS offenders are: – More likely to be incarcerated on a revocation – Less likely to have committed a crime against a person – More likely to have committed a property or drug crime – Have more past arrests and convictions 11 PRCS offenders have higher recidivism rates Share of population (%) 80 61.7 60 56.5 40 69.3 71.9 38.3 40.1 Pre-realignment PRCS 54.0 56.4 20 0 One-year rearrest Two-year rearrest One-year reconviction Two-year reconviction 12 Recidivism rates among the PRCS population vary across counties  Overall, rearrest and reconviction rates are somewhat higher for PRCS offenders compared with their pre-realignment counterparts  The majority of MCS counties see higher one-year rearrest rates among PRCS offenders  However, one-year reconviction rates among PRCS offenders are actually lower in 9 of the 12 counties 13 Outline  Data and methodology  Recidivism among PRCS offenders  Recidivism among 1170(h) offenders  Conclusions 14 1170(h) offenders differ from those released from prison before realignment  13,435 individuals sentenced for 1170(h) offenses were released from MCS county jails between Oct 2011 and Sept 2013 – Group limited to those who had jail sentences of at least one year  When compared to the full pre-realignment population (released between Oct 2009 and Sept 2011), 1170(h) offenders are: – Much less likely to have committed a crime against a person – More likely to have committed a property or drug crime – Have more past arrests and convictions 15 1170(h) offenders have lower reconviction rates Share of population (%) 80 61.6 61.7 60 40 20 0 One-year rearrest 72.2 74.5 42.9 39.1 Pre-realignment 1170(h) 56.9 54.9 Two-year rearrest One-year reconviction Two-year reconviction 16 Among 1170(h) offenders, recidivism rates vary across counties  We find no overall difference in one-year rearrest rates for 1170(h) offenders – However, one-year rearrest rates among the 1170(h) population are actually lower in more than half of MCS counties  One-year reconviction rates are lower for the overall 1170(h) population, as well as in the majority of MCS counties 17 Realignment created two kinds of 1170(h) offenders  1170(h) offenders with split sentences: – Receive both jail time and probation supervision – This group had higher rearrest rates but lower reconviction rates than their pre-realignment counterparts  1170(h) offenders with straight sentences: – Receive jail time with no supervision – This group stands out as having consistently better recidivism outcomes under realignment, with the same or lower rearrest and reconviction rates 18 Outline  Data and methodology  Recidivism among PRCS offenders  Recidivism among 1170(h) offenders  Conclusions 19 Conclusions  Effects of realignment on recidivism vary across offender groups and counties  These effects will likely vary over time as the composition of offender groups change and counties build capacity and gain experience with evidence-based practices  We need to carefully consider the relationship between supervision and higher rearrest rates 20 Realignment and Recidivism in California December 12, 2017 Mia Bird, Ryken Grattet, and Viet Nguyen Supported with funding from the National Institute of Justice Notes on the use of these slides These slides were created to accompany a presentation. They do not include full documentation of sources, data samples, methods, and interpretations. To avoid misinterpretations, please contact: Mia Bird (bird@ppic.org; 415-291-4471) Ryken Grattet (grattet@ppic.org ; 916-440-1123) Viet Nguyen (nguyen@ppic.org; 415-291-4478) Thank you for your interest in this work. 22" } ["___content":protected]=> string(182) "

Realignment and Recidivism in California, Event Slides

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(104) "https://www.ppic.org/event/realignment-recidivism-california/eventbriefing_realignmentandrecidivism1217/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(13089) ["ID"]=> int(13089) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "4" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-12-12 11:49:47" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(12723) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(54) "Realignment and Recidivism in California, Event Slides" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(42) "eventbriefing_realignmentandrecidivism1217" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(46) "eventbriefing_realignmentandrecidivism1217.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "499659" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(7470) "Realignment and Recidivism in California December 12, 2017 Mia Bird, Ryken Grattet, and Viet Nguyen Supported with funding from the National Institute of Justice Public safety realignment drastically changed California’s criminal justice landscape  Realignment was implemented in 2011 – After a Supreme Court mandate to reduce the prison population – Amid a state budget crisis  The law shifted responsibility for lower-level offenders from state prison and parole to county jail and probation systems – In the first year, the prison population decreased by about 27,000 and the jail population increased by about 9,000 inmates – Overall, incarceration levels declined 2 Realignment created two new populations of offenders  The PRCS population – Individuals on post-release community supervision (PRCS) are released from prison to county probation supervision, rather than state parole – Revocations served in county jail  The 1170(h) population – Individuals sentenced under §1170(h) of the California Penal Code serve time in county jail rather than state prison – Revocations served in county jail 3 The reform prompted considerable debate  Supporters and opponents had different views on whether changes in incarceration levels would affect public safety  One goal of realignment was to reduce the state’s persistently high rates of recidivism – Realignment emphasized the use of evidence-based interventions – Supporters argued that local justice systems are better positioned to provide these interventions 4 Did realignment affect recidivism?  Past research has focused on PRCS offenders released during the first year of realignment – Shows realignment did not reduce recidivism among this group, although outcomes vary by county  This study: – Includes the 1170(h) population – Looks at two years of releases after realignment – Captures revocations to jail custody 5 Outline  Data and methodology  Recidivism among PRCS offenders  Recidivism among 1170(h) offenders  Conclusions 6 The BSCC–PPIC Multi-County Study includes 12 California counties Additional engagement:  California State Association of Counties  County Administrative Officers Association of California  California State Sheriff’s Association  Chief Probation Officers of California  California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation  Department of Justice 7 The Multi-County Study brings together data from state and local sources Criminal history Department of Justice Unique ID County sheriff and probation systems Local custody and supervision; program, service, and sanction interventions State custody and supervision California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Our research takes into account changes in criminal justice systems  Realignment shifted incentives toward pursuing formal prosecutions, rather than revocations, in response to reoffending  We adjust rearrest and reconviction rates to account for this shift in the use of revocations before and after realignment – Adjusted rearrest rates include formal arrests and revocations to prison or jail; adjusted reconviction rates include formal convictions and revocations  We also adjust for differences in the characteristics of pre- and post-realignment offender groups 9 Outline  Data and methodology  Recidivism among PRCS offenders  Recidivism among 1170(h) offenders  Conclusions 10 PRCS offenders differ from those released from prison before realignment  35,218 individuals were released on PRCS to the MCS counties between Oct 2011 and Sept 2013  When compared to the full pre-realignment population (released between Oct 2009 and Sept 2011), PRCS offenders are: – More likely to be incarcerated on a revocation – Less likely to have committed a crime against a person – More likely to have committed a property or drug crime – Have more past arrests and convictions 11 PRCS offenders have higher recidivism rates Share of population (%) 80 61.7 60 56.5 40 69.3 71.9 38.3 40.1 Pre-realignment PRCS 54.0 56.4 20 0 One-year rearrest Two-year rearrest One-year reconviction Two-year reconviction 12 Recidivism rates among the PRCS population vary across counties  Overall, rearrest and reconviction rates are somewhat higher for PRCS offenders compared with their pre-realignment counterparts  The majority of MCS counties see higher one-year rearrest rates among PRCS offenders  However, one-year reconviction rates among PRCS offenders are actually lower in 9 of the 12 counties 13 Outline  Data and methodology  Recidivism among PRCS offenders  Recidivism among 1170(h) offenders  Conclusions 14 1170(h) offenders differ from those released from prison before realignment  13,435 individuals sentenced for 1170(h) offenses were released from MCS county jails between Oct 2011 and Sept 2013 – Group limited to those who had jail sentences of at least one year  When compared to the full pre-realignment population (released between Oct 2009 and Sept 2011), 1170(h) offenders are: – Much less likely to have committed a crime against a person – More likely to have committed a property or drug crime – Have more past arrests and convictions 15 1170(h) offenders have lower reconviction rates Share of population (%) 80 61.6 61.7 60 40 20 0 One-year rearrest 72.2 74.5 42.9 39.1 Pre-realignment 1170(h) 56.9 54.9 Two-year rearrest One-year reconviction Two-year reconviction 16 Among 1170(h) offenders, recidivism rates vary across counties  We find no overall difference in one-year rearrest rates for 1170(h) offenders – However, one-year rearrest rates among the 1170(h) population are actually lower in more than half of MCS counties  One-year reconviction rates are lower for the overall 1170(h) population, as well as in the majority of MCS counties 17 Realignment created two kinds of 1170(h) offenders  1170(h) offenders with split sentences: – Receive both jail time and probation supervision – This group had higher rearrest rates but lower reconviction rates than their pre-realignment counterparts  1170(h) offenders with straight sentences: – Receive jail time with no supervision – This group stands out as having consistently better recidivism outcomes under realignment, with the same or lower rearrest and reconviction rates 18 Outline  Data and methodology  Recidivism among PRCS offenders  Recidivism among 1170(h) offenders  Conclusions 19 Conclusions  Effects of realignment on recidivism vary across offender groups and counties  These effects will likely vary over time as the composition of offender groups change and counties build capacity and gain experience with evidence-based practices  We need to carefully consider the relationship between supervision and higher rearrest rates 20 Realignment and Recidivism in California December 12, 2017 Mia Bird, Ryken Grattet, and Viet Nguyen Supported with funding from the National Institute of Justice Notes on the use of these slides These slides were created to accompany a presentation. They do not include full documentation of sources, data samples, methods, and interpretations. To avoid misinterpretations, please contact: Mia Bird (bird@ppic.org; 415-291-4471) Ryken Grattet (grattet@ppic.org ; 916-440-1123) Viet Nguyen (nguyen@ppic.org; 415-291-4478) Thank you for your interest in this work. 22" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-12-12 19:49:47" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(42) "eventbriefing_realignmentandrecidivism1217" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-12-12 11:51:18" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-12-12 19:51:18" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(85) "http://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/eventbriefing_realignmentandrecidivism1217.pdf" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_mime_type"]=> string(15) "application/pdf" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" ["status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["attachment_authors"]=> bool(false) }