blog post Video: A Conversation with Chief Justice of California Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye By Mary Severance Oct 26, 2021 Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye talks with PPIC’s Mark Baldassare about how the state’s judicial system adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic and what this experience could mean for the future of the courts.
Fact Sheet California’s Prison Population By Joseph Hayes, Justin Goss, Heather Harris, Alexandria Gumbs Jul 22, 2019 Many of California’s inmates live in overcrowded conditions, despite successful efforts to stabilize the prison population systemwide. This fact sheet provides a snapshot of the state’s prisons, highlighting the most current information on racial disparities, health costs, and other key issues.
blog post Tailoring Domestic Violence Programs to Reduce Recidivism By Viet Nguyen, Mia Bird Jun 12, 2018 Programs that address specific risks for reoffending could be key in reducing recidivism for domestic violence offenders.
blog post New Laws Expand Criminal Justice Reforms By Brandon Martin, Justin Goss Nov 7, 2017 The governor recently signed a number of bills that extend the state’s efforts to reform its adult and juvenile criminal justice system.
blog post Grants Awarded to Combat Recidivism By Brandon Martin Jun 15, 2017 Under Proposition 47, savings from a decrease in the prison population must go toward services such as mental health and substance abuse treatment. The first grants were just awarded.
blog post Next Steps for Proposition 57 By Magnus Lofstrom, Brandon Martin Nov 9, 2016 The passage of Proposition 57 brings significant changes to California’s criminal justice system.
Report Public Safety Realignment: Impacts So Far By Magnus Lofstrom, Brandon Martin Sep 28, 2015 Prompted by a federal court order to reduce prison overcrowding, California’s 2011 historic public safety realignment shifted many correctional responsibilities for lower-level felons from the state to counties. The reform was premised on the idea that locals can do a better job, and it was hoped that incarceration rates and corrections costs would fall. At the same time, critics predicted crime would rise. Four years since its implementation, realignment has made several important impacts: Realignment significantly reduced the prison population, but the state did not reach the court-mandated population target until after the passage of Proposition 47 in November 2014, which reduced penalties for many property and drug offenses. The reform challenged county jails and probation departments by making them responsible for a greater number of offenders with a broader range of backgrounds and needs. The county jail population did not rise nearly as much as the prison population fell, reducing the total number of people incarcerated in California. Realignment did not increase violent crime, but auto thefts rose. Research so far shows no dramatic change in recidivism rates. State corrections spending remains high, but there is reason to believe expenditures could drop in the future. Realignment has largely been successful, but the state and county correctional systems face significant challenges. The state needs to regain control of prison medical care, which is now in the hands of a federal receiver. And the state and counties together must make progress in reducing stubbornly high recidivism rates.
Report Implementing California’s School Funding Formula: Will High-Need Students Benefit? By Laura Hill, Iwunze Ugo Mar 12, 2015 The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) reformed California’s K–12 school finance system. It replaced a patchwork of formulas and specific (or "categorical”) programs with a focus on local control, funding equity, and additional support for the large share of students (63%) who are "high needs"—that is, low-income, English Learner, and/or foster care youth. However, there are still concerns about whether the new funding will reach high-need students. Because districts have spending flexibility, and because some of the extra funding for high-need students is based on their districtwide enrollment levels, it is possible that high-need schools in districts with relatively low overall shares of high-need students will not get the funding they need. Our research indicates that county offices of education—which are charged with assisting districts in developing and achieving accountability plans—may have extra work to do in parts of Southern California, the Bay Area, and Sacramento to ensure that extra state funding improves outcomes of high-need students who are not evenly distributed across district schools.
