Click Here to Add Text This could be a call out area. • Bullet Points to emphasize

Click Here to Add Text

This could be a call out area.

• Bullet Points to emphasize





Association for Criminal Justice Research(California)

76th Semi-Annual MeetingOctober 18, 2012

HEADLINE TEXT HERECalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

A Preliminary Examination of Public Safety Realignment

CDCR Institution and State Parole/PRCS Data

Public Safety Realignment

Enacted on October 1, 2011

Lower-level offenders serve their sentences locally

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

Lower-level offenders released from state prison are supervised by local probation officers under Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS), instead of by state parole agents

State parole violators serve their revocation terms in local jails rather than state prison

Lower-Level Offenders

“realigned” to county, rather than state, supervision.








Part I:CDCR InstitutionsInstitution Population

Institutional Misconduct Serious Incidents Violent Incidents

Office of the Inspector General Medical Scores

Offender Needs

CDCR Institution Population

Sharp decline in the CDCR Institution Population since

the implementation of Realignment

120,000

130,000

140,000

150,000

160,000

170,000

180,000

Monthly Institution PopulationOctober 2011 - September 2012

Realignment

HEADLINE TEXT HERE








Definition of Incidents

Serious (Melee/Riot):A violent disturbance involving three or more inmates.

Violent:Assault and/or battery on a staff member or an inmate, as well as homicide.

HEADLINE TEXT HERE• There are few (less than 30) serious incidents each month.

• The number of serious Post-Realignment incidents is higher than that which was reported during the previous year for the months of October through February.

• This trend reverses from March through June, when the number of serious Post-Realignment incidents is lower.

• There were almost ½ as many serious incidents in June 2012 as there were in June 2011.

Institutional Misconduct:Number of Serious

Incidents

21

1617

1110

23

2122

25

20

24

19

1617

21

17

19

13

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN

Number

of

Serious

Incidents

CDCR Serious Incidents - Monthly ComparisonPre-Realignment versus Post-Realignment

Pre-Realignment Post-Realignment

HEADLINE TEXT HERE








Institutional Misconduct:Rate of Serious Incidents

0.13

0.100.11

0.070.06

0.15

0.13

0.14

0.16

0.13

0.16

0.13

0.11

0.12

0.15

0.12

0.14

0.10

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18


Rate

per

1,000

Inmates

CDCR Serious Incidents Rate - Monthly ComparisonPre-Realignment versus Post-Realignment


• The trend depicting the rate of serious incidents almost mirrors the number of serious incidents.

• Adjusting for the decline of the CDCR Institution population shows that the rate for October, March, and May is the same Pre- and Post-Realignment.

• The June 2012 serious incident rate is much lower than the June 2011 rate.

HEADLINE TEXT HERE

• With the exception of October and January, the number of violent Post-Realignment incidents is lower than those reported Pre-Realignment.

• The greatest difference in the number of Pre- and Post-Realignment violent incidents occurs in May as there were 86 fewer incidents in 2012.

Institutional Misconduct:Number of Violent

Incidents

369351

384

353339

375364

411431426

340

369353

255

337

289

325

365

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500


Number

of

Violent

Incidents

CDCR Violent Incidents - Monthly ComparisonPre-Realignment versus Post-Realignment


HEADLINE TEXT HERE








Institutional Misconduct:Rate of Violent Incidents

2.31

2.22

2.44

2.252.16

2.382.31

2.612.732.75

2.26

2.52 2.47

1.82

2.43

2.11

2.40

2.71

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00


Rate

per

1,000

Inmates

CDCR Violent Incidents Rate - Monthly ComparisonPre-Realignment versus Post-Realignment


• Adjusting for the decline of the CDCR Institution population shows that the Post-Realignment violent incident rate is higher in October through January, as well as March 2012.

• The Post-Realignment violent incident rate is lower in February and April through June, 2012.

HEADLINE TEXT HERE








OIG Medical Inspection Scores

• Medical inspections designed to identify instances of CDCR institution non-compliance with CDCR medical policies and procedures.

• Assesses whether the care meets medical community standards.

• Inspection program that contains up to 151 “yes/no” questions covering 20 essential components of medical delivery.

• Results in a “percentage of compliance” score for each institution.

• Weighting system to factor in importance of each component (and questions within each component).

• Inspection team consists of physicians, registered nurses, deputy inspectors general and analysts.Source: “Medical Inspection Results: Comparative Summary and Analysis of the First and

Second Medical Inspection Cycles of California’s 33 Adult Institutions” (July 2012).

HEADLINE TEXT HERE









(cont’d)

• All 14 institutions that have been assessed Post-Realignment have scores that are notably above the 75% minimum / moderate adherence cutoff.

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

65.0%

70.0%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

ASP SAC CIM CMF CMC CRC CAL CVSP ISP PVSP RJD SQ SCC WSP

Ove

rall

Scor

e

Institution*

Overall Inspection Scores Before and After Realignment

Pre-Realignment

Post-Realignment

Minimum ModerateAdherence = 75%

*Only Institutions with inpections on or after October 1, 2011 are shown above.Pre-Realignment scores are from the most recent inspection prior to October 1, 2011.Post-Realignment scores are from the most recent inpection on or after October 1, 2011.Source: Office of the Inspector General (www.oig.ca.gov/pages/reports/medical-inspections.php)

HEADLINE TEXT HERE

• Several institutions had low adherence scores during the Pre-Realignment period.

• Post-Realignment, five institutions have high adherence scores.


0

1

2

3

4

5

6


Num

ber o

f Ins

tituti

ons

Comparison Before and After RealignmentLow Adherence Scores and High Adherence Scores Only

Low High

HEADLINE TEXT HERE








CDCR Incarcerated Offender Needs

• CDCR’s Strategic Plan tracks offender’s access to rehabilitative programs.

• Throughout Fiscal Year 2011-12, most offenders who had an identified need (as measured by COMPAS), did not receive rehabilitative programming for their need(s) before being released from CDCR.

• As stated in the CDCR Blueprint, the goal is for 70% of all target population offenders to have their needs met prior to leaving CDCR.

732 647 643 569

1,0541,433 1,375

1,383

3,634 4,873 4,0783,238

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4

% R

elea

sed

with

At L

east

One

Nee

d

Offenders Released Fiscal Year 2011-2012

All Needs Met Some Needs Met No Needs Met








Part II:PRCS AND State Parole

State Parole PopulationPRCS / State Parole Demographics

CDCR Parole Population

Sharp decline in the CDCR Parole

Population since the implementation

of Realignment

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

110,000

120,000

Monthly Parole PopulationOctober 2011 - September 2012

Realignment

HEADLINE TEXT HERE








Post-RealignmentRelease Demographics

• Examination of post-Realignment demographics for offenders released to either Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS Offenders) or State Parole.

Gender Age at Release Race/Ethnicity Commitment Offense Category Release Type California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA) Score at

Release

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

HEADLINE TEXT HERE

• Overall, more male than female offenders were released.

• There are slightly more male State Parolees than there are male PRCS offenders.

• Conversely, there are more female PRCS offenders than there are female State Parolees.

Gender

89.0%

11.0%

94.2%

5.8%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Male Female

PRCS Parole

HEADLINE TEXT HERE

• The age groups from 18 through 29 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.

• There are more age 60+ State Parolees than PRCS Offenders.

Age

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

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

PRCS Parole

HEADLINE TEXT HERE

• Most Post-Realignment releases were Hispanic/Latino, White or Black/African American.

• There are 2.1% more Hispanic/Latino State Parolees than Hispanic/Latino PRCS Offenders.

• There are 5.6% more White PRCS Offenders than White State Parolees.

• There are 2.9% more Black/African American State Parolees than Black/African American PRCS Offenders.

Race/Ethnicity

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%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

White Hispanic/Latino

Black/African

American

NativeAmerican/

Alaska Native

Asian NativeHawaiian/

Pacific Islander

Other

PRCS Parole

HEADLINE TEXT HERE

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

• PRCS Offenders are much more likely than State Parolees to have been committed to CDCR for “Property Crimes” or “Drug Crimes”

Commitment OffenseCategory

13.4%

36.4% 35.2%

15.0%

58.3%

21.2%

8.3% 12.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Crimes AgainstPersons

PropertyCrimes

DrugCrimes

OtherCrimes

PRCS Parole

HEADLINE TEXT HERE

• There are more PRCS Offenders than State Parolees who left CDCR Post-Realignment as a first release on their current term.

• Conversely, there are more State Parolees than PRCS Offenders who left CDCR as a re-release.

Release Type

84.9%

15.1%

63.9%

36.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

First Release Re-Release

PRCS Parole

HEADLINE TEXT HERE• The CSRA measures risk of reconviction.

• PRCS Offenders are more likely to have a “High” CSRA score.

• State Parolees are more likely to have a “Low” CSRA score.

• This is likely due to the fact that in addition to violent crimes, the “High” CSRA category represents drug and property convictions, which are often characteristic of PRCS Offenders.

California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA) Score

14.7%

25.4%

54.6%

24.4% 25.6%

43.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Low Medium High

PRCS Parole








Next Steps:PRCS and State ParoleOutcomes Evaluation

Methodology Comparison Group

October 1, 2010 – September 30, 2011 releases PRCS “Flag”

Arrests Convictions








CDCRCONTACTS








HEADLINE TEXT HERECalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Lee Seale, DirectorInternal Oversight and Research

[email protected]

Brenda Grealish, Deputy DirectorOffice of Research

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Click Here to Add Text This could be a call out area. • Bullet Points to emphasize

Documents

Transcript of Click Here to Add Text This could be a call out area. • Bullet Points to emphasize