Understanding California Corrections. Joan Petersilia

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Understanding California Corrections. Joan Petersilia"

Tamsin Maxwell
5 years ago
Views:

1 Understanding California Corrections Joan Petersilia

2 Previous reports too narrowly focused on corrections and often biased Need a comprehensive, policy-oriented primer on the entire CJS Reform should be based on evidence rather than politics Why Why Another Another Report? Report?

3 Purpose of Presentation Explain just the facts Describe 10 most important aspects of CA sentencing & corrections How do we compare to other states? Identify myths that are leading to misguided policies Given the facts, what reforms should we be doing? Sgt Joe Friday on Dragnet

900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 #1: CA Prison Population is Not High by U.S.

4 #1: CA Prison Population is Not High by U.S. Standards Texas Illinois New York Florida California United States Rate per 100,000 Population Maine Minnesota Rhode Island New North Dakota Nebraska Massachusetts Vermont Utah Washington West Virginia Iowa New Mexico Hawaii New Jersey Pennsylvania New York Kansas Illinois North Carolina Oregon Alaska Connecticut Indiana Wyoming Ohio Wisconsin South Dakota Montana Kentucky Maryland Colorado United States Tennessee Idaho California Nevada Virginia Michigan Florida Arkansas Delaware Arizona Missouri Georgia Alabama South Carolina Mississippi Oklahoma Texas Louisiana Prison Incarceration Rate by State, 2004

5 #2: CA Police and Court Processing Are Not Different For Every: There are: 100 Reported Serious (Index) Crimes* 40 Adult Arrests 34 Complaints Filed 28 Convictions 22 Probation &/or Jail Sentences 5 State Prison Sentences *** 805,018 Reports** Resulted in 322,699 Arrests Resulted in 270,738 Complaints Resulted in 225,217 Convictions Resulted in 177,137 Probation &/or Jail Sentences and 41,167 State Prison Sentences*** Processing of Serious Crime by the CA Criminal Justice System, 2004

6 #3: CA Prison Population Growth Mostly Due to Violent Offenders 80,000 Person: ,000 Person 60,000 Prison Population 50,000 40,000 30,000 Drug Property Property: Drug: ,000 10,000 Other: Other Most Serious Conviction Crime for California Male Inmates

7 % CA Growth in Male Prison Population by Crime, % 70.0% 69.2% Percent Growth in Prison Population 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 9.4% 9.9% 11.2% 0.0% Person Property Drug Other

8 CA Females More Equally Distributed Between Property, Drug & Person Crimes 4,000 Property: ,500 3,000 Person Drug: 3257 Person: 3209 Prison Population 2,500 2,000 1,500 Drug Property 1,000 Other 500 Other Most Serious Conviction Crime for California Female Inmates

9 % CA Growth in Female Prison Population by Crime, % 40% 37.8% 40.3% Percent Growth in Prison Population 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 16.5% 5% 5.4% 0% Person Property Drug Other

10 #4: CA Prison Term Imposed & and Initially Served Isn t Longer Nor is Imposed Initial Parole Term Average length of CA prison term imposed is 48 months, served is 25 months similar to U.S. average. Average length of prison term served before first release is declining for non-3 Strikers. Length of parole supervision initially imposed is not longer 1 to 3 years for most parolees

11 #5: Increased Prison Populations Are Associated with Some Reduced Crime 250% 234% 200% Percent Change in Prison Population, Percent Change in Violent Crime, % Percent Change 100% 50% 69% 85% 58% 19% 90% 0% -50% -23% -34% -36% California Florida Illinois -58% New York -6% Texas -24% US Total -100% Changes in U.S. Violent Crime and Prison Populations

Bottom line.. Many see the crisis in CA as one of overincarceration, caused by huge expenditures on prison construction and the over-imprisonment of non-violent offenders.

12 Bottom line.. Many see the crisis in CA as one of overincarceration, caused by huge expenditures on prison construction and the over-imprisonment of non-violent offenders. But these notions misstate the facts. CA s use of prison is not unusual given U.S. standards it is mostly dictated by our large resident population and their arrests. But other states are doing better. Requires better diagnosis of the problem.

13 But California Corrections Stands Alone in Significant Ways

14 #6: CA Releases Most Inmates at a Predetermined Date Without Parole Hearing WA ME OR MN WI CA KS IL IN OH VA NC DE AZ NM MS Blue = 16 Determinate Sentencing States

15 CA & Illinois the only large states without discretionary parole release & with universal parole supervision WA ME OR MN WI CA KS IL IN OH VA NC DE AZ NM MS

16 #7: WE DO NOT HAVE THE HIGHEST RATE OF RE-ARREST Likelihood of Rearrest Compared to California North Carolina Texas New York California Illinois Florida Parolee Rearrest Within 3 Yrs of Release, Controlling for Demographic and Criminal Record

17 #8: We Do Have the Highest Return-to-Prison Rate Caused by Parole Violators Figure 4: Number of Felons Flowing Into California Prisons By Source Felons Newly Admitted From Court Parole Violators With A new Term Parole Violators Returned To Custody Number Year

18 #9: But 80% of Parole Violations Involve New Criminal Behavior 100,000 Parolees Returned to Prison 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 New Criminal Convictions Administrative Violations Administrative, Criminal Violations are 80% of "Technical" Violations Just 15,000 of parole returns are true technical violators 20,000 10, Administrative, Non-Criminal Violations are just 20% of "Technical" Violations

19 CA Prisoners Return to Prison Repeatedly-- Months Free and Months Re-Incarcerated Shorter than Elsewhere Released From Prison in 1995, Followed Through 2002 Time free Recommit to prison (sentence) CA 9.3 Months 7.9 Months 9.4% had 6+ prison returns in 7 yrs. 67% returned to Prison at least once Other Large States* Time free 20 Months 0.1% had 6+ prison returns in 7 yrs. Recommit to prison (sentence) 14 Months 50% returned to prison at least once *NY, Illinois, Florida. Analysis based on all 1995 prison releasees in each state. Source: Blumstein and Beck (2005).

20 Bottom line Most prisoners spend their lives cycling in and out, doing life on the installment plan Causes: determinate sentencing universal parole supervision processing new crimes as parole violations lack of in-prison and post-prison programming the continuing criminality of the prisoner

21 #10 California Inmates Have Greater Unmet Treatment Needs. E.g., Drugs 60% 56.0% 2.5% 50% 6.8% 47.1% 48.2% 49.2% % of Total Prison Population 40% 30% 20% 46.7% 43.6% 14.3% 9.0% 5.6% 9.0% 14.4% 11.5% 27.1% 27.7% 8.2% 10.9% 30.1% Drug 'high need' inmates in professionallyrun drug program Drug 'high need' inmates in other drug program Drug 'high need' inmates in no drug program 10% 20.3% 0% California New York Texas US (Minus CA) US (Total)

Nearly 1 in 5 CA Parolees at Large Figure 2: Schematic of Prison & Parole Stocks and Flows: 2004 Just one more thing Escapes 122 Felons Newly Admitted from Court 46,798 Discharges & Deaths 4,324

22 Nearly 1 in 5 CA Parolees at Large Figure 2: Schematic of Prison & Parole Stocks and Flows: 2004 Just one more thing Escapes 122 Felons Newly Admitted from Court 46,798 Discharges & Deaths 4,324 Prisoners 163,939 Felon Parole Violators with a New Term 17,842 Felon First Releases to Parole 58,994 Felons Reparoled 55,866 Parolees 113,768 Discharged & Died 42,483 Reinstated 32,090 Absconded 40,758 Felon Parole Violators Returned to Custody: 58,712 Parolees At Large 19,056

23 Put it all together. Unrehabilitated and Ready for Release

Who is Responsible? CDCR only partly responsible Those motivated to change, didn t get treatment Yes, make available evidence-based programs. But crowding, gangs, staff and funding impede.

24 Who is Responsible? CDCR only partly responsible Those motivated to change, didn t get treatment Yes, make available evidence-based programs. But crowding, gangs, staff and funding impede. Legislature equally to blame since they decide who gets released, when Those unmotivated to change are released regardless of dangerousness Police and Parole agents trying to fix what they see wrong with the catch-and-release system Current debate hasn t recognized the Legislature s role

25 What to do?

26 Petersilia s Reform Agenda Restore more discretion to sentencing and prison release decisions inmates should gain value for program participation State should be able to deny release to dangerous inmates Discontinue universal parole supervision Requires Legislature Low risk inmates having served less than 2 years not supervised unless high-need All new crimes by parolees prosecuted as new crimes not parole violations Requires Police, DA, Community Transition inmates who have served 5-yrs or more through reentry centers, halfway houses, or work furlough Low and medium risk parolees can participate in earned parole discharge --earn their way off parole at end 12 months through good acts and behavior High risk parolees identified with validated risk prediction instrument supervised more closely. GPS used when justified Requires CDCR Use intermediate sanctions to punish new technical violations. Combine with a parole violation grid to control disparities Deliver proven work, education, and substance abuse programs to selected inmates with 1 year left to serve

27 Minimally, We Should Debate the Facts Report is free

28 THANK YOU Joan Petersilia, Ph.D.

State Requirement List

State Requirement List PAGE 1 OF 7 Alabama Alabama RSA Union Building, Suite 320 P.O. Box 301750 Montgomery, AL 36130-1750 Tel: 334.242.1918 800.815.7453 Web: www.aboc.state.al.us/ 1,700 Clock Hours 1,200 Credit Hours 1,700