More From Jerry: Federal Prison Oversight a Waste of Money?

Photo credit Randall Benton for the Sac Bee.

After Governor Brown’s public comments about attorney’s fees for inmate rights’ litigators – on which we had plenty to say here and on The Recorder – he’s back to it this morning. The Sac Bee reports:

“During the life of these lawsuits, the prison health care budget has gone from $700 million to $2 billion,” Brown said in an interview with The Bee, his first on the issue since the state filed court documents in January seeking to regain control of its prisons. 

“That money is coming out of the university, it’s coming out of child care. It’s a situation you wouldn’t dream anyone would want.” 

The governor’s comments came as lawyers prepare for a battle in Sacramento federal court later this month over whether the state is providing a constitutional level of mental health and medical care for inmates. Oral arguments are scheduled for March 27 on California’s motion to terminate oversight of mental health care by U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. 

Another motion by the state, also filed in January, seeks to vacate or modify an order by a specially convened three-judge court to reduce inmate population. Oral arguments on that motion have not yet been scheduled. 

Really, Jerry? Really? You reap what you sow. Why is the prison health care budget so costly? It’s true that mistreating and ignoring people’s medical plight is cheaper than actually treating them, but perhaps if treating them is so expensive then one should have considered whether so many of them should have been in prison in the first place. And whose fault is it that prison expenditures are higher than what we spend on education and child care? Complaining about this given that the government is the culprit is absurd, offensive, and inflammatory.

New CDCR Chief: Jeffrey Beard

New chief of California’s prisons named

Jeffrey Beard, the former head of Pennsylvania’s prisons, favors shorter sentences and community treatment. The appointment is subject to Senate confirmation.

Jeffrey BeardJeffrey Beard, 65, the retired former Pennsylvania prisons chief, has been named to run California’s prison system. (Pennsylvania Department of Corre, )

By Paige St. John, Los Angeles TimesDecember 19, 2012, 7:51 p.m.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday named a vocal advocate of shorter sentences and community treatment to run the state’s crowded and troubled prison system.
Brown announced the selection of Jeffrey Beard, 65, the retired former Pennsylvania prisons chief, to succeed Matthew Cate, who stepped down last month after four years as secretary of corrections in California. Cate is now leader of the California State Assn. of Counties.
Beard, whose appointment is subject to Senate confirmation, spent nearly four decades in corrections in Pennsylvania, starting as a counselor and advancing to prison warden, eventually spending nine years as department head. He completed an expansion of that state’s prison system, including the addition of 32,000 inmate beds.
He left in 2010, advocating for laws that put more criminals into work-treatment programs instead of prisons, telling lawmakers that an “over-reliance” on locking up non-serious offenders did little to improve public safety.
Though an official start date was not announced, Beard joins Brown’s administration at a critical time. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has until Jan. 7 to produce a plan for reducing prison crowding or face the renewed threat of federal orders to release inmates early.
In addition, a federal receiver is attempting to negotiate terms for California to resume control over the delivery of healthcare to inmates. And the parole and healthcare divisions are laying off staff.
In announcing the appointment, Brown said Beard “has arrived at the right time to take the next steps in returning California’s parole and correctional institutions to their former luster.”
Beard’s successor in Pennsylvania says Beard will fit right in.
“I think you guys hit a home run,” said Pennsylvania Corrections Secretary John Wetzel.
Wetzel, who was appointed eight months after Beard retired, said the former director weighed in frequently with crucial advice and provided input on new legislation intended to reduce prison crowding in that state and on expanding community treatment and diversion programs.
In 2008, Beard lent support to a proposal to ease county jail crowding by sending felons serving more than two years to state prison. But it allowed for medical release and early release of nonviolent offenders who completed treatment and education programs.
Andy Hoover, legislative director for the Pennsylvania branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, said Beard played an active role in developing corrections policies and promoting them before the Legislature.
But Beard has critics as well, some of whom hold him responsible for expanding the use of solitary confinement in Pennsylvania and for a two-month moratorium on parole releases after the murders of two Philadelphia police officers. The moratorium caused such overcrowding that Pennsylvania began sending inmates to serve time in other states.
Hoover said Beard was caught in a political bind, carrying out policies he had not set. “He was in an unfortunate position,” Hoover said. “It was very much out of his hands.”
Corrections historian Dan Berger, who was working on his doctoral degree at the University of Pennsylvania at the time, disagrees.
“Beard does not have a good reputation on health and human rights in prison,” Berger said. “He gives more rhetoric to sentencing reform than believes it.”
After retiring in 2010, Beard joined Pennsylvania State University‘s Justice Center for Research, and he has worked as a private consultant to a number of states, including California. He advised Sacramento on litigation over the care and housing of mentally ill offenders and has toured California prisons.
Beard is not shy about voicing opinions on where the criminal justice system fails. In 2010, he told Pennsylvania lawmakers that heavy reliance on incarceration of low-level offenders “has proven to have limited value in maintaining public safety.”
“We must stop treating all offenders the same and move away from the ‘get tough on crime’ philosophy of locking up less serious offenders for longer periods of time,” he told them.
In a 2005 commentary in an industry publication, Beard called for a rethinking of “who really belongs in prison” and an end to the then-popular “scared straight” programs he felt increased the likelihood that freed inmates would commit future crimes. “We must have the will to put an end to feel-good and/or publicly popular programs that simply do not work,” Beard wrote.
Corrections officials said Beard was unavailable Wednesday but released a single statement quoting the incoming secretary as saying he was “honored” to be appointed “for this important public safety position.”
paige.stjohn@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-corrections-chief-20121220,0,7507985.story

— 

From CJCJ on SB 210 on pretrial release

Legislation to provide more opportunities for unsentenced detainees

submitted on Tue, 08/21/2012 – 14:06 by Catherine McCracken

In California, local county jail bed space is not always for the guilty.  Approximately 50,000 un-sentenced individuals are confined to the state’s county jails, awaiting their time before a judge.  A majority of these individuals are confined to local jails because they are not able to post bail .  This contributes to the 71% state average of un-sentenced individuals in county jails.  These individuals haven not necessarily been deemed a flight-risk or a danger to society; they just lack the fiscal resources to secure release back into the community.  This structure is both inefficient and expensive.  Further, the collateral consequences of unnecessary incarceration are expansive as time spent confined to local jail is often idle time away from employment, education, and families.
Under Realignment, California’s counties have seen an increased responsibility for managing non-violent, non-serious, and non-sex offenders.  This has caused some difficulty for some local jurisdictions that have historically relied on incarceration at both the state and local level.  So, how do local criminal justice decision-makers manage available bed space without constructing expensive new jails?    
Some counties such as Santa Cruz and San Francisco have been exploring local alternatives to incarceration that have alleviated capacity problems with bed space in their jail system.  These two counties in particular have invested in non-custodial options, which have resulted in the counties’ ability to manage the new responsibilities under Realignment.  For example, Santa Cruz County implemented a wide array of community-based alternatives for the pre-trial population that resulted in a local un-sentenced population that is 20% below the state average.  
Additionally, several counties like Santa Cruz utilize nationally-recognized risk assessment tools to determine if an arrested individual poses no flight risk or risk to public safety; therefore, can be released before their trial on their “own recognizance” (OR), or lightly supervised by the county.  Such individuals also receive pretrial services like drug counseling.  Pretrial interventions such as these have aided in the reduction of Santa Cruz’s pre-trial population.
Yet not all counties have implemented such measures to reduce their jail populations, nor do they believe they have the legal authority to do so.  Therefore, organizations such the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have taken steps, through Senate Bill 210 , to propose new laws that would require the Courts to consider “own recognizance” pretrial release for certain populations of defendants.  By adding this additional step in the court process, current jail detainees who may not be financially able to post their own bail may be able to be released if they meet the conditions of OR.  Additionally, the legislation would clarify the legal authority of the Courts, county sheriffs, and probation departments to conduct risk assessments on the un-sentenced population.
 

This legislation supports the creation of an efficient and fiscally responsible criminal justice system.  By recognizing not all detainees must remain in jail before trial, justice stakeholders are better able to serve those offenders that require confinement.  Maintaining strong community ties for those individuals able to be released on their own recognizance has long-term positive impacts in reducing recidivism rates and improving public safety.     
http://www.cjcj.org/post/adult/corrections/legislation/provide/more/opportunities/unsentenced/detainees

Pretrial Release: From CJCJ on SB 210

Legislation to provide more opportunities for unsentenced detainees

submitted on Tue, 08/21/2012 – 14:06 by Catherine McCracken

In California, local county jail bed space is not always for the guilty.  Approximately 50,000 un-sentenced individuals are confined to the state’s county jails, awaiting their time before a judge.  A majority of these individuals are confined to local jails because they are not able to post bail .  This contributes to the 71% state average of un-sentenced individuals in county jails.  These individuals haven not necessarily been deemed a flight-risk or a danger to society; they just lack the fiscal resources to secure release back into the community.  This structure is both inefficient and expensive.  Further, the collateral consequences of unnecessary incarceration are expansive as time spent confined to local jail is often idle time away from employment, education, and families.
Under Realignment, California’s counties have seen an increased responsibility for managing non-violent, non-serious, and non-sex offenders.  This has caused some difficulty for some local jurisdictions that have historically relied on incarceration at both the state and local level.  So, how do local criminal justice decision-makers manage available bed space without constructing expensive new jails?    
Some counties such as Santa Cruz and San Francisco have been exploring local alternatives to incarceration that have alleviated capacity problems with bed space in their jail system.  These two counties in particular have invested in non-custodial options, which have resulted in the counties’ ability to manage the new responsibilities under Realignment.  For example, Santa Cruz County implemented a wide array of community-based alternatives for the pre-trial population that resulted in a local un-sentenced population that is 20% below the state average.  
Additionally, several counties like Santa Cruz utilize nationally-recognized risk assessment tools to determine if an arrested individual poses no flight risk or risk to public safety; therefore, can be released before their trial on their “own recognizance” (OR), or lightly supervised by the county.  Such individuals also receive pretrial services like drug counseling.  Pretrial interventions such as these have aided in the reduction of Santa Cruz’s pre-trial population.
Yet not all counties have implemented such measures to reduce their jail populations, nor do they believe they have the legal authority to do so.  Therefore, organizations such the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have taken steps, through Senate Bill 210 , to propose new laws that would require the Courts to consider “own recognizance” pretrial release for certain populations of defendants.  By adding this additional step in the court process, current jail detainees who may not be financially able to post their own bail may be able to be released if they meet the conditions of OR.  Additionally, the legislation would clarify the legal authority of the Courts, county sheriffs, and probation departments to conduct risk assessments on the un-sentenced population.
 

This legislation supports the creation of an efficient and fiscally responsible criminal justice system.  By recognizing not all detainees must remain in jail before trial, justice stakeholders are better able to serve those offenders that require confinement.  Maintaining strong community ties for those individuals able to be released on their own recognizance has long-term positive impacts in reducing recidivism rates and improving public safety.     
http://www.cjcj.org/post/adult/corrections/legislation/provide/more/opportunities/unsentenced/detainees

Jerry, Cut This

Just a few days ago we reported on Governor Brown’s decision not to build the new death row, commenting that abolition would save even more. Today, Death Penalty Focus is circulating a cost-centered petition to Governor Brown to abolish the death penalty.

Please read and sign. This is our chance to take this crisis and galvanize it into something positive.

Incarceration Length and Recidivism

This morning at CELS I heard a paper by David Abrams titled Building Criminal Capital vs Specific Deterrence: The Effect of Incarceration Length on Recidivism. Abrams sought to figure out what sort of relationships existed between incarceration and recidivism. These sort of studies often present serious challenges, because length of incarceration might reflect other factors about the defendants that might predict recidivism later on. However, Abrams built on an opportunity to control for that, since defendants were randomly assigned to public defenders of differing attorney ability. Attorney ability therefore allowed him to instrument for sentence length. The findings were that the relationship between sentence length and incarceration was not linear. For the lowest sentences, the relationship is negative; it becomes positive for an intermediate sentence length, and then negative for the longest sentences. The conclusions tie the findings with theories of criminal capital formation and with specific deterrence.

The Post-Election Post

In the grand tradition we started in the 2008 elections, I’d like to offer some reflections about some of the results.

The first issue on the agenda is the meaning of Jerry Brown’s election for governor, especially if accompanied by Kamala Harris as Attorney General (an outcome which is still uncertain as I write this). As we said earlier in the race, while there are plenty of corrections-related reasons to be relieved that Meg Whitman will not be commanding our ship, Jerry Brown’s platform in these matters is not particularly innovative or efficient. Some have made much of his personal distaste for the death penalty and have predicted that, as part of a team with Kamala Harris, the institution may be abolished or at least halted de facto. Brown’s behavior during the countdown toward Albert Brown’s execution does not appear to predict such an outcome. It remains to be seen what sort of relationship Brown forges (or rekindles) with CCPOA, and what his position might be on Plata/Coleman, which he litigated fiercely against petitioners as Attorney General.

We then have the failure of Prop 19, which I decline to read as stemming from fear or demonization of marijuana users. Much of the feedback I received after publicly endorsing Prop 19 had to do with people who in principle supported legalization but thought the initiative was poorly designed and would lead to chaotic local regulation and, possibly, to “corporatization” of pot. I found it curious that the concerns about possible “corporatization” exceeded, for some, the concerns about racist oppressive enforcement, but to each their own. The lesson to be learned here is, perhaps, that the initiative process is not a good place for such reforms, and given the broad public support for the idea of legalization, creating an appropriate legal framework should be left to professional legislators.

Finally, a municipal disappointment was the disheartening passage of Prop L, the sit/lie ordinance. We blogged extensively here, here, here and here about the punitive and classist animus behind this initiative and are dismayed to see it come to life. Our hope is that the police will act sensibly in enforcing this measure.

CDCR Recidivism Report

CDCR has just released its recidivism report, which is fairly detailed and merits some discussion. First, I think these reports are a good start and CDCR should be commended for tracking down the information and analyzing it. The Office of Research did an overall good job at highlighting some of the major issues and, while I’m sure more could be mined from the raw data, there is enough content to comment on.

Here are some points that come to mind, in no particular order:

The recidivism rates in general, while not surprising, are disheartening, and attest to the complete failure of our prison system in achieving deterrence, rehabilitation, or both. It is telling that the statistics haven’t changed significantly over time, despite increased punitive measures. Clearly, what we are doing under the title “corrections and rehabilitation” does not correct OR rehabilitate. The percentages are particularly distressing for people who have been incarcerated at least once before.

Some interesting demographics: The report tracks people up to three years after release. Almost 50% reoffend within first six months; at one year, the percentage rises to 75%. Women recidivate at much lower rates than men (it would help to have a breakdown of this by offense, because perhaps offense patterns matter here). Unsurprisingly, recidivism declines with age. Also, recidivism rates for first-time offenders are highest for Native Americans, African Americans, and White inmates. But these effects dissipate for re-releases.

The releases from prison are unevenly distributed across counties (a large percentage of released inmates goes to LA). However, most of the folks that end up in LA are first-time releases, which explains why the recidivism rate in LA is actually the lowest. Other counties, such as SF, Fresno, and San Joaquin, have the highest recidivism rates, but they receive re-releases (for whom the rates are higher in general) more than first-time releases.

The distribution of offenses is interesting. 20% of released inmates were in for serious/violent crimes, and this percentage holds for recidivism, so it would appear that people do not “graduate” to more serious crime (perhaps they just do more of the same). Also, there doesn’t seem to be a connection between seriousness of crime and recidivism (which might suggest that it’s the institutionalization that contributes to it). Also, the report doesn’t track a connection between the original offense and the re-offense, save for sex offenders. Notably, however, 47% of returnees to prison are brought back in because of parole violations.

Re sex offenders:

This category merits special attention because it’s the one most often targeted by punitive legislative energy. 6.5% of released people registered as sex offenders. The data suggests that sex offender registration slightly reduces recidivism. However: Only 5% of released sex offenders who recidivate are convicted of an actual sex offense. 8.6% commit an unrelated crime, and 86% are back on a parole violation. This speaks volumes about the pervasiveness of registration rules and limitations and about the low risk of sex offenders.

More than half of the released inmates are in for short sentences – but for recidivists the length of sentence grows (this is probably just the effect of previous offenses enhance sentencing or of repeated parole violations.) There is a rise in recidivism for people who serve 0 to 24 months. After that, the rates decline. Possible intervening variables are health and age.

Recidivism rates rise significantly for folks released after their second incarceration (although subsequent re-incarcerations don’t make much of a difference). The returnees are also more likely to be assigned a high “risk score”. These two findings are not unrelated; I imagine that, when using the CSRA tool for predicting recidivism, one predictor of “high risk” is repeated prison sentencing. This classification therefore probably feeds itself.

On a more general note, I hope that releasing the data also means that our judicial apparatus might rethink some of its policies and approaches. In Malcolm Feeley and Jonathan Simon’s 1992 piece The New Penology, they argue that our “actuarial” approach to justice is behind a transformation from external correctional goals (e.g. reducing recidivism) to internal goals (e.g. reduce riots and escapes). If someone is keeping track of recidivism data, let us hope that the data actually gets used.

California Attorney General Race

The two candidates for Attorney General, a position which would provide its holder with plenty of influence over criminal justice policy in general and incarceration rates in California in particular, are Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley and San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris. The Chron summarized the candidates’ exchange in a televised debate. Unsurprisingly, the media has portrayed Cooley’s traditional “tough on crime” approach as clashing with Harris’ “smart on crime” innovations.

Lest the death penalty issue, which is a bone of contention between the candidates, throw you off, Harris is a tough law enforcer, far from being soft on crime. Moreover, while her overall approach to criminal justice emphasizes evidence-based measures and tackling roots rather than symptoms, there have been some gaffes. This year, for example, we’ve seen Harris endorse some measures that we found questionable, such as the (unenforceable) prohibition for sex offenders to join social networking websites and the truancy courts. While the latter measure tackles a phenomenon closely associated with crime rates, there is little evidence that scolding parents in court will do the trick. Nevertheless, Harris has proven to be a thoughtful, impartial, collaborative policymaker, who among other things endorses San Francisco’s Clean Slate program–a rare collaboration between the Sheriff’s department, the DA’s office and the PD’s office.

Cooley’s criminal justice policy does appear to be more traditional, but the L.A. District Attorney’s office has some community collaboration programs (including one for monitoring truancy!). It also devotes energy to combating gang activity. His campaign seems to include, so far, some of the familiar symbolic tactics, such as using victims as symbols of fear and highlighting controversial issues such as the death penalty to his advantage.

Crime Policy At Forefront of Oakland Mayoral Race

For the readers who may not have caught this SF Chron piece, it provides some information about the crime policy of different candidates for Oakland Mayor. It makes for a fascinating read; and interestingly, not all the candidates are uniformly knee-jerk-tough-on-crime-for-the-sake-of-it.

City Councilwoman Jean Quan says the city needs to preserve its community policing efforts, bolstering neighborhood-based programs that many credit with cutting crime. She voted to keep some of those programs even at the expense of officers’ jobs.

Former state Senate leader Don Perata is willing to throw many such programs out the window if it will keep more cops on the force, a stance that has earned him the support of the police union.

And City Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan points to economic development strategies that could provide jobs for residents, rather than more funding for the Police Department, as the surest way to cut crime.

In other Oakland news, it appears that Johannes Mehserle, convicted of involuntary manslaughter in relation to Oscar Grant’s shooting, is seeking a new trial. The relevance of his new evidence to the issue of his guilt seems rather tenuous, but I guess we’ll have to wait and see.