Criminal Justice in CA Mapped: 2009-2010

The California Sentencing Institute, an initiative of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, has a new interactive map tool distinguishing all of California’s counties based on incarceration rates, felony admissions, mental health rates, arrest rates, poverty rates, and numerous other important statistics, for 2009 and 2010. I strongly advise checking it out; they have tabs for adults and for juveniles, and they have filters by offense. It’s very useful information, even though I very much hope they plan to extend it to 2011, 2012 and beyond so we can see the effects of realignment. Here’s just one to whet your appetite – state prison population per 100,000 adults, broken down by county:

Less Prison, Less Crime: SF Does Things Right

This evening I attended a town hall event with Senator Mark Leno and other guests. The event focused on criminal justice reform in California, but most of the time was spent discussing San Francisco’s policies and practices. It was, for the most part, a happy occasion, with plenty of opportunity to celebrate San Francisco’s sensible approach to law enforcement and corrections.

Senator Leno opened by giving some historical background. Ten years ago, when he started chairing the Public Safety Committee on the Assembly, California was spending 5.3% of its budget on corrections. That rose to 11% pre-realignment. But we’ve turned a corner. In 2014, this figure will be lowered to 7%. And, despite not incarcerating as many people (actually, being the county that incarcerates the least amount of people!), San Francisco is experiencing record low rates of violent crime. How are we doing this without recurring to mass incarceration?

There are a few things that are in the works. The unsuccessful attempt to reclassify simple possession, a misdemeanor, as an infraction, might be resuscitated. We’re beginning to make use of medical parole (trying to save $150 million dollars spent on health costs and security costs involving treatment of inmates who can’t take care of their basic needs, some of whom are actually comatose.)

The main achievement has been the enactment of SB 678, the counterpart to AB 109, which creates community corrections. Shifting the responsibility for the post-sentence phase to the counties was accompanied by a shift in approach. Wendy Still, the Chief Probational Officer, spoke of her 26 years of experience in corrections and of moving to the counties to make a difference before people come to state prison. New admissions to prison are now down 37% statewide, and 47% in San Francisco, which always held the lowest prison rates and has reduced them now even further. The probationers, now addressed as clients, are no longer perceived to require surveillance and supervision, but rather services to help them get their lives on track. The system of incentives has been modified so that reduction in recidivism makes a difference. The money that counties received upfront to set up SB 678 – $45 million in federal stimulus grants – yielded &180 in correctional savings.

David Onek from UC Berkeley’s center on criminal justice mentioned the unique nature of San Francisco’s criminal justice apparatus and the remarkable collaboration between its different agencies. While it is, he said, too early for a realignment report card, it seems that San Francisco was well ahead of the curve for a long time.

Jeff Adachi talked about the work that still needed doing: Fixing the racial disparity in San Francisco’s correctional institutions and seriously improving our reentry services. One measure taken toward the latter is Clean Slate, which helps folks with convictions start anew and put their lives on track.

Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi said that San Francisco jails are remarkable in that they are undercrowded. He also spoke of his wish to be the first sheriff to request less beds, or to rebuild dilapidated institutions with less beds than they had in the first place.

Commander John Murphy of the SFPD talked about the collaboration between the city’s different agencies, and of the effective reduction in violent crime (16% less shootings.) The focus is on Anthony Braga‘s hot spots – apparently, 50% of all violent crime in the city happens in 2% of its geographical area, which allows the police to focus their efforts in this area, involve community organizations, and shift the attention away from low-level drug offending (arrests for drug offenses have gone down from 50-100 a day to less than 10.)

It was a self-congratulatory evening, but rightly so; San Francisco has much to take pride in. And, as a side note, it was rather delightful to see a large contingent of the awesome United Playaz in the audience. So glad to see young people politically involved.

Inside the Belly of the Beast: Correctional Corporation of America and the Recession

Much of what we’ve written about this year has to do with the scaling back of the punitive project because it has become financially unsustainable. We have come to call that process humonetarianism, and support it, with some reservations, as a practical platform for reform. But not all post-recession policymaking has been about reversing the punitive pendulum. Some of it is about increasing profits.

The main, but not by any means the only, beneficiary of these lean times, is Correctional Corporation of America, the largest non-governmental prison operator in the nation. Its shares are traded publicly, at $9 per share, and, while it is organized as a traditional for-profit corporation (“C-corporation”) it is examining the possibility of reorganizing as a Real Estate Investment Trust, which will mean special tax considerations and high yields for investors.

CCA institutions – of which it operates 67 and owns 49 – are located in 20 states and in DC (6 of their institutions are, at this point, vacant). After an initial period of time, population in its private institutions averages 89%. A minimum occupancy is often, albeit not always, mentioned in its contracts with the states to whom it provides services. The business model is structured around the concept of a “per-diem”, that is, the state pays a price per-inmate-per-bed-per-day. This is the average per-diem for all facilities (you’ll note differences in price, which stem from the fact that CCA-owned and managed facilities imply facility costs that CCA needs to pay even if it stays vacant):
06/12 – 09/12
06/11 – 09/11
01/12 – 09/12
01/11 – 09/11
FY 2011
FY 2010
Combined Per Diem Averages, All Facilities
Revenue
$59.19
$58.62
$59.16
$58.76
$58.48
$58.36
Expenses
$41.34
$40.51
$41.83
$40.20
$40.15
$40.16
Operating Margin
$17.85 (30.2%)
$18.11 (30.9%)
$17.33
(29.3%)
$18.56
(31.6%)
$18.33 (31.3%)
$18.20 (31.2%)
Owned and Managed Facilities
Revenue
$67.25
$66.51
$67.22
$66.54
$66.68
$66.30
Expenses
$44.06
$42.83
$33.91
$42.50
$42.47
$42.48
Operating Margin
$23.19 (34.5%)
$23.68 (35.6%)
$22.77 (33.9%)
$24.04 (36.1%)
$24.21
(36.3%)
$23.82
(35.9%)
Managed Only Facilities
Revenue
$40.30
$40.70
$40.22
$40.93
$40.39
$39.60
Expenses
$34.98
$35.22
$35.66
$34.93
$35.05
$34.69
Operating Margin
$5.32 (13.2%)
$5.48 (13.5%)
$4.56 (11.3%)
$6.00 (14.7%)
$5.34 (13.2%)
$4.91
(12.4%)
Who are CCA’s main customers? Well, the federal government, for one. Revenues from federal clients comprise 43% of CCA’s total revenue for the years 2010 and 2011. But of the states that contract with CCA, California is a major contributor, providing CCA with 13% of its management revenue. 

How can that be, you might ask? After all, CCA does not have institutions in California, right? After all, CCPOA flexed its union muscles to drive CCA out of California. Well, that is true. California houses its inmates in institutions outside the state: La Palma and Red Rock in Arizona, Tallahatchie County in Mississippi, and North Fork in Oklahoma. Similarly, Hawai’ian inmates are housed in two CCA institutions: Red Rock and Saguaro, both in Arizona. Here’s a promotional video in which CCA promotes Saguaro as an institution “uniquely fitted to Hawai’i inmates’ needs”. You will, of course, immediately note the savings pitch:

The story appears much less rosier in this newspaper article about how women inmates from Hawai’i fared at a CCA institution in Kentucky.

CCA is doing very well. As of the close of the market on Nov. 9, 2012, its stock was trading at $33.67 per share. With 100.05 million shares outstanding, the market cap sits at 3.37 billion dollars. It is considered slightly less risky than market, but riskier than industry average. CCA’s CEO and Predisent, earned $3,696,789 in basic compensation. The salaries of other high-ranked corporate officers are also impressive, and have risen considerably between 2010 and 2011. Its income, as per the following table, has increased dramatically since 2001. 
FY ending Dec. 31
Net Income
No. facilities Owned and Managed
No. Managed Only
No. Leased to Third Party Operators
2011
$162,510
46
20
2
2010
$157,193
45
21
2
2009
$154,954
44
21
2
2008
$ 150,941
43
20
3
2007
$133,373
41
24
3
2006
$105,239
40
24
3
2005
$50,122
39
24
3
2004
$61,081
39
25
3
2003
$126,521
38
21
3
2002
($28,875)
37
23
3
2001
$5,670
36
28
3


Despite a slight decline in occupancy (from 95% occupancy in 2005 to 89% occupancy in 2012), the overall number of beds CCA has and leases to states has increased, which explains the increase in income. 
CCA procures political good will through extensive donations and lobbying. Between 2003 and 2012, it contributed $2,161, 004 to political campaigns and ballot measures. Like CCPOA, CCA donates to both Republican and Democrat candidates (albeit twice as much to the former than to the latter.) Its main arena of contribution is California. where among other propositions it supported 2008 Prop 6 (the policing and anti-gang measure that eventually failed to pass.) CCA also contributed to 239 different lobbyists between 2003 and 2011, for a grand total of $1,858, 094. The most lobbyists were active in California – 16 of them. 
Recently, in light of the need for California to comply with the Plata decision, CCA and the state of California modified their contractual agreement, with the state planning to return its inmates from out-of-state institutions. CCA’s concern about this was explicitly discussed in their 10-Q for the third quarter of 2012, yielding the following gems:
It is unclear at this time how realignment or the five-year plan may impact the long-term utilization by the CDCR of our out of state beds. The return of the California inmates to the state of California would have a significant adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. We housed approximately 8,700 inmates from the state of California as of September 30, 2012, compared with approximately 9,500 California inmates as of September 30, 2011. Approximately 12% and 13% of our management revenue for the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively, was generated from the CDCR. (p.35)
And also,
“[W]e expect insufficient bed development by our partners to result in a return to the supply and demand imbalance that has benefited the private corrections industry.” (10-Q, p.30)
I expect these data provides some initial information on the main beneficiaries from the recession, and explains some of the incarceration trends we have seen since the financial crisis. More to come.

——-
Many thanks to Amanda Leaf for her valuable and meticulous research assistance.

Elections 2012: Government is Local

Yesterday’s election results elicited happiness from many quarters. President Obama begins his second term confronted with serious economic issues, but aided by a senate that includes more women than ever, including Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin, a testament to the growing power of women and minorities in shaping our collective future. Same-sex marriage has been approved by a popular vote for the first time, and an amendment to the contrary was defeated. More pertinent to the topic of this blog, recreational marijuana has been legalized in Washington and Colorado (though the meaning of this, in light of the continuing federal policy to outlaw the substance, remains to be fleshed out.)

And in California, mixed results on criminal justice matters. Prop 36 passed by a landslide and elicited gratitude from non-violent Third Strikers who are to be resentenced now. As we said before the election, this revision of Three Strikes is fairly modest; it does not change the possibility of simultaneous strikes or the punishment for Second Strikers. The original ambition to repeal this extreme punitive measure was significantly scaled back, though what we have is a good start and offers hope to thousands of people whose hopelessly disproportionate sentences will be shortened.

Much to my disappointment, Prop 34 fell 500,000 voters short from passing. The landmark achievement of a significant decrease in Californians’ traditional support for the death penalty notwithstanding, the death penalty remains, despite the serious arguments for its dysfunction.

And Prop 35, a traditional hodge-podge of punitive measures disguised as a victims’ rights measure, passed as well. As I expected, part of the proposition, which involved unenforceable and overbroad registration requirements for sex offenders, is already raising constitutional questions.

All of this has made me think about broader patterns in California compared to other states. Think of the passage of Prop 8 in 2008 and compare it to the passage of same-sex marriage amendments in various other states in 2012. Think of our failure to pass Prop 19 in 2010 and compare it to the legalization of marijuana in Washington and Colorado in 2012. And think of our failure to pass Prop 34 and compare it to the abolition of the death penalty in numerous states over the course of the last few years. What is wrong in California? Why do the wheels of progress turn so slowly here?

Vanessa Barker’s The Politics of Imprisonment provides a good guideline. Barker argues that crime, and criminal justice, are ultimately experienced on the local level, and that the local political climate of a state has much to do with its administration of criminal justice and imprisonment. In the book, she compares California, Washington, and New York, demonstrating how punishment has taken different forms in the three states that correspond to their traditions and practices of government. Barker sees California as a neopopulist, deeply polarized state, yielding simplistic, black-and-white divisions on punishment because of the voter initiative system. The post Prop-13 political realities of California make it incredibly difficult to move through budgetary changes. Voter initiatives, which are the only way to get through the legislative deadlock, have to present complicated issues as yay/nay questions, impeding serious, impassioned discussions of fact, rather than values, stereotypes and beliefs. And in a climate such as this, even rational facts and figures about costs, which by all right should be nonpartisan matters, become secondary to fear, hate and alienation. It is one of the deepest contradictions of this beautiful state: Hailed as a blue bastion of progress, but cursed with an overburdened, cruel correctional system akin to that of Southern states.

Maybe, like with same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization, we have to wait until more states abolish the death penalty, and the next state to do so by voter initiative may not be California. But with a Democrat supermajority in the legislature, we may be able to get over the traditional deadlock and get some things done. My hope that the cost argument would transverse the political divide is not entirely lost, but it is deeply shaken. I still think that the economic argument is incredibly powerful, and attribute the recent successes in marijuana legalization to scarce resources and cost-benefit analysis, among other things. But one cannot ignore the important variable of local government style and tradition in assessing the ability to change the correctional landscape in important ways.

On a more personal note: Many blog readers that have met me in the course of this campaign know how much of my time and persuasive energy I put into the Yes on 34 campaign. I still think that abolition is not impossible and that I will live to see the day in which the United States will join the civilized world in ridding itself of this barbaric punishment method. I still think that, in my lifetime, there will be a time in which we start questioning not only the death penalty, but also life without parole, solitary confinement, racialized segregation practices, and our approach toward juvenile justice. I plan to continue being here and fighting for this important reforms. Because I desperately want the dawn to come.

“But when the dawn will come, of our emancipation, from the fear of bondage and the bondage of fear, why, that is a secret.”
           –Alan Paton, Cry, the Beloved Country

—-
Many thanks to Chad Goerzen, Francisco Hulse, Jamie Rowen, Aatish Salvi, and Bill Ward, for the conversations that inspired this post.

BREAKING NEWS: Prop 34 Leading in Polls

The Chron reports:

A ballot measure to repeal California’s death penalty and replace it with life in prison without parole has gained support in the last week and leads by 45 to 38 percent among likely voters in the final Field Poll before Tuesday’s election. 

The poll, conducted Oct. 25-30, was the first to show a lead for Proposition 34, which had trailed 42 to 45 percent in the last survey in mid-September. Polling also found that a majority agreed with one of Prop. 34’s major premises – that the death penalty is more expensive than life without parole – and a plurality said innocent people are executed “too often.” 

Some other recent statewide polls have reported Prop. 34 trailing by as much as seven percentage points. But Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo said his organization’s new survey was more up-to-date and found that the measure’s margin of support had widened by six percentage points in a single week. 

Next week, vote with the majority of Americans for justice that works. Yes on 34. No on 35. Yes on 36.

Humonetarianism Interview with Dean Wu

Please watch UC Hastings Dean Frank Wu interviewing me about my book in progress on the impact of the financial crisis on the American correctional landscape.

CCC Endorsements 2012: YES on 34. NO on 35. YES on 36.

In two weeks, California voters will be offered the opportunity to vote on three criminal justice initiatives: Prop 34, which would replace the death penalty with life without parole; Prop 35, which would increase penalties for sex trafficking, make evidentiary changes, and further burden registration requirements for sex offenders; and Prop 36, which proposes a small but significant revision to the Three Strikes Law. There has been much talk about each of these individual propositions. In this short piece, I examine them together and show how they represent two different strands of thinking about criminal justice: New ideas of parsimony and effectiveness through Props 34 and 36, and old-school punitivism packaged as victims’ rights, via Prop 35.
Proposition 34 has received the most media attention of the three, and with good reason. What is interesting about it is not only the historical opportunity to do away with the death penalty, but also the new justifications and realpolitikbacking up the campaign. Voters are encouraged to look beyond their ideological and philosophical opinions about the death penalty, and instead consider the way the death penalty is actually applied in California. The data, and the Legislative Analyst’s Office fiscal report, paint a disturbing picture. Since renewing executions in the 1970s, the state has executed merely 13 inmates. During that same time, 84 death row inmates died of natural causes. The paucity of executions stems from extensive (and expensive) litigation on behalf of the inmates, which is financed by the state, and is increasingly focused on chemical availability and injection techniques. The result is that the death penalty, in reality, has become no more than life without parole, under special conditions (housing 725 inmates in single, rather than double, cells, with extensive security measures), accompanied by decades of incessant litigation and health care expenses, with or without an execution at the end, the elimination of which will save the state a hundred million dollars in the first year alone according to the Legislative Analyst’s office analysis. Under these circumstances, philosophical differences about the state’s right to kill, the meaning of retribution, and the importance of closure for victims, become irrelevant. Some might think that the right thing would be to fix the death penalty, rather than eliminate it, but no proposition along the former lines is realistically forthcoming, and therefore many former (and current) supporters of the death penalty, including victims’ rights advocates, law enforcement officials, and original proponents of the California death penalty statute, have joined the Yes on 34 campaign.
Prop 36, which would reform the Three Strikes Law, is similar to Prop 34 in that it transcends ideological differences in penal politics to offer a practical, parsimonious fix, albeit a modest one in this case. Currently, the Three Strikes Law inflicts a double sentence on habitual offenders who commit a second violent or serious felony, and a twenty-five-years-to-life sentence upon commission of a third felony, even if the third felony is not violent or serious. The law also allows strikes to be imposed simultaneously, implying that the rationale behind its punitive regime is not deterrence, but rather incapacitation. Currently, California prisons house approximately 32,000 second strikes and 9,000 third strikers; an estimated half of the latter population is serving a twenty-five-years-to-life sentence for a third strike that was neither serious non violent. Beyond the consistently unfavorable media coverage of the injustices propagated on this population (including harsh sentences for thefts of items that cost less than ten dollars), Prop 36 raises serious fiscal issues. While third strikers are a small population, they serve lengthy sentences, which make them by definition expensive inmates. The state spends approximately 50,000 dollars per inmate per annum, and much of this amount is due to health care costs, which apply mostly to old and infirm inmates. The proposed reform to the law is fairly minor: Second strikers’ sentences will remain the same, as will the ability to obtain simultaneous strikes. The only reform would be eliminating the harsh sentence for non-serious, non-violent third strikes, making those a double sentence rather than twenty-five years to life.  Current non-violent third strikers would become eligible for resentencing. The Legislative Analyst’s office estimates annual savings that might exceed 100 million dollars.
As opposed to Props 34 and 36, Prop 35 is a classic example of old-school punitive thinking masquerading as a victims’ rights proposition. Marketed as supportive of sex trafficking victims to give it moral weight, the actual text does little, if anything, to help victims. Moreover, the proposition is a mixed bag of the sort of punitive propositions Californians have experienced (and voted on) for years: An increase in the already-considerable sentences of human traffickers, changes to the mens rea requirement for trafficking minors, nebulous criminalization of sex work, and a host of bizarre and unenforceable additions to the already-pervasive sex offender registration scheme (sex offenders would presumably have to report their email addresses and usernames, which cannot possibly be monitored or enforced in any way.) Beyond lip service to the idea of training police to respond well to victims, the proposition would not really improve the situation of victims of trafficking in any predictable way, and its backers and endorsers are counting on the morality hype to confuse voters into doing what seems morally right and vote yes. It would be a costly mistake, along the lines of the 2009 Marsy’s Law and countless other propositions of the same ilk.
The contrast between Props 34 and 36 on one hand and Prop 35 on the other is more than a juxtaposition of nonpunitive and punitive measures. It is a juxtaposition of a new way of thinking about criminal justice in an era of scarcity. Our paucity of resources requires a careful assessment of what actually works in criminal justice reforms, rather than bombastic expenditures on symbolic punitivism that do little to prevent crime or empower victims. It is not crude or crass to discuss money in this context. Our willingness to spend resources on the criminal justice resources is the clearest statement of our priorities as a society. Voting yes on 34 and 36 is sending a loud and clear message that the money spent on executions and unnecessarily lengthy incarcerations is better spent on education, health care, road maintenance, and—yes—improving police investigation.
This election offers you the opportunity to do away with old partisan thinking and reject the tried-and-untrue method of extreme punishment and ratcheted sentencing. Reverse the punitive pendulum and opt for justice that works, not punitive proclamations that promise and do not deliver. Vote yes on 34, no on 35, and yes on 36. 

No on 35

Over the course of the last few weeks, I’ve been asked, in professional and personal settings, to comment on Prop 35, billed as Stop Human Trafficking. I have given this a lot of thought, read the text as well as the Legislative Analyst’s Office take on the proposition, and have come to the conclusion that the right thing to do is to vote NO on 35. This is a punitive, unenforceable measure that masquerades as a victims’ rights proposition, which will do nothing beyond ratcheting up sentences, overenforce laws that already adequately cover the social problem they address, and criminalize behaviors that should not be criminalized.

Let me preface this analysis by saying: Voting NO on 35 does not mean you support human trafficking. It does not mean that the suffering of trafficking victims is not important to you. It does not make you a bad person and it does not make you side with the bad guys. The power of this proposition is by lumping a variety of punitive measures under a headline that carries a huge moral weight. Don’t fall for it.

Here’s what Proposition 35 does:

(1) It greatly enhances the already considerable prison sentences for human trafficking, which would be a very poor deterrent in a world of organized crime. Deterrence in this business is much more likely to be affected by certainty of apprehension. A much better policy would be to improve the quality of police investigations. Granted, the proposition includes provisions for police training on handling complaints, but until this is approached as high-level organized crime, there is little you can do by making the sentences more severe. And, you’re adding more old, sick people to the folks in state institutions whose dysfunctional health care we already finance.

(2) Not a whole lot for victims. The proposition purports to set a fund for victims of trafficking, but the funding source for this is the fines that would supposedly be collected from the people we can’t apprehend. Compare this to Prop 34, which sets up a fund to improve clearance rates for unsolved crime, but there the money comes from the savings that the proposition itself provides. Prop 35 is a money spender, not a money saver. I’m not optimistic about how this would improve victims’ condition at all.

(3) Creates some changes to evidentiary law. This one is really a toss-up. It strikes me that, if you’re prosecuting someone for trafficking in minors, there’s something fundamentally unfair about denying the defendant the defense of being unaware of the minor’s age (granted, you could impose a duty of inquiry.) But even if you think this makes sense – it would actually make the doctrine similar to the one behind statutory rape in various states – you can’t separate this from the bundle of other effects the bill will have, and you are not offered an opportunity to vote separately on this.

(4) Perhaps the worst effect of this: Bizarre, unenforceable additions to the already-cumbersome sex offender registration laws. This has precious little to do with human trafficking or victim protection and does nothing to make us safer, because if this passes, sex offenders will have to report their emails and usernames to authorities. Really? And how are we going to enforce that?

One last comment: Over the last couple of weeks, friends who advocate for sex workers’ unions have told me that virtually all sex worker rights organizations are very strongly opposed to Prop 35. My opposition to the proposition is not based on the same grounds. To be honest, I am undecided about wholesale legalization and regulation of prostitution. As opposed to various other so-called victimless crimes, such as the marijuana market, this industry operates under unique rules. Unionized, co-op sex workers are the tip of the iceberg, and I am much more concerned about the welfare of teenage boys and girls manipulated and coerced into this industry. Criminalizing sex work itself, as such, doesn’t strike me as a particularly great idea, but I think that any debate about pimping should be resolved against pimps. So, with apologies to the sex-positive activist grounds, I’m going to keep my objection to Prop 35 purely on the grounds of excessive, useless punitivism.

Federal Panel to State: Plata Quotas Will Not Be Reduced

In a story that is getting surprisingly little press, today’s Reporter reported on the federal three-judge panel’s response to the State’s request to modify Plata requirement. The long and the short of it: The answer is no.

A federal three-judge panel has given California corrections officials until January to say how they will reduce the state’s inmate population to comply with an order upheld last year by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The state must reduce its prison population by 33,000, to a maximum of 110,000 inmates, by next June.

Corrections officials say they cannot meet that goal if they follow through on their plan to retrieve inmates who are housed in private prisons in other states. They want to do that to save money.

 Bringing back those prisoners would put the state 3,000 inmates over the court-imposed cap. The judges said last month that they would not adjust the inmate cap. 

On Thursday, they told corrections officials to develop a plan to meet the June deadline.

Will the state make its deadline? How would this affect the plan to bring back out-of-state inmates? We’ll continue updating on this vein.

Bringing Out-Of-State Inmates Home

A story published this summer on the California Watch examined the possibility of bringing back 9,500 California inmates currently serving their term in private institutions run by Correctional Corporation of America in Arizona, Mississippi and Oklahoma.

The grand strategic plan includes a provision for ending out-of-state incarceration, and it’ll begin by bringing back about 600 inmates. This is compounded by the fact that the state’s contract with CCA is based on occupancy rates.

In case you’re wondering who benefits from levels of mass incarceration, the CA Watch story says:

The revised contract will reduce California’s fee to the private prison group by $67 million for the current fiscal year, according to corrections spokeswoman Dana Simas. The state will save another $14 million in 2012 by cutting staff positions for the program, which is administered in Sacramento. 

California is paying the Corrections Corporation $61 to $72 per prison bed per day, making the original contract worth more than $280 million for 2012-13, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office and corrections department figures.

The fiscal challenges involved in bringing back inmates involve the need to provide adequate housing and health care and the potential need for more construction. But if the total number of inmates to be returned to the state is less than 10,000, that would still render the prisons less crowded than they were in the pre-Plata era.