兰德-Public-Safety-Realignment-in-Twelve-California-Counties_79页_1mb

Summary of "Public Safety Realignment in Twelve California Counties"

Core Content

This report examines the implementation of California's criminal justice realignment, which was introduced in 2011 in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Plata (2011). The ruling mandated that California reduce its prison population to 137.5 percent of "design capacity" within two years due to overcrowding and inadequate health care. To comply, the state passed Assembly Bill (AB) 109 and AB 117, collectively known as realignment, which shifted responsibility for certain low-level offenders, parole violators, and parolees from the state to local counties.

Realignment allowed counties to use alternatives to custody, such as probation, community supervision, and early release, and provided funding to support these new responsibilities. The report focuses on the experiences of 12 California counties—Alameda, Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Clara, and Stanislaus—analyzing changes in criminal justice indicators, jail populations, probation supervision, and funding.

Key Findings

Prison Population and Reductions

• The state prison population decreased by 20.4 percent between FY 2009–2010 and FY 2012–2013, with most of the reduction occurring after realignment began in late 2011.
• Each of the 12 study counties saw a decrease in prison admissions and standing populations, with San Francisco County experiencing the largest reductions (52.1% and 33.7%, respectively).
• Riverside County had the smallest reduction in standing prison population (12.8%).

Jail Populations

• Overall, California jail populations increased after realignment, with 16 counties operating above rated capacity in 2012, compared to 11 in 2011.
• However, San Francisco and Stanislaus counties did not show increases in their sentenced populations.
• Early releases were used as a strategy to manage jail capacity, though not all counties adopted this approach.

Probation and Supervision

• Probation departments increased their supervision of realigned offenders, particularly in postrelease community supervision (PRCS) and mandatory supervision (MS) cases.
• Most counties used realignment funding to enhance existing programs for education, employment, substance abuse treatment, and mental health services.
• Risk assessment played a significant role in determining the level of supervision and programming for realigned offenders.

Crime Rates

• Violent and property crime rates increased in 2012 but decreased in 2013.
• Fresno County was the only one of the 12 counties to see a reduction in property crime rates in 2012 compared to 2011.
• Violent crime rates in 10 of the 12 counties increased in 2012.

Funding

• County budgets for the 12 counties remained largely unchanged between FY 2009–2010 and FY 2013–2014.
• Five counties saw budget increases, while the other seven experienced reductions, ranging from 0.6% to 20.1%.

County Contexts

• Many counties adopted a balanced approach between rehabilitation and incarceration, though those with jail capacity issues focused more on the latter.
• Sheriff's departments were particularly concerned about jail crowding, especially with the influx of long-sentence inmates.
• Probation departments emphasized cognitive-behavioral programming, risk assessment, and expanded services for realigned offenders.

Service Delivery and Reentry

• A trend toward centralized service delivery was observed, with reentry units in jails and day reporting centers (DRCs) in probation departments.
• Sheriff's departments focused on reentry programming, while probation departments emphasized risk assessment and tailored services.
• There is still limited evidence on the effectiveness of these programs, though efforts are ongoing.

Main Challenges and Successes

• Challenges:

  • Increased jail populations and capacity constraints.
  • Concerns about the quality and availability of programming for realigned offenders.
  • Local opposition to pretrial release mechanisms in some counties.
  • Uncertainty about the long-term impact of realignment on crime and recidivism.

• Successes:

  • Counties used realignment as an opportunity to expand and enhance existing programs.
  • A shift toward evidence-based practices (EBPs), including risk-need-responsivity (RNR) models and cognitive-behavioral interventions.
  • Some counties successfully implemented early release and alternatives to incarceration, reducing jail pressures.

Conclusion

Realignment has not significantly increased crime rates, and some counties have managed to reduce them. However, the implementation has been complex, with varying levels of success and ongoing challenges. While counties have adopted a range of strategies, including enhanced programming and supervision, the effectiveness of these approaches remains under evaluation. The report underscores the importance of continued research and data collection to better understand the long-term impacts of realignment on the criminal justice system and public safety.

Study Limitations

• The report does not include a statewide evaluation of realignment.
• The data is limited to the period up to 2013, and long-term outcomes are still being assessed.
• The effectiveness of specific programs and services for realigned offenders is not yet fully established.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Rosenberg Foundation. It draws on interviews with county officials, media reports, and data from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the Chief Probation Officers of California (CPOC). The research was conducted by the RAND Safety and Justice Program, which is part of the RAND Justice, Infrastructure, and Environment division.