click here to add text this could be a call out area. • bullet points to emphasize
Post on 22-Feb-2016
34 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Click Here to Add Text
This could be a call out area.
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• 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.
Click Here to Add Text
This could be a call out area.
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
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
Click Here to Add Text
This could be a call out area.
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
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
Click Here to Add Text
This could be a call out area.
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
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
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
Rate
per
1,000
Inmates
CDCR Serious Incidents Rate - Monthly ComparisonPre-Realignment versus Post-Realignment
Pre-Realignment 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
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
Number
of
Violent
Incidents
CDCR Violent Incidents - Monthly ComparisonPre-Realignment versus Post-Realignment
Pre-Realignment Post-Realignment
HEADLINE TEXT HERE
Click Here to Add Text
This could be a call out area.
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
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
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
Rate
per
1,000
Inmates
CDCR Violent Incidents Rate - Monthly ComparisonPre-Realignment versus Post-Realignment
Pre-Realignment 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
Click Here to Add Text
This could be a call out area.
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
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
Click Here to Add Text
This could be a call out area.
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
OIG Medical Inspection Scores
(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.
OIG Medical Inspection Scores
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Pre-Realignment Post-Realignment
Num
ber o
f Ins
tituti
ons
Comparison Before and After RealignmentLow Adherence Scores and High Adherence Scores Only
Low High
HEADLINE TEXT HERE
Click Here to Add Text
This could be a call out area.
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
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
Click Here to Add Text
This could be a call out area.
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
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
Click Here to Add Text
This could be a call out area.
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
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
Click Here to Add Text
This could be a call out area.
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
Next Steps:PRCS and State ParoleOutcomes Evaluation
Methodology Comparison Group
October 1, 2010 – September 30, 2011 releases PRCS “Flag”
Arrests Convictions
Click Here to Add Text
This could be a call out area.
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
CDCRCONTACTS
Click Here to Add Text
This could be a call out area.
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
• Bullet Points to emphasize
HEADLINE TEXT HERECalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Lee Seale, DirectorInternal Oversight and Research
Lee.Seale@cdcr.ca.gov
Brenda Grealish, Deputy DirectorOffice of Research
Brenda.Grealish@cdcr.ca.gov
top related