The 2014-15 Budget: The Administration's Response to the Prison Overcrowding Order

The 2014-15 Budget: Administration’s Response to Prison Overcrowding Order MAC TAYLOR • LEGISLATIVE ANALYST • FEBRUARY 28, 2014 Summary In August 2009, a federal three-judge panel ordered the state to reduce its inmate population to no more than 137.5 percent of the design capacity in the prisons operated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). The state was initially given until June 2013 to reach the population cap. Following a series of appeals of the order by the administration, the deadline for reducing the inmate population was ultimately extended to February 26, 2016. The administration’s plan to comply with the court order consists of three primary strategies: (1) contracting for bed space, (2) utilizing funding from the Recidivism Reduction Fund to support initiatives intended to reduce the prison population (such as expanding rehabilitative services), and (3) implementing court-ordered population reduction measures. Our analysis indicates that the administration’s plan is likely to achieve compliance with the court-ordered population cap in the short run. However, we find that the plan is very costly and may not be able to maintain compliance with the cap in the long run. We also find that the Governor’s proposed expenditures from the Recidivism Reduction Fund raise multiple issues, such as whether the proposals are the most cost-effective way to reduce the state’s prison population. As such, we recommend a variety of modifications to the Governor’s recidivism reduction proposals. In particular, we recommend using a portion of the monies in the Recidivism Reduction Fund to evaluate CDCR’s current rehabilitative programs and to expand an existing grant program that incentivizes counties to reduce prison admissions. In addition, we recommend that the Legislature focus on adopting policies that would (1) ensure that the state will not exceed the court-ordered population cap in the future and (2) reduce the number of contract beds necessary to maintain compliance with the cap. In order to accomplish these goals, we provide some policy options that we think merit legislative consideration. 2014-15 BUDGET BACKGROUND State Ordered to Reduce Prison Despite these actions, in May 2012, the Overcrowding. In August 2009, a federal three- administration notified the federal court that the judge panel ordered the state to reduce its inmate prison population would not be low enough to meet population to no more than 137.5 percent of the the court-imposed cap. The court subsequently design capacity in the prisons operated by CDCR. ordered the administration to meet the population (Design capacity generally refers to the number of cap by April 18, 2014. In September 2013, the beds that CDCR would operate if it housed only Legislature passed and the Governor signed one inmate per cell. It also does not count inmates Chapter 310, Statutes of 2013 (SB 105, Steinberg), housed in contract beds.) Specifically, the court which provided CDCR with an additional found that prison overcrowding was the primary $315 million in General Fund support in 2013-14 reason that the state was unable to provide inmates and authorized the department to enter into with constitutionally adequate health care. The contracts to secure a sufficient amount of inmate court’s ruling was upheld by the U.S. Supreme housing to meet the court order and to avoid the Court in May 2011. The state was initially given early release of inmates which might otherwise be until June 2013 to reach the population cap. necessary to comply with the order. The measure Initial State Attempts to Comply With also required that if the federal court modified Population Cap. In the years following the three- its order capping the prison population, a share judge panel’s August 2009 order to reduce prison of the $315 million appropriation in Chapter 310 overcrowding, the state took various actions to would be deposited into a newly established reduce the size of its prison population. Some of Recidivism Reduction Fund. As we discuss below, the actions taken included (1) providing counties the Governor’s budget assumes that the court would a fiscal incentive to reduce the number of felony extend the population cap by two years. probationers that fail on probation and are sent to Court Extends Deadline to Meet Population state prison, (2) increasing the number of credits Cap. In January 2014, the Governor requested that inmates can earn to accelerate their release date the court extend the deadline to reduce the prison from prison, and (3) increasing the dollar threshold population from April 18, 2014 to February 28, for certain property crimes to be considered a 2016. The court subsequently granted the extension. felony, thus making fewer offenders eligible for Specifically, the court ordered the state to reduce its prison. The most significant of these changes, prison population to: however, happened with the passage of the 2011 • 143 percent of design capacity by June 30, realignment which, among other changes, shifted 2014. various criminal justice responsibilities from the state to counties. In particular, the 2011 realignment • 141.5 percent of design capacity by made felons generally ineligible for state prison February 28, 2015. unless they had a current or prior conviction for a • 137.5 percent of design capacity by serious, violent, or sex-related offense. By the end February 28, 2016. of 2012-13, realignment had reduced the prison population by tens of thousands of inmates. The court also plans to appoint a Compliance Officer. If the administration fails to meet any 2 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov 2014-15 BUDGET of the above benchmarks, the Compliance The court also ordered the department to explore Officer would be authorized to order the release the expansion of a recently implemented pilot of the number of inmates required to meet the program in which inmates serve the concluding benchmark. portion of their prison sentence in jail in the In addition, the federal court ordered CDCR county they will be released to. This pilot program to immediately implement certain policy changes currently only operates in San Francisco County. and population reduction measures. For example, Moreover, the court ordered CDCR not to increase the court ordered CDCR to activate within a the number of inmates currently housed in year “reentry hubs” at nine additional prisons out-of-state contract facilities and to make various that would provide various forms of cognitive changes to the parole process. The administration’s behavioral therapy (such as substance abuse plan anticipated the court ordering the two-year treatment), and employment services to high-risk population cap extension and these other policy inmates as they near the ends of their sentences. changes. We discuss these changes in further detail (Currently, four prisons operate such reentry hubs.) below. ADMINISTRATION’S PLAN TO MEET PRISON POPULATION CAP The administration’s plan to comply with the beds. As shown in Figure 1, the Governor’s budget court order consists of three primary strategies: proposes a total of $481.6 million (primarily from (1) contracting for bed space, (2) utilizing the General Fund) to house about 8,000 inmates funding from the Recidivism Reduction Fund to in in-state contract beds and above 9,000 inmates support initiatives intended to reduce the prison in out-of-state contract beds in 2014-15. This population, and (3) implementing population represents an increase of $97.1 million and over reduction measures. 4,700 contract beds above the revised 2013-14 level. The Governor’s budget assumes that the two-year Contract Beds extension of the court-ordered population cap The centerpiece of the administration’s plan deadline will reduce planned expenditures on to meet the court-ordered prison population cap contract beds by $87.2 million in 2013-14. We note is the use of in-state and out-of-state contract that the administration indicates that it is assessing Figure 1 Governor Proposes Funding for Thousands of Additional Contract Beds (Dollars in Millions) 2013-14 2014-15 Change Beds Cost Beds Cost Beds Cost Out-of-state contract beds 8,839 $234.3 8,988 $235.2 149 $1.0 In-state contract beds 3,413 150.2 7,985 246.4 4,572 96.2 Totals 12,252 $384.5 16,973 $481.6 4,721 $97.1 www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 3 2014-15 BUDGET various options for long-term compliance—as budget includes an $11.8 million required by Chapter 310—and that this may lead to augmentation and 44 new positions to alternative measures to comply with the population expand drug treatment services within cap in the long run. However, in the absence of state prisons in 2014-15. This would such measures, the administration’s current plan increase the total funding for in-prison would set the state on a course to rely on contract drug treatment services to $37 million in beds indefinitely. 2014-15. This augmentation is proposed to increase to $23.9 million and 91 positions Recidivism Reduction Proposals in 2015-16. The proposal would expand As noted above, the Governor’s budget assumes drug treatment services to ten non-reentry that expenditures on contract beds in 2013-14 hub institutions in 2014-15 and to all will be $87.2 million lower than planned. Of institutions by 2015-16. this amount, the budget reflects—based on the • Integrated Services for Mentally Ill requirements specified in Chapter 310—a deposit Parolees (ISMIP)—$11.3 Million. of $81.1 million to the Recidivism Reduction Fund The budget includes an $11.3 million for expenditure in 2014-15. (Chapter 310 requires augmentation for CDCR’s ISMIP program, that the remaining $6.1 million revert to the state which was established in 2007 and General Fund.) Specifically, the Governor proposes provides services to parolees suffering allocating the $81.1 million from the Recidivism from serious mental illness and who are Reduction Fund as follows: at risk for being homeless. Such services • Community Reentry include case management, assistance with Facilities—$40 Million. The budget applying for entitlement benefits (such as proposes $40 million for community Medi-Cal or veterans benefits), mental reentry facilities. These facilities would health and substance abuse services, and provide services similar to those in the employment assistance. The proposed reentry hubs, but would not be located augmentation would increase total funding within a state prison. The administration for ISMIP to $28 million in 2014-15 and indicates that inmates with less than six expand the program from 600 to 900 slots. months of their sentence remaining would be transferred to these facilities, which • Rehabilitation Programming at In-State would provide substance abuse treatment, Contract Facilities—$9.7 Million. The education programs, and employment budget includes $9.7 million and 24 new assistance. The facilities would be positions (two positions at each contract located either in county jails or in state, facility to manage the treatment programs) local, or private community facilities. to begin providing various forms of The administration indicates that the cognitive behavioral therapy to inmates facilities would eventually serve a total of at the 11 in-state contract facilities and 500 inmates. the California City Correctional Center. (California City Correctional Center differs • Prison Substance Abuse Treatment from other in-state contract facilities in Expansion—$11.8 Million. The Governor’s that it is staffed by CDCR employees, 4 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov 2014-15 BUDGET rather than contract employees.) Population Reduction Measures Specifically, the proposed funding would The administration’s compliance plan also be used to provide cognitive behavioral includes a series of measures intended to reduce therapy services, including substance the state’s prison population. The Governor’s abuse treatment and therapy for anger budget proposes $7.1 million from the General management, criminal thinking, and Fund to implement these measures. While the family relations. The funding would measures are expected to achieve state savings establish 4,008 programming slots upon full implementation from having a lower annually (334 slots at each institution). prison population, the budget does not identify Each institution would have 46 slots related such savings. Instead, the administration indicates to family relations programs and 96 slots that any savings resulting from the measures would for each of the other three program types. be reflected in the department’s annual population budget adjustments. As shown in Figure 2, the • Northern California Reentry Facility administration estimates that the various measures (NCRF)—$8.3 Million. The budget would eventually reduce the prison population includes $8.3 million to fund the design by around 2,000 inmates. We note that these phase of NCRF, which would provide measures were ordered by the court. In doing so, housing and services to 600 inmates when the court waived any conflicting statute and, thus, completed. At the time of this analysis, the administration can proceed with them without the administration had not provided an legislative approval. We discuss each specific estimate of the cost to fully renovate or measure in greater detail below. operate the facility. However, we note that Credit Enhancements. Under the state’s Three the Governor proposed a similar project in Strikes law, if an offender has one previous serious 2010 using funds authorized in Chapter 7, or violent felony conviction, the sentence for any Statutes of 2007 (AB 900, Solorio), and new felony conviction is twice the term otherwise the department indicates that NCRF will required under law. Such offenders are called be based on the 2010 proposal. In that “second strikers.” Second-strike inmates currently proposal, the administration estimated that the total cost of renovation Figure 2 would be about Administration’s Population Reduction Measures— Expected Reduction in Inmates $115 million. In addition, the June 30, 2014 February 28, 2015 February 28, 2016 (First Population (Second Population (Final Population administration Proposed Measure Deadline) Deadline) Deadline) estimated that Credit enhancements 200 700 1,400 the facility would Parole process for — 175 350 cost $45 million second-strikers annually to Expanded medical parole 20 70 100 Elderly parole 50 70 85 operate, which is Expanded alternative — 60 80 about $90,000 per custody for women inmate. Totals 270 1,075 2,015 www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 5 2014-15 BUDGET can earn sufficient “good-time” credits to reduce of time it takes to schedule parole hearings from their sentence by up to 20 percent by participating 180 to 120 days. Finally, the court ordered CDCR in rehabilitative programs and maintaining good to move up the parole dates of inmates who have behavior. The administration’s plan will allow already been granted parole, but have not yet been non-violent second strikers to reduce their sentence released. by up to 33 percent going forward. During the Expanded Medical Parole. Existing state law time these offenders are in the community earlier allows for medical parole, which is a process by than they would have otherwise been, state parole which inmates who are permanently incapacitated agents (rather than county probation officers) will and require 24-hour care can be paroled earlier supervise them and any revocation terms will be than they otherwise would have been. The served in state prison (rather than county jail). Governor proposes to expand eligibility for medical Following that time period, these offenders will parole to include additional inmates. However, at be supervised in the community by the county, the time of this analysis, the administration had consistent with current law. not provided detailed information specifying which The court also ordered that the administration additional inmates will be eligible. change the amount of credits earned by minimum Elderly Parole. The Governor also proposes custody inmates by making such inmates eligible to allow inmates 60 years of age or older who have to earn two-for-one credits. However, the court served a minimum of 25 years of their sentence stipulated that these enhanced credit earnings can to have parole hearings to determine if they are only be provided if they do not reduce the number suitable for release, commonly referred to as of inmates who volunteer for fire camps. This is “elderly parole.” because fire camps also provide two-for-one credits Expanded Alternative Custody for Women. and employ minimum custody inmates and, thus, The court ordered CDCR to expand the alternative it is possible that the change ordered by the court custody for women program, which places certain could reduce participation in fire camps. nonserious, non-violent, non-sex offending Parole Process for Second-Strikers. In female inmates in the community for a portion addition, the administration proposes allowing of their sentence. At the time of this analysis, the second strikers to have parole hearings once they department had not provided information detailing have served 50 percent of their prison sentence. The the specific programmatic changes being proposed administration also proposes reducing the length and how such changes would be implemented. LAO ASSESSMENT OF ADMINISTRATION’S PLAN Our analysis indicates that the from the Recidivism Reduction Fund raise administration’s plan is likely to achieve multiple issues. compliance with the court-ordered population cap Plan Likely Achieves Compliance in Short Run, in the short run. However, we find that the plan But Is Costly and Less Certain in Long Run is very costly and may not be able to maintain compliance with the cap in the long run. We also In the short-term, the state faces the find that the Governor’s proposed expenditures immediate challenge of reducing the population to 6 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov 2014-15 BUDGET 137.5 percent of design capacity by February 2016, it by 1,000 inmates by June 2019. However, we as well as meeting two interim population note that this projection is subject to considerable deadlines before that time. To meet these uncertainty. Given the inherent difficulty of immediate deadlines in the coming months, accurately projecting the inmate population several the state’s options are effectively constrained to years in the future, it is possible that the actual (1) contracting with private prisons and jails to population could be above or below the court house state inmates, as proposed by the Governor; imposed limit by several thousand inmates. (2) releasing inmates early; or (3) some combination In addition, we are concerned that the of contracting and early release. plan’s heavy reliance on contract beds makes As shown in Figure 3, the administration’s it a very costly approach. As we note earlier, plan is likely to result in compliance with each the administration is currently considering of the court-ordered population cap deadlines in alternatives to contracting for additional prison the short run. Based on CDCR’s current prison beds indefinitely to maintain long-term complianceG raphic Sign Off population projections, the administration’s plan with the cap. However, until such alternatives are Secretary would bring the population in the state’s prisons implemented, the state will likely need to continue Analyst below the June 2014 population limit by 2,900 spending nearly $500 million annually on contract MPA inmates. Similarly, the administration’s plan would beds in order to maintain compliance with the Deputy bring the population about 2,100 inmates below prison population cap. In contrast, other options the February 2015 interim population limit and available to the Legislature could actually decrease 1,200 inmates below the final limit in February state expenditures, as we discuss later in this brief. 2016. Since CDCR’s actual prison population can vary each year from its projections, we find that Figure 3 reducing the population Administration's Plan Likely to Achieve slightly below the limits is a Compliance With Court Order in Short Run prudent approach. 130,000 While the plan is likely Prison Population Limit to achieve compliance 125,000 Projected Prison Populationa with the court order in the short run, current 120,000 projections indicate that CDCR is on track to 115,000 eventually exceed the cap. As shown in Figure 4 110,000 (see next page), CDCR is currently projecting that 105,000 the prison population will increase by several thousand 100,000 Feb-14 Jun-14 Oct-14 Feb-15 Jun-15 Oct-15 Feb-16 inmates in the next few years and will reach the cap a Excludes inmates not housed in the state’s 34 prisons. by June 2018 and exceed www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 7 ARTWORK #140107 Template_LAOReport_mid.ait 2014-15 BUDGET Governor’s Recidivism Reduction order for the administration’s plans related to the Proposals Raise Multiple Issues Recidivism Reduction Fund to be effective, the Legislature would likely need to provide General Our analysis also finds that the Governor’s Fund support for these programs in the future. proposed expenditures from the Recidivism ISMIP Program Benefits Unclear. In 2012, Reduction Fund raise various concerns. For CDCR evaluated the impact of the ISMIP program. example, several of the proposals lack important Specifically, the evaluation compared the rates details or are not completely developed. In addition, at which ISMIP participants returned to prison other proposals are unlikely to be the most within one year to a similar group of parolees cost-effective approach to reducing recidivism. who did not participate in the program. The study Proposals Require Ongoing General Fund found that overall, ISMIP reduced recidivism by Support. As described previously, the monies in 30 percent. However, when the analysis controlled the Recidivism Reduction Fund were deposited on a one-time basis from the funding appropriated for important factorGs, sruacph hasi cth Se siegrnio uOsnfefss of an offender’s mental illness and whether offenders by Chapter 310 that was not used for contract Secretary were connected with services immediately upon beds. The Governor’s budget proposes to spend Analyst parole, the results changed substantially. In all of the Recidivism Reduction Fund in 2014-15 particular, the evaluMatPioAn found that the recidivism on the various initiatives discussed above. Despite rate increased slightDlye fporu itnymates with less the one-time nature of this funding, all of the serious mental illnesses and who were connected Governor’s budget proposals create or expand with services immediately upon parole. While programs that would require ongoing funding the program seems effective at treating parolees to effectively reduce the prison population. In with more serious mental illnesses, it does not appear Figure 4 to be effective for lower Uncertain Whether Plan Would Sustain Long-Run Compliance With Court Order acuity parolees. Despite the program’s lack of success 130,000 with parolees with less Prison Population Limit serious mental illnesses, the 125,000 Projected Prison Populationa Governor’s budget proposes expanding the program as 120,000 it is currently operated— meaning that both high and 115,000 lower acuity parolees would continue to receive ISMIP 110,000 services. In recent years, the 105,000 program cost was an average of approximately 100,000 Jun-16 Dec-16 Jun-17 Dec-17 Jun-18 Dec-18 Jun-19 $26,500 per slot, which is a Excludes inmates not housed in the state’s 34 prisons. primarily due to the wide array of services that the 8 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov ARTWORK #140107 Template_LAOReport_mid.ait 2014-15 BUDGET program provides. As a result, for the program the department made no attempt to account for to be cost-effective, it has to result in a major potential differences between inmates who chose to reduction in the recidivism rate of its participants complete the programs and those who did not (such to fully justify the high costs. Thus, even if the as by randomly assigning inmates to participate in program is targeted to inmates with more serious the program). Currently, there is very little recent mental illnesses, it may still not be cost-effective. independent research using rigorous analytical Also, the recidivism reduction results reported methods to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the above reflect the program’s impact before the in-prison drug treatment services delivered by implementation of the 2011 realignment. After CDCR. However, numerous pieces of research from realignment, many of these parolees may be other states suggest that—if implemented consistent ineligible for state prison unless they commit a new with best practices—substance abuse treatment felony. As a result, improvements in recidivism may can be a cost-effective way to reduce recidivism. not generate as much state savings or reduce the It remains unclear, however, if CDCR is prison population as they did before realignment implementing best practices. when any violation was punished with a prison Rehabilitation Programming for Inmates term. Thus, this raises further questions about the in Contract Facilities Not Well Planned. effectiveness of the current program at reducing As mentioned earlier, CDCR is planning to the state’s prison population—particularly given its transition to a reentry hub model to deliver much high cost. of its rehabilitative programming. We find that We note that, to the extent ISMIP is not the reentry model has several strengths. First, it cost-effective, its high cost is particularly consolidates certain rehabilitation programming, problematic in light of the other programs that achieving cost savings through economies of these funds could support. Rather than using scale. Second, it provides services only to high-risk $11 million to provide treatment to around 300 inmates, which, according to research, provides the individuals, these funds could instead be used to greatest benefit. Third, it targets inmates who are fund programs that provide services to a larger nearing release so that programs can assist these population, thereby having greater effects on individuals with reintegration into society. Finally, recidivism and the prison population. these reentry hubs are located near where most Drug Treatment Can Be Effective if inmates are paroled so that families can visit and Implemented According to Best Practices. The help inmates reintegrate. administration’s proposal to expand in-prison However, the administration’s proposal to substance abuse treatment holds promise. This expand access to these rehabilitation services in all is because data collected by CDCR indicate that in-state contract facilities represents a significant recidivism rates for inmates completing in-prison deviation from the reentry hub model. This is drug treatment programs are lower than for those because, rather than concentrating services, it who do not. This data provides some evidence that spreads them across the contract facilities. Also, the department’s programs may be effective. It does the plan does not limit the programs to high-need not, however, provide sufficient basis to conclude or soon-to-be-released inmates. Providing definitively that the programs are effective because programming to inmates who do not meet this the department did not use rigorous analytical description is problematic because it does not methods for evaluating the programs. For example, adhere to evidence-based methods. In addition, www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 9 2014-15 BUDGET many high-risk, soon-to-be-released inmates in intent, particularly since the department has not other CDCR facilities would continue to lack access provided any information on how NCRF would to these services. Furthermore, the administration’s reduce recidivism. Second, we are concerned about plan would provide 334 annual programming the potential cost of NCRF. As mentioned above, spaces at each of the in-state contract facilities, in 2010, the department estimated that the total irrespective of the number of inmates at each construction costs would be $115 million and that facility that require services. This is problematic the facility would cost about $90,000 per inmate to because the number of inmates at each facility can operate—one and a half times the current average vary widely. For example, Lassen houses only 125 cost to house an inmate in state prison. Thus, even inmates, but would be provided 334 programming if NCRF is operated in a way that would reduce slots. Thus, virtually every inmate at Lassen would recidivism, its potential cost makes it unlikely to be have to participate in two to three programs the most cost-effective approach for doing so. annually for all the slots to be filled. Conversely, Community Reentry Proposal Lacks California City Correctional Center houses Important Details and May Be Difficult to approximately 2,381 inmates—nearly 30 percent of Implement. We are also concerned that the the in-state contract population. However, under administration’s plan to allocate $40 million the proposal this facility would also only receive from the Recidivism Reduction Fund to support 334 programming slots—about 8 percent of the the development of community reentry facilities total amount allocated. Moreover, CDCR has not lacks several important details. For example, done an analysis of the number of inmates at each the administration has not indicated how many facility that would have an assessed need for these reentry facilities would be opened or where they programs. Thus, there may be inmates who could would be located. In addition, CDCR has not benefit from such programming—particularly provided the estimated cost or population per high-risk inmates nearing release—who would not facility, nor has it indicated what specific services be able to access services, while the administration’s would be offered or what the expected reduction plan would provide treatment to inmates without in recidivism would be. Without this information need for such services. the Legislature cannot determine whether NCRF Proposal Is an Inappropriate Use of the reentry facilities would be a cost-effective Funds and Unlikely to Be Cost-Effective. We approach to reducing recidivism. have several concerns with the administration’s We are also concerned that the state may plan to allocate $8.3 million from the Recidivism face challenges siting new reentry facilities. The Reduction Fund to support the design of NCRF. greatest need for reentry services tends to be First, we are concerned that the proposal is an in densely populated urban areas with a high inappropriate use of the Recidivism Reduction concentration of reentering inmates. However, Fund. The Legislature created the Recidivism it can be difficult to find suitable locations for Reduction Fund to support programs designed reentry facilities in such areas because they to reduce recidivism, such as substance abuse tend to be more developed, leaving less land treatment and cognitive behavioral therapy. available for acquisition. In addition, it can be As such, we are concerned that the Governor’s difficult to find communities that are interested proposed use of these funds to support the design in accommodating correctional facilities. For of a new prison is inconsistent with legislative example, in 2007 the Legislature approved 10 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov 2014-15 BUDGET funding to construct 32 reentry facilities. For a were actually built. In 2012, the Legislature variety of reasons, including CDCR’s difficulty ultimately withdrew the funding authority for finding suitable locations for the facilities, none these facilities. LAO RECOMMENDATIONS In view of the above, we recommend a variety recommend the Legislature use a portion of the of modifications to the Governor’s recidivism funding proposed for the program to contract with reduction proposals. In addition, we recommend independent research experts (such as a university) that the Legislature focus on adopting policies to evaluate the effectiveness of the existing ISMIP that would help to maintain long-term compliance program. Such a study should include information with the court-ordered population cap. Our on recidivism reduction effects, the types of crimes recommendations are summarized in Figure 5 and avoided, and cost-effectiveness of the program. This described in more detail below. would help the Legislature determine whether the existing ISMIP program could be improved. We Modify Governor’s estimate that such a study could be completed for Recidivism Reduction Proposals several hundred thousand dollars. Reject Funding for ISMIP Expansion and Approve Drug Treatment Expansion but Require Evaluation. We are concerned that the Require Evaluation. We recommend that the administration’s plan to spend $11.3 million to Legislature approve the administration’s proposed expand ISMIP from 600 to 900 slots does not take expansion of drug treatment services in state into account the available data on the program’s prisons. Given the limited evaluation regarding the effects on recidivism. The high cost per participant effectiveness of CDCR’s in-prison drug treatment raises questions both about its cost-effectiveness services, we also recommend that the Legislature as currently operated and whether it would be use a portion of the proposed funding to contract cost-effective even if targeted to parolees with with independent research experts to evaluate the serious mental illnesses. Additionally, the Figure 5 evaluation performed by Summary of LAO Recommendations CDCR is not adjusted for 9 the effects of realignment, Modify Governor’s Recidivism Reduction Proposals which casts further doubt • Reject funding for Integrated Services for Mentally Ill Parolees program expansion and require evaluation. on the cost-effectiveness of • Approve expansion of drug treatment but require evaluation. the program. • Withhold funding for rehabilitation programming in contract facilities. Given these concerns, • Reject Northern California Reentry Facility proposal. • Reject reentry facility proposal. we recommend that the • Evaluate current rehabilitative programs. Legislature reject the 9 administration’s plan Use Recidivism Reduction Fund to Incentivize Counties to Reduce Prison Admissions to expand the ISMIP 9 program. We also Focus on Long-Term Compliance www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 11 2014-15 BUDGET department’s delivery of such services. This would information it needs to assess whether the proposal allow the Legislature to determine whether CDCR’s is a cost-effective approach to reducing recidivism. programs are being implemented consistent with Evaluate Current Rehabilitative Programs. best practices and are cost-effective at reducing The type of rehabilitative services provided by recidivism. We estimate that such a study could be CDCR—including cognitive behavioral therapy, completed for several hundred thousand dollars. substance abuse treatment, education, and Withhold Funding for Rehabilitation employment programs—have been found to Programming in Contract Facilities. While we reduce recidivism in a cost-effective manner if acknowledge inmates housed in in-state contract implemented consistent with best practices. Thus, facilities have a need for rehabilitation programs, these programs can improve public safety and we are concerned that the administration’s plan to reduce state and local correctional populations and expand such programs to these facilities is poorly costs. However, a significant share of the inmate conceived. This is because the proposal is not and parolee population will continue to lack access consistent with CDCR’s reentry hub model and to these programs even after the administration’s does not account for each facility’s population or proposed expansions. This suggests that the programming needs. Therefore, we recommend Legislature may want to pursue a further expansion the Legislature withhold funding for the proposed of these programs as a way to assist the state in expansion and require the department to present maintaining compliance in the long run. a revised proposal at spring budget hearings. The However, just as there are questions about department’s revised proposal should align with CDCR’s implementation of the ISMIP and the CDCR reentry hub model, target inmates substance abuse treatment programs, it is unclear who have a high or moderate risk to reoffend, whether CDCR’s other inmate and parolee and be based on the treatment needs of each programs are cost-effective and implemented facility’s population. Should this revised proposal consistent with best practices. In addition, it is address the issues identified in this brief, we would unclear whether CDCR has assessed a sufficient recommend the Legislature approve funding for the number of inmates and parolees to identify the proposal. full extent of their rehabilitative needs. Given Reject NCRF Proposal. We recommend that these information limitations, we recommend the Legislature reject the administration’s plan the Legislature direct the department to develop to allocate $8.3 million from the Recidivism a proposal to contract with independent research Reduction Fund to support the design of NCRF. As experts to evaluate the department’s rehabilitative discussed above, the proposal is an inappropriate programs—for both inmates and parolees—in use of the Recidivism Reduction Fund and is addition to the ISMIP and in-prison substance unlikely to be a cost-effective approach to reducing abuse program evaluations. The evaluation should recidivism. include information on the cost-effectiveness of the Reject Reentry Facility Proposal. We also programs and the cost and long-term implications recommend that the Legislature reject the of expanding the programs to meet the needs of administration’s plan to allocate $40 million from CDCR offenders. We estimate that such a study the Recidivism Reduction Fund to support the could be completed for a few million dollars and development of community reentry facilities. The could be funded from the Recidivism Reduction administration has not provided the Legislature the Fund. This information would allow the Legislature 12 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov 2014-15 BUDGET to assess (1) the cost-effectiveness of the state’s Supervision (PRCS), where they are supervised in current investment in rehabilitative programming, the community by county probation officers. If (2) whether a further expansion is appropriate, offenders under these types of county supervision and (3) whether other, more effective investments commit new prison-eligible felonies, they can be that improve offender outcomes would be more sentenced to state prison. Under our proposed appropriate. option, funds could be provided to counties as “seed” grants to support the development or Use Recidivism Reduction expansion of programs for offenders on mandatory Fund to Incentivize Counties to supervision and PRCS that have been demonstrated Reduce Prison Admissions to reduce crime. Counties could then be rewarded Our above recommendations to reject the with a portion of the savings they create for the administration’s plans related to community state by preventing these offenders from being reentry facilities, NCRF, and ISMIP would “free sent to state prison. Award grant funding would up” almost $60 million from the Recidivism then provide an ongoing funding source for crime Reduction Fund for the Legislature to allocate to reduction programs. other activities it deems to be of higher priority. Our recommended approach has several As discussed above, we recommend using a small advantages. Because the state would retain a portion of these funds for research and evaluation. portion of the savings from reduced prison While the Legislature has many options regarding admissions, this approach would result in net state these monies, in our view the best option would savings. The approach could also have a positive be to use the remaining funds to provide grants to impact on public safety if it caused counties to counties to reduce the number of offenders they invest grant funds in ways that improved offender admit to state prison. outcomes. The impact on county workload would Under our proposed option, the Legislature be minimal because the costs of any potential could expand the program created by Chapter 608, caseload increases could be offset by state incentive Statutes of 2009 (SB 678, Leno), commonly grant funding. In addition, much of the data referred to as SB 678, which provides counties a necessary to administer the grant program is fiscal incentive to reduce the number of felony already being collected by counties. We note, probationers that fail on probation and are however, it could take time for a sufficient amount incarcerated. Specifically, the Legislature could of data to be available. reward counties for successfully preventing There are, however, a couple of trade-offs offenders under other forms of county community with this approach. First, the degree to which supervision created by realignment from coming this approach reduces the prison population is to prison. Under the 2011 realignment, realigned subject to significant uncertainty and could vary felons can receive a split sentence in which they significantly depending primarily on (1) the size spend the initial portion of their sentence in jail of the fiscal incentive and (2) whether counties and the remaining portion in the community are able to successfully reduce prison admissions. under “mandatory supervision” of county Second, this approach is unlikely to result in probation officers. In addition, following their a reduction in prison admissions comparable prison sentences, nonserious, non-violent felons to SB 678, given that the combined mandatory are generally placed on Post-Release Community supervision and PRCS population is about www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 13 2014-15 BUDGET one-tenth of the felony probation population. To accomplish these goals, we recommend that However, in order to achieve a larger impact, the the Legislature consider the following criteria. Legislature could consider creating a new grant • Public Safety. How will the option affect program that would also reward counties for public safety? Can any negative impacts reducing their prison admission rates both for to public safety be mitigated by the use offenders on misdemeanor probation as well as of evidence-based correctional practices, for individuals not under any form of community such as risk assessments, community-based supervision. We note, however, that this would sanctions, or treatment programs? pose much greater implementation challenges as it would be necessary to develop the methodology • Budget Impact. What is the fiscal impact and data required to effectively measure and reward to the state? How certain is the impact? counties’ efforts at reducing prison admissions. • Magnitude. To what extent will the Focus on Long-Term Compliance option reduce the prison population or increase prison capacity? Are the changes Given the immediate deadlines facing the state sustainable? in the next few months, the administration’s plan to contract for bed space is a reasonable approach • Ease of Implementation. Does the option to achieve short-term compliance with the court require only simple actions (like statutory order, and the Legislature has little choice but to changes) or something more complicated approve the funding for the contracts if it wishes (like implementing a new program)? Will to avoid releasing inmates early. However, if population reductions be delayed because the inmate population grows at the rate CDCR of implementation requirements? projects, the state will be unable to maintain • Effects on Local Governments. Will long-term compliance. This is because the plan the option increase local costs or jail contains relatively few measures that would help overcrowding? Will the option affect local the state maintain long-term compliance other than law enforcement? relying indefinitely on costly contract beds. While using the monies in the Recidivism Reduction In order to assist the Legislature, we provide Fund as we have proposed would bring the state below some options that we think merit legislative closer to long-term compliance, these investments consideration. None of the options are “perfect” alone are unlikely to result in a reduction in the solutions, and we recommend that the Legislature prison population of sufficient magnitude to review each option with an eye towards identifying ensure long-term compliance or substantially those that best meet legislative policy goals and reduce the number of contract beds needed to have the least potential negative trade-offs. We also maintain compliance. Thus, the Legislature must note that many of these policy options would take take additional steps if it wishes to (1) ensure that months or even years to reach their full impact the state will not exceed the court-ordered prison on the prison population. Accordingly, the sooner population cap in the future and (2) reduce the the Legislature acts, the better. By acting now, the number of contract beds necessary to maintain Legislature puts itself in a better position to ensure compliance with the cap. that the state’s compliance strategy is consistent with its policy priorities. Conversely, the longer the 14 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov 2014-15 BUDGET Legislature waits to adopt long-term solutions, the probation terms for the felony offenders who do not more likely it will find itself once again forced to have prior convictions for serious, violent or sex respond to an imminent court-ordered population offenses. Finally, changing drug possession offenses limit by extending contracts for prison beds, to misdemeanors would be relatively simple to thereby consuming resources that could be used for implement as it would only require statutory other more cost-effective purposes. changes. Reclassify Certain Felonies and Wobblers as One potential trade-off is that the sentencing Misdemeanors. One specific option the Legislature change would reduce the amount of incarceration could consider is to reclassify certain crimes time for these offenders, and thus place them in the from felonies and wobblers to misdemeanors. community earlier. This is because the maximum (Wobblers are crimes that current law allows to be jail sentence for a misdemeanor is one year, which prosecuted either as felonies or misdemeanors.) is typically less than the time these offenders would For example, the Legislature could reduce penalties serve in prison or jail if they were sentenced as for drug possession offenses to make such crimes felons. This could have a negative impact on public misdemeanors. Under current law, possession of safety because it would increase the amount of most controlled substances (such as cocaine or time these offenders are in the community and able heroin) is classified as a misdemeanor, a wobbler, to commit crimes. We note, however, that there or a felony. Under the 2011 realignment of adult is little evidence that the length of time someone offenders, most offenders convicted of felony serves in prison affects his or her recidivism rate. drug possession are ineligible to be sentenced to Reduce Sentences for Certain Crimes. state prison and are thus sentenced to local jail or The Legislature could also consider reducing community supervision. However, those with prior sentences for certain crimes. For most felonies, convictions for violent, sex, or serious crimes are current law provides criminal court judges with still eligible for state prison. Accordingly, making a choice of three prison terms, commonly known these crimes misdemeanors would prevent such as a sentencing triad. Judges choose which of offenders from coming to state prison. We estimate these sentences is most appropriate given the that reclassifying these crimes to misdemeanors circumstances of the crime and offender’s criminal would reduce the state prison population by a history. For example, first-degree burglary is couple thousand inmates on an annual basis. punishable by two, four, or six years in prison. We note that there are other non-violent felonies In addition, current law provides for a number and wobblers (such as property crimes) that the of sentence enhancements—additional time that Legislature could also convert to misdemeanors. can be added to an offender’s sentence—based This option has several advantages. First, on factors such as prior offenses or possession of it could result in state savings of several tens a weapon during the commission of the crime. of millions of dollars annually within a few years The Legislature could choose to reduce the triad of implementation due to the ongoing reduction sentences for certain crimes, or it could reduce or in the prison population. Second, it would, on net, eliminate particular sentence enhancements. The reduce county jail and probation populations and effect of such changes to sentencing law would could create significant correctional savings for depend on the specific statutory changes made, but counties. This is because converting these crimes to could result in a significant and ongoing reduction misdemeanors would result in shorter jail stays and to the state prison population and correctional www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 15 2014-15 BUDGET costs. This option could also result in a reduction to and state correctional costs, it would likely take county caseloads and costs as it would likely affect at least a couple of years to achieve. In addition, felons who serve their sentences under county this option could require resources for CDCR to jurisdiction due to the 2011 realignment. While implement because the department would have this option would be relatively simple to implement, to make further changes to the way it calculates it would likely take at least a couple of years before sentencing credits, which is already a difficult task. it significantly reduced the prison population. One Similar to the above option of reducing sentences, major trade-off with this option is that the affected a trade-off associated with this option is that the offenders would spend less time in custody and affected offenders would spend less time in custody thus could commit crimes that they could not and thus could commit crimes that they could not commit if they remained incarcerated. commit if they remained incarcerated. However, to Increase the Early Release Credits Inmates the extent that this option increases participation Can Earn. Most inmates are eligible to earn credits in programs that make inmates less likely to towards reducing time off of their sentence, such reoffend, some of the potential negative impacts on as by participating in prison work assignments public safety from releasing inmates early would be or rehabilitation programs. In addition, most mitigated. inmates earn “day-for-day” credits—one day off Expand Alternative Custody Program to Male their sentence for each day that they refrain from Inmates. As mentioned above, CDCR currently disciplinary problems. However, certain inmates operates an alternative custody program that allows are either ineligible to receive certain credits or female inmates who meet certain criteria to serve have limits on the amount of credit they can earn. part of their sentence in the community rather For example, as mentioned earlier, second strikers than in state prison. Participants may be housed in can only receive credits sufficient to reduce their a private residence, a transitional care facility, or sentence by 20 percent under current law. While the a residential treatment program. The Legislature administration’s plan would increase the amount of could consider expanding eligibility for this credits second strikers earn, the Legislature could program to certain male inmates. The reduction in further expand the amount of credits available the state prison population and state costs resulting to inmates. For example, the Legislature could from this option would depend on (1) how many increase the cap on the amount of credits other male inmates were eligible to participate in the inmates can earn or it could further expand the program, (2) what portion of the participants’ number of inmates eligible to receive credits. The sentences were served outside of prison, and Legislature could also increase participation in (3) whether the state subsidized the housing costs rehabilitation programs by expanding the amount of participants. To the extent that the state cost for of credits inmates earn for participating in these the program was less than the cost of prison, this programs. option would result in net savings to the state. The magnitude of the prison population Similar to the above options of reducing reduction that could be achieved from increasing sentences and increasing the credits inmates can credits would depend on the number of inmates earn, a trade-off associated with this option is that affected and the extent to which their sentences the affected offenders would spend less time in were reduced. While this option would create custody and thus could commit crimes that they an ongoing reduction in the prison population could not commit if they remained incarcerated. 16 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov 2014-15 BUDGET However, the Legislature could minimize the programs are not found to be cost-effective, the effect on public safety by restricting eligibility to Legislature could reduce the prison population inmates who are low risk and by requiring that either by directing CDCR to modify its delivery of participants attend programs that make them less the current programs to match best practices or by likely to reoffend. Another disadvantage of this investing in other programs that have been shown option is that it could present some implementation to be cost-effective. challenges as CDCR indicates that the process This approach could improve public safety and for reviewing female applicants and placing them reduce state and local correctional costs. However, into the current program is time consuming and the extent to which this option would reduce difficult. In addition, to the extent the program the prison population and yield these potential further reduced the number of lower security benefits is subject to significant uncertainty. In inmates in the institutions, it could reduce the addition, there could be significant implementation number of inmates available for the fire camp challenges. For example, CDCR would need to hire program and other work assignments that are additional education and vocational instructors limited to lower security inmates, which could and identify contractors to provide community create operational difficulties for CDCR. and in-prison rehabilitation programming. This Modify Rehabilitative Programs Based on would require a significant up-front investment of Evaluation. Depending on the outcome of our resources and could delay any eventual reduction recommended evaluation of CDCR’s cognitive in the prison population. Given these limitations, behavioral therapy, education, and employment it is difficult to assess what long-term effect such programs, the Legislature could also reduce the changes in inmate and parolee programs might size of the prison population by expanding these have on the prison population, or what the cost of programs, to the extent they are found to be such an expansion might be. cost-effective. Alternatively, if CDCR’s current www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 17 2014-15 BUDGET 18 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov 2014-15 BUDGET www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 19 2014-15 BUDGET Contact Information Drew Soderborg Managing Principal Analyst 319-8346 Drew.Soderborg@lao.ca.gov Aaron Edwards Prison and Parole 319-8351 Aaron.Edwards@lao.ca.gov Sarah Larson Rehabilitative Programs 319-8306 Sarah.Larson@lao.ca.gov LAO Publications This brief was reviewed by Anthony Simbol. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office which provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This brief and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service, are available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, CA 95814. 20 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov