Improving California’s Prison Inmate Classification System

Improving California’s Prison Inmate Classification System GABRIEL PETEK LEGISLATIVE ANALYST MAY 2019 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Cover photo provided courtesy of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Executive Summary Overview of California’s Inmate Classification System. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) uses an inmate classification system to assign inmates to different housing security levels and varying degrees of supervision during their daily activities. Assignment to a housing security level is generally based on inmates’ assessed risk of misconduct—referred to as their “housing score.” The performance of the inmate classification system has implications for the safety of staff, inmates, and the public; prison operations and cost; the size of the inmate population; and inmates’ daily experiences in prison, including their access to rehabilitation opportunities. Assessment of Inmate Classification System. In reviewing CDCR’s inmate classification system, we identified several issues that merit legislative consideration. Specifically we found the following: • Housing Score Not Sufficiently Aligned With Departmental Goals. We find that CDCR may be assigning unnecessary security to inmates who are prone to engage in minor misconduct, but not in serious misconduct. This approach is inconsistent with the department’s goal to avoid placing inmates in more secure or restrictive settings than necessary. • Accuracy of Housing Score Could Be Limited. We identified several factors that call into question the accuracy of CDCR’s housing score methodology. Specifically, we found that: (1) CDCR has modified the methodology without reassessing its accuracy, (2) several changes—such as to the demographics of the inmate population—could have caused its accuracy to deteriorate since it was first established, and (3) there is some evidence that the methodology underweights age. We also found that the methodology for recalculating inmates’ housing scores annually has never been evaluated. • Need for Some Overrides of Housing Score Is Unclear. Under certain circumstances, CDCR staff can override an inmate’s housing score and house the inmate at a security level different than otherwise called for under the department’s methodology. However, given that three of the factors for which staff can override a housing score—inmates’ age, time to serve, and behavior—are already included in the housing score methodology, it is unclear what additional benefits, if any, these particular overrides provide. • Access to Lowest Security Settings May Be Overly Restricted. CDCR currently maintains policies that exclude certain inmates from the lowest security housing and supervision placements. To the extent that these policies cause certain inmates to be placed in unnecessarily restrictive environments, they unnecessarily create state costs and operational challenges. LAO Recommendations. In order to address the above concerns, we recommend the Legislature take the following steps to improve the inmate classification process: • Direct CDCR to Develop New Method for Assignment to Housing Security Level. We recommend CDCR contract with independent researchers to develop a new methodology www.lao.ca.gov 1 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT for assigning inmates to a housing level when they arrive in prison and annually thereafter. We find that a more effective methodology could reduce prison violence and other misconduct while minimizing placement of inmates in unnecessarily restrictive environments that can make them more prone to crime in the long run. • Consider Options to Expand Access to Lowest Security Settings. We recommend that the Legislature consider directing CDCR to create processes for allowing low-risk sex offenders, inmates with more than five years left to serve, and inmates wanted by another law enforcement agency on minor charges into the lowest security settings. Such changes could alleviate existing operational challenges and reduce state costs—potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually—without jeopardizing prison security or public safety. 2 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT INTRODUCTION Maintaining a safe environment for inmates and implications for state costs. Moreover, because staff, as well as preventing inmate escapes, are the system determines where and how inmates are fundamental aspects of the public safety mission housed and supervised, it significantly affects the of the California Department of Corrections and daily experiences of individual inmates. In addition, Rehabilitation (CDCR). The department uses an because housing and supervision placements can inmate classification system as a key tool to pursue affect inmates’ abilities to earn credits that reduce this mission. The inmate classification system their prison terms, the classification system can essentially assigns inmates to housing and varying affect how long some inmates ultimately spend in degrees of security based on their assessed risk of prison. In this report, we (1) provide background misconduct and other factors, such as escape risk. information on CDCR’s inmate classification Accordingly, the classification system significantly system, (2) assess the current system, and influences how CDCR deploys scarce housing (3) recommend steps to improve it. space and custody staffing and has important BACKGROUND PURPOSE OF INMATE inmates more prone to crime through the influence of more criminally active peers. We also note that CLASSIFICATION inmates placed in more restrictive settings may Prevent Inmate Escape and Misconduct. One have less access to rehabilitative programming than of the primary challenges facing prison systems other inmates. In addition, research has found that is preventing escape and misconduct, which placing inmates in overly restrictive settings can can range from crimes (such as murder, assault, exacerbate mental illness. Moreover, providing a and drug trafficking) to more minor violations of higher level of security than is warranted results in prison rules (such as misuse of food or unexcused an inefficient use of limited resources. absence from a work assignment). Inmate California’s Current Classification System classification systems are commonly employed Established Nearly 20 Years Ago. California was prison management tools that allow prison officials the first state in the nation to use a standardized to allocate security resources according to inmates’ inmate classification system based on objective likelihood of escape or misconduct. These systems criteria. This system was first evaluated in the typically involve procedures to identify inmates 1980s. It subsequently underwent a significant with a high incentive for escape or risk factors that overhaul and evaluation in the early 2000s, which make them statistically more likely to engage in formed the basis of the system that is still in place misconduct. This allows prison officials to place today. The stated goals of CDCR’s system include such inmates in more secure environments. (1) uniformly placing inmates in the lowest security It is important to place inmates in the appropriate level necessary to ensure the safety of staff, security setting for several reasons. On the one inmates, and the public; and (2) generally basing hand, placing inmates in a setting with insufficient placements on objective information and criteria. In security could jeopardize the safety of staff, other establishing the inmate classification system, the inmates, and the public. On the other hand, placing department also sought to maintain a database for inmates in an overly restrictive setting can create research and evaluation of the system. other significant problems. For example, it can create a long-term public safety risk by making www.lao.ca.gov 3 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT HOW ARE INMATES CLASSIFIED? Assignment to a Housing Security Level CDCR’s inmate classification system differentiates inmates in two primary ways. CDCR Operates Four Security Levels of Specifically, the system assigns each inmate Inmate Housing. CDCR categorizes its facilities a (1) housing security level and (2) custody that house male inmates into security levels ranging designation. from Level I (lowest security) to Level IV (highest Housing Security Level. Housing security level security). (Facilities that house female inmates are generally determines the type of facility where not classified into different security levels as female inmates are housed. Inmates that the system facilities generally have similar levels of security.) determines have a higher risk of misconduct or Figure 1 summarizes the security requirements escape are generally housed in higher security level for each of the four security levels. As shown facilities that have more security features, such as in the figure, inmates housed in Level I facilities armed guard coverage or an electric fence. are subject to the least amount of security and are generally housed in open dormitories (rather Custody Designation. Custody designation than cells) that are not required to have perimeter determines where in the prison inmates may security—meaning some may be only surrounded go during the day and the level of supervision by a razor wire fence or have no fence at all. they must be under when they are there. For example, inmates assigned to the lowest custody Inmates housed in Level II facilities generally also designation may work off prison grounds with live in dormitories, though unlike Level I facilities, minimal supervision by CDCR correctional officers. Level II facilities are located within the main security In contrast, inmates with the highest custody perimeter of the prison—meaning behind an electric designation can only work within the building where fence or wall with guard towers. Inmates housed in they are housed and must be under the direct Level III and IV facilities live in cells within the main physical control of correctional officers at all times. security perimeter of the prison. Level IV facilities also Custody designation also affects inmates’ eligibility often contain additional security features, such as to be housed in certain facilities. For example, a higher level of armed guard coverage and layouts based on the combination of their housing level, that provide officers greater visibility of all cells. custody designation, and other criteria, some We note that, CDCR maintains other housing inmates are eligible for placement in specialized units that are not part of its four-level security housing, such as conservation camps (one of the ranking. For example, restricted housing units— lowest security placements). units which can be used to temporarily house Below, we provide greater detail on how the inmates as punishment for a serious rule violation inmate classification system is used to assign or who constitute a particular threat to prison inmates to a housing security level, a custody security—and reception centers—which house designation, and specialized housing. inmates when they first arrive in CDCR custody and have not been fully classified—are not designated as one of the four security levels. Figure 1 Higher Security Level Housing Facilities Have More Security Requirementsa Level Minimum Required Bed Type Minimum Required Perimeter Security Armed Coverage I (lowest security) Dormitories None None required II Dormitories Electric fence or wall with guard towers None required III Cells Electric fence or wall with guard towers External IV (highest security) Cells Electric fence or wall with guard towers External and internal a There may be some exceptions to these requirements. 4 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Inmates Assigned Housing Score Based inmates avoid serious rule violations, perform well on Their Risk of Misconduct. When inmates in work or school, or achieve placement in the arrive at a reception center, they receive a risk lowest custody designation since their housing assessment in which they are assigned points score was last calculated. For example, if an inmate totaling from 0 to 999 based on six factors that are remains free of serious disciplinary issues for six statistically associated with in-prison misconduct. months, two points are subtracted from his or her These factors are (1) age at first arrest, (2) age score. Conversely, points are added to inmates’ at time of assessment, (3) term length, (4) gang housing scores if they have engaged in certain membership, (5) number of prior incarcerations, rule violations since their housing score was last and (6) behavior during prior incarcerations. The calculated. For example, if an inmate commits a points assigned to each factor are summed to battery on an inmate, four points are added to his calculate a total housing score. Inmates with higher or her score. scores are considered to be more likely to engage Current Housing Score Methodology in misconduct. Figure 2 illustrates how the housing Established Nearly 20 Years Ago. The underlying score is calculated for two different inmates. basis of the department’s current methodology Inmates’ housing scores are generally for calculating inmates’ housing scores when they recalculated annually. Points are subtracted if first arrive in prison was established in the early Figure 2 Housing Score Is Calculated Based on Factors in Inmates’ Backgrounds Number of Points Assigned Inmate A Inmate B Age at First Arrest Under 18 12 12 — 18 to 21 10 — 10 22 to 29 8 — — 30 to 35 4 — — 36 and Older — — — Age at Time of Assessment 16 to 20 8 — — 21 to 26 6 — — 27 to 35 4 — 4 36 and Older — — — Term Length Years x 2 (Up to 50 Points) 5 x 2 = 10 25 X 2 = 50 Gang Member 6 — 6 Number of Prior Incarcerations Prior Jail or County Juvenile Sentence of 31 Days or More 1 — — Prior State or Federal Juvenile Incarceration 1 1 — Prior State or Federal Adult Incarceration 1 — 1 Behavior During Last 12 Months of Prior Incarceration No Serious Rule Violations -4 -4 — Serious Rules Violations Violations x 4 — 3 x 4 = 12 Specific Serious Rule Violations During Prior Incarceration Battery or Attempted Battery on a Non-Inmate Violations x 8 — 2 x 8 = 16 Battery or Attempted Battery on an Inmate Violations x 4 — — Distribution of Drugs Violations x 4 — 2 x 4 = 8 Possession of a Deadly Weapon Violations x 4 — — (Doubled if in Last 5 Years) Inciting a Disturbance Violations x 4 — — Battery Causing Serious Bodily Injury Violations x 16 — 1 x 16 = 16 Scores 19 123 www.lao.ca.gov 5 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT 2000s by researchers at the University of California, housed in a Level II facility. We note that the current Los Angeles (UCLA). Specifically, the researchers cut points were established based on research removed certain factors from the previous conducted by University of California researchers in methodology that were not found to be statistically 2010 and 2011. associated with misconduct (such as marital status However, CDCR can override an inmate’s and military service) and added certain factors housing score and house the inmate at a security that were associated with misconduct (such as level that is different than otherwise called for under gang affiliation and mental illness). They then the department’s methodology. An override can randomly assigned inmates to be housed based happen through one of two ways: on either the revised or previous methodology. • Mandatory Overrides. These overrides After completing an evaluation of the revised require staff to place inmates at a higher methodology, the UCLA researchers found it to be housing level than their score indicates. more effective in predicting misconduct than the Currently, there are six mandatory overrides, previous methodology and it was subsequently as shown in Figure 4. Five of the six implemented for all inmates beginning in 2003. (We mandatory overrides result in inmates being note that CDCR later removed mental illness from housed at Level II rather than Level I. These the methodology in response to a lawsuit.) overrides are intended to prevent inmates with Housing Security Level Is Generally a relatively high risk of escaping or victimizing Determined by Score, Unless Score Is the public if they escape from being placed Overridden. As shown in Figure 3, CDCR has in Level I facilities. This is because Level I established certain scores—or “cut points”—that facilities are generally not surrounded by divide the range of inmate housing scores into electric fences or walls with guard towers, four groups, each corresponding with a different which are effective in preventing inmate housing security level. For example, an inmate escapes. Inmates who are not allowed with a housing score of 19 through 35 is typically in Level I facilities include those inmates who have attempted escape in the past, Figure 3 have certain histories of violence, or have Housing Security Level Cut Points committed a registerable sex offense. • Discretionary Overrides. These overrides Housing Score Housing Security Level give CDCR staff the discretion to place Under 19 I inmates at a higher or lower housing level 19-35 II than their score indicates. There are 25 36-59 III discretionary overrides. For example, staff 60 and Over IV can house inmates at a lower level due to a Figure 4 Six Mandatory Overrides of Housing Score Mandatory Minimum Reason for Override Housing Level Sentenced to life without the possibility of parole II History of escape II History of sex offense II History of violence and does not meet certain criteriaa II Sentenced to life with the possibility of parole and does not meet certain criteriab II Sentenced to death IV a Criteria include being within five years of release and having a minimum of seven years since last violent offense. b Criteria include having been evaluated by a psychologist to represent a low or moderate risk of violence and not having a high level of notoriety. 6 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT record of good behavior or their youthfulness, refers to the number of beds that CDCR would immaturity, or advanced age. Alternatively, operate if it housed only one inmate per cell and staff can place inmates at a higher security did not “double-bunk” inmates in dormitories.) As level if their disciplinary records indicate (1) a shown in Figure 6 (see next page), CDCR’s Level I history of serious problems or (2) that they facilities are only at 85 percent capacity, while Level II could threaten the security of the facility. Staff and III facilities are over 120 percent of capacity. can also override an inmate’s housing score if (Given that CDCR often houses two inmates per the inmate requires medical or psychological cell or double-bunks inmates in dormitories, it is not treatment that is only available at certain uncommon for the population of a facility to exceed housing levels. its design capacity to some degree.) As of June 30, 2018, there were nearly Assignment to a Custody Designation 40,000 inmates in state prison whose housing CDCR Classifies Inmates Into Six Custody score was overridden by CDCR staff as a result of Designations. Once inmates arrive at the prison to either a mandatory or discretionary override. As which they were assigned at the reception center, shown in Figure 5, the majority of these overrides— they are assigned a custody designation. CDCR about 25,700—occur from Level I to Level II. Of uses six custody designations: (1) Maximum, these particular cases, the vast majority (about (2) Close, (3) Medium A, (4) Medium B, (5) Minimum 20,000) were moved from Level I to Level II as A, and (6) Minimum B, which are summarized in a result of two mandatory overrides—history of Figure 7 (see next page). As shown in the figure, violence or sexual offending. This is likely one of the custody designations affect the level of supervision primary reasons why Level I facilities are populated inmates receive during daily activities, with at less than their design capacity when compared Maximum requiring the highest level of supervision. to other housing levels. (Design capacity generally Figure 5 Most Overrides of Housing Score Occur From Level I to Level IIa Comparison of Level Based on Housing Score to Actual Housing Level Placement Level IV Level III Level IV Level III Level I Level II Level IV 34,502 Level IV Level IV Level II Level II 25,286 20,558 Level III Level III 17,437 Level I Level I Level III Level II Level II Level I a Excludes inmates who (1) have not yet been assigned a housing score and (2) are housed in a specialized bed that does not have a designated housing level. www.lao.ca.gov 7 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT of the prison to inmates who pose Figure 6 a low escape risk. For example, Level I Facilities Are Under Capacitya as shown in Figure 7, inmates As of June 30, 2018 with a Minimum B, Minimum A, or Number of Design Percent of Medium B Custody designation are Housing Level Inmates Capacity Capacity allowed varying amounts of access to areas outside the main security I 10,596 12,505 85% II 40,689 33,377 122 perimeter. In contrast, inmates with III 22,938 18,420 125 a Maximum, Close, or Medium A IV 23,759 14,936 159 designation must live and attend Totals 97,982 79,238 124% programs and work assignments a Excludes inmates who (1) have not yet been assigned a housing score and (2) are housed in a within the main security perimeter specialized bed that does not have a designated housing level. of the prison. In addition, custody designation We note that CDCR has the flexibility to apply affects the amount of sentencing credits that different custody designations to inmates within some inmates earn. Specifically, inmates who are the same housing security level. For example, an placed on Minimum Custody (either Minimum A or inmate placed on Close Custody receives constant Minimum B) and are not serving certain sentences supervision during his work activities, so that staff (such as a sentence for a violent crime) can earn can sufficiently account for the inmate’s specific two days off their sentence for every day served location at all times. In contrast, an inmate placed with good behavior. If these inmates were at a on Medium A Custody in the same housing level higher custody designation they would instead be would only receive frequent supervision, so that earning one day off their sentence for every day staff can sufficiently ensure that the inmate is served with good behavior. present within a permitted work area. Custody Designation Determined by Various Custody Designation Can Limit Access Criteria. Custody designation is assigned based Outside of Main Perimeter and Credit Earning on the presence or absence of certain factors as Rates. CDCR also uses custody designation to limit follows: access to areas beyond the main security perimeter Figure 7 Custody Designation Determines Level of Supervision Provided to Inmate May Work May Be Housed Outside Main and Work Custody Required to Security Off Prison Designation Required Level of Supervision During Daily Activities Live in Cells? Perimeter? Grounds? Minimum B Sufficient supervision to ensure the inmate is present. No Yes Yes (least supervision) Minimum A Observed at least hourly if assigned outside the main No Yes No security perimeter and sufficient supervision to ensure the inmate is present if inside the main security perimeter. Medium B Frequent and direct supervision while inside the main No Yes No security perimeter and direct and constant supervision while outside the main security perimeter. Medium A Frequent and direct supervision. No No No Close Direct and constant supervision. Yesa No No Maximum Direct physical control of inmate by custody staff at all Yes No No (most supervision) times. a Female inmates placed on Close Custody may be housed in certain dormitories. 8 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT • Maximum Custody. Inmates who are However, some specialized housing placements— temporarily living in a restricted housing which tend to be the most and least restrictive unit often as punishment for committing housing in CDCR—do depend on inmates’ custody particularly severe rule violations, such as designation. For example, to be eligible for a assault or possession of a weapon. Minimum Support Facility (MSF) or conservation • Close Custody. Inmates who meet certain camp—both types of Level I facilities that are criteria, such as those who (1) are in the first outside the main security perimeter of prisons— 5 years of a sentence of 25 years or more to inmates must not only be eligible for Level I life, (2) have a history of escape, or (3) have placement, but they must have a Minimum B committed a severe rule violation. Custody designation, as this allows them to live and work outside of a secure perimeter. (Please • Medium A and B Custody. Inmates who see the box on the next page for more information are not required to be on Maximum or Close about MSFs and conservation camps.) Custody and do not meet the criteria for Minimum Custody. The default designation Specialized Housing Can Affect Inmates’ is generally Medium A. However, inmates are Credit Earning Status. In some cases, inmates assigned Medium B Custody in certain cases, housed in conservation camps can earn time off such as if there is a need for them to work of their prison sentence faster than they would if outside the main security perimeter of the housed elsewhere at Minimum Custody, such as in prison. an MSF. For example, offenders serving terms for violent felonies can earn one day off of their prison • Minimum A and B Custody. Inmates who sentence for every day they serve with good behavior meet various criteria including having a housing in a conservation camp rather than only one day off score of 35 or lower with no mandatory for every four days they serve if housed elsewhere. overrides applied (such as having committed a registerable sex offense). Inmates must also not be wanted by law enforcement for a felony and must be within five years of release. Inmates are generally Figure 8 only assigned Minimum B Most Inmates Placed on Medium A Custodya Custody if they are placed 2018 in a program that requires Maximum (Most Supervision) Minimum B them to live outside the main 5% (Least Supervision) 10% security perimeter of a prison, Minimum A such as a conservation camp. 2% Medium B Figure 8 shows the breakdown Close 5% 10% of the inmate population by custody designation. The majority of inmates are placed on Medium A Custody. Assignment to Medium A Specialized Housing 68% Based on Both Housing Level and Custody Designation. In Total: 109,379 most cases, inmates’ housing placements are not affected a Excludes inmates who have not been assigned a custody designation. by their custody designation. www.lao.ca.gov 9 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Minimum Support Facilities (MSFs) and Conservation Camps MSFs are located on prison grounds but are outside of the main security perimeter of the prison. Inmates in MSFs provide important forms of operational support to prisons, such as grounds keeping and fire protection. In addition, when certain areas of the prison are “locked down”—meaning that inmates are confined to their dormitories or cells and cannot go to their regularly scheduled work assignments within the prison due to security concerns—MSF inmates temporarily fill these inmates’ jobs so that key aspects of prison operations that depend on inmate labor (such as the kitchen and laundry) can continue to function. Conservation camps are located off prison grounds, often in remote areas of the state. Inmates in conservation camps contribute to state wildfire fighting efforts by serving on hand crews. (Hand crews are usually made up of 17 workers that cut “fire lines”—gaps where all fire fuel and vegetation is removed—with chain saws and hand tools.) There are about 3,500 inmates housed in 42 conservation camps throughout the state that are generally jointly operated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. When not responding to fires, these inmates are available to support fire prevention and other resource conservation projects. ASSESSMENT OF CDCR’S INMATE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM In reviewing CDCR’s inmate classification Housing Score Not Sufficiently system, we identified several issues that merit Aligned With Departmental Goals legislative consideration. As summarized in Figure 9, we found that (1) the housing score Higher Points Given for Any Misconduct. As methodology is not sufficiently aligned with the previously indicated, one of the stated goals of goals of the department’s inmate classification CDCR’s inmate classification system is to uniformly system, (2) the accuracy of the housing score place inmates in the lowest security level consistent methodology could be limited, (3) the need for with the safety of staff, inmates, and the public. To some discretionary overrides of the housing score put it another way, CDCR’s goal is to ensure that is unclear, and (4) access to Level I housing and inmates are not placed in a higher housing security Minimum Custody designations may be overly level (more restrictive) than necessary. However, restricted. We discuss each of our findings in more the department’s housing score methodology is detail below. designed to assign higher points to inmates likely Figure 9 Review of Inmate Classification System—Summary of Major Findings 9 Housing score not sufficiently aligned with departmental goals. 9 Accuracy of housing score could be limited. 9 Need for some discretionary overrides of housing score is unclear. 9 Access to Level I and Minimum Custody may be overly restricted. 10 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT to engage in any misconduct—meaning both Impact of Modification Made to Scoring serious and nonserious misconduct. For example, Methodology Has Not Been Assessed. As the system allocates the same amount of points to discussed above, the underlying basis of the an inmate likely to engage in serious misconduct department’s current methodology for calculating (such as assault) as an inmate likely to engage in inmates’ housing scores when they first arrive minor misconduct (such as use of vulgar language) in prison was established in the early 2000s by and may not require additional security resources. researchers at UCLA. In 2008, in response to a Accordingly, CDCR may be assigning unnecessary lawsuit, CDCR removed mental illness from the security to inmates who are prone to engage in set of factors that increased inmates’ scores. The minor misconduct, but not in serious misconduct. department or external researchers, however, This approach is inconsistent with CDCR’s goals have not assessed the impact of this modification because it may result in inmates who do not on the accuracy of the score in predicting inmate represent a serious safety concern being placed in misconduct—making it unclear whether the scoring more restrictive settings than necessary. Moreover, methodology is more or less accurate. it also results in an inefficient use of limited security Several Changes Could Have Impacted resources. Accuracy of Methodology. The researchers who established CDCR’s current housing score Accuracy of Housing Score methodology in the early 2000s used data on Could Be Limited the conduct and characteristics of inmates from the late 1990s. Accordingly, the current system As discussed above, the accuracy of CDCR’s effectively assigns risk scores to current inmates housing score methodology has important based on how similar they are to inmates that implications for prison security, costs, and inmates’ engaged in misconduct in the 1990s. For example, experiences while incarcerated. If the system because the researchers found that inmates in incorrectly assesses certain inmates as having the late 1990’s who were first arrested at a young relatively high risks of misconduct, these inmates age were more likely to engage in misconduct, could be placed in more restrictive housing than the system assigns higher risk scores to current necessary. Such a placement potentially threatens inmates who share this characteristic. However, public safety as it could make inmates more prone any changes in the underlying relationships to crime. In contrast, if the system incorrectly between these characteristics and misconduct may assesses certain inmates as having relatively low have caused the accuracy of the assessment to risks of misconduct, these inmates could jeopardize deteriorate over time. For example, if inmates who public safety through escape or misconduct. were first arrested at a young age no longer engage In our review of CDCR’s housing score in misconduct at higher rates than other inmates, methodology, we identified several factors that call this would cause the accuracy of the assessment into question the accuracy of the methodology in to decrease. Experts who study risk assessments predicting misconduct. Specifically, we find that designed to predict outcomes for a certain (1) CDCR has modified the methodology without population generally recommend reassessing reassessing its accuracy, (2) several changes—such the accuracy of such tools whenever there are as to the demographics of the inmate population— significant changes in the population for which the could have caused its accuracy to deteriorate tool is used. over time, and (3) researchers have found some We find that several key changes could evidence suggesting that age is underweighted have caused the relationships between inmate in the methodology. Furthermore, we find that the characteristics and misconduct to change over methodology for recalculating inmates’ housing time. These include changes in the following areas: scores annually has never been evaluated in terms of accurately reflecting changes in inmates’ • Inmate Demographics. The demographics likelihood of committing misconduct. of the state’s inmate population have www.lao.ca.gov 11 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT changed significantly since the housing score law.) As shown in Figure 10, inmates are, methodology was developed using inmate on average, older and more likely to be data from the late 1990s. This is largely due serving a term for a crime against persons to changes in sentencing law such as the now than they were when the housing score 2011 realignment, which shifted responsibility methodology was developed. Accordingly, it for housing lower-level felons from the state to is possible that shifting demographics have the counties. (Please see the nearby box for changed the relationships between inmate an overview of recent changes in sentencing characteristics used to calculate the housing Figure 10 Inmate Demographics Have Changed Since 1999 Inmate Population by Type of Offense 1999 2017 Crimes Against Persons Drug Crimes Property Crimes Other Crimes Inmate Population by Age 1999 2017 18-29 30-39 40-49 50 and Older 12 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT score and actual inmate misconduct, likely example, the average inmate today may be reducing the accuracy of the tool. less likely to engage in misconduct due to • How Inmates Are Housed. Since 2000, reduced overcrowding but gang affiliated there have been two substantial changes in inmates may be more likely to engage in inmate housing conditions. First, the state has misconduct today due to the greater presence significantly reduced the level of overcrowding of gang leaders in general population in its prisons. As of January 31, 2000 state environments. prisons were at about 195 percent of their • Inmate Incentives. The incentives for inmates design capacity. However, by July 25, 2018, to avoid misconduct have increased. First, state prisons were populated at 136 percent CDCR has increased the number of inmates of their design capacity. Some research who are eligible to earn time off of their has found that this reduction in prison sentences for maintaining good behavior. For overcrowding significantly reduced the amount example, since 2017 CDCR began allowing of assaults and batteries committed by certain offenders to reduce their prison inmates in California. Second, in recent years, sentences by as much as a third through CDCR has shifted many prison gang leaders avoiding misconduct. Second, the number of from restricted housing—where they have inmates considered for release by the Board little communication with other inmates—to of Parole Hearings (BPH) before serving their general population environments as a result entire sentence has increased. For example, of a federal court order limiting the use of Proposition 57 (2016) made nonviolent restricted housing. It is plausible that these offenders eligible for parole consideration. changes may have altered the relationships Because BPH weighs avoiding misconduct between inmates’ characteristics and their favorably, inmates who are eligible for release tendencies to engage in misconduct. For Recent Policy Changes Impacting the Inmate Population In recent years, the Legislature and voters have enacted various constitutional and statutory changes that significantly impacted the composition of the state’s inmate population. Some of the major changes include: • 2011 Realignment. In 2011, the Legislature adopted legislation that limited who could be sent to state prison. Specifically, it required that certain lower-level offenders serve their incarceration terms in county jail. Additionally, the legislation required that counties, rather than the state, supervise certain lower-level offenders released from state prison. • Proposition 36 (2012). Proposition 36 reduced prison sentences for certain offenders subject to the state’s existing three-strikes law whose most recent offenses were nonserious, nonviolent felonies. It also allowed certain offenders serving life sentences to apply for reduced sentences. • Proposition 47 (2014). Proposition 47 reduced penalties for certain offenders convicted of nonserious and nonviolent property and drug crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. It also allowed certain offenders who had been previously convicted of such crimes to apply for reduced sentences. • Proposition 57 (2016). Proposition 57 expanded inmate eligibility for parole consideration, increased the state’s authority to reduce inmates’ sentences due to good behavior and/or the completion of rehabilitation programs, and mandated that judges determine whether youth be subject to adult sentences in criminal court. www.lao.ca.gov 13 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT by BPH have a strong incentive to avoid age than by using their housing score alone. misconduct. This suggests that, even though housing score • Access to Rehabilitation Programs. CDCR methodology is intended to include the effect of has significantly increased the number of age on the likelihood of misconduct, it does not rehabilitation programs offered and the give a strong enough weight to age relative to amount of time that inmates can earn off the other factors. Accordingly, the researchers of their sentences from completing such recommended that CDCR commission a study to programs. To the extent these programs are investigate whether a new housing score system effective in reducing misconduct, greater might perform better. However, such a study has participation in these programs may make not been done at this time. some inmates less likely to engage in Accuracy of Method for Annual Recalculation misconduct. of Housing Score Never Assessed. The UCLA • Data Quality. The quality of CDCR data on researchers that developed CDCR’s housing inmate characteristics and behavior has also score system in the early 2000s only assessed likely improved. This is because CDCR has the accuracy of the methodology they developed expanded and updated its data systems to calculate inmates’ initial housing scores at significantly over the last two decades, reception centers. They did not assess the allowing the department to capture more accuracy of CDCR’s methodology for adding or detailed and likely more accurate information subtracting points from inmates’ housing scores about inmate characteristics and conduct. annually thereafter. As such, it is unclear whether Moreover, the quality of data on inmate gang the factors that CDCR uses to move inmates’ involvement has likely improved since the late score up and down after their initial placement 1990s because CDCR did not use inmate accurately reflect changes in inmates’ risk of gang affiliation data for the purposes of misconduct. Moreover, even if the factors used inmate classification at that time. Accordingly, to adjust the score are appropriate, it is unclear if the researchers who developed the housing the amount that the score is adjusted is consistent score methodology have informed us that with inmates’ change in risk. This could mean inmates currently labeled as gang affiliated that CDCR is housing inmates in either overly or are probably more likely to be actually gang insufficiently restrictive settings as a result of the affiliated than inmates labeled as such in the annual recalculation. data they used to develop the methodology Need for Some Discretionary nearly two decades ago. Overrides of Housing Score Is Unclear Researchers Have Raised Concerns About As discussed above, there are several reasons Score Accuracy. As mentioned earlier in this why inmate classification staff can choose to place report, CDCR commissioned University of California inmates in a housing level that is inconsistent with researchers in 2010 to assess whether there their score. Three of these reasons—inmates’ are any natural “tipping points” that correspond age, time to serve, and behavior—are factors with clear increases in misconduct along the that are currently included in the housing score continuum of inmate housing scores. While this methodology. Thus, it is unclear what additional study was not an evaluation of the accuracy of benefit, if any, these overrides would provide if the housing score in assessing inmates’ risk of inmates’ scores already reflect the statistical impact misconduct, the researchers did inadvertently of their age, time to serve, and behavior on their uncover some evidence suggesting that inmate likelihoods of misconduct. Research suggests age appeared to be underweighted in the housing that risk assessments, such as the housing score, score methodology. Specifically, the researchers generally more accurately predict risk than humans found that they were able to better predict inmate can by applying their judgement. Accordingly, the misconduct using inmates’ housing scores and use of judgement to override a risk assessment 14 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT in these cases raises concerns that it may be Static-99 assessment that CDCR currently uses causing inmates to be assigned to either overly or to identify low-risk sex offenders. This suggests insufficiently restrictive housing. Moreover, to the that the department may not need to exclude all extent that staff overrides are necessary because sex registrants from Level I facilities and Minimum of the inaccuracy of the housing score, it could be Custody given that it can identify the subset of sex indicative that age, time to serve, or behavior are offenders who pose a minimal risk to public safety. not appropriately weighted in the housing score Accordingly, the current policy has the potential to methodology. Such inaccuracy could be due to the unnecessarily exclude some low-risk sex offenders factors discussed above that have likely caused the from Level I facilities (including conservation camps accuracy of the score to decline since it was first and MSFs) and Minimum Custody. developed. Unclear Why Inmates With Longer Time Left to Serve Are Excluded From Minimum Custody. Access to Level I and Minimum As previously indicated, inmates with more than Custody May Be Overly Restricted five years left to serve are currently excluded from Minimum A and B Custody designations. The CDCR’s policies for limiting inmates’ access to underlying rationale is that such inmates have a Level I housing and Minimum Custody designation greater incentive to escape to avoid serving the appear to be overly restrictive in a few ways. remainder of their sentences relative to those Specifically, it is unclear why low-risk sex offenders inmates within less than five years of release. Given are excluded from Level I housing and Minimum this policy, those inmates with more than five years Custody and why inmates with more than five to serve are therefore ineligible from being housed years left to serve or minor felony detainers are in conservation camps and MSFs. While it appears excluded from Minimum Custody. To the extent that reasonable to assume that inmates above a certain these policies cause certain inmates to be placed number of years left to serve have relatively more to in unnecessarily restrictive environments, they gain from escaping prison, it is unclear why or how unnecessarily create state costs and operational CDCR concluded that five years was an appropriate challenges. We discuss these concerns in further cutoff point. detail below. Unclear Why Inmates With Minor Felony Unclear Why Low-Risk Sex Offenders Are Detainers Are Excluded From Minimum Custody. Excluded From Level I and Minimum Custody. District attorneys, courts, and law enforcement Currently, CDCR excludes all inmates who have agencies may notify CDCR that an inmate is committed a registerable sex offense—including wanted by that agency for a felony and in some those who are not currently serving a term for cases request that the inmate be released into that offense—from Level I facilities and from the agency’s custody after completing his or her Minimum A and B Custody designations. This is prison term. This is referred to as a detainer. For based on the assumption that these particular example, after an inmate is committed to prison offenders pose a greater threat to public safety for a certain crime, a law enforcement agency if they were to escape when compared to other may discover evidence implicating that inmate in offenders. However, research suggests that the a separate crime that occurred before the inmate risk of sexual reoffending decreases markedly with was incarcerated. The agency could then issue a time that offenders remain sex offense free in the detainer to CDCR for that inmate. As discussed community. Specifically, some individuals who have earlier, inmates with outstanding felony detainers committed a sex offense in the past but are not are excluded from Minimum Custody, and therefore committing new sex offenses eventually become ineligible for placement in conservation camps and less likely to commit a sex offense than an offender MSFs. The rationale is that such inmates have an with no history of sexual offending. Moreover, incentive to escape from prison to avoid facing research shows that the risk of an offender felony charges. However, inmates facing minor sexually reoffending can be reliably predicted with felony charges have a relatively similar incentive widely accepted risk assessments, such as the www.lao.ca.gov 15 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT to escape compared to inmates with no felony of bed space in state prisons that could have charges. For example, an inmate with one year otherwise been freed up to the extent CDCR left to serve on his or her current sentence and an moved additional inmates to conservation camps. outstanding detainer for an offense that carries a This is because the state currently can only house two year prison term would have a similar incentive a limited number of inmates in state owned and to escape as an inmate with three years left to operated prisons—not including conservation serve but with no felony detainer. However, only the camps—due to a court-ordered cap on the number inmate with no felony detainer would be eligible for of inmates that can be housed in such facilities and Minimum Custody. Accordingly, the current policy utilizes contract beds to help meet this population has the potential to unnecessarily exclude some cap. (See the nearby text box for more information inmates with detainers from Minimum Custody. on the court-ordered prison population cap.) We State Prison Costs and Operational note that it currently costs about $18,000 more Challenges. The unnecessary exclusions of certain annually to house an inmate in a contract bed inmates from Level I facilities and Minimum Custody than in a state prison bed or a conservation camp. likely increase state prison costs in two ways. First, As of February 27, 2019 the state housed nearly because inmates assigned to Minimum Custody or 3,500 inmates in conservation camps, though housed in a conservation camp can earn credits camps have a total design capacity of nearly 4,700. at higher rates than they otherwise would, placing Accordingly, CDCRs overly expansive exclusions them in higher-level facilities results in them serving on camp eligibly—which have contributed to the longer sentences than otherwise. This, in turn, roughly 1,000 vacant camp beds—could be costing increases the inmate population and associated the state tens of millions of dollars annually in state costs. unnecessary expenditures on contract beds. Second, it results in the state spending more In addition to increasing state prison costs, these than necessary on contract beds due to a lack exclusions can exacerbate operational challenges Federal Court Ordered California to Limit Prison Population In November 2006, plaintiffs in two ongoing class action lawsuits—now called Plata v. Newsom (involving inmate medical care) and Coleman v. Newsom (involving inmate mental health care)—filed motions for the courts to convene a three-judge panel pursuant to the U.S. Prison Litigation Reform Act. On August 4, 2009, the three-judge panel declared that overcrowding in the state’s prison system was the primary reason that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) was unable to provide inmates with constitutionally adequate health care. Specifically, the court ruled that in order for CDCR to provide such care, overcrowding would have to be reduced to no more than 137.5 percent of the design capacity of the prison system. (Design capacity generally refers to the number of beds that CDCR would operate if it housed only one inmate per cell.) The court ruling applies to the number of inmates in prisons operated by CDCR, and does not preclude the state from holding additional offenders in other public facilities (such as conservation camps) or private facilities. To comply with the prison population cap, the state took a number of actions, including (1) housing inmates in contracted facilities, (2) constructing additional prison capacity, and (3) reducing the inmate population through several policy changes. For example, in 2011, the state shifted the responsibility for housing and supervising certain lower-level felons to counties. In addition, Proposition 57 (2016) led to a reduction in the prison population by expanding inmate eligibility for parole consideration and increasing the state’s authority to reduce inmates’ sentences due to good behavior and/or the completion of rehabilitation programs. 16 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT faced by CDCR. Specifically, CDCR currently has inmates. This is important because CDCR can challenges filling inmate jobs in MSFs due to a lack face challenges in placing inmates in facilities that of inmates who qualify for both Level I and Minimum simultaneously meet their rehabilitative, medical, Custody placements. Allowing more inmates to mental health, and security needs. receive these placements, and thus qualify to live State Firefighting Costs and Operational in an MSF, would likely help CDCR to fill these Challenges. Finally, by contributing to the roughly inmate jobs. This in turn, could help support prison 1,000 vacant conservation camp beds, these operations, such as grounds keeping or facility fire exclusions reduce the number of inmates who protection, and help support facilities that need would otherwise be available to support state additional inmate workers due to lockdowns. wildfire fighting and prevention efforts. When Moreover, by excluding low-risk sex insufficient inmate hand crews are available, offenders from all Level I facilities, these policies the state must use other hand crews—such as unnecessarily increase the number of inmates those formed by employees of federal agencies who must be housed in Level II facilities. However, or private companies—which can increase currently, Level I facilities are populated at less than costs. Furthermore, to the extent CDCR could 100 percent of their design capacity, while Level II increase the population of conservation camps, facilities are populated at over 100 percent of their the California Department of Forestry and Fire design capacity. To the extent that CDCR could Protection could accomplish more fire prevention increase the population of Level I facilities, it could work—such as fuel reduction—when inmates are potentially create more flexibility for housing Level II not actively engaged in fighting fires. LAO RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our assessment of CDCR’s policies security resources and/or (2) using a methodology and practices for assigning inmates to varying that gives weight to different types of misconduct levels of housing security and supervision by staff, based on severity. We also recommend that the we recommend the Legislature take certain steps new scoring methodology be periodically assessed to improve the inmate classification process. to ensure it remains effective in accurately Specifically, we recommend that the Legislature predicting inmate misconduct. (1) direct CDCR to contract with independent By developing a new methodology, CDCR and researchers to develop a new methodology for the researchers will be able to (1) consider what assigning inmates to housing levels and (2) consider forms of misconduct require additional security various options to expand access to Level I facilities resources; (2) utilize recent data, which is likely and Minimum Custody. We discuss each of these more accurate, detailed, and reflective of current recommendations in greater detail below. realities than past data; and (3) potentially eliminate the need for some manual overrides of the score. Develop New Housing Score Together, these factors would likely allow CDCR Methodology to more accurately predict inmate misconduct and improve its ability to assign inmates to appropriate We recommend that the Legislature direct levels of security. This in turn, could help CDCR CDCR to contract with independent researchers to reduce prison violence and other misconduct while develop a new methodology for assigning inmates minimizing placement of inmates in unnecessarily to a housing level when they arrive at a reception restrictive environments that can make them more center and annually thereafter. In our view, the prone to crime in the long run. In addition, a more researchers should develop the methodology by accurate methodology could eliminate the need (1) using recent data and outcome variables that to override housing score based on age, behavior, capture only misconduct that justifies additional and sentence length using human judgement. www.lao.ca.gov 17 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT We estimate that the cost of developing a new as having not committed a violent offense for at methodology would not likely exceed $1 million and least seven years—staff have the discretion to could take a couple years. Until a new methodology remove the override. Similarly, CDCR also conducts is implemented statewide, we think it makes sense case-by-case reviews for inmates with life terms, for CDCR to continue using its existing system for and gang member status who are seeking entrance assigning inmates to a housing level. to Level I facilities or Minimum Custody status. In addition, we recommend that the Legislature direct Consider Options to Expand Access the department to report on the number of inmates to Level I and Minimum Custody that would likely be affected if a review process were implemented for low-risk sex offenders. As discussed above, access to Level I and Reducing Time-to-Serve Restrictions for Minimum A and B Custody designations may Minimum Custody. We recommend that the be overly restricted for certain inmates (such Legislature consider directing CDCR to allow as inmates who have committed a sex offense inmates with more than five years left to serve (up but nevertheless have a low risk of recidivism). to some new, higher cut-off point) to gain Minimum Accordingly, there are likely certain low-risk Custody status. To help the Legislature determine inmates that could be placed in Level I housing or whether to make such a change, it may want on Minimum Custody without jeopardizing safety. to direct CDCR to contract with researchers to Depending on the number of such inmates, this conduct a randomized trial to assess whether the change could reduce state costs—potentially in time-to-serve cut off for placement on Minimum the tens of millions of dollars annually. Placing Custody status could be increased without causing additional inmates in Level I and Minimum Custody an increase in escapes. could also mitigate existing operational challenges, such as a shortage of inmate labor in conservation Allowing Inmates With Minor Felony Detainers camps and MSFs. Below, we discuss three options Into Minimum Custody. We recommend that that the Legislature could consider for expanding the Legislature consider directing CDCR to allow access to Level I and Minimum Custody based on inmates with minor felony detainers into Minimum additional information from CDCR. Custody. To help the Legislature determine whether to make this change, we suggest directing CDCR to Allowing Low-Risk Sex Offenders Into report on how it would identify inmates with minor Level I and Minimum Custody. We recommend felony detainers who would have a relatively low risk that the Legislature consider directing CDCR to of escaping compared to inmates with more time allow low-risk sex offenders into Level I facilities at stake. For example, CDCR allows inmates with and Minimum Custody. To help the Legislature U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement holds determine whether such a change should be made, on Minimum Custody if they meet certain criteria we recommend it direct CDCR to report on how (such as if he or she has family ties in California). it would identify sex offenders who are of low risk Similarly, CDCR could create a set of criteria for to escape and re-offend for placement into Level I allowing certain inmates with felony detainers on facilities and Minimum Custody. For example, Minimum Custody. These new criteria could be CDCR could establish a set of criteria that include linked to time-to-serve criteria already in place or the inmate’s assessed risk of sexual re-offense but any changes made to the time-to-serve criteria also other factors, such as whether the inmate has (discussed above). For example, if CDCR allows participated in a sex offender treatment program inmates with six years left to serve into Minimum and the amount of time elapsed since the inmate’s Custody, it could also admit any otherwise eligible last offense. We note that in 2017 CDCR made inmate whose current sentence in addition to a similar change for inmates with histories of potential sentence tied to a felony detainer is six violence. Specifically, the department narrowed years or less. The department should also report on the circumstances that require a mandatory the number of inmates that would likely be affected override for an inmate’s history of violence. For if the new process was implemented. example, if inmates meet certain criteria—such 18 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT CONCLUSION CDCR’s inmate classification system is a key which suggest that inmate housing placements may tool for assigning inmates to appropriate amounts be based on inaccurate assessments of inmates’ of housing security and staff supervision. The risks of misconduct and that the system may be performance of the system has implications assigning too much security and supervision in for the safety of staff, inmates, and the public; certain cases. Accordingly, we recommend the prison operations and cost; the size of the inmate Legislature take various steps to improve CDCR’s population; and inmates’ daily experiences in inmate classification system to ensure that prison, including their access to rehabilitation maximum benefit is achieved from the allocation of opportunities. We identified several concerns, scarce security resources. www.lao.ca.gov 19 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT 20 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT www.lao.ca.gov 21 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT LAO PUBLICATIONS This report was prepared by Caitlin O’Neil and reviewed by Drew Soderborg. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office that provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report 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. 22 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE