The Yolo County Grand Jury investigated how the “Yolo County Probation Department (YCPD) measures the effectiveness of its evidence-based tools for evaluating the risk that probationers may violate the terms of their probation or commit new offenses.”
The investigation was reportedly prompted by Probation Department statistics that demonstrate “a reduction in the number of adult offenders returned to state prison for probation violations and a substantial reduction in the population in the county’s Juvenile Detention Facility.”
The Grand Jury made the determination that the County has received millions of dollars “in incentive money to effect policy changes that sharply reduced the number of adult probationers sent back to prison. The county has also followed a statewide trend that encourages juvenile detainees to be kept with their families rather than confining them in the Juvenile Detention Facility or placing them in group homes.”
These changes require a local validation of the impact of the risk assessment tools, which use such factors as severity of past crimes, age, and history of drug or alcohol abuse to determine the level of supervision required to ensure public safety.
The Grand Jury found that “there are severe limitations in the Department’s data systems that make it difficult to assess whether these tools are minimizing the risks of probationers’ committing new crimes and compromising public safety.”
However, the Grand Jury notes, “The Department is aware of these difficulties and is working to improve its tracking systems, but the investment needed to make its various databases and case files mesh has not been a high priority.”
The Grand Jury notes that less than one-third of 3000 adult probationers in Yolo County are actively supervised, with others receiving minimal reporting requirements. These decisions are based on “evidence-based tools” that “attempt to measure the possibility that a probationer will reoffend.”
The Grand Jury notes, “These tools have become crucial, because of changes in state laws that provide cash incentives to the County for reducing the number of probationers returned to state prison.”
Changes in the laws have changed the way probation is handled. As the Grand Jury notes, “The new laws also send state prisoners, convicted of non-sexual, non-violent and non-serious offenses, to the County for incarceration and parole supervision. The increase in probationers in Yolo County that might be expected from these changes has been managed by shifting responsibility for hundreds of probationers to their home counties, so the overall number has stayed about the same.”
The Grand Jury finds that, while prison rates have declined, the impact “on public safety is yet to be determined,” and they present some data that indicates that “crimes rates in Yolo County are rising after years of decline.”
However, the data they present is somewhat questionable. For instance, they cite Yolo County Sheriff’s Department reports that show an increase of 27 percent in major crimes reported in its jurisdiction from 2009 to 2011.
SB 678 went into effect in 2010, and “promised cash incentives to counties throughout the state for reducing the number of offenders sent back to overcrowded state prisons for new crimes and probation violations. In its first two years, the incentive program brought almost $3 million in revenue to Yolo County.”
However, the biggest factor, AB 109, was not in effect until 2011, meaning those statistics are too early to show an impact.
Other data shows only a one-year trend.
“Yolo County cities have reported a general decline in crimes over the same period,” the report states. “However, this may be changing. Woodland reported a 28 percent increase in major crimes in 2012 compared to 2011; West Sacramento reported an increase of 8 percent. Only Davis, among Yolo County’s three largest cities, showed no increase at all in 2012 – after a drop of 37 percent since 2008.”
They do note, “Whether these increases are the result of the new state laws or other factors, or are simply a temporary spike, is unknown.”
Any researcher would wait before trying to make any assessment. There are other factors at play, as well, aside from changes in the state law – the continuing economic downturn and dwindling law enforcement resources, not just in Yolo County but in surrounding areas may have an impact, as well.
Regardless of the impact on the crime rate, the Grand Jury report hits on a critical point, that the probation department agrees with, that “it needs to improve its tracking systems for measuring how effective it has been in assessing probationers released to the community in alternative probation supervision programs.”
The Department is unable, the Grand Jury notes by way of example, “to compare its risk assessments with the overall long-term behavior of probationers placed in these programs.”
The Grand Jury was told that the information stored in its systems does not allow this “local validation” of its risk assessments.
They write, “The Department’s databases do not mesh. An improved tracking system would allow the Department to determine the overall usefulness of the tools in predicting probation violations and likelihood of new offenses.”
The Grand Jury also learned that “the Department is working with local law enforcement through the executive committee of the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP), which is mandated by AB 109 to come up with improved ways to measure and reduce recidivism.”
“These issues have a direct effect on public safety,” they write. “The CCP page on the Department’s website is difficult to find. As of the end of March, the page provided minimal agendas, but no backup materials or minutes of previous meetings. The CCP site is not highlighted as a ‘Hot Topic’ on the main County website.”
The report also notes that there is a dramatic reduction of youths held at the Yolo County Youth Detention Facility.
In 2007, there were as many as 45 local juveniles in the facility, department officials told the Grand Jury. In November 2012, the average daily number of local young detainees in the facility dropped to just seven.
“The sharp reduction in Yolo County juveniles in the facility is the result of probation department policies that promote keeping juveniles with their families while under department supervision,” the Grand Jury reports. “In implementing this policy, probation officers were required to get approval from their supervisors before sending those who violated the terms of their release to the JDF. The local population dropped so much that the County has studied the possibility of shutting down the facility and contracting with a neighboring county for the small number of youths remaining. Probation officials told the Grand Jury that contractual obligations and a state statute preclude closing the facility.”
They add, “The impact of a larger number of juveniles released into the community in home-based supervision programs has not been measured.”
The Grand Jury makes the following four recommendations:
- R1. The YCPD should continue to coordinate its cooperation with local law enforcement agencies to assess its policies in supervising probationers and in establishing standards for sending those who violate the terms of their release back to prison or jail.
- R2. The effectiveness of risk assessment in assigning probationers to programs and aiding their successful reentry into the community should be validated. The YCPD should develop a proposal by December 31, 2013 to fund an outside consultant specifically for this purpose.
- R3. The YCPD needs to invest increased funding to upgrade its computerized systems to provide “local validation” of its risk and need assessment tools. As part of this effort, it must provide the public with statistics updated quarterly showing the impacts of AB 109 and SB 678, including county-wide crime statistics.
- R4. The YCPD’s Community Corrections Partnership website should be regularly updated to include agendas, meeting minutes and backup materials so that interested public can gain an understanding of the issues facing the probation department and law enforcement community.
These are critical questions, as the state and county have made massive changes in the last few years and we need the ability to assess their effectiveness.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
