The story of realignment figures to be a complex story. From the start we believed that, without changes to both charging and sentencing policies, sustainable declines in prison population may be impossible to achieve. The data that is now emerging may bear that out.
In a report from the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, written by Senior Research Fellow Mike Males in mid-August, the latest data analysis shows “that during the first 9 months of realignment there has been a 39% overall reduction in new prison admissions as of June 30, 2012, and a drop of 26,480 in the prison population as of August 8, 2012, compared to October 1, 2011.”
AB 109 was designed to take those “non-serious, non-violent, non-sex offenders” who were being sent to state prison for incarceration and re-direct them to the supervision of local jurisdictions where it was believed custodial arrangements would be less costly and where they would have greater access to programs and treatment that could lead to the reduction of recidivism.
Writes Mr. Males, “The initially steep reductions in prisoners may be almost over, and further cuts may prove harder to achieve. The second quarter of 2012 actually brought an increase in new admissions.”
Drilling down into the numbers, Mr. Males argues, “The biggest increase in admissions, by far, was in new felon admissions for non-marijuana drug offenses, which rose by 22%, while property offender numbers rose by 6% and violent offender numbers remained the same.”
This is a critical figure because it suggests that violent crime is not driving the increase, but rather the very types of offenses that AB 109 was intended to change drive the increase.
The numbers for Yolo County, one of 33 counties with more than 500 inmates in state prison as of December 31, 2011, bear out this trend.
The number of new felony admissions is still down overall. Initially it fell from 93 in the third quarter of 2011 to 51 by the first quarter of 2012. But in the second quarter of 2012 the number for Yolo County increased from 51 to 74 – still down from 2011 but a nearly 50% increase from the first quarter.
Reports Mr. Males: “The increase in new imprisonments was concentrated in 33 counties that sent 628 more offenders to state prison in the second quarter of 2012 than in the first quarter and mainly affected drug offenders, not violent ones. Meanwhile, 21 counties continued reducing their new prison commitments substantially, by 317, in April-June 2012.”
Mr. Males then speculates on the cause of the unexpected new numbers. He throws out two possibilities that he ultimately dismissed.
First, “Perhaps realignment has already transferred the majority of non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders to retain at local levels. The reduction of 26,480 in state prison populations in the first 10 months of realignment, including a 39% decline in new commitments, has been much more rapid than predicted. Further reductions in prison populations may be difficult to achieve.”
Second, perhaps this simply reflects an increase in serious crime which generates more felons eligible for state prison.
The second possibility is not borne out at all by the data. The first possibility is negated by the fact that in 21 counties including some of the big ones (Orange, Riverside, Alameda, San Francisco, Merced, Fresno, Solano, Napa, Madera) the population has continued to decline.
He writes, “If the state had exhausted the transfer of non-non-non felons or counties were experiencing increases in crimes meriting state imprisonment, one would expect these trends to be occurring across the state.”
The conclusion he comes to is troubling – that “prosecutors in certain jurisdictions could be exploring ways to avoid realignment mandates by charging more defendants with those offenses still eligible for state imprisonment.”
He cites anecdotal evidence to support this theory. He writes, “For example in November 2011, Los Angeles District Attorney, Steve Cooley, announced he was teaching his staff ‘to “scour” criminal records to make sure they note any prior offenses when they file new charges, and to make sure that new charges include offenses categorized as serious, violent or sexual when possible’ (Lagos, 2011).”
And, indeed, the data may bear that out, as he notes, “Whether as a result of deliberate policy or for other reasons, Los Angeles’s prison commitments rose by 135 from the first to the second quarter of 2012, reversing the county’s previous decline.”
Could the same thing be happening in Yolo County? It is something that is worth looking into.
Previous analysis from before realignment showed Yolo County with a disproportionately high rate of incarceration.
Among those 30 counties with the highest overall population, Yolo county last year ranked 20th in crime rate but 4th in prison rate.
Yolo County sent a higher percentage of people to prison than Fresno (9), San Joaquin (10), Solano (13), Sacramento (15), Los Angeles (16), San Diego (17), and Alameda (24).
While the perception that Yolo County charges offenses more stringently than other counties is, of course, difficult to analyze directly, these data show that Yolo County sends more people to prison with respect to population than other counties.
Furthermore, the fact that Yolo County has a lower crime rate demonstrates that more people are not being sent to prison due to there being more crime.
Nor are Yolo County residents committing more violent crimes than their surrounding counties. Yolo County ranked 24th out of 30 counties with more than 100,000 people in the 18 to 64 age bracket in violent crime.
We also have anecdotal evidence of Yolo’s charging policies both from Public Defender Tracie Olson, who noted last year that while the crime rate had remained stable, the number of trials had increased, and from a Deputy DA who noted that charging policies in Yolo County were, in fact, different from across the causeway.
The first part of this year, the number of trials seemed to be way down, but that too appears to be changing, at least anecdotally.
As we await more data, our concern is that, without changes to charging policies and sentencing laws, realignment is doomed to failure.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Just a question for clarification David: are “non-marijuana drug offenses” always considered “serious”? I ask because according to Males, the largest proportion of new prison admissions is in this group. Also can you provide a link to the Males report? Thanks.
Good questions.
Marijuana is unique because possession is punishable as an infraction whereas other drop possession like meth remains a felony.
I don’t have a direct link, but you can probably find it here: [url]www.cjcj.org[/url]
“The conclusion he comes to is troubling – that “prosecutors in certain jurisdictions could be exploring ways to avoid realignment mandates by charging more defendants with those offenses still eligible for state imprisonment.”
“…who noted last year that while the crime rate had remained stable, the number of trials had increased, and from a Deputy DA who noted that charging policies in Yolo County were, in fact, different from across the causeway.”
These two sentences speak volumes. We need a DA that plays by the rules, not one that finds loopholes.
[quote]These two sentences speak volumes. We need a DA that plays by the rules, not one that finds loopholes.[/quote]
Are you assuming that we do not have a DA that plays by the rules? If you are what are you using to come to your assumption?
“Are you assuming that we do not have a DA that plays by the rules?”
Assuming means a presumption without evidence, whereas I suspect in this case, he/ she speaks from experience.
[quote]The conclusion he comes to is troubling – that “prosecutors in certain jurisdictions could be exploring ways to avoid realignment mandates by charging more defendants with those offenses still eligible for state imprisonment.”
He cites anecdotal evidence to support this theory. He writes, “For example in November 2011, Los Angeles District Attorney, Steve Cooley, announced he was teaching his staff ‘to “scour” criminal records to make sure they note any prior offenses when they file new charges, and to make sure that new charges include offenses categorized as serious, violent or sexual when possible’ (Lagos, 2011).”…
Could the same thing be happening in Yolo County? It is something that is worth looking into…
We also have anecdotal evidence of Yolo’s charging policies both from Public Defender Tracie Olson, who noted last year that while the crime rate had remained stable, the number of trials had increased, and from a Deputy DA who noted that charging policies in Yolo County were, in fact, different from across the causeway.[/quote]
Lots of speculation w an anti-DA bias…
“Lots of speculation w an anti-DA bias…”
So what’s new? Speculation, Assumption, Presumption, Suspicion
“‘For example in November 2011, Los Angeles District Attorney, Steve Cooley, announced he was teaching his staff “to ‘scour’ criminal records to make sure they note any prior offenses when they file new charges, and to make sure that new charges include offenses categorized as serious, violent or sexual when possible’
“Could the same thing be happening in Yolo County? It is something that is worth looking into… “
I certainly would hope that our investigators are being adequately trained to do their due dilligence in researching defendants’ prior criminal convictions! Don’t our laws call for charging repeat, habitual offenders whose crimes are classified as serious or violent or sexual?
Please do look into this and assure us that Yolo County investigors and prosecutors are getting proper training. This also should help satisfy ERM and R49 about the Vanguard just slinging innuendo (in this case, that the DA is failing in basic training responsibilities). Thank you.
“Previous analysis from before realignment showed Yolo County with a disproportionately high rate of incarceration. Among those 30 counties with the highest overall population, Yolo county last year ranked 20th in crime rate but 4th in prison rate. Yolo County sent a higher percentage of people to prison than Fresno (9), San Joaquin (10), Solano (13), Sacramento (15), Los Angeles (16), San Diego (17), and Alameda (24).
While the perception that Yolo County charges offenses more stringently than other counties is, of course, difficult to analyze directly, these data show that Yolo County sends more people to prison with respect to population than other counties.
Furthermore, the fact that Yolo County has a lower crime rate demonstrates that more people are not being sent to prison due to there being more crime.”
I certainly support your statement that it’s “difficult to analyze directly (this) perception.”
As I remember the earlier discussion about this perception, it still was an open question about whether the DA was involved in some malfeasance or that his practices of prosecution had a positive, causal effect on crime statistics. (More criminals are in prison, keeping them from commiting crimes here, and many bent on crime have switched to Sacramento because the word is out that authorities there are easier on criminals.)
Don’t you think it’s time to stop using one prosecutor’s retort to a defense attorney in one long-ago trial as evidence of anything, anecdotal or otherwise? In addition, do we really want to have our standards for prosecuting drug dealers and gangs determined by what’s happening “across the river”?
Sacramento and Stockton haven’t established the perception that they’ve solved these problems, only that they go easier on those who get caught.
Are there some unreported data showing that the two communities cited in the attorneys’ arguments have lower drug sales and gang related crime rates than our law enforcement and district attorney’s office have accomplished in Yolo County?
Here is the link to the Maley report: url]http://www.cjcj.org/files/Realignment_update_Aug_15_2012.pdf[/url]
For those who are consistently critical of the Vanguard’s criticism of the Yolo DA, what are your opinions about why our incarceration rate is so high compared to counties with similar demographics and with a low rate of crime?
“For those who are consistently critical of the Vanguard’s criticism of the Yolo DA, what are your opinions about why our incarceration rate is so high compared to counties with similar demographics and with a low rate of crime?”
I can only speculate and might assume that the Yolo DA’s office is better at their jobs than other jurisdictions. 🙂
For those who are consistently critical of the Yolo DA’s incarceration rate, why do you think this is a bad thing? (I notice that those who are consistently critical of the Yolo DA sometimes don’t seem to take this additional analytical step.)
Rusty and just Saying: I guess it was too much to expect gain saying or snarky comments.
Rusty: why do you make that assumption? Do you have any evidence that our DA is doing ” a better” job than others?
I’m truly curious..
Should have been “more than” gain saying or snarky comments.
Rdcannig
I think you’re being a wee bit sensitive. You asked me if I have any proof that our DA’s are doing a good job and I stated that the high incarceration rate could be a good barometer that they’re doing their jobs. Conversely, do you have any proof that they’re doing a bad job?
That’s a tautology: The incarceration rate is high, therefore they’re doing a good job. Their doing a good job therefore the incarceration rate is high.
I asked why we have an incarceration rate that is consistently higher than similar counties and why with a low crime rate we incarcerate higher numbers of individuals.
Thanks to rd canning for linking to the article in question. I think we need to continue to follow where realignment is going and this article is part of that process. However, it is still very early to be drawing conclusions about trends and even the Yolo data that David presented from the article are not disaggregated by type of crime. In any case, I hope the Vanguard will help all of us keep our attention focused on the effects of AB 109 as they become available.
Of more importance (to me) is what is happening to recidivism rates? Obviously it is far too early to say anything about this. However, we should keep in mind that the money that the State is providing Counties is designed to help them implement “evidence-based programs” that have been shown here and elsewhere to reduce recidivism. I look forward to a future Vanguard article that analyzes in detail how Yolo County is doing on this score.
Finally, I remain intrigued that drug possession offenses (non-marijuana) are contributing to increases in imprisonment in the last quarter. No matter what administration is in place in our state or nationally the “war on drugs” (much like the GWOT) goes on and on with little critical reflection about achievements. It has become its own institution come what may.
[quote]You asked me if I have any proof that our DA’s are doing a good job and I stated that the high incarceration rate could be a good barometer that they’re doing their jobs. Conversely, do you have any proof that they’re doing a bad job? [/quote]
The high incarceration rate in Yolo County could also be a result of less than adequate defense attorneys who work in Yolo County. We know the Vanguard would not go after the defense attorneys that were doing a poor job but it is a possibility.
So Rusty says that our high incarceration rate (often attributed to an aggressive, tough-on-crime DA, is responsible for our County’s low crime rate.
Does he have any evidence over time to show that as the incarceration rate in the county went up, the crime rate went down?
Evidence on using statewide data from across the U.S. suggests that incarceration can only account for some of the drop in crime nationally in the last couple decades. The economist Steven Levitt estimated in the 1990’s that one criminal release accounted for an increase of 15 crimes. He later tempered this by suggesting that incarceration only works so far and that high incarceration rates are partly due to low-level crimes such as property crimes rather than violent crimes agains persons.
Other scholars have suggested that only 25% of the crime rate decline in the 1990’s is due to incarceration (see Spelman, 2000) while the rest of the drop may be due to policing strategies, a growing economy, and changes in the illicit drug market.
Further evidence that crime rate and incarceration rate are not perfectly linked comes from analysis of data from states with high incarceration rates vs. low rates of incarceration. States with low incarceration rates in the 1990’s experiences a larger decline in crime rate than those with higher rates. (See the Sentencing Project report at: [url]http://www.cjcj.org/files/Realignment_update_Aug_15_2012.pdf[/url]
I don’t have data for Yolo County, but it would be interesting to see how crime rates have varied over time and compared to our incarceration rate.
Simply saying that the low crime rate and high incarceration rate is due to the DA, misses the point. What’s he doing to lower the crime rate? Is he getting more criminals to plead guilty? Are his booking and charging tactics having an effect on the street?
“We know the Vanguard would not go after the defense attorneys that were doing a poor job but it is a possibility.”
I have at times, but I don’t see it as a pervasive problem. In fact, the attorneys that I have seen do a less than adequate job have been expensive out of towners.
Robert: I would point you to Tracie Olson’s comment that the number of trials went up without a change in crime rate. Her believe was it had to do with charging policies and prosecution making less than acceptable offers.
rdcanning, my response was snarky, but your question using the same language wasn’t? [quote]I’d already provided my possible accounting: “…an open question about whether the DA was involved in some malfeasance or that his practices of prosecution had a positive, causal effect on crime statistics. (More criminals are in prison, keeping them from commiting crimes here, and many bent on crime have switched to Sacramento because the word is out that authorities there are easier on criminals.)” [/quote]And, I’m truly curious why you and David think we should assume that our “so high” incarceration is bad.
Of course, given the mishmash of acknowledged “anecdotal evidence” and short-term statistics, everyone here is speculating about what’s happening and what it means.
JustSaying: I’m not sure why you include the quote you do – that’s not from me. di you mean to attribute it to me? Also, why do you assume that David and I think alike about these things.
High incarcerations are “bad” because 1) they cost you and me lots of money that doesn’t get used elsewhere; 2) high incarceration rated (in California at least) have led to overcrowding in the prisons which have cost the taxpayers millions and millions of $$ in litigation costs; and 3) on a state-level they don’t seem to correlate very highly with crime rate. Incarceration doesn’t mean that people who commit crimes stay in prison that long – they all get out and come back to the community. AB109’s intent was to stimulate program to deal with the criminologic problems where they exist – in the communities – and via practices that have been shown to cut-down on recidivism.
I am curious why you think that high incarceration rates are good.
I’m puzzled by this discussion. There is a huge gap between crime rates and incarceration rates, in which numerous players and innumerable factors are involved.
It would be interesting to see the facts for Yolo, which should be available somewhere:
Are there on average a higher percentage of arrests per crime committed?
Are a greater percentage of suspects brought to trial?
Are a greater percentage of such suspects convicted?
Are there more repeat offenders?
Do the sentences tend to be more severe for the same crimes?
etc. etc. etc.
Until we know all of the intermediate statistics, all we can do is speculate.
I would speculate that perhaps we should congratulate the police and the courts for successfully identifying, arresting, gathering clear evidence, and prosecuting criminals, such that Yolo has a relatively low crime rate, i.e. most of the serious criminals are behind bars.
[quote]”JustSaying: I’m not sure why you include the quote you do – that’s not from me. di you mean to attribute it to me? Also, why do you assume that David and I think alike about these things.”[/quote]I was quoting myself, not you, on the assumption that you classified me as one of those “consistently critical of the Vanguard’s criticism of the Yolo DA” but had not read my immediately preceding comment that answered your question about why Yolo’s incarceration rates might be higher than others.
My question about you and David wasn’t claiming that you “think alike about these things,” only asking “why you and David think we should assume that Yolo County’s ‘so high’ incarceration is bad.”
I don’t think that “high incarceration rates are good.” I agree with your observations about why California’s high rates are bad, but would suggest the county situation still is an open question. And, I forgot to thank you for posting the link; wish we got them as a matter of routine.
[quote]Until we know all of the intermediate statistics, all we can do is speculate. [/quote]
If you are going to be a regular reader on the DA Watch side of this site you have to be ready for a steady dose of speculation.
[quote]…and via practices that have been shown to cut-down on recidivism. [/quote]
Can you give some examples of practices that have been shown to cut down on recidivism?
[quote]If you are going to be a regular reader on the DA Watch side of this site you have to be ready for a steady dose of speculation.[/quote]
Spot on!
ERM:
1) Mandated substance abuse treatment
2) Programs targeted at changing criminogenic thinking – particularly cognitive-behavioral classes and other interventions
3) Active programs that assist offenders find a job and/or housing (these are often part of mental health and drug courts)
4) Programs that directly tie sanctions to behavior – so for instance, loss of privileges in a program may be tied to missing sessions. (Sanctions like ankle bracelets, regular drug testing, etc. are not behavior change tactics but rather monitoring tactics.)
5) Family unification programs (this is more speculative)
Here are some references to practical plans:
[url]http://www.urban.org/projects/tjc/Toolkit/module5/section2_1.html[/url]
[url]http://static.nicic.gov/Library/017624.pdf[/url]
ERM: Most of these are contained in a model called RNR – Risk, Needs, Responsivity. It was first put forth by Andrews and Bonta and if you google them you will get a host of references and “stuff”.
Regarding the disconnect between crime rates and incarceration rates, New York state has decreased its number of prison beds since 1990 and at the same time the crime rate has dropped well over 50%. The work of criminologist Frank Zimmring from Cal suggests that there are a number of factors that contribute to this decline – the number of police on the streets. The drop in crime rate has proceeded unimpeded in the last 20 years without major changes in drug policies or mass incarceration.