Maximizing Existing Facilities
		Nearly all prison inmates end up back in their communities -- most of them within a couple of years and most of them no more prepared to live responsible lives than the day they were arrested.
		Experts estimate that addict-offenders each commit 40 to 60 robberies a year, 70 to 100 burglaries and more than 4,000 drug transactions.
		National evaluations of drug treatment programs like those at the State's Donovan and Corcoran facilities show that high-risk offenders who complete the program and the community-based residential "aftercare" have a 25 percent lower recidivism rate than control groups.

Local Alternatives

Finding 2: Intermediate sanctions are not being adequately considered for nonviolent drug and property offenders.

Fifteen years ago, six out of every ten inmates in the State's 12 prisons were sent there for committing violent crimes. Fewer than six out of 100 inmates were sent to prison for drug crimes.⁽⁵¹⁾ By 1997, the majority of inmates in California's 33 prisons were serving time for nonviolent crimes. And one in four inmates were serving time for drug-related crimes.⁽⁵²⁾ These trends reflect the nationwide criminal crackdown on drug abuse, the increased emphasis on incarceration as the punishment of choice for a broader range of crimes, and in particular the use of prison to incapacitate repeat offenders.

Many of those prisoners were sentenced for crimes that a generation ago were within the purview of local correctional programs. Those programs over time lost their funding and ultimately the public's confidence. As a result, in many of these cases, prison -- the State's most expensive punishment option -- has become the default sanction.

But on a felon-by-felon basis incarceration is a temporary solution. Nearly all prison inmates end up back in their communities -- most of them within a couple of years and most of them no more prepared to live responsible lives than the day they were arrested.

As inmates stretch the capacity of prisons, and as more sophisticated research documents show some of these criminals can be more cost effectively sanctioned and reformed locally, the interest in community-based alternatives to traditional prisons are being given renewed consideration.

Probation or Prison

A s described in the Background and in Finding 1, the three primary methods of criminal sanctions in California are probation, county jail or state prison. All three programs are responsible for far more sentenced criminals than they can accommodate effectively and safely. And over the last 15 years, the function of prisons has been expanded to take on more of the convicted felons who previously would have received probation, jail or a combination of the two.

Over the last 15 years, the population of the State's prisons has grown faster than jail populations and probation caseloads. As the chart shows, while the numbers of inmates incarcerated for violent crimes has increased, the numbers of inmates convicted of nonviolent crimes, and drug crimes in particular, has increased even faster.⁽⁵³⁾ State prisons in 1996 held nearly 7,000 inmates who were convicted of petty theft with a prior. Another 3,000 were serving prison time for receiving stolen property and 1,500 were serving time for forgery. More than 14,000 inmates were convicted for drug possession.⁽⁵⁴⁾ Most criminals, however, are sanctioned by local correctional programs. Of those arrested for felonies and ultimately convicted of felonies or misdemeanors, eight in 10 are sentenced to jail, probation or both.⁽⁵⁵⁾

In some ways, the county programs are even more overburdened than state prisons. Shrinking budgets have made it difficult to expand and operate larger jails dictated by growing communities and changes in state crime policies. The non-jail correctional programs, principally probation, are often second in line for funds, and have struggled even harder to maintain their effectiveness. The overcrowding and under- funding of local correctional programs is cited by professionals as one reason why more low-level criminals are being sent to state prison.

But prison is most often a temporary solution: Half of those inmates sent to prison are released back into the community within two years. And since California's prisons are not effective at reducing recidivism, most of those who come back will be convicted of another crime within another two years.

County Options

A 1996 study by the California Research Bureau found probation to be the most commonly used sentencing option in California -- and often used with reluctance.

Probation is intended to provide supervision for convicted offenders either in lieu of incarceration or following release from jail, and to direct offenders to services to help them become rehabilitated. Because of fiscal pressures, however, most offenders are not supervised at all. Many counties now divide probationers into "regular" and "banked" probation caseloads, with banked probationers -- those judged to be low risk -- required to have almost no contact with authorities.

The California Probation Officers Association recommends a caseload ratio of 25 to 50 offenders for each probation officer. But in "banked" cases the average caseload ratio is 629 probationers for every officer. In one county, the ratio was 3,000 to 1. The California Research Bureau reported:

The most common offender requirements for regular probation are periodic visits to the probation department office, and for banked probation, a post card to the same office. ...An offender on banked probation will probably not see nor hear from authorities while on probation. Some of the large urban probation departments surveyed occasionally send letters to probationers to find out their location.⁽⁵⁶⁾

And over time, more probationers are banked. As recently as 1992 just over half of all offenders on probation were on regular probation -- meaning they were supervised. But just two years later, the numbers had reversed. In 1994, 190,056 offenders in California were on banked or unsupervised probation -- a 33 percent increase over 1992 -- while the number of offenders on regular probation actually shrank 25 percent from 150,331 in 1992 to 112,537 in 1994.⁽⁵⁷⁾

Because of huge caseloads, counties no longer routinely accept "courtesy probation" cases -- taking over supervision of offenders who have relocated from other counties. As a result, since probation supervision is in the county where the crime was committed, offenders who have been convicted in counties away from home may have to serve probation far from their job and support network of friends and family.

In many counties, jail is not the option it once was either. Because of overcrowding, 24 counties have a court-ordered population cap on at least one of their facilities. In 1996, 325,203 jail inmates were released early to make room for more serious offenders; 106,482 were pretrial and 218,721 were sentenced inmates.⁽⁵⁸⁾ In many counties jails are so overcrowded that offenders sentenced to less than 90 days are automatically released without serving any time. One Superior Court judge described how those cutbacks influence his sentencing decisions:

At one time I had enormous confidence in the probation department. Now most people I put in probation don't have a real probation officer, or if they do have a probation officer they only see him once a month, so they know they can do drugs the next day. In the past I would have given some of them another chance. Now, on close cases I'm leaning toward state prison. I have to consider: Do we have any county resources? And if we do, should I spend it on this person or save it for someone else and send this one on to the State?⁽⁵⁹⁾

Intermediate Sanctions

The overcrowding of jails and prisons and the overwhelming of probation programs has prompted many states to explore alternative sanctions that lie in the correctional continuum between probation and traditional incarceration. These punishments are often described as "intermediate" sanctions and because they are most often administered by local authorities they often are considered "community-based" corrections or punishments. As the table on the following page shows, these sanctions can range from part-time custody facilities to intensively supervised release.

Costs, Risks and Benefits

The cost of intermediate sanctions varies depending on the services provided, but nearly all are less expensive than state prison, which on average costs $21,800 a year per inmate. A county jail bed costs $19,700 per year; day reporting costs about $10,000 a year and electronic monitoring costs between $3,500 and $8,500 a year. Those figures do not include capital costs, which are highest for state prisons.⁽⁶⁰⁾

Financially, the concept is similar to California's nationally recognized and now defunct "probation subsidy" program. Under that plan the State gave counties an amount equivalent to the cost of housing an inmate in state prison for one year -- then set at $4,000 -- for each offender retained at the county level in the previous year. But the program disintegrated when subsidies did not keep pace with county costs.

Researchers have estimated that diverting low-level offenders from state prison to community-based alternative sanctions could save a significant portion of the State's current prison costs. University of California criminologists calculate that diverting offenders convicted of using or possessing drugs to community-based programs would cut state prison costs by 17 percent. Including all of those convicted of drug crimes would boost the savings to 26 percent. And diverting offenders serving sentences shorter than nine months -- which takes in 44 percent of all prison inmates -- would also lower prison costs by about 25 percent.⁽⁶¹⁾

The Legislative Analyst's Office also has identified potential savings. In 1997 the LAO estimated that the demand for additional prisons over the next decade could be reduced by 30,000 beds if certain categories of offenders received state-funded and locally administered intermediate sanctions. The proposal estimated an annual state savings of $670 million plus $1.36 billion in one-time capital outlay savings. The ten nonviolent crimes the LAO suggested could be locally sanctioned are: petty theft with a prior, driving under the influence, perjury, bookmaking, bribery, drug possession, marijuana offenses, receiving stolen property, drug possession for sale, vehicle theft, grand theft, forgery and fraud.⁽⁶²⁾

While the potential for direct savings is compelling, the issue is controversial because of the difficulties in estimating the indirect costs.

Some correctional officials assert that many offenders sentenced for nonviolent crimes are violent people, and that the most effective way to combat crime is incapacitation. Others argue that locking criminals up is the only way to make them "pay" for crimes and to express public condemnation of criminal acts. And because intermediate sanctions divert offenders into non-incarcerating programs, critics say public safety is compromised.

Proponents of intermediate sanctions concede that there is a marginal increase in the risk to public safety by using sanctions short of incarceration. But they also assert that community-based sanctions can be more effective at reducing recidivism -- some programs by as much as 30 percent. As a member of the Little Hoover Commission's advisory committee on prison issues noted: "Rehabilitation and just punishment are not incompatible."⁽⁶³⁾

Fundamental to many community-based punishments is the concept of restorative justice -- that offenders should compensate the victim and community for their crime. The former governor of Delaware explained:

That alternative program stresses accountability -- accountability of the offender to the victim and the state and accountability of the corrections system to the public.⁽⁶⁴⁾

The challenge to advocates and ultimately policy makers is to determine if the short-term marginal increase in risk to public safety is worth the potential long-term benefits of lower crime and smaller prison budgets. A May 1997 report on intermediate sanctions by the National Institute of Justice said the added risk was worth the added benefit:

Intermediate sanctions can deliver much more intrusive and burdensome punishments than standard probation...can be much more punitive than probation and can be scaled in severity to the seriousness of the crime.... Intermediate sanctions with strong treatment components can improve treatment effectiveness and thereby reduce recidivism rates.⁽⁶⁵⁾

Those targeted for community corrections programs are offenders who have the potential to be deterred from committing more serious crimes if they receive needed services. Many of these offenders are drug addicts. A large percentage are high school drop-outs or those with limited job and academic skills who need help learning to function in society. The National Committee on Community Corrections outlines how a community corrections program can work to fulfill that role:

Community corrections sentences provide for the punishment, supervision, and rehabilitation of an offender through restricting movement, requiring restitution, and mandating attendance at educational or treatment programs. Community corrections can be a tool for keeping the ... non-threatening convicted offender from prison, and for providing a gradual reintegration of the imprisoned offender back into his or her community.⁽⁶⁶⁾

These alternative sanctions can also be more appropriate for special categories of offenders like the mentally retarded, who now make up about 4 percent of all state prison inmates. Research shows that mentally retarded offenders are more likely to be convicted and sent to prison and often serve longer prison terms than non-disabled offenders.⁽⁶⁷⁾

Growing Support

The idea that the State should increase sentencing options at the community level for nonviolent offenders has been endorsed by a range of correctional professionals. In 1990 the Blue Ribbon Commission on Inmate Population Management -- a task-force appointed by the Governor to examine the State's correctional policies -- concluded:

In sentencing decisions judges lack sufficient intermediate sanctions between routine probation and local or state incarceration. The Commission has determined that insufficient prevention efforts, intermediate sanctions and programs for those incarcerated exist; and as a result there are offenders incarcerated and on probation who judges ... would and should manage differently if these additional sanctions were available.⁽⁶⁸⁾

The panel recommended that the Legislature adopt a Community Corrections Act to provide state funds to local government to significantly expand community-based intermediate sanctions or punishment options.

More recently both administration officials and the unions representing prison guards have joined the call for handling low-level offenders at the local level. The Secretary of the Youth and Adult Corrections Agency told the Commission:

California will get a better bang for the buck if resources are directed toward the 70 percent who stay in the community. Any county sheriff would say there is little difference between a low-level state prison inmate and a county jail inmate. Prisons should be for those who represent the most risk to society.⁽⁶⁹⁾

The California Correctional Peace Officers Association noted:

New sanctions are needed to ensure that prison space is used to protect the public against serious, violent and habitual felons -- not taken up by nonviolent, non-serious offenders. ... This can be accomplished with "day reporting" and similar sanctions, which could cut the cost of incarceration by up to 90 percent.⁽⁷⁰⁾

A number of recent developments offer a structure for reform:

• The Community-Based Punishment Act. In 1994 the Legislature laid the groundwork for a statewide community-based corrections program by enacting the Community-Based Punishment Act. In 1995-96 lawmakers followed by providing $2 million to counties to develop community-based punishment plans containing a range of alternative punishment options for nonviolent offenders. The grants were allocated by the State Board of Corrections and designed to reduce the number of state prison inmates as well as the number of juveniles sent to the California Youth Authority. Most counties submitted plans. San Diego County's plan, widely regarded as a model, estimated that 900 adult offenders sentenced to state prison from San Diego County could be handled safety and effectively in the county and that 1,573 sentenced adults housed in the county jail could be handled in less secure residential or non-residential community programs. While the State provided "challenge grants" to a few counties for juvenile programs, no adult programs have been funded. Nevertheless, the county programs provide a framework for future implementation.

• Drug courts. Drug courts offer another promising mechanism for reducing the number of offenders sent to state prison and for breaking the recidivism cycle. Aimed at the large numbers of offenders convicted of drug crimes who would otherwise be sent to state prison, drug courts divert offenders by staying either prosecution or sentencing while the person completes a year-long drug treatment program closely monitored by the judge. (The box on the following page provides additional details.)



• Better treatments. The idea that criminals can be rehabilitated was set back in the 1970s with research that was widely interpreted to mean that no treatment could rehabilitate criminals. Today, however, the picture is different. An immense body of research shows not only that treatment works, but what kind of treatment works, and for whom. One mega-analysis of treatment programs for offenders found that the best programs can reduce recidivism by about 30 percent. Researchers also have been able to identify the program components that are most effective.

• Risk-needs assessment. New risk-needs assessment tools now available can help satisfy public safety worries about sending offenders to alternative programs. The "risk" part of the assessment predicts which offenders are likely to abscond and which are amenable to treatment, and the "needs" assessment identifies which programs are best for treating particular offenders, making it possible to match offenders with services. Research shows that inmates matched to treatment are significantly more motivated to stay in treatment and have more positive results than those randomly assigned to programs.

• Federal money for alternative sanctions. The federal government also is making funds available for more broad-based punishment programs. The Crime Control Act of 1994 authorizes $150 million from 1995 through 2000 to help states and communities establish alternatives to prison, including restitution programs and job training projects.

Remaining Obstacles

Despite the prison housing crises, the immediate fiscal benefits and the growing evidence that intermediate sanctions can reduce crime, community-based alternative punishment programs still face a number of barriers:

• Local funding. Chief among the obstacles is that counties bear all the cost of handling offenders at the local level, but none of the cost when judges send offenders to state prison. That provides a fiscal disincentive for counties to independently develop alternative punishments. Persistent budget cuts starved local programs and made local officials skeptical about taking responsibilities now shouldered by the State.



• Public perception. An equally significant barrier to community-based sanctions are public tough-on-crime attitudes that make it politically difficult for policy makers and judges to endorse sentencing alternatives that might be seen as coddling criminals or as increasing risks to public safety over the short-term even when long-term benefits may be clear.



• Sentencing mandates. Strict sentencing laws mandating state prison terms for an increasing number of crimes restrict the ability of judges to use alternative punishments when they are available. Even if the programs and funds are available, one criminal court judge said in many cases because of mandated state prison terms, "we can't get to the options."⁽⁷¹⁾

Summary

Sending nonviolent offenders to state prison as a way to temporarily prevent them from committing new crimes is a costly proposition. But local jails and probation departments are overloaded, making them ineffective options. Over recent years, correctional officials nationwide have begun to expand community-based programs that combine punishment -- including some types of incarceration -- with treatment programs. These programs provide immediate fiscal benefits and hold significant potential to substantially decrease the large numbers of new crimes that parolees of state prisons inflict on the communities they return to. While some intermediate sanctions -- such as drug courts -- have been initiated in California, comprehensive plans to better manage the convicted population have not been funded.

Recommendation 2: The Governor and the Legislature should enact legislation funding community-based punishments that improve public safety over the long term by reducing recidivism and that minimize the short-term added risks to the public when compared with incarceration in state prison.

• The State should establish a competitive mechanism to fund community-based punishment plans. California has used Challenge Grants to fund local programs for dealing with juvenile offenders. The same competitive mechanism should be expanded to implement strategies known to reduce recidivism that were proposed by counties under the 1994 Community-based Punishment Act.

• The State should expand drug courts. The Governor should direct the California Judicial Council to take the lead in obtaining and allocating federal funds for drug courts, developing drug court standards and coordinating with local jurisdictions to establish drug courts. The State should fund courts that are not adequately funded with federal money.

• The State should fund pilot probation subsidy programs. The State's probation subsidy program of the 1970s was a source for cost-effective innovations. Restoring the project, if only by funding pilot programs, could help the State resolve some of the challenges that are not being adequately addressed by state agencies -- such as dealing with mentally retarded criminals who are often blended in with the regular prison population.