Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Alternatives to Incarceration Plan for Los Angeles County:
A Safer and Smaller Jail System
Prepared by
James Austin, Ph.D. Roger Ocker Robin Allen
November 2013
JFA Institute Conducting Justice and Corrections Research for Effective Policy Making
720 Kearney St. Denver, CO 80220 P. 303-‐377-‐1556; Malibu P.310-‐867-‐0569 www.JFA-‐Associates.com
1
Major Findings and Recommendations1
To date, a comprehensive analysis of the extent to which the current Los Angeles County Jail population could be reduced has not been fully developed. The single option that has been presented to the County’s policy makers to reduce the current LA Jail population is essentially a jail bed construction program. It consists of replacing the Sheriff’s aging 5,000 bed Men’s Central Jail facility with several “replacement” facilities at a cost of at least $1.4 billion in construction costs over a ten-‐year period. There is an opportunity to reduce the size of this massive bed construction project by implementing a comprehensive alternative to incarceration program that would dramatically avert the need for bed construction and significantly reduce current jail operational costs. Such a plan relies upon policies and programs that have been successfully implemented by other jurisdictions that would also improve public safety by better supervising and treating people who are booked and released from the jail system. This report summarizes such a plan. It recommends the gradual implementation of a comprehensive community corrections program that would be managed by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department with extensive contracting with existing community-‐based organizations that already provide critical residential and treatment services. The Los Angeles County Probation Department could also play a critical role in the supervision of released pretrial defendants and sentenced inmates who require community supervision. The plan was developed in collaboration with several community-‐based organizations and with the considerable assistance of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and its pioneering regarded Education Based Incarceration (EBI) program.2 As described below, the EBI program is already providing critical services to motivated inmates who desire to terminate their criminal careers. Today, almost 4,000 inmates are enrolled in EBI programming. Most of the EBI inmates are in pretrial status or are serving AB109 sentences. A recent evaluation by JFA has shown that EBI is associated with significant reductions in jail violence. EBI has also launched a post-‐release program that if expanded can provide important supervision and post-‐incarceration program and residential treatment services.
1 The Public Welfare Foundation funded this study. The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors alone. We are grateful to the LASD for assisting in the provision of data 2 For a review of the EBI program and its impact on jail violence please see Austin, James, Jerrold Green, Robert Harris, Robin Allen, (August 2013). Evaluation of Education-‐Based Incarceration Programs: Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Jail System, JFA Institute.
2
Several levels of analysis were completed by JFA in collaboration with the LASD to assess the extent to which the jail population could be reduced. The major findings and recommendations are as follows:
1. Based on current crime, arrest and criminal justice policies, the current jail population is likely to remain at the 19,000 inmate level for the next few years.
2. The current jail population would be approximately 6,000 inmates lower were it not for the passage of AB109 (Re-‐alignment). The manner in which Los Angeles County sentences people convicted under AB109 is also adding to the jail population. Specifically, the County has one of the state’s lowest “split sentencing” rates (about 5%).
3. The County also lacks a meaningful pretrial services program which could
provide supervision and services to some portion of the 10,000 people being held in the jail in pretrial status.
4. If the County were to implement a supervised pretrial program, the size of
the pretrial population would be reduced by at least 1,000 inmates.
5. Similarly, based on recent legislation, the 6,000 plus AB109 inmate population should decline by as much as 1,300 inmates if “Milestone” program and conservation camp credits are awarded to EBI and other programming inmates.
6. Another 900 inmate population reduction could be achieved if the courts use
split sentencing for qualified inmates. The overall impact of the recently passed legislation and appropriate use of split sentencing would result in a 2,200 inmate reduction within three years.
7. It should be noted that counties that have higher split sentencing rates have
had little, if any, impact on their jail populations. For example, Contra Costa County, which has the highest “split rate” in the state, has had no increase in its jail population. Due to the level of split sentencing by various California counties the entire jail population has increased by only 15% (about 11,000 inmates) while the state prison population has declined by nearly 28,000.
8. All total, the current 19,000 inmate population could be safely reduced by
3,200 inmates (1,000 pretrial and 2,200 AB109) within three years. Inmates who suffer from mental health issues and can best be treated in a non-‐jail setting are included in this number.
9. The alternative to incarceration program would be administered by LASD’s Education Based Incarceration (EBI) program. It would rely upon a valid
3
risk assessment process that would identify suitable candidates for either pretrial or post-‐sentencing release and the programs largely being provided by EBI.
10. People placed in the alternative to incarceration program would receive
close supervision (electronic monitoring and LASD field supervision) and/or placement in residential treatment beds that are now available in the community.
11. The alternative program will significantly enhance public safety as this
population is not receiving such risk-‐reduction services under current court and sentencing policies.
12. The estimated annual costs of the recommended EBI community supervision
program once fully implemented within three years would approach $32 million per year.
13. At the same time, the recommended EBI community supervision program
would be reducing the projected jail population by 3,200 inmates thus producing a net savings of approximately $75 million per year in jail operational costs.
14. These savings do not include averted medical and mental health costs or
avoidance of jail construction costs. The recommended LASD community corrections program will require approximately three years to fully implement with pilot programs beginning in 2014. The Board of Supervisors will need to grant the authority to the LASD to begin operating the Supervised Pretrial Release component (10 other California county Board of Supervisors have already provided such authority to their Sheriffs). By implementing this plan over a three year period, the need to construct another 6,000 – 8,000 jail beds at a cost of $1.4 – $1.6 billion over a ten year period as recommended by Vanir would be significantly reduced. The net result would be a smaller, safer and more effective jail system at a substantial savings to Los Angeles taxpayers.
4
Introduction This document presents a comprehensive plan to implement an alternative to
incarceration program that would safely and effectively reduce the size of the
current Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) jail population. This report
attempts to fill a void in the recently submitted Vanir Construction Management,
Inc. report that was submitted to the Los Angles County Board of Supervisors (BOS)
on the LASD jail system.3 That report, funded by the Chief Executive Office (CEO) at
the request of the BOS was expected to develop an alternative to incarceration plan
as well as an assessment of the current jail bed capacity and the need for additional
bed capacity.
The Vanir report provides a great deal of technical data about the LASD’s current
inmate population trends, the existing detention system, and bed capacity. It also
provides a number of options to safely manage the current jail population. But, it
makes little effort to develop alternatives to the size and nature of the
approximately 19,000 inmate population which is currently projected to remain
constant under current demographic, crime, arrest and criminal justice policies.
Further, it does not take into account the impact of new legislation that will provide
additional program credits (Milestone and Conservation Camp credits) to people
sentenced under AB109.
The Vanir report significantly reduces the current jail bed capacity by over 7,000
beds, largely due to the proposed closure of the 5,003 bed Men’s Central Jail facility
and reductions in the existing capacities of the remaining eight LASD facilities. With
a projected jail population of nearly 19,000 inmates, there is a nearly 5,000 bed gap
that Vanir recommends must be filled only by construction.
3 Los Angeles County Jail Plan: Independent Plan and Comprehensive Report, July 5, 2013, Vanir Construction Management, Inc.
5
It should also be noted that on October 1, 2012, the CEO issued a report that
presented recommendations to lower the LASD jail population. These
recommendations were grounded in studies completed by the Vera Institute of
Justice (funded by the CEO) and the JFA Institute (at the request of the ACLU and
Sheriff Baca).4 Both studies recommended the implementation of a pretrial service
program. The JFA Institute also recommended that a community corrections
component be developed principally for the rising AB109/Realignment sentenced
population. The CEO built upon these two reports by recommending that the BOS
grant the authority to the Sheriff to implement a pretrial program, a work release
program, a home detention program, a comprehensive community service program,
and expand the capacity of county fire/conservation camps.5
Table 1. Current and Adjusted LASD Bed Capacities
Facility Current Adjusted Difference Central Jail 5,053 0 -‐5,053 Twin Towers 4,663 4,363 -‐300 CRDF 2,383 2,076 -‐307 Peter Pitchess DC NCCF 4,294 3,760 -‐534 South 1,536 1,098 -‐438 North 1,624 1,536 -‐88 East 1,944 1,280 -‐664 Mira Loma 1,452 1,040 -‐412 IRC 450 383 -‐67 LCMC 40 40 0 Grand Totals 23,439 15,576 -‐7,863 At 90% Capacity 21,095 14,018 -‐7,077
Source: Vanir Jail Study
4 Los Angeles County Jail Overcrowding Reduction Project: Final Report: Revised, September 2011, Vera Institute of Justice, and, Evaluation of the Current and Future Los Angeles County Jail Population, April 10, 2012, The JFA Institute. 5 Report Back – Alternatives to Incarceration (Item 8, Agenda of July 24, 2012), October 1, 2012, Chief Executive Office , County of Los Angeles.
6
Significantly, the Vanir report makes no recommendations for reducing the inmate
population. For reasons that are unknown, the Vera Institute, JFA Institute, and CEO
recommendations for jail population reductions were excluded from the Vanir
report. From their perspective, the only viable option for the County is to construct
approximately 7,000 beds over the next five years to replace the beds “removed
from” the current jail system by closing Men’s Central Jail and adjusting downward
the bed capacities at the remaining facilities. At current prices, the projected
construction costs alone are estimated at approximately $1.5 billion.
This report outlines in greater detail how the current jail population could be
lowered over the next three years by implementing several cost effective policies
and programs that have been successfully implemented in other California counties’
and other jurisdictions in the United States. It builds upon the Vera Institute, JFA
Institute and CEO recommendations as well as planning work done by the LASD.
That document cites the two recent studies completed by the Vera Institute and the
JFA Institute in which both organizations estimated that the jail population could be
safely lowered by 3,000 inmates within three years. The CEO details a plan for
implementing a pretrial release program and a variety of post-‐sentencing
alternatives designed to achieve jail population reductions.
Analysis and Updated Trends for the LASD Jail Population
As noted in the Vera Institute, JFA, CEO and Vanir reports, the current jail population
as of October 2013 is approximately 19,000 inmates. After a year of relative stability
at the 18,500 level, the jail population increased slightly over the past three months.
This increase is largely due to seasonal fluctuations in the number of people booked
into custody. These seasonal variations (higher in Spring/Summer and lower in the
Fall/Winter) should start a decrease in the population for the rest of the year. But
for purposes of this report, we are using the more current 19,000 inmate figure.
7
Of greater concern, is the rise in the AB109 population, which is the result of
increased AB109 sentence admissions over the past three months or so. It is
unknown whether this trend in the AB109 population will continue. One thing that
is clear is that the rise in the AB109 population is not the result of increased crime
or arrests. Both crime and arrest rates have continued to decline for 2013.
As shown in Table 1 and for purposes of developing estimates of the impact of
alternatives to incarceration, the jail population can be separated into three major
categories (Pretrial, Sentenced – County, and Sentenced – AB109 or N3s). Of the
three major populations, the largest by far is the pretrial population followed by the
N3 inmate population. The table also shows the dramatic impact of AB109 on the
total jail population with a current total of nearly 6,000 inmates. Had the legislation
not passed, the current jail population would be approximately 13,263, which is
well below its 2006 population of 17,890. In 1995, there were approximately
22,500 inmates.
Table 2. Current LASD Jail Population as of September 2013
Legal Status Males Females Total Pretrial 9,186 1,298 10,484 Sentenced – County 1,274 153 1,427 Sentenced AB109 4,868 1,069 5,937 Sentenced CDCR 883 74 957 Other 355 40 395 Totals 16,566 2,634 19,200 Without AB109 11,698 1,565 13,263 Source: LASD Monthly Data Files
Figure 1 (below) also tracks these same major populations over time beginning in
2010. The figure demonstrates the relatively slight downward trend for the pretrial
and county sentenced populations and the abrupt increase of the N3 population.
8
The orange line in the graph shows what the LA jail population would have been
without AB109. Significantly, the non-‐AB109 population is now at 13,000 largely
because jail bookings continue to decline (Figure 2). Clearly, any effort to reduce
the LA jail population must address the 6,000 plus AB109 population.
9
The other noteworthy “legal status” group is inmates who have been convicted of
what is referred to as a “wobbler” crime. Simply stated, wobblers are crimes that
one can be arrested, charged and or convicted for as either a misdemeanor or felony
level crime. The differences between the misdemeanor or felony level crime are
profound and can be summarized as follows:
Felonies
1. Higher bail amounts;
2. Less likely to be released on pretrial status;
Misdemeanors
3. Cannot be sentenced to state prison as either a 2nd or 3rd striker; and,
4. Cannot be sentenced to local jail under realignment and receive longer
sentences.
10
As shown in Table 3, the numbers of inmates who fall under this category is rather
substantial (over 4,000). Suffice to say, that if this population were charged and
convicted of a misdemeanor crime and thus more likely to not be booked, or
released on O.R. or post bail or not sentenced under AB109, the LA Jail population
would be substantially lower than it is today.
This is relevant to a discussion of alternatives to incarceration. With such a large
number of inmates who have been charged or convicted of crimes that could be
classified as a misdemeanor, it provides further evidence that based on the severity
of the crime, incarceration and certainly lengthy detention is not warranted for a
large number of pretrial and sentenced inmates.
Finally, there is some recent development that can serve to increase or decrease the
current jail population. The only major policy decision that could serve to increase
the jail population would be the elimination of the “percentage serve” policy that
has been in place for several decades. This policy was enacted as part of the long-‐
standing Rutherford consent decree to keep the jail from becoming crowded. In
1988, Judge William P. Gray authorized then Sheriff Sherman Block the authority to
releases inmates to keep the jail population from exceeding its bed capacity.
Table 3. LA Jail Wobblers
Crime Code Pretrial Partial Total
Sentenced
Sentenced AB109 Only Total
10851(A)VC 85 58 330 271 473 11350(A)HS 164 77 340 225 581 11377(A)HS 245 135 472 321 852 459PC 496 353 1,161 924 2,010 470(A or D) 9 10 29 24 48 594(A) 54 26 100 56 180 666(A)(B) 8 5 64 49 536 496(A)(B) 306 Totals 1,061 664 2,496 1,870 4,221
Source: LASD Monthly Data Files
11
Over the years, the policy has focused on inmates sentenced either as a
misdemeanor or felony could have their sentence reduced based on the degree of
crowding that existed in the jail system. This is achieved by applying a “percentage
of time to serve” factor to these sentenced inmates which is lower than the full
sentence they would serve under California law as it existed when the court order
was applied.
For many years, , persons sentenced to local jails for misdemeanor and felony
crimes use to serve their full sentence without the benefit of goodtime. This was
unlike state prisoners (including AB109 inmates) who received substantial
reductions in their prison terms (usually by 50%). The exceptions to these terms,
are people convicted of a 2nd Strike law who must serve 80% of their sentence and
people convicted of a violent crime who must serve 85% of their imposed sentence.
However, legislation has been was passed and/or modified that allowed any person
sentenced to local jails to have their jail sentences by 50% (Penal Code 4019 and PC
4019.1). Furthermore, any inmate sentenced to county jail assigned to a
conservation camp by a sheriff and who is eligible to earn one day of credit for every
one day of incarceration (PC 4019) shall instead earn two days of credit for every
one day of served. Sentenced AB109 inmates already get day for day good time plus
the newly enacted Milestone credits. So the locally sentenced inmates are now
receiving considerable reductions in their imposed sentences (at least 50% or
more).
The current percentage release policy requires the following calculations:
1. Males convicted of a non-‐serious crime serve 20% of their imposed sentence or if sentenced to 90 days or less are released immediately; and,
2. Females convicted of a non-‐serious crime serve 10% of their imposed sentence or if sentenced to 240 days or less are immediately released.
12
One might properly question why the County has been allowing a punitive system
that is based solely on gender, which on its face would seem to be an
unconstitutional gender discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. But that
thorny issue aside, the other question is: Why would the County consider a new
policy that would require locally sentenced inmates to serve 50% or less (under PC
4019 and 4019.1 and 4019.2) of their full sentences and thus substantially increase
the jail population?
The LASD estimates that by requiring all locally sentenced inmates to serve their full
term, the jail population would increase by approximately 4,800 inmates. There is
no documentation as to how the LASD arrived at this figure.
Currently, there are approximately 1,200 locally sentenced inmates released each
month (or 14,000 per year) under the percentage release program. Table 4 offers a
more detailed analysis of who these people are, the crimes they have been convicted
of and their length of incarceration.
The primary crimes of those convicted who have been released by the percentage
release program is a mixture of felony and misdemeanor crimes with the largest
numbers being domestic battery/protective order violations, drug possession and
sale, theft, and parole violators who have been arrested for a misdemeanor crime.
The most significant fact is their short length of stay (LOS). Currently, they are
spending an average of about 35 days in custody prior to being released with most
of that time being in a sentenced status (26 days). The fact that the amount of
pretrial time is so small (eight days) means that most of these people had been
released earlier on some form of pretrial release and then placed in custody at the
time of sentencing to serve the balance of their time. The current LOS of 35 days also
means that their sentences are in the four month or less range. Increasing their LOS
to 50% (or less) of their full sentence would increase their time in custody by only a
13
few weeks and would have little consequence on public safety (either positive or
negative). It is a well established fact that increasing or decreasing LOS, especially
at these levels, has no impact on recidivism or crime rates.6 But the impact on the
jail population would be significant if these inmates were required to serve their full
sentences. While the number estimated by the LASD is probably excessive, it would
increase the jail population by at least 2,000 and thus the associated construction
and operating costs. On its face eliminating the percentage release program as
approved by the Federal Court and which has been in effect for several decades with
little if any impact on public safety but at considerable cost to taxpayers would seem
to be a questionable change in past practices.
Alternatively, there are three population reduction factors that will soon take effect
and that will serve to reduce the jail population. These three legal changes were not
incorporated by Vanir that served to inflate their estimates.
First, is the recent passage of the “Trust Act” that will reduce those inmates who
were being held in the jail only due to an ICE warrant. This new law will serve to
reduce the pretrial population. As of September, there were approximately 116
inmates in custody that had no criminal charges other than a hold from the USIM.
Another 49 inmates had a USIM hold, but were in pretrial status as a misdemeanor.
These inmates would be eligible for Sheriff citation or bail/bond release. So, the
impact of that new legislation will be minimal.
The two remaining factors that will offset the sentenced population are the
awarding of milestone credits and conservation camp credits. These credits were
6 For example see Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (2000). Generating rational correctional policies: An introduction to advances in cumulating knowledge. Corrections Management Quarterly, 4, 52-60.; Lagan, P. and M.A. Cunniff. (1992). Recidivism of Felons on Probation, 1986-1989. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; James Austin. (1986). “Using Early Release to Relieve Prison Crowding: A Dilemma for Public Policy.” Crime & Delinquency. 32(4): pp. 404-502; and Carolina Guzman, Barry Krisberg, and Chris Tsukida. 2008. “Accelerated Release: A Literature Review”, Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. .
14
being awarded to inmates who are now being housed in the local jails prior to
AB109’s passage. “Clean-‐up” legislation has passed the legislature and was signed
by the Governor this year which will allow AB109 inmates to receive these credits.
Thus legislation will in turn reduce their LOS and ultimately the size of the current
AB109 population. Estimates of the effects of these two good-‐time credit programs
are presented later on in this report.
In the sections that follow, options are assessed to estimate their likely impact on
the Los Angeles jail population. At the conclusion of the report, the costs and
benefits associated with these options are also presented. In determining how many
inmates would potentially qualify for a number of alternatives to incarceration, we conducted a more detailed statistical analysis, which was based on data files we
received from the LASD on a monthly basis. In the next section, we examine the
pretrial population and then the sentenced populations.
Pretrial Population Options At the outset, it should be noted that each month thousands of inmates are released
through a variety of release methods. As Table 4 shows, the primary release method
is the Sheriff Misdemeanor citations that have a very short period of confinement
(usually 1-‐2 days). Table 5 shows the types of charges for people who are being
released. Significantly, each month people charged with very serious and violent
crimes are now routinely being released – usually by the commercial bond system.
15
Table 4. Attributes of the Percentage Releases – September 2013
Demographic N % % Total Jail
Releases
Avg. Pre-‐trial Time (days)
Avg. Sent. Time (days)
Avg. LOS (days)
Base 1,212 100% 11% 8.4 26.4 34.3 Gender
Female 155 13% 1% 9.6 24.6 34.4 Male 1,057 87% 9% 8.2 26.6 34.2
Race Black 325 27% 3% 8.4 27.5 36.7 Hispanic 613 51% 5% 8.4 25.3 33.7 White 233 19% 2% 8.6 27.7 32.2 Other 41 3% 0% 8.8 25.6 35.4
Offense Level Felony 672 55% 37.0 10.9 25.7 Misdemeanor 533 45% 31.0 5.3 25.5
Primary Offense Sex – non-‐rape 23 2% 0% 19.6 27.6 48.2 Simple Assault 72 6% 1% 13.5 33.3 46.3 Robbery 27 2% 0% 19.6 40.6 61.3 Domestic batt/protective order 265 23% 1% 10.1 45.3 55.4 False bomb/violence report 33 3% 0% 9.8 29.3 40.2 Other violent 37 3% 0% 8.1 18.8 28.7 Burglary 67 6% 1% 14.9 28.6 44.6 Theft 106 9% 1% 10.6 29.5 38.4 Vehicle theft 21 2% 0% 16.8 23.0 38.9 Fraud/Forgery 14 1% 0% 20.2 15.8 37.2 Weapon possession 32 3% 0% 9.8 18.7 29.7 Other property 37 3% 0% 9.6 23.4 32.5 DUI 72 6% 1% 3.9 21.3 26.3 Drug sale 51 4% 0% 9.7 25.8 33.0 Drug possession 109 9% 2% 8.3 24.9 31.7 Parole viol/flash incarceration 160 13% 1% 0.4 14.5 15.9 Probation violation 38 3% 0% 1.8 19.9 22.7 Other non-‐violent 48 4% 0% 2.4 23.0 28.1 Source: LASD Monthly Release Data File
16
Table 5. March 2013 Pretrial Releases
Release Method Releases %
Sheriff release 391 8% Pretrial Release to Detainer 93 2% Bond or Bail 687 14% Sheriff Misdemeanor Citation 2,798 55% Dismissal of Charges 361 7% Court Ordered Release 330 7% ROR 411 8% Total 5,071 100%
Source: LASD March Release data file
Table 6 shows the type of charges for inmates released in the month of March 2013.
As the table shows, under current practices approximately 5,000 people are
released pretrial each month or approximately 60,000 per year. Some of these
people have been charged with very serious crimes without the benefit of any risk
assessment by a pretrial agency or field supervision. Similarly, there is a mix of both
high and low risk people who may or may not be released in a timely manner.
Clearly, a better and safer model would be to conduct a risk assessment followed by
adequate field supervision, none of which is occurring at this time. The primary
reasons why a person is released today is the nature of the charge and the ability of
the defendant to post bail.
If a Supervised Pretrial Program (SPR) is to be effective in terms of reducing the jail
population, it must target pretrial detainees who have been unable to make bail and
are charged with a felony level crime at initial booking. The SPR model was field
tested by the U.S. Department of Justice using a rigorous experimental design with
random assignment. The national evaluation found that SPR participants had lower
17
Failure to Appear (FTA) rates and equally low re-‐arrest rates as compared to the
randomized control groups.7
Part of the SPR model takes into account some filtering of these inmates in terms of
crimes and other factors that would likely preclude them pretrial release. In
consultation with the LASD, the following criteria were applied to the March 1, 2013
inmate population with the following results (Table 7). The key attributes of these
2,037 pretrial inmates are summarized in Table 8.
Based on this very restrictive pool of eligible inmates, it is assumed that at least
1,000 inmates would pose a suitable risk for pretrial release and supervision in the
community. As will be described later on, the level of supervision will initially
require an electronic monitoring bracelet (EMB) and/or initial placement in a
residential treatment bed. The SPR program could be operated by the LASD or Los
Angeles County Probation Department. Candidates for SPR could either be inmates
who have been assessed as low risk by the LASD SPR Program, but have been unable
to post cash or a commercial bond or moderate risk inmates. The level of risk would
be determined by a validated risk instrument that has been tested on a sample of
people who have been released by the Los Angeles County Superior Courts.
7 James Austin, Barry Krisberg & Paul Litsky, A The Effectiveness of Supervised Pretrial Release, Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 31, No. 4, October 1985, pp. 519-537
18
Table 6. Pretrial Releases March 2013 by Primary Offense
Most Serious Charge
Inmates Who Were Released Pretrial In March 2013
Males Females Total N % N % N %
Murder 13 0% 3 0% 16 0% Sex 73 2% 13 1% 86 2% Manslaughter 1 0% 0 0% 1 0% Assault 118 3% 31 3% 149 3% Robbery 66 2% 14 1% 80 2% Other violent 468 12% 130 11% 598 12% Drug sale 144 4% 33 3% 177 3% Burglary 174 4% 84 7% 258 5% Theft 297 8% 172 14% 469 9% Fraud 42 1% 26 2% 68 1% Forgery 15 0% 8 1% 23 0% Weapon 94 2% 10 1% 104 2% Other property 182 5% 34 3% 216 4% DUI 588 15% 138 12% 726 14% Drug possession 564 15% 195 16% 759 15% Parole violator 365 9% 51 4% 416 8% Other non-‐violent 648 17% 244 20% 892 18% Unknown 33 1% 6 1% 39 1% Total 3,885 100% 1,192 100% 5,077 100%
Source: LASD Monthly Population and Releases Data Files
Table 7. Criteria for Exclusion from Supervised Pretrial Release
Excluding Criteria Inmates
Total 18,650
Less Sentenced Inmates 10,237
Less those In Custody for Less than 7 days 8,905
Less those with no bails orders and other holds 5,032
Less those in High Security (levels8 and 9) 3,863
Less those with charges of violent and sex crimes 2,037 Source: LASD Monthly Population Data File
19
Table 8. Summary Attributes Supervised Pretrial Release Candidates
Attribute Females Males Total Total 275 1,762 2,037 Race Black 87 591 678 Hispanic 102 766 868 White 74 337 411 Ave Age 36 yrs. 35 yrs. 35 yrs. Facility Central Jail 0 443 443 CRDF 269 0 269 ESTF 0 204 204 NCCF 0 441 441 North Facility 0 45 45 South Facility 0 149 149 Twin Towers 6 464 470 Other 0 16 16 Legal Status Pretrial 170 977 1,147 Partial Pretrial 105 785 890 Severe MH Yes 63 294 357 Crime Level Felony 231 1,606 1,837 Misd 44 149 193 Time In 69 days 103 days 98 days
Source: LASD Monthly Population Data File
Low and moderate risk inmates are those that are associated with very low Failure
to Appear (FTA) or re-‐arrest rates that are the same or even lower than inmates
who are now being released by the courts.
Inmates classified as moderate risk could be required to complete a two -‐four week
EBI program prior to being recommended for release. The EBI pretrial program
would reassess the person’s suitability for pretrial release in terms of residency,
employment, prior criminal record, prior FTAs, and the need for treatment
20
(especially alcohol and drug treatment). Where treatment is needed, the inmate
would begin such sessions offered by EBI. There would be a need for mental health
treatment beds given that 357 inmates in the pretrial eligibility pool are currently
assigned to a mental health bed within the jail.
In both situations, the LASD SPR staff would present cases they believed were
suitable candidates for SPR to the courts. Both the District Attorney and the Public
Defender would be advised of the referral. Whether a formal hearing is required
and whether a dedicated judge(s) are making SPR releases will depend upon the
interests of the courts. But, it is recommended that a pilot SPR be initially launched
for a particular court and judge. If the pilot test results are positive, further
expansion of the SPR concept could proceed with possible modifications in selection
criteria and conditions of supervision.
Sentenced Population Options The key target population for this option will be the AB109 population. As noted
earlier, the size of this population is now approximately 6,000 and seems to have
stabilized at that number. Table 9 looks at this population at the point of release.
Each month, approximately 500 plus AB109 inmates are released from custody with
minimal if any post-‐release supervision. The reason for the lack of supervision is
the minimal use of “split sentencing” which allows the court to reduce the period of
imprisonment and add on a period of post-‐release supervision.
Currently, and for the foreseeable future, the average length of stay (LOS) of the
AB109 inmates is 334 days or slightly less than 12 months. The primary charge for
these people is either possession of drugs or possession with the intent to sell.
Other significant offenses are burglary (usually 2nd degree) and theft. In terms of
demographics, most releases are male and non-‐white with an average age of 37
years.
21
Under current law, the AB109 population can be reduced primarily by modifying the
current LOS either by 1) increasing the use of split sentences to the level being used
in most counties and 2) the application of 2 for 1 credits for inmates assigned to
county conservation camps.
On the matter of split sentencing, it is well known that Los Angeles has one of the
lowest rates of split sentencing in the state. The current rate for Los Angeles County
is about 6% which is well below many counties and the state average of 24%. Some
have argued that the low rate for Los Angeles fails to recognize that a large
percentage of the felony convictions receive a probation term. However, this claim
is suspect for the following reasons:
1. The percentage of felony dispositions resulting in a probation term for Los Angeles has traditionally been lower than the state average. The last statewide data provided by the Attorney General showed that 72% of all felony prison sentences resulted in a grant of probation. In that same year, the Los Angeles County rate was 68%.
2. Since AB109 was implemented, the proportion of felony convictions resulting in a probation term has declined to 62% (see Board of Supervisors CCJCC, August 16, 2013, Table 6, (http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/79066.pdf).
3. Counties with higher split rates have either expanded or reduced the size of
their felony probation caseloads. This suggests no relationship between the use of probation and the use of split sentences (Table10).
4. The felony probation revocation rates in Los Angeles are higher than the
state average. Counties with higher split sentences have the same or lower revocation rates again showing no relationship between revocations rates and the use of split sentences (Table 9).
5. Counties that have higher split sentencing rates have seen relatively small
growth in their jail populations if any growth at all. For example, Contra Costa County which has the highest split rate in the state has had no increase in its jail population (Table 10). Due to the level of split sentencing by various California counties the entire jail population has increased by only 15% (about 11,000 inmates) while the state prison population has declined by nearly 28,000.
22
Table 9. Key Attributes of the AB109 Releases -‐-‐ 2013
Attribute Annualized % Gender Male 5,243 80% Female 1,321 20% Race 0 White 1,462 22% Black 1,687 26% Hispanic 3,205 49% Other 211 3% Age Minimum Age 18 yrs. Average Age 37 yrs. Maximum Age 72 yrs. Primary Charge
Assault 169 3% Burglary-2nd Degree 1,054 16% Weapons 112 2% DUI With Priors 197 3% Theft 942 14% Petty Theft W/Prior 309 5% Possession Drugs 1,167 18% Possession Drugs - Sale 1,434 22% Vehicle Theft 436 7% Violation DV Orders 253 4% Other Non-Violent 492 7% Total 6,564 100% Total LOS 334 days
Source: LASD Monthly Release Data Files
23
Table10. Comparisons on Use of Split Sentences, Increases in Felony Probation
Caseloads, Probation Revocations and Jail Populations
County
Sentence Split Rate Since AB109
% Increase in Felon Probation 2011-2012
Probation Revocations 2012
Increase in Jail Populations 2011-2013
Los Angeles 6% 8% 46% 24% San Diego 24% -5% 44% 21% Orange 26% 4% 41% 19% Contra Costa 86% 14% 33% 0% State Wide 24% 1% 37% 15% Source: BCSS Jail Survey and California Probation Chiefs Realignment Website
Based on these facts, it seems reasonable that Los Angeles County could easily
increase its use of split sentencing for at least 30% of applicable cases. If one
assumes that the split would reduce the amount of time served from the current
average of approximately 310 days by 50%, the N3 population would decline by
approximately 900 inmates assuming that the current number of people being
sentenced as an N3 inmate continues at its current pace of 7,200 per year.
Another population reduction would occur for inmates who cannot qualify for
“Milestone credits”. Under this recently implemented law, inmates can receive six
weeks of program credits if they participate and complete a certified treatment
program. Based on JFA’s EBI evaluation, it was determined that approximately
1/3rd of the 6,000 AB109 inmate population is enrolled in the EBI program which
also has a very high program completion rate. Assuming that 1/3rd of the EBI
releases will receive the 6 weeks of milestones credits, there would be a reduction
in the AB 109 population by about 700 inmates. Other inmates who participate in
non-‐EBI programs will also be eligible for the credits, so we estimate the total
inmate population reduction will be about 900 inmates.
24
Finally, sentenced inmates will also be eligible for receiving 2 for 1 credits while
they are assigned to conservation camps. One could assume that approximately
10% of the AB109 releases will have experienced the conservation camp and will
have received the 2 for 1 credits. Assuming that approximately 50% of their 310
days were impacted by the 2 for 1 credits, the projected bed savings would be 395.
Collectively, these three options, which would require no additional funding since
the EBI and conservation camp programs are already being funded by the LASD,
would reduce the AB109 population by approximately 2,200 inmates. Coupled with
pretrial reform noted earlier, the overall jail population would decline from its
current 19,000 inmate level to about 16,000 inmates (Table 11).
Table 11. Summary Impact on LASD Jail Population
Reform Inmates Current Jail Population 19,000 Current N3 6,000 Split Sentences -900 Milestone Credits -900 Conservation Credits -400 Total N3 Inmate Reduction -2,200 Supervised Pretrial Program -1,000 Jail Population With All Reforms 15,800
25
Using EBI as the Feeder System for Alternatives to Incarceration The LASD Education-‐Based Incarceration program (EBI) is one of the nation’s
largest rehabilitative programs operating in the United States today. JFA, at the
request of the LASD recently completed a process evaluation of EBI to better
understand how it operates, the number and type of inmates participating in EBI,
and its relationship to jail safety and violence.
Currently, about 3,800 inmates are in the EBI program at any given time. These EBI
participants are not a “cherry picked” subgroup of inmates, but EBI contains
inmates convicted of violent and non-‐violent crimes who have both long and
minimal prior records and extensive drug abuse histories. The desire to make
amends for their crimes and reduce the chances that they will return to jail sets
them apart.
The statistical analysis, field observations and interviews all point to the same
central finding that EBI, and the MERIT program in particular, provides a safe haven
within a sprawling jail system that has had its full share of violence in the past. The
MERIT housing units have significantly lowered assault rates both within their
facilities and as compared to the entire jail system. The program has gained
considerable credibility with the criminal courts which are increasingly relying
upon EBI to submit letters to them at the time of sentencing to reach a final
disposition. It has also initiated a pilot project where 40 women sentenced as
AB109 inmates have been released to two well-‐established residential treatment
programs (Volunteers of America and HealthRight 360).
For these reasons, EBI is well positioned to become the primary method for
identifying, programming and releasing inmates back to their respective
communities. A fairly straightforward screening process can be implemented
where EBI staff at booking (as is the case now) can identify candidates for EBI and
26
alternatives to incarceration. This is graphically displayed below and is described as
follows:
1. Upon admission to the IRC, pretrial inmates can be screened regarding their suitability and interest in EBI. These inmates can then be quickly assigned to specialized EBI dorms and housing units to begin their designated EBI programs and work assignments.
2. Prior to sentencing, pretrial inmates who have been in EBI for a four week period and meet the agreed upon criteria for SPR could then be brought back to the court with a recommendation for SPR and/or placement in a community based treatment program/residential bed.
3. Inmates who are not recommended or not granted SPR would continue
programming in EBI and continue to be housed in the specialized EBI units. These inmates will help provide stability to the housing units and a reliable work force for specific job assignments allocated to EBI.
4. At the time of sentencing, the EBI inmate will receive a status report letter
prepared by EBI staff for the Judge that would be taken into consideration when applying the most appropriate sentence. It would be assumed that such letters would increase the probability of the inmate receiving either a probation (non AB109) or split sentence (for AB109 cases).
5. Those inmates who will remain in custody under a split or full sentence
would continue to participate in EBI for the purpose of receiving either the so called “milestone credits” or the two for one conservation/fire camp credits.
6. EBI inmates who are released either in pretrial or sentenced status would remain under the supervision of EBI’s community supervision and placement division. This unit would have access to community treatment and placement beds as well as the application of electronic monitors.
27
!Propose!EBI!Flow!for!Alternatives!to!Incarceration!
!!!
Jail!Admissions!
EBI!Program! Split!Sentence!
Pretrial!Release!
Credit!Sentence!Reduction!!
EBI!Community!Supervision!Residential!Beds,!Mental!Health!Beds,!Electronic!Monitoring!
Field!Supervision!
28
Cost Benefit Analysis As estimated earlier, approximately 1,000 inmates in pretrial status and another
2,200 sentenced inmates could be safely supervised in the community if they are
processed through the EBI program. If this could be achieved, then the number of
beds required to house the LASD jail population would decline by approximately
3,200 inmates. At least 500 of this reduced population would be females.
The savings of such a program would be significant and would provide sufficient
funding for an expanded EBI program. Table 12 illustrates the level of savings that
would occur if the projected LASD population was reduced by a total of 3,200
inmates. In making the cost savings estimate, the LASD provided JFA Institute with
the current “fully loaded” operating costs per inmate per day by gender. For males,
the daily operating cost per inmate is $118.32 while the female cost per inmate is
$104.97. The female inmate cost is lower reflecting their lower security needs as
compared to a male inmate. These operational costs do not include medical and
mental health costs associated with male and female inmates, so the true total costs
per inmate are higher than the estimated costs given.
It can be argued that “fully loaded” rates should not be used as the costs of housing
inmates does not always drop in direct proportion to reductions in inmate
population. This is true in situations where the jail facility is crowded and/or the
declines in the jail population are not sufficient to close a housing unit or entire jail
facility. In the Los Angeles County jail system, the large number of inmates being
projected to be reduced (over 3,000) is certainly large enough to either close
current facilities and/or close housing units within a particular facility. However,
administrative or the supposed fixed costs for the agency would remain regardless
of whether the inmate population is reduced by 3,200 inmates or remains at its
current levels.
29
For all of the above reasons, it’s difficult to estimate the cost-‐benefit savings until a
finalized bed capacity level is established. However, it is possible to make some
preliminary estimates that could illustrate the amount of savings the County would
realize if the recommendations contained in this report were implemented.
The Vanir study shows that the existing capacity at the key facilities that would
remain operational (PDC North, PDC South, PDC East, Twin Towers, and CRDC)
should be reduced by approximately 1,600 beds (or 10%) to eliminate over-‐
crowding. This means the same staffing pattern and housing costs would remain
largely in effect for about half of the projected 3,200 decline in the jail population.
The only reduction in costs would be for basic services such as food, laundry, utility,
and overtime costs. For this portion of the reduced inmate population, we apply a
20% marginal cost savings.
For the balance of the 3,200 inmate reduction a 100% cost per inmate cost savings
will be used. These inmates would be housed in new facilities that have been
proposed by Vanir that replace the bed capacity for Men’s Central Jail facility. Based
on these assumptions, the averted operational costs would approach $106 million in
jail operating costs per year (Table 12). Again, these annual operational savings do
not include the averted one-‐time reduction of 3,200 jail bed construction costs, and,
averted medical and mental health services.
Savings would be offset by the increases in spending as EBI develops a community-‐
based capability that would include several hundred substance abuse, mental
health, medical, and basic residency beds. It is beyond the scope of this report to
fully estimate these additional costs, but they would probably center on three items:
1. EBI post release field staff;
2. Contracted residential and specialized (substance abuse, mental health, and medical treatment beds); and,
30
3. Electronic Monitoring bracelets.
With regard to EMB, the general costs for each monitored person is in the $8-‐$12
range per day. It is expected that as many as 1,500 EBI graduates will be on an EMB
at any given time. The other service provider would be those existing non-‐profit
agencies that have experience in managing local and state prisoners. The major
categories of residential beds are described below:
Table 12. Estimated Averted Jail Operating Costs by Expanding EBI for
Alternatives to Detention
Cost Factor Males Females Totals Daily Rate $118.32 $104.97 Pretrial 800 200 1,000 Sentenced 1850 350 2,200 50% at 20% Marginal Rate $14,909,651 $2,875,522 $17,785,173 50% at 100% Full Rate $74,548,256 $14,377,610 $88,925,865 Totals 2,650 550 3,200 Avoided Costs $89,457,907 $17,253,132 $106,711,038 *Source: LA County Auditor Controller, Memo, June 21, 2012
Transitional Housing-‐ These beds would be occupied by inmates who have no
secure residential placement and have no major substance abuse or mental health
needs. They do provide secure 24 hour staffing pattern, seven days per week, three
meals per day, hygiene items, no-‐cost laundry services, community ancillary
referrals including: medical, dental, mental health, educational, vocational, and
social service linkages. These agencies also allow for the client’s child to live there as
well.
State Licensed Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities-‐ These beds
would be occupied by inmates who have no secure residential placement and have a
documented history of substance abuse. These facilities provide a full array of
rehabilitative services including: 24-‐hour staffing patterns seven days per week,
31
certified drug and alcohol counselors, three meals per day, individual sessions with
a primary counselor, group therapy sessions, substance abuse assessment &
treatment planning, cognitive and behavioral skills, preventive and primary health
care services, life skills counseling, advocacy and referral, social and recreational
activities and ancillary referrals.
State Licensed Residential with Mental Health – These beds would be similar to
the Substance Abuse Treatment beds. Same as above with the addition of enhanced
services designed to address co-‐occurring disorders. All individual sessions would
be facilitated by a certified or registered AOD counselor, licensed or registered MFT,
MSW, LCSW or Ph.D.
Sober Living Environment (SLE) – These facilities are self-‐governed by the
participants, no substance abuse treatment services or activities other than house
meetings are provided. Participants pledge total abstention from alcohol and illicit
drugs as a condition of their continued residence; three meals per day and laundry
services at no cost. These agencies also allow the client’s child to live there.
State-‐Certified Out-‐Patient Treatment Services – This service requires face-‐to-‐face
interaction with addiction treatment personnel or addiction credentialed clinicians
outside of the participant’s residence. Services are provided in regularly scheduled
sessions, and services function under a defined set of policies and procedures and
will include: Individual bio-‐psychosocial assessments, treatment plan includes
problem resolution formulations, goals and measurable objectives, individual and
group counseling, development of cognitive skills for management of stress, anger,
and violence related to criminality, general health education, parenting,
employment and vocational preparation, advocacy and referrals.
A standard residential facility placement should be established for EBI for as many
as 600 EBI graduates. The per diem cost for these non-‐programmatic beds range
from $50 to $60. Additional substance and mental health treatment beds should be
32
developed for those EBI graduates who may require such specialized care. These
beds are the most expensive ones to fund and range from $80 to $100 per day.
There would also be a need to create EBI community supervision officers who
would provide regular supervision to the EBI graduates. Basically, this would
represent an expansion of the current Continuum component of EBI. We would
recommend that these officers have caseloads of 50. Because 50% of their caseload
will be in residential, substance abuse, and mental health beds, the need to make
weekly visits for the 25 EBI graduates who are residing at their homes and/or with
their families. Based on these assumptions, approximately 60 LASD officers plus
another five supervisory staff and five administrative support staff would be
required.
As shown in Table 13, the estimated annual costs of the recommended EBI
community supervision program would approach $32 million per year. At full
implementation, the recommended EBI community based program would be
reducing the projected jail population by 3,200 thus producing a net savings of over
$75 million per year.
While the level of funds required to fully implement this design may not be available
in the current budget, there may be sufficient funds to initiate a pilot program like
the one that is now being used for female EBI graduates. If the program can
demonstrate its ability to safely manage these EBI graduates in the community,
there would be further justification to expand its scope.
Implementation Plan The LASD community corrections program will take three years to fully implement.
Prior to full implementation, new policies and procedures need to be developed by
the LASD which will detail selection criteria, referral processes, risk assessment,
33
necessary staffing and, most importantly, the conditions of community supervision
and services.
Table 13. Estimated Annual Costs of LASD EBI Community Supervision
Alternative Beds/Slots Costs Per Day Total
EMB 1,000 $10 $3,652,500 Residential Basic Residential 100 $60 $2,191,500 Drug Treatment 500 $80 $14,610,000 MH Treatment 150 $100 $5,478,750 Total Bed Contractual 750 $25,932,750 Supervised Field Supervision 1,700 $10 $6,209,250 Grand Totals $32,142,000 Averted Jail Costs -‐$106,711,038 Net Averted Operational Costs Per Year $74,690,038
As noted above, the plan will require the eventual securement of 1,000 EMBs and
750 residential beds. A survey by a coalition of non-‐profit agencies found that
nearly 60% of the 88 current organizations in Los Angeles County that are county
certified to provide residential beds for drug and other offenders found an existing
vacancy of 10-‐15%. The current bed capacity is approximately 3,600, so one could
assume that there exists 300-‐400 empty beds today just between these 52 agencies.
This number of existing community beds is more than enough to begin a number of
pilot projects to place pretrial and sentenced inmates in 2014. These initial efforts
should be rigorously evaluated to ensure public safety is not being compromised,
and that the jail population is being reduced. The funds needed for the alternative
beds can be largely funded through the annual appropriation of $275 million that is
being provided for Los Angeles from the annual Realignment funding stream.
In summary, the estimated averted operational cost savings is conservatively
estimated at about $107 million. Those savings are offset by an estimated $32
34
million in new expenses needed to support the EBI and community supervision
services for a net savings of about $75 million per year in taxpayer costs.
Furthermore, the need to construct another 6,000 – 8,000 jail beds at a cost of $1.4 –
$1.6 billion over a ten year period as recommended by Vanir would be significantly
reduced. There is a need to replace the Men’s Central Jail facility with adequate and
proper space for the women and inmates with mental health needs. But, the need
for a massive jail construction program would no longer be required. The result is a
smaller, safer and more effective jail system in terms of public safety at a substantial
savings to Los Angeles taxpayers.
Table 14. Summary Table of Current and Alternative Projections
2013-2020
Year Current
Jail Total
Alternatives Total Pretrial County
Sentenced N3 Other
2013 19,000 19,000 10,365 1,611 6,051 973 2014 19,000 18,084 10,000 1,611 5,500 973 2015 19,000 16,834 9,500 1,611 4,750 973 2016 19,000 15,749 9,365 1,611 3,800 973 2017 19,000 15,749 9,365 1,611 3,800 973 2018 19,000 15,749 9,365 1,611 3,800 973 2019 19,000 15,749 9,365 1,611 3,800 973 2020 19,000 15,749 9,365 1,611 3,800 973
