More than a year after the implementation of California’s Realignment plan (AB 109) to reduce the state’s once burgeoning prison population, a new report found little difference between arrest and conviction rates of offenders released before and after Realignment.
The report by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) said that the one-year return-to-prison rates of offenders were “substantially” lower. This, however, is due in large part to the fact that most offenders from the Realignment group were ineligible to return to state prison for parole violations.
“Realignment is intended to reserve state prisons for people convicted of serious offenses,” reported Lizzie Buchen and M. Males in their study Beyond Realignment for the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice.
According to the CJCJ report, arrest of offenders post-Realignment occurred at a “slightly lower” rate than pre-Realignment offenders – 56.2 percent versus 58.9 percent, respectively.
“Post-Realignment offenders were more likely to be arrested for a felony than pre-Realignment offenders. The most common felony arrests were for drug and property crimes,” the CJCJ report said.
When comparing convictions, it was reported that Post-Realignment offenders were convicted of new offenses a little more often than pre-Realignment (21.0 percent and 20.9 percent, respectively). There was, however, a noticeable “downward trend” for these two groups over the course of the study.
“Post-Realignment offenders were slightly more likely to be convicted of a felony than pre-Realignment offenders” (58.1 percent and 56.6 percent, respectively), the report said. The most common convictions for both groups were felony drug and property crimes.
“Most offenders in both [groups], about 79 percent, were not convicted of a new crime within a year of release,” the CDCR report said.
Post-Realignment offenders had a “significantly” lower return-to-prison rate than pre-Realignment offenders – 7.4 percent as opposed to 32.4 percent, respectively.
“Post-Realignment, nearly all of the offenders who returned to prison did so for a new conviction rather than a parole violation – 99.9 percent versus 0.1.”
The report reiterates that only specific offenders can be returned to prison for a parole violation. Such examples include third strikers and mentally disordered offenders, according to CDCR.
According to the report, research done by the Public Policy Institute of California “found that the jail population increased, but not by the magnitude of the corresponding decline in the state prison population.”
The report said there was no one-to-one exchange from state prisons to county jails where one offender leaves prison and another enters jail.
“Realignment increases the jail population by approximately one inmate for every three-inmate decline in the State prison population. Additionally, more counties reported early release of jail inmates due to insufficient capacity,” the report said.
The ratio of realigned offenders compared to sentenced inmates being released early is four to one (4:1).
“Approximately 90 percent of both [groups] are not sex registrants. The majority had served a determinate sentence, with approximately 15 percent indeterminately sentenced as ‘second-strikers’ or ‘lifers.’ Most offenders have high CSRA scores, mostly for violence, then property and drug, followed by medium and then low CSRA scores,” the report said. See, October 2013 San Quentin News, “Two Studies Help CDCR Judge Inmate Risk Level”
The report said incarceration in California’s jails and prisons overall has been reduced as a result of realignment.
