blog post What COVID-19 Budget Cuts Mean for Public Safety Spending By Brandon Martin, Magnus Lofstrom May 22, 2020 The sharp decline in state revenues means county sheriff and probation departments will have less funding to provide supervision and programming for certain individuals who are in jail or on probation.
blog post Public Opinion and Sentencing Reform By David Kordus Feb 5, 2016 The January PPIC Statewide Survey shows a public opinion environment that may be favorable to the governor’s proposed sentencing reforms.
Report Public Safety Realignment: Impacts So Far By Magnus Lofstrom, Brandon Martin Sep 28, 2015 Prompted by a federal court order to reduce prison overcrowding, California’s 2011 historic public safety realignment shifted many correctional responsibilities for lower-level felons from the state to counties. The reform was premised on the idea that locals can do a better job, and it was hoped that incarceration rates and corrections costs would fall. At the same time, critics predicted crime would rise. Four years since its implementation, realignment has made several important impacts: Realignment significantly reduced the prison population, but the state did not reach the court-mandated population target until after the passage of Proposition 47 in November 2014, which reduced penalties for many property and drug offenses. The reform challenged county jails and probation departments by making them responsible for a greater number of offenders with a broader range of backgrounds and needs. The county jail population did not rise nearly as much as the prison population fell, reducing the total number of people incarcerated in California. Realignment did not increase violent crime, but auto thefts rose. Research so far shows no dramatic change in recidivism rates. State corrections spending remains high, but there is reason to believe expenditures could drop in the future. Realignment has largely been successful, but the state and county correctional systems face significant challenges. The state needs to regain control of prison medical care, which is now in the hands of a federal receiver. And the state and counties together must make progress in reducing stubbornly high recidivism rates.
blog post Expanding Education, Reducing Recidivism By Mia Bird, Amy Lerman Aug 19, 2015 A federal pilot program to allow access to Pell Grants to those incarcerated in prisons could not only expand access to higher education, but it could also improve public safety and reduce correctional costs.
Report Alternatives to Incarceration in California By Ryken Grattet, Brandon Martin Apr 17, 2015 Three-plus years after implementing a major realignment of its public safety systems, California continues to face pressure to reduce both its prison and jail populations. California relied on some alternatives to custody-based punishment before realignment but it has been expanding its use of others. Current research on the effects of incarceration and its alternatives offers a general endorsement of the idea that increasing reliance on community-based alternatives is not likely to result in large increases in crime and recidivism. The evidence suggests that the effectiveness of both incarceration and community-based supervision depends on a number of factors, including the rate of incarceration in a given community, the offender characteristics, and the nature of the response to violations during and after supervision. Finally, intensive data collection on county implementation efforts can help the state identify the community-based strategies that produce the best outcomes.
Report Capacity Challenges in California’s Jails By Magnus Lofstrom, Katherine Kramer Sep 27, 2012 In an effort widely known as "realignment,” California has given its counties enormous new responsibilities for corrections—including authority over many new types of felony offenders and parolees. Rather than go to state prison, these offenders now go to county jail or receive an alternative sanction. In the first few months of realignment, California’s jail population increased noticeably—but many jails were already facing capacity concerns. We find that some offenders who would have been incarcerated prior to realignment are now either not locked up or are not spending as much time in jail. Going forward, counties will need to consider a wide variety of approaches for handling their capacity concerns and their expanded offender populations.
