PROTECTING COMMUNITIES: INVESTING IN INDIVIDUALOUTCOMESIn addition to expanding county discretion in how to address the pretrial population, realignmentalso gives counties new options for holding individuals accountable once they have beenconvicted <strong>of</strong> committing a misdemeanor or low-level felony <strong>of</strong>fense. AB 109 encouragescounties not to repeat the state’s failed policy <strong>of</strong> relying upon incarceration. Instead counties areurged to implement community sanctions and programs that both conserve limited resources(including jail space) and improve the outcomes <strong>of</strong> individuals within the criminal justice system—which means less crime and fewer future victims.The new law explicitly provides that, “Consistent with local needs and resources, the [realignmentimplementation] plan may include recommendations to maximize the effective investment <strong>of</strong>criminal justice resources in evidence-based correctional sanctions and programs, including, but notlimited to, day reporting centers, drug courts, residential multiservice centers, mental healthtreatment programs, electronic and GPS monitoring programs, victim restitution programs,counseling programs, community service programs, educational programs, and work trainingprograms.” 114<strong>Realignment</strong> also creates important new opportunities for counties to expand alternative-toincarcerationpolicies. County sheriffs now have broadened discretion to manage those in theircustody with alternatives to jail incarceration such as home detention or work release programs.Courts may continue to sentence individuals tojail or to probation in lieu <strong>of</strong> incarceration;alternatively, they may now sentence anindividual convicted <strong>of</strong> a non-non-non <strong>of</strong>fense toa “split sentence,” under which the individual iscommitted to county jail for the first part <strong>of</strong> theterm and then placed under the mandatorysupervision <strong>of</strong> the local probation department forthe concluding portion <strong>of</strong> the term.AB 109 encourages counties to expand the use <strong>of</strong>“community-based punishment,” and providesspecific examples such as intensive communitysupervision; home detention with non-GPSelectronic monitoring (such as telephone checkins)or GPS monitoring; community service;restorative justice programs such as mandatory victim restitution and victim-<strong>of</strong>fender reconciliation;work, training, or education in a furlough program, or work in lieu <strong>of</strong> confinement; day reporting;30
esidential or nonresidential substance abuse treatment programs; mother-infant care programs; andcommunity-based residential programs <strong>of</strong>fering structure, supervision, drug treatment, alcoholtreatment, literacy programming, employment counseling, psychological counseling, mental healthtreatment, or any combination <strong>of</strong> these and other interventions. 115 Alternatives like these can holdpeople accountable for their actions and reduce the likelihood <strong>of</strong> future criminal behavior, and costdramatically less than incarceration.The <strong>ACLU</strong> has analyzed the extent to which these types <strong>of</strong> evidence-based alternatives toincarceration for sentenced <strong>of</strong>fenders were included in the county realignment implementation plans.While we found some promising developments, we also found that many <strong>of</strong> the plans lack specificcommitments, including financial commitments, to ensure that alternatives to incarceration actuallyare implemented. The lack <strong>of</strong> uniformity in structure, depth and detail among county plans madesystematic comparative assessments difficult. 116Despite a lack <strong>of</strong> consistency and transparency making it difficult to ascertain exactly what countiesare doing with taxpayer funds awarded under AB 109, some clear findings emerge. Most countyrealignment plans express little more than an intention to move toward evidence-based practices,including alternatives to incarceration for both pretrial and sentenced individuals. The plans claimcommitment to these principles, but provide few details on how funds will be allocated or how theseproposals will be operationalized, including project timelines, reporting requirements or outcomemeasurements. The lack <strong>of</strong> detail provided in many <strong>of</strong> the plans, and especially the absence <strong>of</strong> datacollection and outcome measurements, means that counties may be paying more in lip service to jailalternatives than in the actual funding and genuine institutional support necessary for their success.No county realignment plan includes all <strong>of</strong> the evidence-based practices that could be utilized; allcounties have significant room for improvement. Only a handful <strong>of</strong> realignment implementationplans include significant attention to the elements discussed below. These include the plans fromButte, Colusa, Del Norte, Madera, Merced, Napa, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, andTuolumne. (See Appendix B for an overview <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> the best elements from the 53 availablecounty implementation plans). Far too many counties’ plans fail to meaningfully include any <strong>of</strong> thesepractices, or to specify how they will be funded, operated and evaluated.Risk and Needs AssessmentsAccording to their realignment implementation plans, most counties intend to adopt (or expand theuse <strong>of</strong>) an evidence-based risk and needs assessment instrument. Risk assessment tools are used toassess the level <strong>of</strong> risk to public safety posed by an individual and can be used for both the pretrialand sentenced populations. A needs assessment tool assesses what types <strong>of</strong> supports or programmingan individual needs to succeed—that is, to reduce the chance <strong>of</strong> recidivism and increase the chance <strong>of</strong>successfully exiting the criminal justice system. Needs assessments typically are reserved for thesentenced population. 11731
- Page 1 and 2: PUBLIC SAFETYREALIGNMENTCaliforniaa
- Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS1 Executive Summary3 Introd
- Page 5 and 6: EXECUTIVE SUMMARYCalifornia is at a
- Page 7 and 8: INTRODUCTIONOur criminal justice sy
- Page 9 and 10: MethodologyFor this new report, the
- Page 11 and 12: a transfer of incarceration respons
- Page 13 and 14: adult felons and facilitate their r
- Page 15 and 16: 805,000, received about $5.2 millio
- Page 17 and 18: standardized data on public safety
- Page 19 and 20: educational opportunities when they
- Page 21 and 22: By November 2009, eleven counties h
- Page 23 and 24: population. 63 The percentages of n
- Page 25 and 26: Under the money-based bail system,
- Page 27 and 28: The money-based bail system, with b
- Page 29 and 30: ecause pursuant to AB 109, individu
- Page 31 and 32: standard for pretrial programming
- Page 33: Counties can free up jail beds by t
- Page 37 and 38: • The instrument should equitably
- Page 39 and 40: individuals arrested for drug posse
- Page 41 and 42: Flash IncarcerationAlthough graduat
- Page 43 and 44: create new “Alternative Sentencin
- Page 45: RECOMMENDATIONSIt’s time to fix C
- Page 48 and 49: ENDNOTES1See Adam Liptak, Inmate Co
- Page 50 and 51: 16 Information about the ballot int
- Page 52 and 53: http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2009/0
- Page 54 and 55: 62 The Bureau of Justice Statistics
- Page 56 and 57: 94 Id.95 The District of Columbia J
- Page 58 and 59: 125 See Butte County Public Safety
- Page 60 and 61: APPENDIX AProfiles of the “Big 25
- Page 62 and 63: State Prison “High Use” Countie
- Page 64 and 65: • Contra Costa County: The County
- Page 66 and 67: categorized amounts shown in the pr
- Page 68 and 69: Contra CostaCounty Population/ranki
- Page 71 and 72: KingsCounty Population/ranking: #32
- Page 73 and 74: MontereyCounty Population/ranking:
- Page 75 and 76: PlacerCounty Population/ranking: #2
- Page 77 and 78: SacramentoCounty Population/ranking
- Page 79 and 80: San DiegoCounty Population/ranking:
- Page 81 and 82: San JoaquinCounty Population/rankin
- Page 83 and 84: Santa BarbaraCounty Population: #18
- Page 85 and 86:
ShastaCounty Population: #30 (107,6
- Page 87 and 88:
SonomaCounty Population: #17 (310,0
- Page 89 and 90:
TulareCounty Population: #21 (256,2
- Page 91 and 92:
YoloCounty Population: #28 (135,447
- Page 93 and 94:
Mental Health Department for a Mult
- Page 95 and 96:
Best of the Best:Model Evidence-bas
- Page 97 and 98:
Trinity County’s realignment plan
- Page 99 and 100:
Attorney may work together to devel
- Page 101 and 102:
alternative sentencing strategies f
- Page 103 and 104:
APPENDIX CEducation and Job Trainin
- Page 105 and 106:
Programs: What Works and What Does
- Page 107 and 108:
APPENDIX DDrug Courts: Alternatives
- Page 109 and 110:
o including alcohol and drug treatm
- Page 112:
ACLU of Northern California39 Drumm