Conducting Research in Challenging Times: California Parolee Reentry Court Evaluation

Presentation Transcript

Association of Criminal Justice Research, California

March 17-19

Sacramento

Francine Byrne

Supervising Research Analyst

Administrative Office of the Court

Center for Families, Children & the Courts

Today’s presentation

Background on California parolee reentry court project
Review of relevant research
Overview of evaluation
San Joaquin presentation

California Parolee Statistics

California Prison overcrowding largely driven by parolees
2/3 of parolees return to prison
6 out 10 admissions to CDCR on any given day returning parolees
In the last 20 years parole revocations increased 30 fold in CA

Parole Violations and Revocations in California, Grattet, R., Petersilia, J., Lin, J., 2008.

How did we get here?

Determinate sentencing laws

Increased supervision from 1 to 3 years
Increased revocation time from 6 to 12 months

Increase in mandatory referrals to BPH

Serious and violent offenders
Up to 85% violations (DAPO 2005)

Standard of evidence for revocation is preponderance of evidence (vs reasonable doubt)

Parole Violations and Revocations in California, Grattet, R., Petersilia, J., Lin, J., NIJ grant final report 2008.

Research Recommendations

Expand mental health & substance abuse programs
Expand intermediate sanctions
Discharge well performing parolees after 1 year
Align risk and supervision levels
Utilize violation instrument
Focus supervision on 1st 6 months

.

Recent Reforms

Non-revocable parole for lowest risk offenders (NRP)
California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA)
Parole Violation Decision Making Instrument (PVDMI)
Parolee Reentry Court Program

.

Harlem Parole Reentry Court Evaluation

PRC parolees less likely to be rearrested
Less likely to be reconvicted
More likely to be revoked
Graduates less likely to be rearrested and revoked

Do Reentry Courts Work ?, Hamilton, Z. Center for Court Innovation March 2010

Parolee Reentry Courts

2009 Legislation created collaborative justice model reentry court. ARRA $$
Designed for parolees that have violated and have substance abuse and/or mental health issues
Changes jurisdiction from parole to courts
Six courts funded: Alameda, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, San Joaquin, Santa Clara

Overview of Evaluation

Data elements collected in each court
Outcomes compared to CDCR Business- as-usual comparison group
Qualitative information collected from site visits/focus groups

California Parolee Reentry Court Evaluation

Evaluation report to legislature due three years after 1st entry
Recidivism and revocation mandatory outcome measures
Additional information being requested

Evaluation Data

Program Entry Data
Program Activities Data
Program Exit Data
Recidivism Data (6 groups)
Comparison Group Data

Program Entry Data

Demographics: Education, employment status, housing status, income.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Information: Present disorder, history of treatment.
Criminal History: Eligible parole violation, risk level, number of prior commitments.
Program referral type

Program Entry Statistics

Average Age = 40.5 years
Substance abusing over 20 years
63% do not have stable housing
86% unemployed
100% have substance abuse issues
30% have known mental disorders

Participant Race/Ethnicity

Drug of Choice

Jurisdiction Type

Nearly 75% have high risk CSRA scores

Program Compliance

Compliance: hearing attendance, treatment adherence, drug test results, jail sanctions
Custody: Jail days and reason for jail stay
Arrests: Date, type, program response

Program Compliance

6% received jail sanctions in first quarter
13% Rearrested
0 revocations

Program Exit

Exit Status: Program and parole status upon program exit.
Social Outcomes: Re-measure demographic variables measured at program intake such as education level, employment status, housing status, and monthly income and source.