Sentencing Reform in CA Center for Court Innovation

Background The Center for Families, Children & the Courts of the California Judicial Council asked the Center for Court Innovation to conduct a statewide survey to assess the impact of Proposition 47 on drug courts to help identify effective responses to the changing legislative landscape to recommend funding and training strategies for drug courts that are experiencing reduced participation The Center will work with practitioners to analyze findings and data to develop strategic responses to sentencing reform Center for Court Innovation

California statewide survey 51 surveys completed representing 67 adult drug courts Survey designed to look at: policy changes: target population (legal eligibility and screening, clinical eligibility); clinical screening and assessment; legal leverage; defendant refusals; caseloads (before and after Prop 47); and perceived impacts of Prop 47. Center for Court Innovation

Policy Changes: expanding legal eligibility 31% made no changes to eligibility criteria in response to Prop 47 59% changed legal eligibility requirements Of these, 28% expanded to include higher-risk participants (violent felony charges, extensive criminal histories) 31% expanded to include lower-severity charges (misdemeanors) Most commonly added eligible charges include: Weapons charges Felony-level drug sales Misdemeanor drug charges Misdemeanor and felony DUI Domestic violence violent felonies Other misdemeanors Center for Court Innovation

Policy Changes: Clinical eligibility 84% reported not changing clinical eligibility 10% expanded to include additional primary drugs 10% expanded to include participants with co-occurring disorders Center for Court Innovation

Policy changes: other changes 16% increased treatment options 16% reduced program length 12% reduced program requirements Center for Court Innovation

Caseload changes: enrollment On average, caseloads have declined since Prop 47 Decreasing from a mean of 51 to a mean of 39 67% reported decreased caseload following Prop 47 51% reported considerable decreases in caseload Courts took 8.5 fewer cases annually following Prop 47 25% reported caseload increases Typically as a result of changes in eligibility criteria made in response to Prop 47 Caseload numbers should be interpreted with caution; most of the historic caseload numbers were derived from estimates rather than from official court data. Center for Court Innovation

Caseload changes: referrals Referrals were down in 65% of the courts 18% reported increases in referrals Generally as a result of changes to eligibility criteria made in response to Prop 47 Center for Court Innovation

Defendant refusals In 21% of courts, refusal is very rare Courts that have historically accepted violent felonies report that refusals are rare 58% reported that eligible defendants were more likely to refuse to participate after Prop 47 48% reported that participants refuse drug court often or very often Courts that accept misdemeanor drug offenses report an increase in refusals Reasons for refusal: Program was too long and intensive (37%) They could get better legal outcomes outside of drug court (29%) Simply not ready to commit (27%) Center for Court Innovation

Collaborating Agencies 43% report an increase in felony referrals since Prop 47 68% report a change in arrest practices Of those courts offering explanations, most feel that police departments not issue citations rather than arresting offenders Center for Court Innovation

TA Needs Biggest challenges raised by Prop 47: Getting adequate drug court referrals Getting referred defendants to agree to participate Minor challenges with regard to Prop 47: Retaining participants Collaboration with other agencies Center for Court Innovation

Things we’ve heard Interviews with practitioners Steering committees to help with planning, coordination, and amending drug court policy Take offenders who were previously excluded Offenders with lower/higher charges; sales charges; violent histories; more criminally entrenched offender More severe cases require case-by-case determination Publicize drug court in jails to entice people to come into the program: fliers or AA/NA in jails to discuss DC Risk assessments on everyone at pre-trial to give a better picture of the person to the Judge so they might refer them to a tx program Center for Court Innovation

Things we’ve heard Interviews with practitioners Prosecutor training is needed There needs to be understanding that high risk people are ok in drug court. “They will get more supervision than any other program in our county.” Local incentives for participation Smaller counties: Participate in drug court and wipe all your fines clean Driver’s license reinstated Center for Court Innovation