Measuring 109 In Fresno County Chief Linda Penner Barbara Owen Yoshiko Takahashi John Owen Emma Hughes

Consequences of AB-109 This law shifted responsibility for specific categories of low-level convicted felons from the behemoth California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to the 58 individual counties. Funding was provided for custody and programs, but not research at the state-wide level. Fresno County stepped up and obligated money to Owen Research & Evaluation to “track and map” the process & outcomes.

Our approach: Hopes & Realities Originally hoped to relay on automated data systems Useful data systems: Adult Probation System Jail data system Courts District Attorney Behavioral Health

Challenges Lack of unique identifiers Myth of “Share-net” Varying degrees of utility and available support within each system

Original Plan Stakeholder interviews: What do you want to know? Design of variable lists (thanx Susan Turner at UCI) Vetted through CCP Development of Research & Evaluation Committee Planning for Monthly Report Summer interviews to review utility

Fresno County AB 109 Six-Month Summary Report October 1, 2011–March 31, 2012 April 27, 2012 Complied from County Sources by Owen Research & Evaluation

Fresno County AB 109 Cases Monthly Caseload by Category (N = 1,525) 1,525 AB 109 offender cases were recorded in Fresno County Probation Database PRCS: 998 (166 per month) CJOs: 373 (62 per month) Split: 154 (26 per month) Comparison Between the CDCR Projection and the Actual Caseload (PRCS)

Offender Characteristics Top Five CDCR Sentences PRCS Offenders Offender Characteristics Top Five CDCR Sentences Category Number (%) Male Female 901 (90%) 97 (10%) African American Caucasian Hispanic 168 (17%) 220 (22%) 547 (55%) Age at Release from Prison Ave. 34.5 Median 32.5 Top Six Residential Zip Code 93706 93702 93727 93722 93703 93705 HS 11377(a): Possession of Drugs VC 10851(a): Auto Theft PC 666: Prior Conviction of Theft PC 459/460(b): Burglary HS 11350(a): Controlled Substance Possession

PRCS Problems 187 (19%) of the PRCS offenders were issued warrants. More than half for “out of contact” 28 (3%) of the PRCS offenders received “Flash Incarceration.” Almost all of them were designated as “high risk” offenders.

County Jail Offender Characteristics Top Five Offense Codes Category Number (%) Male Female 283 (76%) 90 (24%) African American Caucasian Hispanic 42 (11%) 102 (27%) 205 (55%) Age at Sentencing Average 32.9 Median 31.0 Jail Time Average 21 months Median 16 months HS 11377(a): Possession of Drugs PC 459/460(b): Burglary VC 10851(a): Auto Theft PC 496(a): Receiving Stolen Property VC 23152(b): DUI

Split-Sentence Offender Characteristics Top Five Offense Codes Category Number (%) Male Female 118 (77%) 36 (23%) African American Caucasian Hispanic 24 (15%) 41 (27%) 74 (48%) Age at Sentencing Ave. 35.0 Median 32.0 Average Jail Time Average Length of Jail and MSR 15 months 22 months PC 459/460(b): Burglary HS 11377(a): Possession of Drugs VC 10851(a): Auto Theft PC 496(a): Receiving Stolen Property HS 11350(a): Controlled Substance Possession

Program Referral/Violations 1,503 referrals were made for 562 offenders. MSR & PRCS Violations 5 (3%) of the Split-Sentence offenders had violated their MSR conditions. 78 (8%) of the PRCS offenders had petition of revocation hearings.

PRCS Offenders HS 11377(a): Possession of Drugs Offender Characteristics Top Five CDCR Sentences Category Number (%) Male Female 901 (90%) 97 (10%) African American Caucasian Hispanic 168 (17%) 220 (22%) 547 (55%) Age at Release from Prison Ave. 34.5 Median 32.5 Top Six Residential Zip Code 93706 93702 93727 93722 93703 93705 HS 11377(a): Possession of Drugs VC 10851(a): Auto Theft PC 666: Prior Conviction of Theft PC 459/460(b): Burglary HS 11350(a): Controlled Substance Possession

PRCS Problems 187 (19%) of the PRCS offenders were issued warrants. More than half for “out of contact” 28 (3%) of the PRCS offenders received “Flash Incarceration.” Almost all of them were designated as “high risk” offenders.

County Jail Offender Characteristics Top Five Offense Codes Category Number (%) Male Female 283 (76%) 90 (24%) African American Caucasian Hispanic 42 (11%) 102 (27%) 205 (55%) Age at Sentencing Average 32.9 Median 31.0 Jail Time Average 21 months Median 16 months HS 11377(a): Possession of Drugs PC 459/460(b): Burglary VC 10851(a): Auto Theft PC 496(a): Receiving Stolen Property VC 23152(b): DUI

Split-Sentence Offender Characteristics Top Five Offense Codes Category Number (%) Male Female 118 (77%) 36 (23%) African American Caucasian Hispanic 24 (15%) 41 (27%) 74 (48%) Age at Sentencing Ave. 35.0 Median 32.0 Average Jail Time Average Length of Jail and MSR 15 months 22 months PC 459/460(b): Burglary HS 11377(a): Possession of Drugs VC 10851(a): Auto Theft PC 496(a): Receiving Stolen Property HS 11350(a): Controlled Substance Possession

Program Referral/Violations 1,503 referrals were made for 562 offenders. MSR & PRCS Violations 5 (3%) of the Split-Sentence offenders had violated their MSR conditions. 78 (8%) of the PRCS offenders had petition of revocation hearings.

Owen Research & Evaluation Sept. 28, 2012 AB 109 11-Month Outcomes Owen Research & Evaluation Sept. 28, 2012

Overview 11-month data: October 2011 through August 2012 Outcomes from the Fresno County Adult Probation System 1,488 individuals were on Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS) 586 Individuals received Local Prison Only (LPO) 277 Individuals received Mandatory Supervised Release (MSR) This brief report summarizes selected outcomes drawn from the Fresno County Adult Probation System database for the 11 months of corrections realignment (October 2011 through August 2012). Future reports will include data describing prison sentencing of the Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS) population, the early release frequencies, and other relevant data. A review of the Turning Point substance abuse program is also in the planning stages.   During this reporting period, the Probation data indicated that 1,488 individuals were on PRCS. During this same time period, 586 individuals received Local Prison Only (LPO) sentences and another 277 individuals received Mandatory Supervised Release (MSR) under the new sentencing law (1170h). Details describing this population follow.

1. Referrals by Month Referrals by Month Total Number of Referrals Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Total Total Number of Referrals 72 160 179 198 451 444 295 219 180 161 157 2,516 Probation 49 99 105 88 207 191 86 46 26 22 28 947 County Behav. Health 1 11 30 35 139 126 91 47 480 Job Placement 2 7 13 9 19 8 71 Turning Point 3 104 94 92 317 Day Reporting Center 4 16 15 10 54 Universal Health Network 14 87 Comprehensive Counseling 29 25 97 This chart tracks the types of referrals made for both PRCS and MSR cases by the Probation Department over the 11 months. Here, only those programs receiving 10 or more referrals in any one month are listed. Please note that individuals can receive more than one referral. Note: Only those programs receiving 10 or more referrals in any one month are listed.

2. Sanctions for the PRCS Population April through August 2012 Most Common Reasons Action Taken 31% Verbal counseling 29% VOP hearing/bench warrant 12% Increased testing 12% Flash incarceration 8% of all referrals related to sanctions were for substance abuse treatment Substance Abuse 38% Substance Abuse 38% The probation database began to track sanctions given for those PRCS cases who failed to comply with one or more conditions of their supervision in April 2012. These data refer to a five-month period only. During this time, 388 individuals received sanctions (including Flash). The two most common reasons were Substance abuse 38% Failure to report 28%   Actions taken by the probation staff included 31% verbal counseling 29% VOP hearing/bench warrant 8% of all referrals related to sanctions were for substance abuse 12% Increased testing 12% Flash incarceration Failure to Report 28%

3. Flash Incarceration October 2011 through August 2012 PRCS Offenders (N = 1,488) Most Common Reasons 11% (166 individuals) of all PRCS offenders received flash incarceration 37 individuals out of 1,488 PRCS offenders received more than one flash incarceration. Substance Abuse 29% Other Reasons 31% Substance Abuse 29% We also examined flash incarceration over the 11-month period. Just under 11% (166 individuals) of all PRCS cases received flash incarceration. A small percentage (37 individuals out of 1,488 individuals) received more than one flash incarceration. The most common reasons for flash incarceration were Substance abuse: 29% Failure to report: 23% New charges: 17%   The majority (84%) of all “flash” cases were assessed as high risk, but two thirds of the violations were judged to be of moderate severity. The average time from entry into PRSC to a flash incarceration was 4 months. New Charges 17% Failure to Report 23%

4. Warrants Almost one third of all PRCS individuals had warrants issued over this 11-month period. “Out of Contact” was stated as a reason in two thirds of the cases. The average time from entry into PRCS to warrant was 85 days. Almost one third of all PRSC cases had warrants issued over this 11-month period. “Out of contact” was the stated reason in two thirds of the cases. The average time from entry into PRCS to warrant was 85 days.

5. New Sentences under 1170(h): Local Prison Only (LPO) & Mandatory Supervised Release (MSR) LPO (N = 586) MSR (N = 277) Drugs 38% 21 Months in Jail on Average 16 Months in Jail on Average 14 Months on Post-Release Supervision

6. Act Activities April through August 2012 Number of Contacts Made by the ACT (N = 962) Common Reasons for Service Other Reasons 23% Attempted Contact 33% Our data provides a summary of the ACT activities over five months: April through August 2012 when the data began automatic entry into the data base. There were a total of 962 contacts made by the ACT, with 464 specific individuals involved in these contacts. These contacts have increased over time: beginning with 125 contacts in April, rising to 275 in August 2012.   Over this five month period, about one-third of the services were attempted contact. Compliance was the second most often reason for service at 17%, with residence verification (14%) the next most frequent reason for contact.  About 6% of the contacts were related to serving warrants, and 7% were arrests. Warrants 6 % Compliance 17% Residence Verification 14%

6. Terminations for the PRCS May through August 2012 (N = 141)

Kevin’s beautiful Dashboard

Chief Probation Officer Dashboard: Collects county-level data from probation departments and reports at http://cpoc.org/php/realign/ab109home.php

What we have learned…. Planning extensive annual report: stress offender outcomes and behaviors associated with them More hands on involvement with research committee with quarterly reports Developing more relationships with data partners