Conducting Research in Challenging Times: California Parolee Reentry Court Evaluation Association of Criminal Justice Research, California March 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 1 st 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 1 st 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.

Recidivism Arrests: Date, type, outcome (convictions) Prison commitments: Date, type Days in prison Comparison group characteristics may change with reallignment

Questions? Francine Byrne, Supervising Research Analyst