1. Sentencing Reform in CA
Center for Court Innovation

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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