LosAnglesCounty$$ Reentry$&$Realignment$ …lareentry.alpinevalleykitchen.com/wp-content/uploads/...LA County Realignment Budgeting Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Enforcement&(Incarceraon(

Los Angles County Reentry & Realignment

Implementation www.lareentry.org March 3, 2014

Purposes of this Session

•  To provide an overview of the reentry processes for people leaving prisons and jails and reintegrating into their communities in Los Angeles County

•  To provide an overview of Pubic Safety Realignment (AB 109) and its implementation in Los Angeles County

•  To discuss the impact of reentry and realignment on the homeless landscape in this region

Speakers

•  Lynne Lyman -‐ Drug Policy Alliance •  Troy Vaughn -‐ Lamp Community

•  Danielle Wildkress-‐ Corp. for Suppor<ve Housing

•  Rev. Peter Laarman – Jus<ce Not Jails

•  Peggy Edwards – LARRP •  Mark Fauce@e – Amity Founda<on

LARRP Mission

•  Building the capacity of organiza<ons in the new environment of community correc<ons established as a result of AB 109

•  Developing and advocaCng for public policy that addresses the needs of the community and those resident reintegra<ng back into their neighborhoods.

LARRP’s Scope

Steering CommiNee

Policy & Advocacy CommiNee

Service Delivery CommiNee

Housing Work Group

Employment Work Group

Pre-‐Release Planning Work

Group

Behavioral Health Work Group

Regional Coali<ons

CommiNee (CBOs & FBOs)

Overview of Today

•  Overview of Reentry & Realignment

•  Ques<ons & Answers

•  Discussion of the Impact of Realignment on Homeless Housing & Services

California’s Changing Criminal Jus<ce System

5 SigniFicant Actions & Results

1.  State Prison Population Crisis a)  Plata Ruling (May 2011) b)  3 Judge Panel Oversight c)  Current Standing

2.  Public Safety Realignment Law (AB 109) a)  State to County community supervision (PRCS) beginning

October 1, 2011 b)  N3: new class of offenders (1170[h]) to Jails c)  Alternatives to Incarceration d)  Parole Revocation

California’s Changing Criminal Jus<ce System

5 SigniFicant Actions & Results

3. Los Angeles County Jail Capacity

4. Court Closures

5. Prop 36 Three Strikes Reform

Los Angeles County Reentry Popula<ons

AB 109 from Prison

AB 109 from County Jail

County Proba<oners

“Regular” Releases from County Jail

State Parole

Prop. 36 Strikes Reform

Funded Reentry Services AB 109 AB 109

(1170 [h]) County

ProbaCon “Regular”

Jail Releases

State Parole

Prop. 36

Housing 90 days/ 90 day

extension

None None None For length of Parole

None

Mental Health

Up to length of PRCS (1 yr.)


None

Substance Abuse Treatment



None

Realignment (AB 109)

  WHAT: Refers to the shifting of criminal justice responsibilities from the state prisons and parole board to local county ofFicials and superior courts.

  WHO: Non-‐Non-‐Nons (N3s). Only includes individuals whose most recent conviction was for a speciFied nonviolent, non-‐serious, non-‐sex crimes.

  WHY: To reduce the number of inmates in the state’s 33 prisons to 137.5 % design capacity by May 24, 2013 (extended to 2016 ), as ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court (violation of 8th Amendment.) 1/3rd of the counties in the state were under court-‐ordered jail population limits at time of law.

Why Realignment?

 California’s state correctional department (CDCR) was largest in US (now 2nd to Texas).

 CA’s prison budget has hovered at $9.8 billion since FY11–12, including the Governor’s proposed FY14-‐15 budget.

 California’s recidivism rate of 67.5% (Oct. 2010) was among the highest in the nation.

Why Realignment?

 The population of California’s 33 adult prison facilities declined gradually from 163,000 at its peak in 2006 to 144,000 on October 1, 2011 (Realignment starts).

 On October 2 2013,the population had dropped to 133,611.

 The Governor’s FY14-‐15 budget projects it to increase by 4.7%to 134,986 in 2013‑14 and by 6.9% to 137,788 in 2014‑15

Realignment: Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS)

 PRCS is a new criminal justice category, distinct from parole or probation;

 PRCS status provides access to more funded services than traditional Probation;

 Only for N3s exiting prison under Realignment;

 N3 status only applies to most recent offense, can have a violent/serious prior.

Realignment: PRCS in Los Angeles County

 Led by County Probation Department.  Overseen by the County’s Public Safety Realignment Team.

 Cumulative through September 20, 2013, Los Angeles County had accepted 18, 392 cases on to PRCS from CDCR.

 Subject to random drug testing, compliance checks, and Flash incarceration up to 10 days.

 AB 109 allows for a minimum of 6 months PRCS and a maximum of 1 year. All in Los Angeles serve PRCS minimum of 1 year if no violations.

Realignment: PRCS Services

 Participants are assessed at County Hubs and referred to SAPC, DMH, and/or for housing and employment services.

 Mental health and substance abuse services are primarily out-‐patient and are available for the time a person is on PRCS. Employment services are also available for this period.

 Temporary/transitional housing is available for 90 days, with an additional 90 day extension possible.

Realignment: PRCS in LA County

Los Angeles County Jails: Overview

  9 detention facilities (7 in use)   Maximum capacity = 21,700   Current capacity = 18,500   Pre-‐AB109: average capacity = 15,000   N3 Population at 6,100 today (cumulative 15,700), as of Sept 12, 2013

  Pre-‐AB109 Length Of Stay = 2-‐12 months   Current Length Of Stay = 2.6 years

LA County Jail Population Breakdown

390,000 arrests

50% dispose

d

or bail

50% held for arraignment (200,000)

25% to EDP (50,000)

50% disposed during preliminary pre-‐trial hearings

(100,000)

Remaining 10,500 held in custody for trial

Sentenced popula<on is

9,000

Total = 19,500

Realignment: N3s in County Jails

 Current N3 violators who have no previous violent, serious or sex violations go to county jail instead of state prison.

 Sentence can be straight felony probation, split sentence, or straight custody.

 N3s serving all of their time (after time credits).

 Total of 15,702 sentenced through Aug 31, 2013.

 500 to 900 new defendants sentenced monthly.

Three Strikes Reform – 2012 Prop. 36

1.  Passed by voters in November 2012 with 69% “yes” votes a)  Allowed 3-‐Strikers whose last strike was a petty offense to

petition for release b)  3,500 prisoners eligible statewide c)  Approximately 1,200 Los Angeles County residents

2.  Los Angeles County Petitions a)  Petitioners represented by Public Defenders b)  All petitions reviewed by one Superior Court judge c)  Petitioners in Los Angeles County required to have a

reentry plan d)  About 300 released in the 18 months


3. Prop. 36 written without service dollars attached a)  Some counties using AB 109 funding b)  LA County offering only PRCS – 10% accepting c)  LARRP, Stanford Law Center, & Amity

Foundation operating a “beg, borrow, & steal” program to provide housing & services

d)  3-‐Strikers have been in prison between 12 – 20 years


4. No central coordination a)  In January 2014, we received approval to utilize state

Residential Multi-‐Service Center slots for Prop. 36 b)  CDCR beds paid for state parolees but vacant because

of decrease in people on parole c)  Slots are full service including drug treatment d) RMSC beds are only available until 6/10/14

LA County Realignment Spending

•  Year 1 = $112,000,000 •  Year 2 = $280,000,000 •  Year 3 = $375,000,000 (current)

•  Totals over $750 million

LA County Realignment Budgeting

Fiscal Year 2012-2013

Enforcement & Incarcera<on $ 215,768,000 77% Public Defenders $ 2,046,000 1% Rehabilita<on $ 53,919,000 19%

Reserve $ 8,267,000 3% Total $ 280,000,000

Enforcement & Incarcera<on

Public Defenders

Rehabilita<on

Reserve

Fiscal Year 2013-2014

Enforcement & Incarcera<on $ 267,166,000 79%

Public Defenders $ 3,305,000 1%

Rehabilita<on $ 67,659,000 20%

Reserve $ -‐ 0%

Total $ 338,130,000

Enforcement & Incarcera<on

Public Defenders

Rehabilita<on

Reserve

  Enforcement & Incarceration includes Probation budget minus the HR360 housing & employment contract, Sheriff budget, Fire, DA, Courts, BOS, & Auditor-Controller.

  Rehabilitation includes the HR360 contract for housing & employment, and the DMH, DPH, and DHS budgets.

Funded Reentry Services AB 109 AB 109

(1170 [h]) County

ProbaCon “Regular”

Jail Releases

State Parole

Prop. 36

Housing 90 days/ 90 day

extension


None

Mental Health



None

Substance Abuse Treatment



None

Mental Health Referrals & Treatment *

•  Total AB 109 cases = 18, 392 •  Assessed by DMH = 6,161 •  Requiring mental health services only = 787 •  Requiring co-‐occurring treatment = 4,607 •  Initial rate of engagement was 45% by end of year 2, it was 68% with treatment now mandated by terms of supervision

*DMH data for AB 109 Years 1 & 2

Substance Abuse Referrals & Treatment*

•  Treatment Referrals = 6,256 •  Refusals = 617 •  Treatment not Required = 3,704 •  “Others” = 779 •  Outpatient Counseling = 2,320 •  Residential Services = 770 •  Narcotic Treatment Programs = 363 •  Medical DetoxiFication = 170 •  Day Care Habilitative = 23 *DPH SAPC date for AB 109 Years 1 & 2

Housing: A Key Strategy for Reintegra<on Success

Danielle Wildkress

Who is in the room? •  Reentry provider?

•  Homeless housing/service provider?

•  Government?

•  Other non-‐profit?

CSH’s Mission

To advance solutions that use housing as a platform for services to improve the lives of the most vulnerable people, maximize public resources and build healthy communities.

Topics for this morning •  Housing as a plamorm

•  Cost-‐effec<veness •  Barriers to housing •  Promising prac<ces

Target popula<on

Homeless popula<on

Reentry popula<on

The downward spiral

Suppor<ve Housing

HOUSING •  No limit on length of stay •  Affordable •  Independent

SERVICES •  Flexible •  Voluntary •  Tenant-‐Centered

TENANTS •  Long-‐term homelessness with disabili<es •  Barriers to housing stability

Madison Street Apartments in Oakland

Suppor<ve Housing

Housing Models Model Cost Duration Features

Emergency Shelter

$$$$ Short-Term (1-180 days, ideally under 30 days)

•  Immediate access •  Intensity of support varies greatly. •  Not appropriate for high-need.

Rapid Rehousing $$ Medium-Term Subsidy, No Limit in Housing (1-24 months)

•  Client has a lease for his/her own unit •  Focus on housing stability •  Appropriate for low to medium need.

Transitional Housing

$$$ Medium-Term Subsidy, Limited Length of Stay in Housing (6-24 months)

•  Site-based, (sometimes) communal living •  Focus on housing readiness •  Often screens out high-need.

Permanent Supportive Housing

$$$ Long-Term, no Limit on Length of Stay (focus is on permanency)

•  Client has a lease for his/her own unit •  Focus on housing stability •  Appropriate for high need only (cannot

access or maintain housing stability without services)

Outcomes NYC FUSE

Over the 24 months aqer housing placement, FUSE par<cipants averaged 29 jail days vs. 48 jail days for the matched comparison group

Cost-‐Effec<veness NYC FUSE

Results indicate suppor<ve housing reduced

average total costs for shelter, jail, and crisis care health services by

$15,680 per person per 12-‐month period.

Cost-‐Effec<veness-‐ Los Angeles FUSE

Es<mated annual public cost per

10th decile pa<ent:

$67,376 when homeless

v.

$19,399 when in PSH

What stands in our way?

•  Need a broader range of housing op<ons

•  Need to remove programma<c barriers (i.e. clean & sober reqs)

•  Need to remove formal barriers to subsidized housing

•  Need to connect

A word about federal requirements & PHAs…

Under federal regula<ons, only 2 categories of people who are absolutely barred from public housing…

1. Registered sex offenders

2. People convicted of drug related criminal ac<vity for manufacture or produc<on of methamphetamine on the premises of federally assisted housing

Other language from the feds The PHA must prohibit admission an applicant for 3 years from the date of evic<on if the household member has been evicted from federally assisted housing for drug-‐related ac<vity.

However, the PHA may admit the household if the PHA determines:

•  (A) that the evicted household member who engaged in drug related criminal ac<vity has successfully completed a supervised drug rehabilita<on program

JIR 2.0: A promising prac<ce in LA

Assessment & Enrollment while in Jail

Coordinated Discharge to Temp. Housing

Permanent Housing ASAP leveraging CES

Ques<ons?

Danielle Wildkress, Senior Program Manager [email protected]

213.623.4342 ext 20

LosAnglesCounty$$ Reentry$&$Realignment$ …lareentry.alpinevalleykitchen.com/wp-content/uploads/...LA County Realignment Budgeting Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Enforcement&(Incarceraon(

Documents