Conducting Research in
Challenging Times:
California Parolee Reentry
Court Evaluation
Association of Criminal Justice Research, California
March 17-19
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 1st 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 1st 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
60%
50%
49%
40%
30%
20%
20%
25%
10%
6%
0%
African
American
Latino
White
Other
Drug of Choice
5% 7%
Alcohol & Other
28%
36%
Cocaine/Crack
Heroin
Methamphetamines
Marijuana
24%
Jurisdiction Type
Parole Only
77%
Dual Jurisdiction
23%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80% 100%
Nearly 75% have high risk
CSRA scores
CSRA Risk Factor
16%
6%
20%
Low
Moderate
High Drug
26%
High Property
32%
High Violent
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
Francine.byrne@jud.ca.gov
415-865-8069