Impacts of Californias Criminal Justice Realignment - Thesis Example

Evaluating the Impacts of California’s Criminal Justice Realignment List of tables Table Analysis of the realignment income tax model Table 2 Analysis of funding for the first three years Table 3 Analysis of the number of offenders in prisons between 2011 and 2013 Table of Contents Evaluating the Impacts of California’s Criminal Justice Realignment 1 Abstract 5 Chapter 1 5 Introduction 5 Research Objectives 6 Research questions 7 Chapter 2 7 Literature Review 7 Assembly Bill 109 7 Penal Code 1170H 8 Crime Rate 9 Resources 10 Sentencing Laws 10 A Review of Previous Studies 12 Chapter 3 13 Research Design 13 Methodology 13 Analysis of Data 14 Conclusion 14 Chapter Four 15 Data Analysis 15 Analysis of Realignment Funding 15 Analysis of Relocation Spending 17 Analysis of Types of Crime and Crime Rates in California 17 Analysis of the Number of Inmates in State Prisons and Jails 18 Chapter Five 20 Discussion, Conclusion, and Recommendations 20 Discussion of Findings 20 Conclusion 23 Answers to Research Questions 23 Recommendations 24 References 25 Appendices 29 Appendix 1 29 Burglary and Motor Vehicle Crime Rates 29 Appendix 2 30 Crime rates in California from 2010 to 2012 30 Appendix 3 31 Overcrowding in California Prisons 31 Appendix 4 32 Parole Population in California 32 Evaluating the Impacts of California’s Criminal Justice Realignment Abstract The realignment policy in California is a strategy that the state uses to reduce the number of offenders in prisons. The legislation argues that offenders who commit ‘non-violent, non-serious, and non-sex related,’ crimes to be transferred from prisons to jails. Violent and sex offenders, on the other hand remain in prisons. This paper aimed at determining the impacts of restructuring in the state. The literature review analyses AB 109, 1170H, sentencing laws, and other essential information including analyzing previous researches. The research used information from secondary sources and analyzed it using qualitative and quantitative techniques. The results indicate that realignment has led to the reduction of felonies in prisons by 17%. Crime rate has also increased in the state; while there is lack of sufficient resources. Numerous problems such as overcrowding in jails have resulted from the relocation of criminals to jails. The lack of a solution to this problem may render realignment to be an ineffective solution to overcrowding in California. Chapter 1 Introduction The state of California developed the criminal justice realignment legislation in May 2011. The state developed the realignment program following an order to reduce the number of inmates in prisons from the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court required the state to reduce the number of inmates from 180% to 137.5% of the capacity of the prisons by May 2013 (Green, 2014). This meant that California had to reduce the number of inmates in state prisons by 25,000. In response to the Supreme Court’s order, the state developed the prison realignment reform under Bill 109 and Penal Code 1170h in 2011. Bill 109 transfers the responsibility of imprisoning non-violent offenders from state prisons to county jails (Green, 2014). According to this bill, non-violent offers are those who commit crimes that are ‘non-serious,’ and ‘non-sex related (Hunter, 2013).’ This means that the prisoners who commit serious, violent, and sex-related crimes will be incarcerated in state prisons instead of county jails. The penal code 1170h, on the other hand, states that individuals who are realigned in county jails must undergo compulsory supervision; while out of custody. County probation officers conduct the Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS) (Caffiero, 2013).The code also requires those who disobey the mandatory supervision to be imprisoned in county jails instead of prisons. This is different from probation, which requires prisoners who are released from state jails to be supervised by state paroles (Green, 2014). The new rules in California’s justice have various positive and negative effects. This paper aims at conducting research to find out the effects of the criminal justice realignment. Research Objectives i. To find out the effect of the criminal justice realignment on the resources available in the current sentencing laws in California. ii. To determine the effect of realignment on the crime rate and the type of crimes committed in California. iii. To find out whether the criminal justice realignment has reduced the number of inmates in state prisons in California. Research questions i. What are the effects of the criminal justice realignment on the resources available under the current sentencing laws? ii. What are the effects of realignment on the crime rates and the types of crimes committed in California? iii. Has the criminal justice realignment reduced the number of inmates in state prisons in California? Chapter 2 Literature Review This chapter will conduct a summary of major literature that has been conducted in this topic. Assembly Bill 109 California developed this rule to respond to a Supreme Court order that required the state to reduce the population in its prisons. The Supreme Court gave the state this order following the increase in the number of cases of human rights violation in the prisons filed by inmates. Prisoners complained of overcrowding and inadequate rehabilitation and health care (Caffiero, 2013). The two main cases that led the Supreme Court to give California State this order include Plata vs. Brown, and Coleman vs. Brown. The plaintiffs in these two cases argued that the mental health care and facilities in California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation were insufficient (Green, 2014). Another major fact in these cases was that the health care that they received was unconstitutional; thus, it was in opposition to the eighth amendment of the constitution. The realignment legislation states that criminals who commit, “non-sex related non-serious and non-violent crimes (N3),” should be locked up in county jails instead of state prisons (Petrella, 2014). The assembly formulated this legislation to reduce the number of prisoners in state cells. The assembly also developed this bill because the Supreme Court had given the state a two-year ultimatum; this meant that the solution to this predicament was supposed to be immediate. The state, therefore, did not have an option of building new cells within this short time. The criminals who committed violent, serious, and sex related crimes, however, would remain in state units because the nature of their crimes requires them to be incarcerated for longer periods than the others (Lefcoe, & Swenson, 2014). The instantaneous effect of this legislation is that it will reduce the number of prisoners in state units: while it increases the number of inmates in county jails. Penal Code 1170H In addition to Bill 109, the assembly of California formulated Penal Code 1170H, which states that it is mandatory for inmates who are out of custody of county jails to be supervised (Ducart, 2013). This rule is meant to ensure that the wrong doers who are out of detention correct their behavior even if state officers do not supervise them. State prison inmates who commit crime while they are under probation may be imprisoned in county jails instead of state units under this rule. Penal Code 1170H also states that judges have the option of sentencing criminals to a full term or part of the term in jail and the other part out of custody, but under supervision. Under this rule, judges may also sentence criminals to community service or treatment for drug abuse (Hunter, 2013). These rules help to reduce the population of both state units and jails. Crime Rate According to the Public Policy Institute of California, there was an increase in the crime rate in the state from 2011 to 2012. The rate increased to 3,181 from 2,995 per every 100,000 residents (Loftsrom, & Martin, 2013). The institute argued that the state had never experienced such an increase in the number of crimes since the 1980. The organization, however, argued that the crime rate was double that of 2012 before 1980 (Loftsrom, & Martin, 2013). This means that if this trend continues, the crime rate may shoot up and reach the level of the 1970s and 1960s. The public policy institute of California also argued that the rate of violent crimes in the state rose to 422 per 100,000 residents in 2012 (Green, 2014). This rate was slightly higher than the crime rate of the whole of the United States that was 387 per 100,000 people in the same year (Loftsrom, & Martin, 2013). These statistics indicate that California faces high levels of violent crimes compared to the whole country. The rate of property crime in the state also increased by 7% from 2,586 in 2011 to 2,757 in 2012; however, the rate was below the national property crime frequency (Lofstrom, & Martin, 2013). These statistics indicate that property crime is higher than violent crime in California. This also means that there is a higher likelihood of a prisoner to be jailed for property crime than violent felony in the state. Theft also increased from 1,584 to 1670 between 2011 and 2012. Other crimes that increased include rape, robbery, murder, and vehicle theft (Petrella, 2014). Resources The state of California gives all counties $1 billion every year to help them handle the responsibility of housing additional inmates (Hunter, 2013). The counties have the permission to use the funds in various ways that will help them care for the additional prisoners. The main methods in which the counties may use the funds is to build additional prison units, employ additional workers, expand mental health facilities, develop probation services, and expand rehabilitation centers for drug users (Lefcoe, & Swenson, 2014). All counties need the money to acquire all these resources because they expect to receive numerous additional inmates, and they have to ensure that their services are efficient. Despite the funding that counties receive from the state, numerous of these provinces begun complaining about insufficient funds by the end of the first six months of implementing realignment. A study conducted by Caffiero (2013) indicates that the counties complained that the funds were not enough to help them employ additional employees. The study also found out that counties experienced overcrowding in their jails within the first six months. This means that these districts need additional time and funds to help them build extra units; this will help to reduce overcrowding in jails. According to the study, numerous counties argued that they had to release some prisoners before the end of their sentenced term to reduce overcrowding (Caffiero, 2013). This means that the state lacks sufficient funds to implement the criminal justice realignment. Sentencing Laws There are three sentencing terms in California and they include lower, upper, and middle term. The state formulated these periods in 1977 under the SB 40 bill. SB 40 states that judge should sentence criminals to a middle term period in state prison (Caffiero, 2013). This rule, however, indicates that if judges find mitigating facts in a criminal’s case, they may sentence that wrong doer to an upper or lower limit. This legislation indicates that most prisoners in California serve a middle term sentence in prisons and jails. This means that it takes a long time before a criminal is released from prison or jail in the state. Therefore, when new criminals come into the jails, the problem of overcrowding arises in state prisons and county jails. In fact, Ducart (2013) argues that the implementation of this law led to the increase in the number of prisoners in California from 20,000 in 1980 to 160,000 in 2011. According to Beard, Toche, Beyer, Babby, Allen, Grassel and Maxwell (2013), 21.5% of prisoners in state prisoners were serving an upper term in jail in 2012. This figure was an increase from the 17% of the same group that was in prison in 2011 before the implementation of the realignment legislation. Caffiero (2013) also found out that an additional 32,000 criminals will be admitted in state prisons by the end of 2014. This means that the numbers of inmates in state prisons are increasing every year and this may lead to a housing crisis in these units in the near future. The realignment legislation may fail to achieve its main objective if this takes place. The state’s sentencing regulations also require criminals who are convicted of murder and kidnap to be sentenced for a lifetime (Hunter, 2013). This means that these prisoners spend the rest of their life in state prisons. This creates a problem because new criminals are imprisoned every day yet there is insufficient space because those who serve a lifetime sentence are not released. The law also requires that such prisoners be kept on probation where state agents supervise them in case they are released (Green, 2014). This means that the state has to spend numerous funds to pay supervision agents every year so that they may supervise those who are on probation. This creates a problem of insufficient funds and lack of enough agents to conduct the supervision process. A Review of Previous Studies Beard, Toche, Beyer, Babby, Allen, Grassel, and Maxwell conducted a study in 2013 to find out the number of prisoners who were discharged from California’s state prisons after the implementation of the realignment legislation. The study followed up with 58, 746 wrong doers who were released after realignment to find out whether they would be arrested again or break the rules of supervision. The research also followed up with 90,514 criminals who were released in October 2010 so that it would compare them with those who were released after realignment (Bear, Toche, Beyer, Babby, Allen, Grassel and Maxwell, 2013). The research found out that the rate of arrest after realignment remained almost the same as before the realignment. According to the study, pre-alignment arrests were 58.9% while post-alignment arrests were 56.2%. Pre-alignment convictions, on the other hand, were 20.9% while post-alignment convictions were 21% (Bear, Toche, Beyer, Babby, Allen, Grassel and Maxwell, 2013). This research also found out that after the realignment, prisoners were likely to be arrested more times within the same year than before the alignment. Offenders who were arrested after realignment were charged for more crimes than before the implementation of the rule. The offenders who were arrested after the realignment were charged with more violent crimes than those who were incarcerated before realignment (Bear, Toche, Beyer, Babby, Allen, Grassel and Maxwell, 2013). Spencer and Petersilla also conducted a research in 2013 to find out whether their rights are respected after the realignment. This study conducted interviews on victims in various counties such as San Francisco, Santa Barbara, and Riverside. The study found out that the order of restitution was not conducted efficiently after realignment. According to Spencer and Petersilla (2013), state prisons placed prisoners on work programs so that they would earn income to help them restitute the victims of their crimes. However, victims argued that county jails failed to place them on work programs to help them pay the restitutions. Prisoners also argued that jail workers were not well skilled in the process of colleting restitutions. The study also found out that the right of prisoners of receiving notification as stated in Marsy’s law was violated after realignment. This law requires the state to notify prisoners about the continuation of their cases; for example, when there is a hearing, trial, or release the convict. Convicts argued that county jails did not notify them about the proceedings of their cases and this made them miss some arrangements. Some convicts actually argued that they were released from prison without notification. These prisoners argued that they did not know whether jails had their statistics; they were absent when Corrections Standards Authority was collecting their data (Spencer, & Petersilla, 2013). Chapter 3 Research Design This chapter will discuss the methods that will be used to collect, analyze, and present data in the research. Methodology The research will used abstractive design, which involves analyzing information from secondary sources (Watkinson, & Burton, 2013). The study also used sources mainly from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) because the institution has conducted adequate research on the effects of realignment in the institute. The sources were both evidence-based and general reports. The evidence-based reports enabled the research to analyze data that was collected from the field because it is highly reliable (Watkins, & Burton, 2013). Apart from the reports from the PPIC, the study also used sources from other reliable databases. The report analyzed AB 109 bill and Penal Code 1170H to find out the effects that they have on jails and prisons in California. The analysis included other legislations such as sentencing laws and their effects on realignment in the state (Watkins, & Burton, 2013). Analysis of Data The study analyzed data using both qualitative and quantitative techniques. This meant that the research drew graphs and wrote statements that describe the data that would not be quantified. This helped in drawing reliable conclusions from the research. Conclusion The conclusion of the research was written in a report format. This part also included recommendations that suggest new changes that may help to conduct realignment in California efficiently. Chapter Four Data Analysis This chapter will discuss the findings from secondary sources of information. Tables and graphs will be used where necessary in addition to analytical statements. Analysis of Realignment Funding The Californian government increased sales and income taxes on the high-income earners in the state to help in funding the realignment rule. The state argued that the increase in these taxes would help to raise $400 million (California Budget Project, 2012). This amount would help in funding the realignment program in the first year. In November 2012, the state also amended the constitution to help protect the funding of realignment in future. This amendment argued that the restructuring program would be funded every year; this proposition prevents the future leaders of the state from formulating laws that alter the funding of the program (Quan, Abarbanel, & Mukamal, 2014). Table 1: Analysis of the realignment income tax model Type of tax payer Income range ($) Income tax rate (%) Single filers 250,001-300,000 10.3% Single filers 300,001-500,000 11.3% Single filers Above 500,000 12.3% Source (California Budget Project, 2013) This table indicates that the higher the income that a citizen earns, the higher the tax that individual pays for funding realignment. This means that individuals who earn $250,000 and below are the only ones whose incomes will not be affected by the realignment legislation. Table 2: Analysis of funding for the first three years. Year Start-up ($) CCP grants ($) Programmatic funding ($) Revocation funding ($) Total 1 25.0 7.9 354.3 12.7 399.9 2 - 7.9 842.9 14.6 865.4 3 - 7.9 998.9 17.1 1.023.9 Source (Petersilla, & Cullen, 2014) This table indicates that programmatic funding was the highest every year in the first three years. Programmatic funds are the ones that the state uses to manage the adult offenders who have been realigned. The revocation funding was the next in terms of high funding for the years. Revocation funds increased every year from $12.7 million in the first year to &17.1 million in the third year. Revocation finances are used to fund trials for criminals who act against their terms of release from prisons and jails (California Budget Project, 2013). Start-up costs were the third highest finances although the state allocated these funds only in the first year. These finances are used to extend the capacity of jails to hold additional prisoners after realignment (Petersilla, & Cullen, 2014). This means these funds help counties in building additional units, hiring staff, and training employees so that they may be able to handle the new capacity (Misczynski, 2011). Community Corrections Partnerships (CCP) funds were the lowest every year. Analysis of Relocation Spending The California Budget Project (2013) indicates that counties saved some finances from the ones they were allocated for restructuring in the second and third year. In the second year, counties saved $1 billion while in the third year they saved $1.3 billion. The state’s budget project also argues that the number of paroles in California has decreased after realignment (California Budget Project, 2013). The cost per parole has also increased significantly in the state. This may explain the reason for the decrease in the number of paroles in the state since 2011. The cost of healthcare has also increased in California since the implementation of the restructuring program. Dental and psychiatric costs are the major health expenses that have increased in the state (Hopper, Dooley-Sammuli, & Evans, 2012). Analysis of Types of Crime and Crime Rates in California The velocity of crime in California increased in 2012, a year after the implementation of realignment rule. The rate increased from 2,999 to 3,179 per 100,000 residents from 2011 to 2012. However, the 2012 state crime rate was lower than the national crime rate that was 3,249 (Grattet, & Hayes, 2013). The difference between the state and the nation’s crime rate was 70 crimes. Lofstrom and Martin (2013) argue that auto thefts started increasing in California in October in 2011; this was immediately after the start of the implementation of realignment in the state. Motor vehicle theft increased by 20% from 2010 to 2012 (Males, Goldstein, & CJCJ, 2014). This indicates that there is a direct relationship between the increases in crimes in California and the implementation of realignment. Figure 1: Total, violent, and property crime rate in the state: Source (Lofstrom, & Martin, 2013) This graph indicates that violent crimes increased in California between 2010 and 2012 when the rate was 425 crimes for every 100,000 individuals. In fact, the 425 violent crime rates in the state were higher than the national rate that was 387 (Carson, 2013). This means that violent offenders were more likely to be found in California more than in any other part of the United States in 2012. Analysis of the Number of Inmates in State Prisons and Jails Grattet and Hayes argue that California has reduced the number of non-sex, non-violent, and non-serious offenders from prisons since the implementation of the restructuring law. This is because state prisons held approximately 120,000 prisoners in October 2013 compared to the 144,000 offenders who were in state adult prisons in 2011 (The Rose Report, 2014). This reduction represents a 17% decrease in offenders in prisons within the first year of realignment. Table 3: Analysis of the number of offenders in prisons between 2011 and 2013 Details September 2011 May 2013 Change Percentage change (%) Adult inmates 160,774 133,011 -27,763 -17.3% State prisons 144,456 119,911 -24,545 -17.0% Out of state contracts 9,491 8,270 -1,221 -12.9% In state contract facilities 2,558 665 -1,893 -74.0% Hospitals for the mentally ill 198 243 45 22.7% Source (California Budget Project, 2013) The table indicates that all groups of prisoners in California prisons have decreased except those who were in the hospitals for the mentally ill. The prisoners who were admitted in hospitals for the mentally ill increased by 22.7% from 198 in 2011 to 243 in 2013 (Carson, 2014). According to Grattet and Hayes (2013), prisoners who are above 50 years exceed those who are below 25 years in state prisons. 56% of the male prisoners are of Latin or African-American origin; this means that out of four prisoners in jail, three of them are either African-Americans or Latinos (Males, Goldstein, & CJCJ, 2014). The researchers also argue that at the end of 2012, 88% of prisoners were convicted of sex-related, serious, or violent crimes. Since these offenders are exempted from realignment, it means that they will remain in state prisons instead of being sent to county jails. Chapter Five Discussion, Conclusion, and Recommendations This chapter will discuss the findings from the analysis chapter and draw relevant conclusions to the research questions. Discussion of Findings The analysis indicates California has had numerous funds to finance the realignment of offenders from state prisons to jails. This is because the state’s funding of the program increased significantly from the first to the third year. The programmatic funds were the highest in the three years because they helped to take care of offenders who were transferred from prisons to jails. California allocated start-up costs of $25 million only in the first year. These funds help counties in expanding their jail units and hiring additional staff. Since new staff needed to be hired, it means that county jails need sufficient funds to pay these workers every year. The fact that the cost of hiring workers was included in the start up for the first year only means that jails lacked enough funds to pay workers in subsequent years Petersilla, & Cullen, 2014). The state also formulated sales and income tax that would help in funding the program. The formulated income tax indicates that high-income earners contribute the highest to the program; while low-income earners do not contribute anything. This means that the realignment income tax is efficient because it does not increase the strain that low-income earners undergo. Counties in California increased their savings every year since the implementation of realignment in 2012. This means that the funds that they got were more than sufficient in these years. However, the increase in savings may have been caused by the lack of sufficient staff to implement the policy; for example paroles and medical practitioners (California Budget Project, 2013). The counties may have also increased their savings because of the limitation in the way that they spend the available finances. The lack of an immediate solution to realignment such as building new units within a short period may have also led to the net saving of funds (Misczynski, 2011). Another observation is that crime rates increased in California after realignment. This is because the program only transferred prisoners from prisons to jails, instead of formulating techniques of reducing the number of crimes in the state. The reduction of the number of crimes would have been more efficient than transferring felonies from state prisons to jails. The increase in violent crimes after realignment means that criminals who commit such felonies will be held in prisons. If this trend continues, it means that realignment will fail to achieve its main objective of reducing the number of offenders in prisons. The fact that violent crime rates are higher in California than in the whole of the United States means that the immediate need in the state is that of fighting against violent crimes. This is because transferring offenders from prisons to jails is impossible because AB 109 excludes violent criminals from realignment (Hopper, Dooley-Sammuli, & Evans, 2012). The increase in the number of crimes means that courts may have to change their sentencing laws if they have to reduce state prisons population. The current sentencing laws require judges to sentence offenders to a middle term, which is one year and above. The change in the laws may allow judges to sentence offenders to a term of one year or less depending on the nature of a crime. This will ensure that prisoners do not overstay in prisons and overpopulation in these units ends. The number of offenders in California prisons reduced by 17% in the first two years. This means that the state is in the process of achieving its objective of reducing the capacity of prisons from 160% to 137.5%. However, the number of offenders in jails increased significantly from 2011; in fact, some counties experienced overpopulation in jails within the first six months of the implementation of restructuring. For example, Contra Costa had 104 prisoners and over 190 vacant beds in September 2011; in March 2012, the county had 420 prisoners (Carson, 2014). This means that within six months, the number of inmates in Contra Costa increased by 316 offenders. This is a 300% increase in capacity (The Rose Report, 2014). Santa Clara, on the other hand, had 693 prisoners and 1000 free beds in September 2011; in March 2012, the county had 1,338 inmates. This means the number of inmates in county jails increased by 645 offenders (Carson, 2014). This means that the capacity of the prison was already overstretched after the first six months of realignment. This means that this county cannot accommodate additional prisoners in future without compromising the available space and resources such as medical facilities. Conclusion Answers to Research Questions What are the effects of the criminal justice realignment on the resources available under the current sentencing laws? The criminal justice realignment has detrimental effects on the resources that are available in California. This program has led to overpopulation in jails, which means that the resources in jails are being over stretched. The realignment has also led to the need for additional financial resources in the state. Although the state has created taxes that will help to increase funds, these tariffs may not be sufficient to raise funds for building additional units, hiring new staff and training them, and acquiring additional resources such as medical facilities. Since the current sentencing laws require judges to sentence delinquents for middle terms, it means that the over-stretch of resources is not near its end. However, the change in the sentencing laws may help to reduce the over exploitation of available resources in California. The fact that counties saved realignment funds within the first three years may have resulted from the lack of immediate ways of increase jail capacities. For example, building new units would not be possible within the period of two years that the Supreme Court required the state to complete realignment. Counties, therefore, had to save the funds that they had set aside for building purposes. What are the effects of realignment on the crime rates and the types of crimes committed in California? Realignment has led to the increase in violent and property crimes in the state. This is because the program only helps to reduce state prison population instead of helping to reduce the rate of occurrence of felonies. The fact that violent crimes have increased in California means that realignment may fail to achieve its objective in the long term: because violent criminals will remain in state prisons. Has the criminal justice realignment achieved its main objective of reducing the number of inmates in California’s state prisons? The criminal justice under AB 109 legislation has achieved part of its objective of reducing the number of criminals from state units. The bill aimed at reducing the capacity of prisons from 180% to 137.5%; this represents a decrease in capacity by 42.5%. However, by 2013, the state had achieved a 17% reduction of the number of inmates in prisons. This means that California still has a responsibility of reducing the capacity of prisons by 25.5%. The reduction of state prison population has already created a state of overpopulation and over exploitation of resources in California. This means that it may be impossible to achieve the remaining 25.5% decrease in state unit capacity. Recommendations California should device techniques of reducing crime rate in the state instead of formulating laws that transfer inmates from prisons to jails. The reduction of crime rate will help to reduce the number of new offenders being jailed in the state. An example of how to reduce crime is to increase the surveillance of property such as motor vehicles to reduce their theft. The state should also revise its sentencing laws to allow judges to be flexible when sentencing criminals. This will ensure that criminals are sentenced for periods that ensure that they do not overstay in jails and prisons. The state may also build new prisons and jails within the shortest time possible to ensure that these units can hold additional inmates. This will reduce the crisis of overcrowding and over exploitation of available resources. References Beard, J.A., Toche, D., Beyer, B., Babby, W., Allen, D., Grassel, K., & Maxwell, D. (2013). Realignment report: an examination of offenders released from state prison in the first year of public safety realignment. California department of corrections and rehabilitation1 (1). 1-39. Caffiero, M.J., (2013). California prison realignment: the first six months of assembly bill 109 implementation. California budget project. 2012. What would proposition 30 mean for California? California budget brief. Retrieved from www.cbp.org/pdfs/2012/120911_Proposition_30_BB.pdf. California budget project. 2013. A mixed picture: state corrections spending after the 2011 realignment. California budget brief. Retrieved from www.cbp.org/pdfs/2013/130625_A_Mixed_Picture_Corrections.pdf California crime rates 1960-2012. California crime rates 1960-2012. Disaster center. Retrieved from http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cacrime.htm Carson, A.E. (2014). Prisoners in 2013. Us department of justice. Retrieved from www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p13.pdf Ducart, A. M. (2013). Go Directly to Jail: How Misaligned Subsidies Undermine Californias Prisoner Realignment Goals and What Is Possible to Maximize the Laws Potential. Mcgeorge Law Review, 44(2), 481-513. Grattet, R., & Hayes, J. (2013). California’s changing prison population. Public policy institute of California. Retrieved from http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=702 Green, M., (2014). Realignment explained. The California report. Retrieved from http://www.californiareport.org/specialcoverage/prisons/realignment-explained.jsp Hopper, A., Dooley-Sammuli, M., & Evans, K. (2012). ACLU. Retrieved from static.prisonpolicy.org/scans/822959.pdf Hunter, I., (2013). Understanding the basics of public safety realignment. The monthly magazine of the league of California cities. Retrieved from http://www.westerncity.com/Western-City/October-2013/Feature-Understanding-the-Basics/ Lefcoe, G., & Swenson, C. W. (2014). Redevelopment in California: the demise of TIF-funded redevelopment in California and its aftermath. National Tax Journal, (3), 719. Loftsrom, M., & Martin, B., (2013). Crime trends in California. Public policy institute of California. Retrieved from http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1036 Males, M., Goldstein, B., & Center on Juvenile and criminal Justice (CJCJ). 2014. California’s 58 crime rates: realignment and crime in 2012. Center on juvenile and criminal justice 1 (1). 1-9. Misczynski, D. (2011). Rethinking the state-local relationship: corrections. PPIC. Retrieved from www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_811DMR.pdf Petersilla, J., & Cullen, F. (2014). Liberal but not stupid: meeting the promise of downsizing prisons. Stanford journal of criminal law and policy 2 (1). 1-44. petrella, J., (2014). consequences of California’s realignment initiative. Prison legal news. Retrieved from https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2014/jun/12/consequences-californias-realignment-initiative/ Quan, L.T., Abarbanel, S., & Mukamal, D. 2014. Reallocation of responsibility: changes to the correctional system in California post-realignment. Stanford law school. Retrieved from www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/458403/doc/slspublic/CC%20Bulletin%20Jan%2014.pdfb Spencer, J., & Petersilla, J., (2013). Voices from the field: California victims rights in a post-alignment world. Federal sentencing reporter 25 (4). 226-232. The rose report. (2014). Inland empire outlook: prison realignment. Rose institute of state and local governmentI. retrieved from http://roseinstitute.org/prison-realignment/ Watkins, D., & Burton, M. (2013). Research methods in law. London: Routledge. Appendices Appendix 1 Burglary and Motor Vehicle Crime Rates Source: http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1036 Appendix 2 Crime rates in California from 2010 to 2012 Crime rates in California from 2010 to 2012. Year Population Index Violent Property Murder Rape Robbery assault Burglary Theft Theft 2010 37,338,198 3,069.5 439.6 2,629.9 4.8 22.3 155.6 256.8 612.9 1,608.4 408.5 2011 37,683,933 2,995.4 411.2 2,584.2 4.8 20.3 144.1 242.0 610.5 1,584.0 389.7 2012 38,041,430 3,181.8 423.1 2,758.7 5.0 20.6 148.6 248.9 646.1 1,669.5 443.2 Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cacrime.htm Appendix 3 Overcrowding in California Prisons Source: ews/2011/06/poll-shows-voters-support-guvs-realignment-plans-but-dont-want-to-pay-w-tax-increase.html Appendix 4 Parole Population in California Source: http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis/2012/crim_justice/cdcr-022312.aspx Read More