ASSOCIATION FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESEARCH (CALIFORNIA)
SCHEDULE AND NOTES
71st SEMI-ANNUAL MEETING
MARCH 25-26, 2010
What follows immediately below is the final conference schedule of reports, panels, and presentations. Stars (**) indicate links to PowerPoint presentations. This schedule is followed by the set of extensive notes taken by Mike Stefanko, Ph.D.
Go directly to the Notes
Program Chair: Elizabeth Siggins, Chief Deputy Secretary, CA Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Co-Chair: Rudy Haapanen, Research Director, Center for Public Policy Research, University of California, Davis
Research, Policy and Politics: How Research Informs Decisions
THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2010
President’s Welcome and Introduction: Amanda Noble, Senior Policy Analyst, California Research Bureau (Retired)
Keynote Address: Ana Matosantos, Director, California State Department of Finance
“Making Difficult Decisions in Difficult Times: The Reality of California’s Budget”
Panel #1: Leveraging Resources for Impact: Piloting an Evidence-based Resource Center
Chair: Barbara Raymond, Director, Innovations, The California Endowment
Paul Seave, Director of Governor’s Office of Gang & Youth Violence Policy
**Peter Greenwood, Executive Director of the Association for the Advancement of Evidence-based Practices
**Scott MacDonald, Chief Probation Officer, Santa Cruz County
Luncheon
Panel #2: Estimating the Cost per Crime in California
Chair: Rudy Haapanen, Research Director, Center for Public Policy Research, University of California, Davis.
**Robert Cushman, Consultant, National Institute of Corrections, “A Comparative Analysis Tool for CJS Operations”
**Rudy Haapanen, Research Director, Center for Public Policy Research, University of California, Davis.
“What’s in the Estimates of Cost-per-Crime”
Panel #3: Child and Foster Care Issues within the Criminal Justice System
Chair: Gail Goodman, Distinguished Professor, Department of Psychology, and
Director, Center for Public Policy Research, University of California, Davis
**Shay O’Brien, Research Writer, Center for Public Policy and Research, and
**Drika Makariev, Doctoral Student, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis,
“The National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD) Project: An Overview”
Gail Goodman, Distinguished Professor, Department of Psychology, and Director,
Center for
Public Policy Research, University of California, Davis “Child Witnesses”
**Natalie Troxel, Doctoral Student, Department of Psychology,
University of California, Davis,
“Adults’ Judgments of Juvenile Sex Offenders”
 |
 |
| |
|
FRIDAY, MARCH 26TH
President’s Report: Amanda Noble
Panel #4: The Legislative Challenge: Balancing Research, Policy, and Politics
Chair: Amanda Noble, Senior Policy Analyst, California Research Bureau (retired)
**Brian Brown, Consultant, Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review
**Joe Stephenshaw, Consultant , Assembly Budget Committee
Panel #5: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Adult Rehabilitative Programs: Changing the Way We Do Business
Chair: Jeanne Woodford, Correctional Consultant
**Cynthia Florez-DeLyon, Acting Director of Adult Rehabilitative Programs, CDCR
**Michele Minor, Chief of Rehabilitative Program Planning and Accountability, CDCR
************************************************
Post-Conference Meeting of Court Researchers
CONFERENCE NOTES
The following notes were taken by Mike Stefanko, Ph.D. of the presentations made at the 71st Semi-Annual Meeting of the Association for Criminal Justice Research (California). These notes, while as complete as possible, reflect the themes and points that most attracted Mike’s attention during the presentations. Your comments on other items that interested you in the talks are welcomed and will be added to these notes. Send them to mstefanko70@gmail.com (please clearly specify the presentation).
KEYNOTE ADDRESS: Ana Matosantos, Director, California State Department of Finance, “Making Difficult Decisions in Difficult Times: The Reality of California’s Budget”
Ana began by giving a short overview of the current budget situation and its effect on decision-making, then opened the discussion up to questions. This (the 2008-2009 budget year) is the first time since 1938 that personal income actually decreased in the state. This led to the massive budget shortfall, which has created a series of “firsts” with regards to the budget. Indications are that the recovery will be slow, meaning that the problems will be with us for years. Right now many of the “easy” choices have already been made, and about 25% of cost pressures are based upon court issues or litigation. Legislators must decide how to prioritize among things that are very different and very difficult to compare. One approach is to try to determine the differential impact of various cuts. Another pressure comes from the fact that the state has not had sufficient cash on hand to meet its obligations since 2007. This means that funds must be borrowed and lenders want to see a revenue stream that will allow the repayment of the borrowed funds. This compounds the scrambling that has occurred to balance the budget and meet obligations. One positive effect of the critical situation has been an increased emphasis on using the best science to determine priorities. This is particularly true in the corrections area.
The first audience question/comment had to do with the fact that some of the immediate savings were being made in programs whose cut or elimination will certainly lead to much higher long term costs. Ana’s response was that the truth is we must find ways to save money today. While legislators are interested in minimizing impacts over time, the truth is that there are many constraints – is it constitutional? Are there mandates or legal obligations? Another note is that with term limits legislators are not likely to be around when the long-term costs hit, so it will not affect how the voters see them doing their jobs. For example, what can be done in the criminal justice arena? The parole reform package was assembled based upon the research, but even when the research indicates something is of value, we lack the resources to fund many things of value – so which ones do we fund?
The next question/comment noted that one part of incarceration is that it can be multi-generational, so we also need to focus on investing in children of incarcerated parents. However the cuts in health and human services make this problematic. Ana noted that this area is bound by many legal constraints that limit policy choices. Another participant asked why the state needed to balance its budget? The answer is that the state constitution requires that the budget be balanced and any change would require a constitutional amendment. In 2004 we did vote to allow some of a budget deficit to be paid through the issue of bonds, but this was a one-time fix.
Another questioner noted that juvenile incarceration was shifted mainly to the counties, and asked why we did not do that for parole? That is one area being looked at, specifically by Senator Leno. However, this just shifts the burden of expense to the counties, who are also required to balance their budgets. A practitioner noted that other states seem to be using the science and research more in their decision-making. California seems to be “tinkering at the margins” compared to states like New York. There is the issue of policy-making in response to science versus in response to media attention to a specific extreme case (such as the Chelsea King murder). One example of leadership is the Operation Welcome Home program initiated by the governor for returning war veterans. A similar program could be developed for the reintegration of paroled offenders. This is where the issue of leadership becomes most important.
Ana was asked how much discretion there is in the budget. She noted that $6 billion must be devoted to debt service (on bonds), about 3% of the budget is obligated to pension payments, Proposition 98 mandates 40% of the funds go to K through 12 and community colleges (although the interpretation of this differs, so there is some leeway in the actual final amount), Medicare is limited by federal laws preventing the reduction of services, higher education has some federal requirements that must be met, while there are case law constraints in the Health Services area. Altogether, about 65% of the budget is set. Another point regarding shifting obligations to the counties – the counties see that if they did crime prevention programs to reduce incarceration, they would incur additional costs, but most of the savings would accrue to the state, therefore they have no incentive to fund prevention programs. There have been some discussions about how savings might be shared.
On the revenue side, estimates come from combining the forecasts of different economists – UCLA, the federal government forecasters, and so on – with data trends. This gives revenue projections. Then as revenue comes in different from expectations, analysts try to determine why and what the overall effect would be. For example, if the revenue from income tax is $1 billion above expectations, does this indicate an unexpectedly large increase in income, or that people filed early and future revenue will be lower? A key question is: what information is missing that will help us understand the direction of the future trends? One important fact is that 50% of income tax revenue (which is 25% of all revenue) comes from 146,000 returns, so the impact of an economic downturn on a small number of Californians has a major impact on revenue. Ultimately, the current situation means that we must do things differently. The basic concept of funding new or different programs is: if we spend $X here, can we save $Y there, and within what time frame?
The final question was how can we get and share information. Ana directed people to the Department of Finance website (www.dof.ca.gov), then look for a “Corrections” option.
PANEL #1: LEVERAGING RESOURCES FOR IMPACT: PILOTING AN EVIDENCE-BASED RESOURCE CENTER
The panel chair, Barbara Raymond, began by introducing herself and the panel members. She also polled the audience to get a sense of the mix of academics, government agency people, practitioners, and so on.
Paul Seave began the discussion regarding juvenile probation and the development of resource centers by noting that he would attempt to address two questions: 1) Why focus on juvenile probation? 2) Why resource centers? Overall, California has the highest rate of juveniles in custody of any state; in fact, its rate is twice that of the national average. While most crime rates have been going down steadily for years, the rate of juvenile arrests in California for violent crimes has held steady since 2004. What has now occurred, and is reflected in this panel, is a collaboration between funders, policymakers and practitioners. Research findings of “rehabilitative programs” show that over half have produced negligible results or worse. About 7% actually have negative results. Paul also noted that the programs that were evaluated would have been ones believing they have positive effects, in other words the “better” programs, so the number of programs with negligible or negative effects is likely to be even greater. When one combines these findings with the estimate that about 70% of adult inmates went through the juvenile justice system, it is easy to conclude that doing a much better job of rehabilitating juveniles would have great cost benefits.
So why establish research centers? Almost all juvenile detention occurs at the county level. Effective implementation of evidence-based programs is very difficult, and most counties, particularly the smaller ones, would have limited resources to do anything. The state Office of Gang and Youth Violence Policy is using funds to promote evidence-based practices. Having resource centers that all counties can access is the best way to have a statewide impact. This effort is beginning with $1.1 million to assist 24 probation departments in implementing Aggression Replacement Training programs. There is funding going to nine cities to implement evidence-based programs to reduce gang violence and funding to 14 cities for evidence-based programs to reduce juvenile recidivism and substance abuse.
Peter Greenwood began his presentation by first listing what we know works, which is a pretty extensive list of programs (see the PowerPoint). He noted that a major problem in maintaining program fidelity is high staff turnover – many program providers are “burned out” after two or three years. On the positive side, California has more Functional Family Therapy (FFT) programs than any other state. There are 12 Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) programs in operation, as well as programs in the evidence-based areas of Treatment Foster Care, Nurse-Family Partnerships, Aggression Replacement Training (a Mark Lipsey program), Cognitive Behavior Training, and Fidelity Assurance. It is important to continue to build relationships with program providers over time and to continue to fund programs that are faithful to the evidence-based models on which they are based. Washington State presents us with a good process and framework to follow.
Peter reminded the audience that to really do evidence-based practice, the following five items are needed: 1) you need a portfolio of programs so the person with the need can be matched to the most appropriate program; 2) you need an effective assessment tool; 3) you need a good assignment protocol; 4) you need a way to ensure that programs are being done correctly (fidelity assurance); and 5) you need ongoing research and development to add to the portfolio of evidence-based programs.
Therapy is in conflict with politics. While therapy says “I need to engage you”, politics says “I must be tough” – punishment is tough, treatment is not. Since most funding is already earmarked, finding money to support evidence-based programs will be hard. In comparing how California is doing compared with other states that have embraced evidence-based programming, we find that California has less FFT and MST program capacity per capita than Florida, Washington, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, but is higher in prisons. Most other states have resource centers to promote evidence-based programming, so we also need to catch up in this area.
The next presenter, Scott MacDonald, presented some of the challenges faced by a smaller county (Santa Cruz) in trying to implement evidence-based programs. Perhaps the greatest challenge is that at present programming is being driven by fears and anecdote. Poor programming leads to unnecessary incarceration which, in turn, leads to increased crime. We continue to spend money on things that do not work. A second challenge is that the implementation of evidence-based programming requires a restructuring of organizations, which is difficult to achieve even with committed, effective leadership. The previous spike in violence led to the disproportionate incarceration of minorities, particularly among juveniles. This led to an increase in adult criminals.
One example of innovated programming was the use of Friends Outside to track down absconded probationers rather than immediately seek arrest warrants. This saved the department a lot of time, energy and money, which was put to use in more actively supervising higher risk probationers. This program also led to a reduction in jail time (saving a significant amount of money) and had the fringe benefit of making the department appear more “human.”
Implementing evidence-based programs requires a merging of appropriate philosophy, guiding principles, and a “seed” funding portfolio. Community involvement is another necessary component. In Santa Cruz County a combination of community programs, restorative justice, and EBP. One key outcome was the reduction of the percentage of Latinos arrested in relation to whites. Follow up evaluation showed that this change did not lead to an increase in crime. One reason appeared to be the existence of resources in the community to deal with at-risk juveniles. Evening centers cost $50 per juvenile per day compared to a cost of $250 to keep a juvenile in juvenile hall each day. Scott stated that it is not curriculum that changes lives, it is having people in the community in their lives who care about them that changes individuals.
The final challenges to implementing evidence-based programs are the need for “venture capital” money to begin the program, and the development of a group of persons dedicated to the faithful implementation of the evidence-based model.
PANEL #2: ESTIMATING THE COST PER CRIME IN CALIFORNIA
This panel consisted of two presentations with different analytic foci. Robert Cushman began by presenting the framework of studies he performs through the aegis of the National Institute of Corrections. These are analyses performed at the request of a local agency, generally because of a problem having to do with the number of incarcerated offenders and the capacity of the facility (crowding). Most of his evaluations last three days. During that period he visits the facility, interviews key participants in the justice system and government, and, on the third day, holds a community meeting. This meeting involves everyone from key players to members of the local community. The meeting is designed to have Bob help the participants to restructure their problem. He has gathered basic data and shares them with the participants.
Bob shared the specific example of Lawrence County to demonstrate how these analyses work. A slide show describing the process can be accessed at: http://www.vimeo.com/9030120 (use the password: nicvisit). One issue that varies from visit to visit is the amount and kinds of data that are available. For example, Lawrence County had data on arrest rates but not crime rates. These were way below the state averages, but filings were only slightly below state averages. The filings for Felony D (the least serious category) crimes were way above the state average. Felony dispositions were lower than the filing rate, while prison commitments were way below the state average. Releases were below average, but higher than commitments. The jail capacity was high, but it was full. Probation caseloads were very high. All of these findings, and more, were displayed on a single table running from those items that were way above the state average to those that were way below. A similar table showed the rates for Lawrence County in comparison to the averages for eight counties similar in population to Lawrence. The similarity of this table to the statewide comparison showed that Lawrence’s differences did not appear to be due to its size or nature (the tables are clearly displayed in the above-mentioned slide show).
Bob noted that most counties need three things in order to properly address the findings from a visit:
- They need a broader perspective than just the facts about their own area.
- They need a coordinating committee to overcome the Balkanization typical among the agencies and stakeholders involved with the problem. This committee’ purpose is to increase communication and cooperation between agencies.
- They need an analytic capability to have data that can be compiled, to understand the data that is being presented, and to do some of their own analyses in the future.
For most areas, the data Bob gathers and presents have never been compiled and presented before, so the data is “eye-opening” for most of the participants. Finally, Bob noted that most times the justice system process is presented as a complex flow chart that is very difficult for most people to follow. He prefers to describe the system in terms of seven decision points: arrest, pre-trial detention, pre-trial release, the filing of charges (which ones and how many), adjudication, sentencing (especially the amount of discretion in the system), and future sentence modification.
Rudy Haapanen’s presentation focused on ways that persons determine the costs of crimes and then the benefits of various treatment approaches. He began by citing some of the studies that purport to show that the benefits of a program greatly exceed their costs. Among those on his list were two programs we have previously discussed: Functional Family Therapy (FFT) with $13.25 in crime cost reduction for each dollar spent and Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) with $2.64 in cost reduction for each program dollar. The question is: where do these dollar figures come from? In 1987 an attempt was made to determine the cost of the “average” crime. It arrived at a figure of $2,300. A key element of this was the self-report of a sample of convicted offenders as to the number of crimes they commit in a year. The average figure was over 200 crimes. With a median of 15, it was apparent that some offenders were giving huge numbers, numbers that suggest they were committing 20 or 30 crimes a day, every day, something quite unrealistic. In addition, the early dollar figures for costs only included out-of-pocket costs, so the cost estimates for each crime was very, very low – the cost estimate for a rape, for example, was $350.
With both the figures for the number of crimes prevented by incarceration and the cost per crime seemingly unrealistic, new attempts at developing more comprehensive measures began. Current estimates of costs usually include the following:
- Criminal justice system costs, which include arrest, prosecution, and incarceration costs. Both average and incremental costs are calculated. Incremental costs seek to determine how costs would vary with additional new crimes and offenders.
- Victim and social costs – not just out-of-pocket costs like lost work time, but also attempts at measuring “intangibles” such as emotional distress and “social harm.”
Other considerations include the effect of crime levels and population on changes in the number of crimes. In one model, the number of crimes reported was directly related to the operating budget of the criminal justice system. Other models include population projections and how this could influence both the number of crimes and the operating budget. A second area of consideration is the effect of time – how much time does each activity within the system take and are there efficiencies or detriments to reallocating resources.
What recent studies have found is that between 1980 and 2005 costs increased 92% while crime levels fell 26%. So the cost per crime has risen significantly during this time period. Cohen looked at jury awards for pain and suffering to get an estimate of the costs that could be attributed to some of the intangibles such as emotional distress. When these were included in the total cost of crime, it made the costs of incarceration cost effective (though not necessarily as cost effective as alternative approaches).
Rudy next presented a statistical life table that sought to capture the costs of various crimes. These costs included lost wages, mental health care, and changes in quality of life. At the top end of the scale was murder, with an average cost estimated to be somewhere between $2 million and $3 million. Rape was estimated at $87,000. While these seem more realistic than the earlier figures of $2,300 per crime or $350 of out-of-pocket costs for a rape, there are limits to the usefulness of these figures. For example, should a rape be considered the equivalent of 62.1 burglaries, if the numbers are used for comparison purposes? And what about the exclusion of large categories of crime such as “white collar” crimes, drug possession, and gambling (the latter two often being considered to be “victimless” crimes)? Rudy concludes that figures for victim intangibles should be considered “monetary symbols” rather than economic realities on the same level as criminal justice system costs.
PANEL #3: CHILD AND FOSTER CARE ISSUES WITHIN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
The panel chair, Gail Goodman, began by introducing the panelists and the different topics they would be addressing. The focus of the first two presenters was on work involving the National Youth in Transition Database. Shay O’Brien and Drika Makariev began the presentations with a description of the California portion of this project. Shay noted that the project stems from a federal mandate to collect data on all foster youth nearing the age of 18 to determine their needs to transition to independent living. There are two parts to the data gathering. The first part is to gather administrative data – the data within the foster care system. These data mainly have to do with demographics and the characteristics of the youth and the services that have been provided. The second set of data will come from a survey of all 17 year olds. A random sample of this group will be surveyed at age 19 and again at age 21. This will be done for three cohorts at three year intervals, so when the first cohort is 20, a second set of 17 year olds will be surveyed.
The survey has six areas: employment, education, relationships with adults, housing, access to health care, and at-risk behaviors, including any interactions with the corrections system. Each state can add its own questions. Because this is a particularly vulnerable population, ensuring confidentiality is of paramount importance. The survey has been checked by Institutional Review Boards, CDSS (CA Department of Social Services) legal staff, the foster care ombudsman, and the Administrative Office of the Courts. Since there is high interest in getting every 17 year old foster youth to participate, there is an extensive outreach program being planned. The mandate is to survey each foster care youth within 45 days of their 17th birthday, so most contact and follow up will be done on a monthly basis.
Drika then described some of the sub-studies that will be part of the larger effort. The first sub-study has to do with how to get a representative sub-sample for the 19 and 21 year follow ups. Some of the youth will be transient and some will have moved out of state (and possibly have moved several times). It is important that a sample of these youth be included, but currently there are no incentives available to encourage participation and there are not sufficient resources for a labor-intensive contact effort. It is important to try to determine the differences between those who respond and those who do not. The federal mandate does not require including youths in detention in the baseline survey, but the state feels that information from this group is of importance since their current problems often correlate with expensive state interventions in the future. Since it would be expensive to visit all detention centers monthly, several counties have been selected for visits.
The third sub-study concerns the extra questions and measures that should be considered. There is a particular lack of questions having to do with relationships to adults and family members and questions relating to physical and mental health. Chapin Hall, an organization in Chicago, has developed a basic set of additional questions based on researchers considerations of other information that would be good to have (like those mentioned above), and this set is being adopted by several states. The fourth sub-study concerns the development of a comparison group of youths not in foster care.
Gail Goodman presented findings related to the reliability and accuracy of child witnesses. This has long been an important and controversial topic, both from the standpoint of protecting the children from (further) trauma and protecting innocent adults from being wrongfully convicted. Most of the work has been in the area of sexual abuse, where the child is often the only witness to the crime. A critical element is to determine what is a false report and what is true victimization. Through the years of studies that have been done, consensus has emerged in some areas. For one thing, accuracy improves with age, while the degree a child can be influenced by the types of questions asked decreases with age. Free recall or open-ended questions should be used rather than questions that can appear to be leading to a particular response. Finally, there is a consensus that there are many individual differences that make generalizations by age, nature of offense, or other aspects of the situation difficult.
Of course ethical considerations prevent researchers from duplicating sexual abuse in a laboratory setting. One interesting study concerned invasive genital touch. There is a medical procedure called Voiding Cystourethrogram Flouroscopy (VCUG). This procedure is used to determine bladder conditions and involves insertion of a catheter. Children needing the procedure for medical reasons whose parents consented were observed undergoing the procedure, then they were interviewed in a forensic-like manner one to four weeks later. The children ranged in age from 3 to 14 and were broken up into three age groups for comparison purposes. As expected, older children were able to provide more information than younger children and provided a higher ratio of correct versus incorrect information. The use of “leading questions” was also tested. Three to four year olds provided more information in the “leading” versus open-ended question format, but also provided more inaccurate information.
Another study regarded false memory reports. Preschool children were asked about either events that, according to their parents, had occurred or had not occurred (like a trip to Disney World). They were asked six “leading questions” regarding the event. The preschoolers showed pretty high resistance to agreeing to false events. Another aspect of the study was to determine if adults would be able to tell when children were right or wrong (correctly resist a false event or incorrectly deny a true event). Adults were not very good at such determinations, with no difference by gender, parenthood, or other characteristics. Finally, Gail discussed an attachment theory study of sexual abuse. This study found that memory depends upon level of attachment; there is a “defensive exclusion” for traumatic events. In summary, the worse the event the better the memory for most children, but there is a subset of children with lower attachment whose defensive exclusion results in poorer memory.
The final panelist, Natalie Troxel, presented the preliminary results of a study on adult’s judgments of juvenile sex offenders. Because the literature in this area was sparse, this was set up to be an exploratory study. Part of the problem is that the definitions of what is a sex offense and which offenses require convicted offenders to register vary greatly from state to state and even from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The perceptions of sex offenses and offenders also are affected by cultures and eras. However, all definitions include the necessity of there being intent, and most convicted offenders in all jurisdictions must register.
Juveniles commit about 20% of all sex offenses. The “typical” offender is between the ages of 13 and 17, male, and has diagnosable mental health issues (about 80% do). One significant difference between juvenile and adult sex offenders is that there is a very low repeat offense rate among juveniles – somewhere between 10 and 20 per cent depending on which data you look at. Most offenders have a history of abuse, are non-violent, and impulsive and immature – the offenses seem more a result of experimentation rather than deviance. Previous research has looked at gender and race effects, juror bias, and child witness credibility.
Natalie’s exploratory study exposed 232 undergraduates to six vignettes. There were three different age conditions (perpetrators were 8, 13 or 17) – victims were always 7) and two situational conditions: force or no force. The participants were asked to read each vignette and decide on the guilt of the perpetrator. The hypotheses included: the older perpetrators would be more often found guilty, female participants and participants exposed to abuse (themselves or someone close to them) would be more likely to find perpetrators guilty. Perpetrators using force would be more likely found guilty. Participants rated levels of perceived consent, how immoral the action was, and whether the perpetrator was criminally guilty.
The findings showed that force mattered more with the younger perpetrators, while the gender and abuse exposure of participants had no effect. Some hypotheses were supported and others were not. Next Natalie wants to repeat the study with other samples, most notably one from the community.
PANEL #4: THE LEGISLATIVE CHALLENGE: BALANCING RESEARCH, POLICY, AND POLITICS
These presentations were a little different in that Joe Stephenshaw and Brian Brown traded back and forth on relating parts of the presentation and describing the slides. Joe began by noting that he and Brian work for the Legislature. Their jobs are to make recommendations regarding the budget proposals submitted by the Governor and to provide some oversight on prior budgetary actions. Brian then discussed the current budget situation. Basically, revenues had increased about 40% between 2000 and 2007, then, for the first time since 1938, there was a 17% decline in revenues in 2008. Between the 2008 and 2009 budget years, there was a loss of $60 billion in revenues. The legislature sought to address these losses with program cuts ($32.5 billion of the reductions), tax increases ($12.5B - mainly in restoring some of the vehicle registration fees to previous levels), using federal stimulus funds ($8.5B, but this is a one time fix), transfers of funds ($3.5B) and borrowing ($2.5B). The $32.5 billion in cuts can be broken down into the following: $14.5 billion from K-12 and community colleges, $5 billion from health and social services, $3.3 billion from transportation, $3 billion from furloughing state employees, $2.9 billion from the UC and CSU systems, and $1.4 billion (4% of the cuts) from courts and corrections.
The cuts in the courts/corrections area included closing the courts one day a month, increasing some court fees, changing parole to reduce caseloads, stopping the supervision of low risk parolees, increase some of the dollar thresholds for crimes to reflect inflation (such as the threshold for grand theft), reducing rehabilitation and education services in the prisons, change inmate credits, and utilize evidence-based probation programs (SB 678).
Even with all these cuts, revenue and program cost projections indicate that there will be a $15 to $20 billion shortfall of revenues each year for at least the next five years. In the area of criminal justice, some of the expected revenues or savings appear to the budget analysts to be unrealistic. The legislature assumes getting $800 million from the federal government: but since we currently receive only about $100 million, it is hard to believe there will be an eightfold increase. Likewise, a 40% reduction in prison medical care costs is anticipated, but no plan has been put forth for achieving this reduction. An increase in revenues from the installation of speed enforcement cameras is part of the plan, but the public outcry against these makes it politically unlikely that many will actually be installed. Keeping those convicted of “wobblers” (crimes that can be treated as either misdemeanors or felonies) in jails instead of prisons merely shifts a burden to the counties, who already feel that the state has shifted many other mandates to them without funding to accompany the mandates. Reducing the DJJ population and increasing revenue from DNA testing are more likely to be achieved, but are very small effects.
Next, Joe discussed the role of research in all the budget analysis process. Research is used much more by the staff than the legislators themselves. Budget staff is so swamped with work and deadlines that they have little time to do their own research. Analyses from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the State Office of Research, and the Bureau of State Audits are used in briefing members of the legislature; research findings from contracted universities also are utilized. Members are very good at sorting through agenda-based “research” (such as from lobbyists), and evidence-based research. They also know the reliability of the main sources regarding the quality of the research. On the other hand, politics is really big in the corrections area and it is hard to get people to be objective in discussing corrections issues. Another negative is that there currently are few outcome evaluations of programs – having evaluations, with funding, as a routine part of program contracts has not occurred until very recently. To finish this discussion of the use of research on a positive note, Joe feels that members are increasingly interested in outcome evaluations.
In addition to politics, there are major issues with organizational cultures and management in the corrections area. Most persons involved want to do the “right” thing, but what that “right thing” is depends a lot upon ideology, priorities, and local constituencies. A lot of budget decision-making and leadership resides with the Big 5 – the governor, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate and the majority and minority leaders of the Assembly. The budget process is a primary example of American pluralism. There are many stakeholders, often responding to multiple constituencies, all making their pitches regarding specific budget proposals. A big question is whether research findings can make it through the “noise.”
Brian then gave his take on the use of research. If research supports the member’s beliefs, then its quality is less likely to be evaluated and its findings are more likely to be exaggerated. When research findings conflict with beliefs, they are more likely to be dismissed or contrary arguments are raised to rebut the findings. Researchers need to educate everyone regarding the non-ideological nature of true research. This includes legislators and their staffs (on both sides of the aisle), members of the administration, and other stakeholders. Brian feels that the key to getting research findings accepted is persistence.
Joe feels that one positive effect of this fiscal crisis is that it is forcing everyone to make more decisions based on evidence and outcomes (performance). There is not enough money to fund all existing and proposed programs; legislators want to fund the ones that will have the most positive effects for the greatest number of people. There is more interest in objectively identifying sensible policies out of the current hodge-podge. This creates opportunities to educate people. Researchers should be more proactive in sharing their reports and making them presentable to different audiences. One global element is to develop a clear, concise (one page maximum) Executive Summary. Another thing researchers should do is become a resource: give presentations, brief members and staff, participate in committee hearings, and help the people putting together requests for proposals to include structures for good evaluations of the programs.
PANEL #5: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION ADULT REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMS: CHANGING THE WAY WE DO BUSINESS
The panel chair, Jeanne Woodford introduced the panel members, then Cynthia Florez-DeLyon described the whirlwind that developed in the Adult Rehabilitative Programs area after the budget cut amount was announced. Fortunately, there was a lot of collaboration that occurred in determine how to keep the most effective programs for the greatest number of prisoners. Things have now begun to stabilize somewhat, although there is still a lot of implementation left. Of the $1.2 billion in cuts to corrections, about $250 million was in the area of adult programs. The first criteria used to determine which programs would be kept and to what extent was a regard for the existing mandates – what had to continue? Next was the regard for the evidence – which programs had research to indicate their effectiveness? A third regard was for what factors had changed over the past five years in terms of offender needs and needs out in the community.
In the current reduction scenario, educational programs were cut 30%, assessment was cut 40%, substance abuse programs were cut 40%, headquarters was cut 63% and community programs were not cut. Cynthia then added more details about the cuts in each of these areas. A priority was to base cuts on the evidence and to increase efficiency as much as possible. Target populations were those of moderate to high risk based upon needs and time left to serve. No specific group, such as lifers, were excluded however (lifers with a parole hearing in the next 12 months were included). By utilizing these criteria, it was determined that the estimated capacity of the programs, even with cuts of this magnitude, would decrease from 77,600 before the cuts to 60,400 after the cuts (a drop of about 22%).
In the education area, the Office of Correctional Education settled on five academic models to be available in the new structure. Class sizes were maintained, but the class block was changed from 6.5 hours to 3.0 hours, allowing two blocks per day. In addition, Teaching Assistants will be hired to prepare lessons and materials and help with assessment, but not do actual teaching. Expanded use of inmate tutors will be another change that will help to overcome the required cuts in staff. The number of vocational programs was reduced from 450 to 179. This included some long-standing programs. Because the target population consisted of inmates about a year from release (or parole hearing), all vocational programs that were longer than one year were eliminated. Next, programs to be retained had to have some type of industry certification. Finally, programs needed to lead to job opportunities that would pay a living wage.
In the substance abuse area, the 44 programs operating in 20 institutions were reduced to 13 programs in 12 institutions. This means that good assessment of the offender need must be done early so that prisoners can be assigned to the prison with the most appropriate program – there is no money in the budget for expanded prisoner transport. These programs all have “within prison” and community aspects. The “within prison” programs were reduced to three months from the previous six to thirty-six month time frames. The reduced number of programs led to a reduction in the number of slots from 12,000 (which already was far less than the need) to 8,450.
Cynthia described what was meant by maintaining the level of funding for the Office of Community Partnerships. She displayed a list of community programs and noted that a couple had been discontinued. However, all Community Resource Program Managers in the prisons were maintained and there was a doubling of funding for sponsors. A Volunteer Task Force has been created to address issues relating to the use of volunteers in prisons and how to make the access of volunteers to the prisons more efficient. Cynthia discuss a list of leisure time activity groups, family visiting centers and transitions programs and how the effort was to ensure that these would be minimally affected by the cutbacks. Finally, the office has developed four metrics to monitor program outcomes: assignment and enrollment, utilization and attendance, program completion, and recidivism.
