California Progress Report on the need to stop building prisons and jails in California!

Across the country, headlines show a new trend of nationwide prison closure. A recent report by the Sentencing Project notes that, to date, 13 states in the US have closed or are considering closing some of their correctional facilities, reversing a 40-year trend of prison expansion. States initiating prison closures include New York, Texas, Colorado,  Connecticut, Georgia, Michigan, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin. Michigan, for example, has closed 21 facilities and has prioritized re-entry services for people returning to their communities from prison.

Fiscal crises have definitely fueled the trend, but reforms in sentencing and parole policies have also resulted in less demand for prison space. In turn, the closures have freed up millions and millions

of dollars that could be used into rebuilding programs and services proven to keep people out of prison and in their communities.

California, unfortunately, is moving in the opposite direction. Despite an ongoing fiscal crisis in California, there are currently 13 costly prison and jail expansion projects moving forward using our

states scarce resources, and we anticipate more construction to roll out under phase II of the notorious AB 900 legislation. AB 900 was signed into law in May of 2007, authorizing at least $7.4 billion in lease revenue bonds for the construction or expansion of our State's prisons, jails and re-entry centers and marks the largest prison construction scheme in human history.

In May the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in a lawsuit against the state involving deadly prison overcrowding. Specifically, the court upheld the ruling of a federal three-judge panel requiring California to reduce overcrowding in its prisons from nearly 200% to 137.5 % of its "design capacity" within two years. The court's decision will almost certainly result in some of the most dramatic changes to the state's prison system in decades. So far, the state's plan for reducing the prison population relies heavily on shifting prisoners from state lockups to county jails, transferring more people to out-of-state private prisons, and building thousands more prison and jail cells.

As we see it, we could continue down this scary, shortsighted path and waste billions of dollars on prison and jail construction to comply with the Supreme Court ruling. But where will this end? How will we pay for the long-term operating costs? And what about the social costs? Will education, health and human services and our shrinking social safety net continue to be jeopardized to cover the bill for mass imprisonment?

The Supreme Court order and our growing budget crisis provide our state with a unique opportunity to change our approach to public safety. Instead of continuing to push forward these unnecessary and costly prison and jail expansion projects, now is the time to look to these other states that have safely reduced their prison populations by implementing basic and modest parole and sentencing reform.

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office bolstered that argument after releasing a report recommending that California reconsider its costly construction program.

A place to start would include amending or repealing three strikes law, expanding medical parole, utilizing compassionate release, paroling elderly prisoners and reforming non-violent property and drug sentencing laws. Recent polls show the majority of Californians support these simple solutions. However out of touch our Governor and other lawmakers seem to be, we wager that Californians would be willing to take even greater steps against further prison crisis. If we want the safe and healthy California we all deserve, we need to make smart, long-lasting decisions that put our state back in a position of national leadership.

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/node/9408

California Is Not Prepared for Realignment

Read the full article from Huffington Post here

"California Is Not Prepared for Realignment"
By Kim Carter, Executive Director of Time for Change Foundation

In this year's ruling of Brown v. Plata, the Supreme Court held that the conditions in California's overcrowded prisons were so bad that they violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Having ordered the state to reduce the prison population by more than 30,000 inmates, California will now have to start diverting low-level felony offenders and parole violators to county jails. The new law AB 109, also known as, "realignment," goes into effect October 1, 2011. Counties are scrambling to come up with a plan to address this issue. The question is, "How will these counties manage this huge influx of returning prisoners?"

If local governments try to house these individuals in county jails, the problem has only shifted from the state to the county level. The capacity is just not there to house every single inmate. This is why many of them will be on supervised released, also known as probation. Needless to say, the counties are ill prepared to handle a situation of this magnitude.

For the past ten years I have worked at the state level of government, with the department of corrections and our local police departments on reducing recidivism, and crime. I have been educating, informing and advocating about the issues related to incarceration along with some of the best criminologist in this country. Unfortunately, our cries fell on deaf ears and the state went on an incarceration frenzy with little regard for the evidence produced that would reduce the prison population and ensure public safety. Now, what troubles me is the lack of investment in prevention and intervention that is needed in our communities. While millions of dollars are allocated toward keeping people locked up in county jails, ankle bracelets, and hiring more staff for the district attorney and probation departments, there is no money being placed in the community towards preventing someone from climbing through your window at night. Simply put, prisoner re-entry programs and other basic services have not historically been a priority in major budget decisions, and they are certainly not this time around with the new realignment laws.

Denying these people the opportunity to reunite with their families because of restrictive housing laws, blocking every attempt at gainful employment because of their past record, and reducing their positive re-entry attempt to that of one winning the lottery will not ensure our public safety.  It's elementary -- if a person is homeless he or she will seek refuge in abandoned buildings, doorways and under the bridge. If that individual is starving, he or she may begin to steal food. If that individual runs into the many discriminatory barriers designed to create a sense of hopelessness and despair, then that individual is capable of anything.

We can't continue to ignore the fact that unless those being released have access to basic necessities, food, clothing, shelter and the opportunity to provide for their children, we can't feel safe in our own homes. This time we need to fight so these people can live with their families in public housing. If it's been determined that within a 50-mile radius there are no jobs, housing or other legal means of support then we should allow them to leave and go where there are other options instead of mandating that they stay here and become desperate and discouraged. Some of the laws make no sense at all.
I'm afraid of what will happen when thousands of folks come back to our communities and find that there is no hope. That millions of dollars have been misappropriated and instead of a glimpse of opportunity in the community, there is only disgust, despair and degradation.

My organization, Time for Change Foundation, has been providing housing and supportive services to people leaving prisons since 2002. Our evidence-based models have eliminated people from re-committing crimes. My publication, titled "Invisible Bars: Barriers to Women's Health & Well-Being During and After Incarceration," provides qualitative and quantitative assessments on subject matters regarding barriers to re-entry and social support services, and successful methods towards reducing recidivism.

Californians are being used as guinea pigs. While public safety is getting new computers, tracking devices, probation officers, we're all sitting ducks. All the taxpayer dollars are invested in the "aftermath," but I'd feel much safer if we had equally invested in prevention and intervention.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Isn't it time we did something? Who is next?

Make prevention part of realignment

Article published by the San Bernardino Sun

Kim Carter

Posted: 09/24/2011 07:12:07 AM PDT

I would be remiss if I didn't say that our entire county is ill-prepared for folks coming home from prison. I have been educating, informing and advocating about the issues related to incarceration for 10 years. I have worked at the state level, with the Department of Corrections and with our local police departments on reducing recidivism, crime and blight.

I attended the Inmate Reintegration Forum Tuesday in Rancho Cucamonga about the AB 109 realignment, which designates that the state will no longer warehouse non-violent, non-serious and non-sex offender individuals and that the counties will be responsible for monitoring these people. I am troubled by the lack of investment in crime prevention and intervention that is needed in this community.

Millions of dollars will be allocated toward keeping people locked up in the county jails or wearing ankle bracelets and hiring more staff for the district attorney and the Probation Department, but no funds are being allocated toward intervention programs that prevent a person from climbing through your window at night. Sure, after the crime is committed we can count on law enforcement to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law - but that's after the fact.

Time for Change has been providing housing and supportive services to people leaving prisons since 2002. Our evidenced-based models have not only prevented people from re-committing crimes, but we have made these parents responsible for their children and their own future.

It's not OK to ignore the overwhelming statistics that support the effectiveness of drug treatment, education and parenting classes in reducing recidivism and resort back to the "law and order" style which has left our communities vulnerable and unsafe for decades.

I'm afraid of what will happen when thousands of folks come back to this community and find that there are no housing options due to current public housing laws, and no opportunities for job or entrepreneurship because the state routinely denies applications based on past felony convictions and the unemployment rate is in the double digits for the nation. Can you imagine being denied a barbering and cosmetology license because you made a poor decision and used drugs? We can't continue to ignore the fact that unless these people have access to basic necessities - food, clothing, shelter and the opportunity to provide for their children - we can't feel safe in our own homes.

The next generation of kids is highly likely to follow that same path unless we use their parents as models of rehabilitation.

It's been 18 years since I have lived the horrible existence of being drug-addicted, imprisoned and homeless. Today, I have helped over 500 women break the cycles of addiction, crime and child abandonment. I am not looking to be commended because I feel wholeheartedly that it is my duty and obligation, and I'm really good at it. Our success is unparalleled and our services are definitely needed in this community.

It's time for the community to rise and speak up to make sure that we are not left with thousands of desperate, hopeless, angry, homeless, drug-addicted people lurking on the streets. I don't want to be the guinea pig who shows how effective electronic monitoring is; I don't want to be the victim in yet another sampling of "tough on crime" rhetoric that would ignore statistics, data and facts about these people coming home.

I don't feel safe waiting for someone to commit a crime before the resources kick in with suppression and more jail time. Instead of spending all of the millions of dollars on more jails, ankle bracelets, officers we should be putting some of that money in this community for prevention and intervention.
Who is going to be next?


Kim Carter is founder and executive director of Time For Change Foundation in San Bernardino. She is a reader member of The Sun's editorial board.

California Prison Hunger Strike Resumes

Prisoners Cite Continued Torture, CDCR Bad Faith Negotiations

Oakland – On Monday, September 26, 2011, prisoners at both Pelican Bay and Calipatria State Prisons will resume hunger strike that lasted most of last July in continued protest of the inhumane conditions of their confinement, including long term solitary confinement and the widely-condemned practices of gang validation and debriefing. Despite international public outcry as well as legislative intervention in California, prisoners have stated CDCR has yet to make any substantial changes to their policies and has failed to keep up negotiation promises made when the strike was suspended in July.

“This is far from over and once again, hopefully for the last time, we will be risking our lives via a peaceful hunger strike on Sept 26, 2011 to force positive changes” writes Mutope Duguma (aka, James Crawford), a prisoner in the Pelican Bay SHU and a representative of the hunger strikers, “for 21 1/2 years we have been quietly held in Pelican Bay State Prison solitary confinement under some of the most horrible conditions known to man. So we continue to struggle to be treated like decent human beings.”
 Prisoners in the Pelican Bay SHU will be joined on strike by prisoners in the Administrative Segregation (Ad-Seg) Unit at Calipatria State Prison, located in California’s southeast-most county. Ad-Seg Units are similar to SHUs in that they place prisoners in solitary confinement for long periods of time. In addition, prisoners at Calipatria are also subject to the same gang validation and indeterminate sentencing practices at the center of this past summer’s strike. Many prisoners marked as gang members at Calipatria are kept in Ad-Seg units for years before being transferred to Pelican Bay. “Several hundred prisoners in Administration Segregation Units at Calipatria State Prison have been validated or given an indefinite SHU term and majority of the men have been waiting three to four years in administration segregation to be transferred to the Pelican Bay SHU,” says Kendra Casteneda who has a family member at Calipatria, “The men at Calipatria are striking because the same conditions that exist at Pelican Bay exist in prisons throughout California.”

California Department of Corrections (CDCR) officials seem to be preemptively cracking down on prisoners in anticipation of the strike and have publicly said they were preparing to take harsh actions against strikers. Illustrating the CDCR’s hard-line stance, Undersecretary of Operations Scott Kernan said in a recent interview, “If there are other instances of hunger strikes, I don’t think the Department will approach it the same way this time around.”  Lawyers who have recently visited Pelican Bay have taken testimony from SHU prisoners who have been retaliated against by prison officials for their participation in this summer’s strike. “Prisoners are receiving serious disciplinary write-ups, usually reserved for serious rules violations, for things like talking in the library or not walking fast enough,” says Carol Strickman, a lawyer with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, “It’s clear that prison officials are trying to intimidate these men and to make them ineligible for any privileges or changes that may be forced by the strike.”

This summer’s hunger strike saw widespread participation across the California prison system with at least 6,600 prisoners participating in more than a third of the state’s 33 prisons. National and international support led to a legislative hearing in the state’s capitol, where conditions in California’s Security Housing Units were scrutinized by state legislators and condemned by experts. Family members, advocates, and organizations have vowed to continue to support the prisoners in resuming their strike, and to help them in winning their demands.

Chowchilla Women’s Prison Could Be Converted Into a Men’s Prison

Chowchilla - It's not a done deal yet, but Madera County officials believe as early as October, the Valley State Prison for Women could be transitioned into a prison for men.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation says a final decision on the transition to a men's prison has not been made yet.  Potentially, 4,000 men could be moving into the facility that currently houses about 3,500 low level female inmates.

CDCR says the female inmates currently at the prison would be released through attrition, or those with 2 years left to serve would be monitored with electronic ankle bracelets. The conversion is a rumor that's inching closer to reality.

State lawmakers just passed a bill that gives the state Department of Corrections the legal go-ahead, without considering any public input.  Local leaders call the legislation, sneaky.

"I would call it a bureaucratic dictatorship, moving forward without the input of locals...a total disregard for the community itself," said David Rogers, Madera County Supervisor.
Rogers says Chowchilla is not ready for the influx of male prisoners and their families who would move into town.  He wants the state to pay for extra resources like police and prosecutors.

"The crime rate, the drug trafficking, the gang activity, all of those things are very real," said Rogers.
Chowchilla is a small town of about 11,000 people. Many are not in favor of the switch. In fact, they're worried that their police department can't handle the crime.

"Scared of the crimes and the people. Because they have done some deadly crimes that are in there," said Chowchilla resident, Ernestine Sullivan.

"My daughter lives here, my granddaughter, I guess that would be a concern if they're not going to step up here. Because they've really pulled back. You used to see 4 or 5 cars running around, now you might see 2 if you're lucky," said Chowchilla resident Linda Van Houwelingen.
Chowchilla only has 14 sworn officers, and that includes the police chief.  Local leaders, along with residents, are left to wonder if they'll get any help from the state.
In May, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the state to reduce its prison population over the next two years.

Ex-offenders may soon find a home in public housing

Source: HealthyCal.org

By Robin Urevich

A New Way of Life founder Susan Burton (left)
and Bobbie Annette Leigh
in the backyard of one of the group's
re-entry homes in the South LA community of Watts

In California, many prisoners who are released from jails and prisons can’t go home to parents or spouses because of rules that bar ex-offenders from living in public or subsidized housing.

But those zero tolerance policies may be changing – at least in Los Angeles where the city housing authority has approved what is likely the first pilot program in the state aimed at reuniting ex-offenders and their families who live in Section 8 housing.

“We don’t want to consign people to homelessness and recidivism,” said Peter Lynn, who directs the Section 8 program at the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles.

The pilot program is expected to take shape in the coming months just as LA and other California counties struggle with a huge shift of non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders from state prison to county jail, and from state parole to county probation. The move is aimed at reducing prison overcrowding.

In the first year of the transfer Los Angeles County expects to either jail or supervise on probation 9,000 people who previously would have been sentenced to state prison or released on state parole.
“We want to see what we can do to assist with the re-entry of folks,” Lynn said.

Making a new life is tough for ex-offenders. It’s even harder without stable housing, said Susan Burton, who runs A New Way of Life, a live-in program that helps women transition from prison to life on the outside.

“Usually they don’t have a safe place. If they’d had one, they wouldn’t be there [in prison] in the first place,” Burton said.

Burton knows first-hand how hard life after prison can be. She served six prison terms over 25 years before finally getting help, and later founding A New Way of Life, “My son was accidentally killed …It was at the height of the crack epidemic,” she explained. “I started drinking and I ended up using drugs. I didn’t know how to deal with my grief.”

She recalls that after being released she would stay up for nights on end because she had no place to sleep.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation estimates that some 6.5 percent of parolees are homeless, but Burton said inadequate housing is a huge issue —along with mental health, education, job training.

“Can you imagine working out of your car?” Burton asked. “You have to have rest, a sense of security, clothing, showers, meals.”

Burton calls the new housing authority initiative groundbreaking.

The federal government also backs it. Last June, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan sent a letter to the nation’s public housing authority directors urging them to consider allowing ex-offenders to rejoin family members in subsidized housing.

The Oakland Housing Authority has set aside 12 apartments for formerly incarcerated women who’ve completed a re-entry program while in county jail.

But, most big housing authorities in California have no immediate plans to change their policies.
“We just want to keep the residents safe,” said Linda Martin, a spokeswoman for the San Francisco Housing Authority explaining why the city housing authority generally bars people with criminal convictions for five years, while exercising some discretion in individual cases.

San Diego, Riverside, Sacramento and LA County have similar rules in place.

However in Sacramento, housing authority spokeswoman Angela Jones says her agency is aware of Donovan’s letter and uses discretion on a case-by-case basis.

Housing authorities in Santa Clara County, Oakland, and Fresno note that they are permitted to bar applicants with past criminal convictions, but don’t necessarily do so.

“It’s a complicated issue for residents,” said Catherine Bishop, a San Francisco-based attorney with the National Housing Law Project, noting that residents are usually the biggest opponents of relaxing rules that bar ex-offenders, because their safety is a big concern.

She notes that nationally, public housing rules toughened 15 years ago when then-President Bill Clinton advocated a One Strike and You’re Out policy in his 1996 State of the Union address. Tenants who dealt drugs or committed crimes should be evicted after a single offense, Clinton argued.
But Bishop said some housing authorities are rethinking the tough-on-crime approach.

New Haven, New York City and Chicago are either implementing programs that allow some ex-offenders in, or are considering such initiatives.

HUD Secretary Donovan’s letter notes, “this is an Administration that believes in second chances….Part of that support means helping ex-offenders gain access to one of the fundamental building blocks of a stable life – a place to live.”

In the city of LA, the pilot program would waive a bar against a still-to-be-determined number of ex-offenders with convictions in the past three years. Ideally participants would be identified before their release and would be required to join a re-entry program, Lynn said. And no one could be forced to take in a family member who’d been to prison.

“It’s very important to us that we don’t destabilize families in the program,” Lynn said.
At one of A New Way of Life’s homes, a sunny two-story on a residential street in Watts, 51-year old Bobbie Annette Leigh said she was released from prison in Chowchilla five months ago and went to live with her boyfriend who has a Section 8 voucher. But a few months later, he asked her to move because of the ex-offender prohibition.

“He said before they find out, I had to leave,” Leigh said. “We didn’t break up. We just parted.”
At A New Way of Life, Leigh is getting help with mental health issues and job searching. Once she strikes out on her own, LA’s new program could afford her an additional option she didn’t have when she was first released from prison.

Long Beach Community Peace and Justice Summit, October 26, 2011

LONG BEACH COMMUNITY PEACE AND JUSTICE SUMMIT

We shall address the devastating effects of the failed “War on Drugs” and the many barriers to re-entry that people confront when coming out of prison.  Speakers at the Summit will talk about the damage felt by whole communities as a result of imprisoning people at alarming rates, communities who were already underserved to begin with and in need of more services and resources.  Elected officials, policy makers, administrative leaders and government personnel will hear presentations and testimony from those directly affected by our criminal justice policies and practices.  We will share specific changes and policy reform needed for us to be treated fairly and as equals in society, including declaring the end to the broken “War on Drugs”. 

The US Supreme Court has ruled that California must release tens of thousands of non-serious, non-violent, non-sexual inmates back into their communities due to overcrowding. In so doing, AB-109 was en-acted by Governor Brown. Long Beach will experience a vast majority of these individuals coming back home, as it is a concentrated city that has incarcerated many under the “non-non-non.”

The failed “War on Drugs” and the “get tough on crime” policies created barriers for us in employment, housing, social services and family reunification.  Denying us access to basic needs such as food and shelter is inhumane and traps us at the bottom of society without the possibility to live decently, fulfill our potential and leaves us vulnerable to cycling back into prison.

In a nation that prides itself on democracy, freedom and justice for all, it is crucial that we ban together to ensure that all people are treated with respect and have the opportunity to make the most of one’s life because “nobody’s free until everybody’s free.”

We urge the public to come out and join us, as we address issues that will help curtail recidivism and create a safer community with specific results stemming from voices that speak to Peace & Justice.

Contact: Fanya Baruti @ 323-357-8431 Office 562-688-0472 Cell

Long Beach Councilman Dee Andrews 562-570-6816 Office ---Attn: Tonya Martin

Tell Governor Brown to Sign Critical Health Bills!

Last week, California's legislature sent critical bills to Governor Brown that will advance the health of our communities. The Governor has already signed one of CPEHN's priority bills, AB 516 (V.M. Perez), which strengthens the Safe Routes to School Program. This success is just the beginning; there's still more work to be done!

Email or call the Governor TODAY at (916) 445-2841. You can also download and fax or mail in letters of support on the following bills:

• AB 581 (Perez) Healthy Food Financing Initiative: Establishes the Healthy Food Financing Initiative Fund to expand access to healthy foods in underserved communities. Download and send in a letter of support today!
• AB 938 (V.M. Perez) Public Water Systems: Requires written notices given by a public water system be provided in English, Spanish, and other languages spoken by a prescribed number of residents. Download and send in a letter of support today!
• AB 1088 (Eng) Data on APIAs: Ensures that state-collected labor and civil rights data is disaggregated into Asian and Pacific Islander American ethnic groups, as currently reported by the U.S. Census. Download and send in a letter of support today!
• AB 1296 (Bonilla) Eligibility and Enrollment: Requires the California Health and Human Services Agency to establish a standardized single application form and related renewal procedures for Medi-Cal, the Healthy Families program, the Health Benefit Exchange, and other county programs. Download and send in a letter of support today!
• AB 922 (Monning) Office of Consumer Assistance: Establishes the Office of Consumer Assistance to provide outreach and education about health care coverage to California consumers. Download and send in a letter of support today!

Your letter can make the difference on whether these bills become law!

                                                   

Inmate Reintegration Forum: The Effects of Realignment On Our County

The Prisons, the Universities and California

People don't usually think of prisons and universities in the same breath, but in California, they share an important distinction. This is a state which people usually stick to their home regions. But the prisons and the public universities are the only two places where Californians from different regions and backgrounds routinely come together, live together, and get to know each other better.
In this way, prisons and universities define the state, more so than almost any other institution. And over the past generation, the resources devoted to each has shifted -- thus defining Hotel California more as a prison and less as a place of learning.

As the Bay Citizen points out in this story http://www.baycitizen.org/education/interactive/education-vs-prisons-shifting-priorities/ the percentage of the state budget spent on corrections and prisons has gone from 3 percent to 11 percent since 1980. The portion spent on higher education has dropped from 10 percent to 6.6 percent.

Why? The answer is a paradox. Polls suggest that California voters want less money spent on prisons and more on universities. But more money is being spent on prisons -- and less on universities -- because of California voters.

How's that? California voters have approved sentencing guidelines and other tough-on-crime provisions that have required the expansion of prisons. They've also approved spending protection for a host of programs -- but not higher education. So the higher spending on other programs, including prisons (and debt service, a function of the failure to balance the budget), is crowing out higher education spending. The system that voters helped design is overriding the desires of Californians.

There's no better example of the California disease.

BY Joe Mathews//

International Drug Policy Reform Conference, November 2-5, 2011 Los Angeles, California

Click here for full size imaged

 

Brief Summary of Key Provisions in AB 109 & AB 117

2011 Public Safety Realignment
Updated July 2011

CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL SOURCE

Main components

- Defines local custody for non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders

- Makes changes to state parole and creates local “post-release community supervision”

Local planning process

• Expands role and purpose of the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP), which was previously established in Penal Code §1230
• Requires CCP to develop and recommend to the board of supervisors an implementation plan for 2011 public safety realignment
• Creates an Executive Committee from the CCP members comprised of:
  • Chief probation officer (chair)
  • Chief of police
  • Sheriff
  • District Attorney
  • Public Defender
  • Presiding judge of the superior court (or his or her designee)
  • A representative from either the County Department of Social Services, Mental Health, or Alcohol and Substance Abuse Programs, as appointed by the County Board of Supervisors
•  The implementation plan is deemed accepted by the County Board of Supervisors unless the Board rejects the plan by a four-fifths vote.

The meetings of the CCP and its Executive Counties are subject to the Brown Act. Counties are advised to consult with counsel regarding the application of the open meeting law in this regard. 

Timeframe

All provisions are prospective and applied on October 1, 2011

• AB 118 provides the statutory framework, allocation methodology and revenue to implement public safety realignment

No state prison inmates will be transferred to county jails.

Local custody

• Revises the definition of felony to include specified lower-level crimes that would be punishable in jail or another local sentencing option for more than one year.
• Maintains length of sentences.
• Time served in jails instead of prisons:
  • Non-violent offenders
  • Non-serious offenders
  • Non-sex offenders
  • Enhanced local custody and supervision tools
    • Alternative custody tools for county jails
    • Home detention for low-level offenders
    • Local jail credits mirror current prison credits (day-for-day)
    • Broaden maximum allowable hospital costs for jail inmates and remove sunset date.

State custody

• Convictions/priors for following offenses require state prison term:
  • Prior or current serious or violent felony as described in PC 1192.7 (c) or 667.5 (c)
  • The defendant is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to PC 290

Other specified crimes (approximately 60 additional exclusions from “low-level” definition) will still require term in state prison

Contracting back

• Counties permitted to contract back with the state to send local offenders to state prison.
• Authorize counties to contract with public community correctional facilities (CCFs).
• Contracting back does not extend to parole revocations.

Post-release (county-level) community supervision

• Prospectively, county-level supervision for offenders upon release from prison will include:
  • Current non-violent offenders (irrespective of priors)
  • Current non-serious offenders (irrespective of priors)
  • Sex offenders
• County-level supervision will not include:
  • 3rd strikers
  • Individuals with a serious commitment offense
  • Individuals with a violent commitment offense
  • High risk sex offenders as defined by CDCR
  • Board of Supervisors designates a county agency to be responsible for Post Release Supervision and provide that information to CDCR by August 1, 2011.

• CDCR must notify counties as to who is being released on post-release supervision at least one month prior to their release.
• CDCR has no jurisdiction over any person who is under post-release community supervision
• No person shall be returned to prison except for persons previously sentenced to a term of life (and only after a court order).

Post-release community supervision revocations

• Revocations are capped at 180 days with day-for-day credit earning.
• Authorizes discharging individuals on post-release community supervision who have no violations for six months.

Ongoing state parole

• CDCR continues to have jurisdiction over all offenders on state parole prior to October 1, 2011 implementation
• State parole will continue for the following:
  • The offender’s committing offense is a serious or violent felony as described in PC §§1192.7(c) or 667.5(c);
  • The offender has been convicted of a third strike;
  • The person is classified as a high risk sex offender; or
  • The person is classified as a Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO).

Parole revocations

• Prospectively, the parole revocation process continues under Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) until July 1, 2013.
• Parole revocations will be served in county jail and not to exceed 180 days.
• Contracting back to the state for revocations is not an option.
• Only persons previously sentenced to a term of life can be revoked to prison.
• For the remaining low level offenders on parole after implementation of realignment, parole has the authority to discharge after six months if no violations have occurred.

Juvenile Justice

• AB 109 limited the future juvenile court commitments to state juvenile detention (Division of Juvenile Justice or DJJ); this provision was removed in AB 117. Consequently, there are no changes to the state juvenile justice system in realignment.