My HCP had a bit of an advocacy aspect to it, so I began the Advocacy Project with a good basis to start on. After completing Discussion 8, I had gathered enough extra sources and information to give me a good idea of where to take my project. My first draft was the big jumbled mess that I had to organize and polish down. Looking back on it, I am glad that I took the time to find a large amount of sources for this first draft, because it made it much easier to revise in the later drafts. 

Abstract:

The State of California has struggled with overcrowding for many years, culminating in a mandate by the Supreme Court in 2011 to reduce its prison population. Despite the impact of legislation such as AB 109, the state’s incarcerated as a whole are costing the state an absurd amount of money while rates of recidivism are stagnating. In response to this mess, a movement has developed towards reevaluating the purpose and effectiveness of incarceration. Rather than continually look towards traditional incarceration as a final purpose, this movement supports the use of alternative sentencing to reduce overcrowding, costs, and rates of recidivism. Within the alternative sentencing sphere, supporters claim split sentencing and increased use of probation and mandatory supervision and reintegration programs as the most productive and efficient way to deal with convicts, citing both the reduced costs of supervision and reduced recidivism rates. However, not everyone possesses the same mindset regarding such prisoners, as opponents of alternative sentencing cite breaches in public safety when releasing such criminals back into society. Such detractors state the misconceptions regarding probationers and those supervising, and claiming these practices are not as safe and helpful as they are made out to be. Despite this, the supporters of alternative sentences claim the reductions in recidivism demonstrate there is no concern for public safety and the reductions in costs to state also provide more monetary funds for improving public safety. While there is no clear change in crime rates due to alternative sentencing, it does provide numerous monetary benefits that may allow for other programs to be put into place to combat crime rates as well. In this paper, it is demonstrated that alternative sentences such as split sentencing and probation work to reduce state criminal justice costs, reduce recidivism rates, and overcrowding. Studies show that the current system is ineffective and alternative sentences provide the best and most helpful approach to fixing California’s overcrowding, costs, and recidivism rates.

Introduction:

After three hours of talking and listening to the L.A. county criminal justice leaders claim they “are used to doing things a certain way” in their case against split sentencing, Governor Jerry Brown had heard enough. His visit to Los Angeles County had given him to a chance to finally convince LA county officials to increase their use of split sentencing and other alternative sentences, like many of the other counties in the state. Because of the overcrowding in California’s prisons, the state was ordered by the Supreme Court to reduce its prison population. After the outset of California’s Prison Realignment through AB 109, passed in 2011, low-level felons were allowed to do time in county jail and have their time split between incarceration and supervised time outside. Alternative sentencing is part of the movement that supports prisoner’s rights and preventing more people from doing time in the first place. In particular, split sentencing entails serving a dedicated portion of time in custody, and then fulfilling the “tail” of the sentence on supervised release, often with mandatory programs designed to aid re-entry into society. Despite these programs actually being paid for by the state through AB 109, several counties such as Los Angeles still refuse to split eligible cases. Unfortunately, because of the mandate from the Supreme Court, other solutions to prison overcrowding have gotten in the way of the alternative sentencing movement. In 2013, Governor Brown signed three separate deals with private prison facilities that would allow the state to send its prisoners there (Knafo and Kirkham). Huffingtonpost writers Saki Knafo and Chris Kirkham argue that such deals only “hamper efforts to change California’s tough sentencing laws so that fewer people go to prison in the first place”. After all, merely sending prisoners to outside facilities in order to meet the Supreme Court mandate only represents a short term solution. The diversion from alternative sentencing is only made worse when see in combination with the $7.4 billion bond approved by the state legislature in 2007 to build more prison facilities. According to Marisa Lagos, a Politics Reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle, this continual reliance on impermanent and expensive solutions is costing the taxpayers approximately “$315,000 per bed for the projects that are under way.” The Supreme Court order has spurred the state of California to make amends to its correctional system, and allow the state to fix its past mistakes. Rather than continuing on in the same fashion that led to the terrible conditions that first led to the case being brought before the Supreme Court, the state has the power to issue in a new system of correction that not only benefits the entire correctional department, but also improves the lives of those convicted, as well as benefitting the entire state and its taxpayers.
Differing views about the purpose of incarceration fuel the debate over the solution to overcrowding. According to former head of the National Criminal Justice Commission Steven R. Donziger, prison is the final solution to lawlessness. He states, “If crime is going up, then we need to build more prisons; and if crime is going down, it's because we built more prisons—and building even more prisons will therefore drive crime down even lower” (Schlosser). It is this type of “remove and punish” thinking that has fueled the march to build more and more facilities to house inmates. These proponents also dismiss alternative sentencing such as probation as being risks to public safety, as the high risk felons cannot be allowed back into society. Joan Petersilia et al., claimed that “felons granted probation present a serious threat to public safety” (Petersilia vi). In their subsample which consisted of 1,672 felony probationers in Los Angeles and Alameda counties, their felons had a 34 percent recidivism rate over a period of 40 months. Such a high rate cannot be tolerated in their view, especially when 18 percent were reconvicted of serious violent crimes.
However, funding more prisons and increasing the use of them is not the solution that is beneficial to any party. Despite overall inmate populations dropping within the state following Realignment, “per capita prison costs have jumped from $49,000 to $64,000 annually” (Editorial Board). If the overall population is down, shouldn’t the costs be decreasing? According to the Huffington Post, the deals that Governor Brown makes with private facilities are a direct result of failing to meet the Court-mandated order. The Court had given the state two years from the 2011 decision in order to reduce its prison population down to the mandated level, but by October 2013, California was still about 10,000 prisoners above the level. The judges then gave “the state until the end of February to come up with a plan to further decrease the system’s population by about 10,000 inmates. Brown’s recent deals with CCA and the GEO Group represent attempts to meet that quota” (Knafo and Kirkham). This has lead to California becoming the second biggest consumer of Corrections Corporation of America, paying $214 million to the company in 2012 (Knafo and Kirkham). California’s payments to CCA is surpassed only by the Federal government’s itself. Interestingly enough, CCA also spent $50,000 in support of Governor Brown’s initiative to raise taxes since becoming governor in 2010 (Knafo and Kirkham). These raised taxes helped to cover the increasing costs of incarcerating the large number of criminals in California’s possession. Besides that, in a cost-benefit analysis, the Public Policy Institute of California found that California “receives only about $0.23 return on each $1 spent on incarceration (Lofstrom and Raphael, 16). That is, for every $1 put into incarcerating criminals, only $0.23 is saved in terms of public assets, safety, and costs that would otherwise have been imposed had the individual not been put into custody. The State of California is pouring huge amounts of money into a very inefficient method of punishment. Not only does incarceration cost increasingly exorbitant amounts of money, it also fails to make much of an impact upon prisoners when compared with alternative sentencing. Even taken at its worst, “alternative sentencing performs no worse than traditional incarceration measures”(Jones 29). Not only is there evidence that suggests that alternative sentencing reduces recidivism, but it also helps to reduce incarcerated populations while costing significantly less as well.
Following the implementation of Realignment, California’s Contra Costa County began utilizing split sentencing at an 86% clip in all eligible cases. The county also allocated about 60 percent of the $4.6 million allocated to it by the state for Realignment to “‘programs and services designed to assist people convicted of crimes’” (Lee). Because of this high use of split sentencing, the county has seen its recidivism rate maintain a 30 percent rate compared to a 64 percent rate for the rest of the state. And it is not just happening in Contra Costa County. After a comprehensive, quantitative review of over 50,000 subjects, Justin W. Patchin and Gary N. Keveles state that “including a treatment component to a community-based program resulted in a 10 percent drop in recidivism” (Keveles and Patchin, 10). The four most popular treatment options are electronic monitoring, reporting programs, drug treatment, and drug courts. In The National Council on Crime and Delinquency’s report “The Extravagance of Imprisonment Revisited,” it was determined that “the implementation of these four methods on 34,321 non-serious offenders could create a fiscal savings of $1.4 billion” (Otten). Rather than continuing to cost the state money, these alternative sentences would save the state money, that could in return be spent on improving education or other programs that would help prisoners that need them. It is also important to note that these alternative sentences are reducing the total number of inmates in custody. At the time of the Supreme Court decision, California had about 146,000 prisoners in its state prisons, which was around 182.5% of its 80,000 capacity. The Court mandated that the state release some 30,000 prisoners. According to the model above, this number would have been reached easily and saved the state over $1 billion dollars. Rather than be forced to mix and match solutions that end up costing the state and its taxpayers more money, the alternative sentences that are offered to California could solve its overcrowding problem and save the state a large sum of money.

Not only does alternative sentencing provide a fiscally and logically intelligent solution for policymakers, it also improves the lives of all those involved. Rather than dumping the convict out of custody with no search or seizure upon the completion of their sentence, alternative sentences provide them with a jumpstart upon entering society. For many with drug or substance abuse issues, the rehabilitation programs provide a method that allows them to become a functioning member of society once more. According to Stanford Professor Lawrence M. Wein, “policies that offer split sentences to all low-level felons optimize the key tradeoff between public safety and jail congestion by e.g. simultaneously reducing the rearrest rate by 7% and the mean jail population by 20%” (Wein). While in this model it only provides a small change in rearrest rate, it is also demonstrated that in some cases like Contra Costa county, it can reduce the recidivism rate by over 34% relative to the rest of the state.

Allowing more convicted criminals to live in society can certainly be a frightening thought for many people. Public Policy Institute of California Researchers Magnus Lofstrom and Steven Raphael found that since Realignment, crime rates in California have actually risen slightly. However, as mentioned at the beginning of this paper, Realignment has seen nonuniform methods of punishment, and cannot be seen as a good example of the consequences of alternative sentencing. As Xavier University Graduate Cooper Jones states:
“Research by the Justice Policy Institute revealed that ‘states that spend more on education have lower crime rates than states that spend less’ … Education is one of the sectors of government operations that has had to deal with a lot of cost-cutting recently, so if states started spending less on incarceration and more on education, they could actually contribute to the battle against recidivism even more effectively. Therefore, if there are no clear advantages that distinguish the effectiveness of alternative sentencing or traditional incarceration, then the cheaper option should be used.”
Rather than spending the amounts of money that would be saved through alternative sentencing on funding private prisons or building more prisons, California could fund its education system. Interestingly, in the same years that the crime rates jumped, “The State’s two systems were each cut by $650 million...For both systems, the $650 million is roughly a 20 percent cut of operating money from the state” (Medina). These cost cutting measures could certainly be avoided through more widespread use of alternative sentencing.
The methods that California has taken to reduce its prison population up to this point have been inefficient and costly. Relying upon building more prisons and sending prisoners to private facilities not only costs taxpayer dollars, but it also does little to even solve the problem of crime in the state. Every dollar that is put into this current system is returning less than one-third of its original value. At the same time, alternative sentences such as split sentencing offer a much stronger economic case, as they can save the state $1.4 billion dollars in some cases. Besides that, at worst they offer the same levels of public safety as the current system, and most evidence point to these systems resulting in increased public safety and lowered rates of recidivism. Finally, the savings that alternative sentencing provides allows the state to spend more money on options that actually provide legitimate positive returns. Such a plethora of beneficial ramifications point to alternative sentencing as being the most efficient way for California to solve its prison problem.

Works Cited/ Annotated Bibliography

Caffiero, Matthew J. "California Prison Realignment." San Jose State University. San Jose State University, 18 Apr. 2013. Web. 20 July 2016. <http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1309&context=etd_projects>.
Matthew J. Caffiero, a graduate student at San Jose State University, argues in his Thesis publication, that AB 109 was a well timed measure to address California’s prison overcrowding; however, its implementation was filled with disconnects that will likely harm its effectiveness. He cites studies that involved the ability of jails and prisons to house prisoners while also citing studies that report on the reduction of prisoners in the state in general. This source provides an academic research that evaluates public policy implementation in California that could provide evidence against the current usage of split sentencing, while pointing forward to how a widespread implementation of split sentencing could look.

Hing, Julianne. "Supreme Court Demands California Release 30,000 Inmates." Alternet. Alternet, n.d. Web. 29 July 2016. <http://www.alternet.org/rss/breaking_news/596400/supreme_court_demands_california_release_30,000_inmates>.

Jett, Kathryn, and Hancock, Joan. “Realignment in the Counties.” Federal Sentencing Reporter 25.4 (2013). University of California Press. Web. 20 July 2016.
<http://fsr.ucpress.edu/content/25/4/236.full.pdf+html>

Jones, Cooper. “Does Alternative Sentencing Reduce Recidivism? A Preliminary Analysis.” Xavier University (2014). Web. 21 July 2016.
<http://www.xavier.edu/xjop/documents/XJOP_Vol_V_2014_Jones.pdf>
Cooper Jones, a graduate of Xavier University, explored the possibilities of Alternative Sentencing and found that Alternative Sentencing offers no real differences in rates of recidivism compared to traditional incarceration. However, during this study, he made many interesting findings, including how states which have utilized alternative sentencing have seen a reduced recidivism rate, and how alternative sentencing offers a much cheaper alternative to incarceration with little to no collateral. This exploratory study demonstrates simply to the reader the potential benefits of alternative sentencing, and can be used for evidence.

Knafo, Saki, and Kirkham, Chris. "For-Profit Prisons Are Big Winners Of California's Overcrowding Crisis." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 25 Oct. 2013. Web. 15 July 2016. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/25/california-private-prison_n_4157641.html>.

Lagos, Marisa. "California Spending Billions to Build New Prisons." SFGate. SFGate, 14 Aug. 2011. Web. 28 July 2016. <http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/California-spending-billions-to-build-new-prisons-2335352.php>.

Lee, Thomas F. "Thomas F. Lee: Split Sentencing a Step toward a 21st Century Justice System." Monterey Herald. Monterey Herald, 15 Aug. 2014. Web. 20 July 2016. <http://www.montereyherald.com/article/ZZ/20140815/NEWS/140819016>.

Lofstrom, Magnus, and Raphael, Steven. “Public Safety Realignment and Crime Rates in California.” Public Policy Institute of California. Dec. 2013. Web. 20 July 2016.

Lofstrom, Magnus, and Raphael, Steven. “Impact of Realignment on County Jail Populations”. Public Policy Institute of California. June 2013. PDF file.
<http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_613MLR.pdf>

Malhotra, Urvashi. “The Great Shift: Analyzing the Effect of Public Safety Realignment on Crime in California Between 2009-2013.” University of California, Berkeley. 2016. Web. 20 July 2016. <http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8770r67k>

Martin, Brandon. "Alternatives to Incarceration in California." (n.d.): n. pag. Public Policy Institute of California. Public Policy Institute of California. Web. 20 July 2016. <http://www.ppic.org/content/av/EventBriefing_AlternativestoIncarceration_0515.pdf>.

McGlothlin, William H. "California Civil Commitment: A Decade Later." Sagepub.com. Journal of Drug Issues, n.d. Web. 20 July 2016. <http://jod.sagepub.com/content/6/4/368.abstract>.
Author William H. McGlothlin argues that those drug related convicts that were committed to parole-type programs were shown to perform better in reducing heroin use compared to those who were discharged from custody shortly after admission. By citing studies that found that parole often lasts nearly three times as long as incarceration, and found that those involved in parole reduced their drug abuse, McGlothlin makes a case for the increased usage of parole. However, he considers the earlier time period, where the behavior was nearly the same, but the parole time was nearly the same as the incarceration time. This article appeared in the Journal of Drug Issues Vol. 6.4, and provides information that speaks on the current drug situation for offenders, and allows readers to understand how getting caught with illegal drugs can affect their lives. This source provides scientific evidence for the benefits of parole and supervised release.

Medina, Jennifer. "California Cuts Weigh Heavily on Its Colleges." The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 July 2011. Web. 05 Aug. 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/09/us/09uc.html?_r=0>.

Otten, Tamra. "Fiscal Savings through Alternative Sentencing." Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 13 Mar. 2010. Web. 29 July 2016. <http://www.cjcj.org/news/5301>.

Patchin, Justin W., Ph.D., and Keveles, Gary N., Ph.D. "Alternatives to Incarceration: An Evidence-Based Research Review." (n.d.): n. pag. 12 Nov. 2004. Web. 20 July 2016. <http://fyi.uwex.edu/criminaljusticeandprevention/files/2012/04/alternativestojailsresearchreview.pdf>.
Justin W. Patchin, Ph.D. and Gary N. Keveles, Ph.D. provide evidence, backed by many scientific studies, for the support of alternative sentencing rather than incarceration. They analyzed studies about ten different alternative sentences, ranking the amount of studies that they were able to analyze about each one, from low to high. In this report, they conglomerate the findings of the studies to give recommendations about how to approach the problem of incarceration. These authors are obviously supportive of alternative sentencing, as they point out all the positive aspects of the studies, and give recommendations about sentencing that they consider important, such as the acronym SARA. This article is helpful to find evidence in favor of alternative sentencing, and a reader who would like to find scientific backing for their claims in favor of alternative sentencing would find this greatly helpful.

Petersilia, Joan, Susan Turner, James Kahan, and Joyce Peterson. "Granting Felons Probation: Public Risks and Alternatives." Journal of Criminal Justice 13.5 (1985): 481. Rand.org. Web. 20 July 2016. <http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2007/R3186.pdf>.
Joan Petersilia, Susan Turner, James Kahan, and Joyce Peterson prepared an argue against the widespread usage of probation in a report for the National Institute of Justice. In this report, they cite many misconceptions about probationers, including the notion that most are convicted of minor offenses. They utilize samples from Los Angeles and Alameda counties to demonstrate the recidivism rates of probationers and cite the issue of public safety as reason to inflict harsher punishments. This paper provides evidence against the use of probation within split sentencing and alternative sentences, and readers who are concerned about criminal justice will find it very informing.

Schlosser, Eric. "The Prison-Industrial Complex." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, Dec. 1998. Web. 28 July 2016. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/12/the-prison-industrial-complex/304669/>.

The Times Editorial Board. "Split Sentencing: What's Not to Like, L.A.?" Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 09 Feb. 2014. Web. 03 July 2016. <http://articles.latimes.com/2014/feb/09/opinion/la-ed-split-sentences-california-realignment-20140209>.

The Times Editorial Board. "California's Prison Spending Is out of Whack." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 14 Jan. 2016. Web. 15 July 2016. <http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-de-incarceration-dividend-20160114-story.html>.

Wein, Lawrence M. "Assessing Risk-Based Policies for Pretrial Release and Split Sentencing in Los Angeles County Jails." PLOS ONE:. PLOS ONE, 29 Dec. 2015. Web. 04 July 2016. <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0144967>.
In this scholarly article written by Stanford Management professor Lawrence Wein, the most efficient policy for reducing the Los Angeles County jail system population as well as reduce the recidivism rate was explored. Using mathematical models that tracked the flow of individuals in the system, comparing the model that LA County used in early 2014 to the possibilities that are offered now. According to Wein’s models, split sentencing policies work to reduce the jail population by about 20% and reduce the recidivism rate by 7%. This article is useful to my paper because it supports the viability of split sentencing and encourages the use of it in Los Angeles County, where it is currently used sparsely.