CJCJ Blog: Adult Corrections

Adults with juvenile records

submitted on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 16:11 by Selena Teji

Adolescence is a challenging time for most people. Teenagers undergo significant developmental, physical, psychological, and social changes during a condensed decade of time. We have all done embarrassing things as adolescents; however, we are comforted by our coming of age and the slow regression of those memories. According to a recent study, while 1 in 3 Americans have some contact with the juvenile justice system – most are cited for infractions. Youth who commit crime are in the minority (never more so than now), and even then, the infrequent contact they have is typically for a low-level misdemeanor (such as petty theft or vandalism) that often results in a community-based remedy and the dissolution of their delinquent record upon reaching adulthood.

But what of the teenagers who embark on more serious delinquent careers? An October 2011 blog by the Criminal Justice Degrees Guide, catalogues 8 different celebrities with juvenile records who have a successful and illustrious adult life. These celebrities include among others: Mark Wahlberg, Allen Iverson, Danny Trejo, all of whom where arrested for serious violent offenses as youth. In addition, both Merle Haggard and Danny Trejo served time as adolescents in California’s notorious Youth Authority (the state’s institutional system for juvenile offenders).

While most juvenile offenders do not continue on to an adult life of crime, including even the most serious offenders (as above), there can still be real-life consequences for adults with juvenile records. In California, for example, a juvenile court record is not automatically sealed upon reaching age 18. In fact, to have your juvenile court records sealed you must affirmatively file a petition with the juvenile court in the county where the conviction occurred. But not all juvenile records are sealable. Since the passage of Proposition 21 (2000), certain serious juvenile offenses committed by a 14-year-old or older are barred from sealing.

This means adults could face collateral consequences for their delinquency as teenagers. For example, although juvenile records are confidential, any job that requires a live scan (such as teaching, law-related positions, trade jobs, and some hospital positions) could reveal your criminal history. This may severely limit one’s ability to locate and maintain gainful employment.

While California is in the midst of groundbreaking reforms through realignment both at the adult and juvenile level, it is interesting to explore these types of collateral consequences that obstruct individuals from participation in lawful society. While many low-level offenders are returning to their counties and eventually their communities, many will struggle to re-enter successfully despite their best efforts if these barriers continue to exist.

Category: Public Policy

Author: Selena Teji

Securing employment for ex-offenders, locally

submitted on Thu, 12/08/2011 - 15:30 by Emily Luhrs

An estimated 25 % of all Californian’s have a criminal record, many landing in San Francisco, where rate of unemployment among ex-offenders is disproportionately high. Even though San Francisco, and other cities, including Berkeley and Oakland, have “Banned-the-box,” meaning employers can no longer inquire at the application phase about past criminal convictions, barriers still exist for this particular population. For instance, many employers still conduct background checks, often using commercial background check companies that may be inaccurate. They can then determine what convictions they feel are relevant to the position. Another deterrent for businesses is the fact that insurance companies charge more to businesses that employ ex-offenders and forego conducting background checks.

In an attempt to minimize these barriers, San Francisco Supervisor and Sheriff Elect, Ross Mirkarimi, proposed local legislation to provide an incentive in the form of a tax credit to local business owners for hiring ex-offenders. Tuesday, Dec. 6, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted down the measure 5 to 6. “The question is what to do with a large population. . . The unemployment rate is 50% or higher among ex-offenders and the fact is that we spend about $47,500 per year/per inmate in county jail,” Mirkarimi explained in his defense of the proposition.

While ultimately this piece of legislation failed, the reasons for opposition varied. Some supervisors feared this could trigger a “slippery slope” in terms of where to draw the line for other marginalized populations in need of employment. Others strongly agreed San Francisco needs to address the growing population of jobless ex-offenders but do not feel this is the most effective or most promising tactic. The tax-incentive idea was modeled from similar laws in Philadelphia, PA, Baltimore, MD and other states; however, because these projects are pilots, substantial evidence on their effectiveness has not yet been conducted. Alternative pieces of legislation have not yet been proposed.

This led me to ponder, what would be the best approach to this issue that desperately needs to be addressed? It appears to me that city ordinances cannot be the only route towards securing more jobs for ex-offenders because legislation alone does not combat the stigma still associated with this population. I am reminded of the incredible work EPOCA (Ex-prisoners Organizing for Community Advancement), conducted to encourage fair-hiring practices, an organization I was formally involved with in Worcester, MA.

First, EPOCA organized within the community. Reaching out to as many local businesses as possible, EPOCA educated them on the benefits of hiring ex-offenders. Seeing the “faces” behind the records made clear to employers that many individuals re-entering society are more than ready and willing to work hard. Businesses then voluntarily signed an agreement (no tax incentive needed) indicating they would not discriminate against applicants based on their records. Laying this ground-work first, along with a state-wide coalition, is what led to the support and success of the eventual city and state-wide “ban-the-box” ordinance, as well as large-scale criminal record sealing reform.

As CJCJ’s Executive Director, Dan Macallair stated at the Nov. 30th hearing for the above San Francisco proposal, “the most important piece of ensuring someone's reintegration back into society is employment." Multiple studies have demonstrated this, “showing that ex-offender employment reduces recidivism by as much as 50 percent.” In this case however, research is not enough to abolish a deep stigma. Echoing Mirkarimi’s statement on Tuesday while addressing the SF Re-entry council, a better public relations effort is crucial because “we are representing a population that is not well-received.”

See this link for legislative update of nation-wide reforms.

Category: Public Policy

Author: Emily Luhrs

TCWF recognizes Executive Director Daniel Macallair for his leadership

submitted on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 09:43 by CJCJ

TCWF Award Certificate Congratulations to Executive Director Daniel Macallair, who has been awarded the California Wellness Foundation Sabbatical Program Award for 2011! This leadership support program is now in its ninth year and aims to provide an opportunity for rejuvenation and promote the health of valuable leaders in the nonprofit health and human services sector.

"I look forward to spending three months finishing my book on the Calfornia juvenile justice system."

~ CJCJ Executive Director Daniel Macallair

Mr. Macallair is speaking today at the TCWF Conference on Violence Prevention, Friday, November 18, 2011 at 11 am, alongside David Muhammad, Alameda County Chief Probation Officer, and Marjorie Rist, Yolo County Chief Probation Officer, on a panel entitled, California Corrections Realignment: Impacts & Opportunities. The panel will be moderated by James Bell, Founder and Executive Director of the W. Haywood Burns Institute.

Category: Technical Assistance

Author: CJCJ

Capitol Weekly conference on California prisons - handout and slides available

submitted on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 12:54 by CJCJ

CJCJ Executive Director Daniel Macallair If you could not be at the Capitol Weekly conference today - California Prisons: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly - you can still get an insight into what Executive Director Daniel Macallair talked about during the reform panel, by checking out his presentation handout and slides, available on CJCJ’s Resource Center.

If you would like more information or to request related CJCJ publications, please contact Selena Teji, Communications Specialist at cjcjmedia@cjcj.org or 415.621.5661 ext. 317.

Category: Public Policy

Author: CJCJ

Veterans impacted by the criminal justice system

submitted on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 14:06 by Selena Teji

Veterans returning from war zones face copious challenges upon re-entering their communities and many encounter the criminal justice system in some capacity. CJCJ’s Senior Research Fellow, William (Bud) Brown conducts research on this issue. In his recent paper, published in CJCJ’s Justice Policy Journal (JPJ) earlier this year, Dr. Brown conducted a study finding that veterans with PTSD and alcohol dependency related to combat are more likely to be impacted by the criminal justice system. He suggests that if the needs of young veterans returning from war are not addressed, there will be an increase in the number of incarcerated veterans across the country.

Here’s part of the abstract:

"…As they begin their process of reintegrating back into the civilian culture the term veteran begins to develop meaning for many veterans. That meaning is influenced by factors such as interpersonal relationships, education, and employment/unemployment experiences. Depending upon the level of influence that the Military Total Institution has had on the veteran, which includes the veteran’s combat experiences, many veterans find themselves confronted with mental health issues, particularly posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which is an artifact of her or his combat experiences. A significant number of veterans with PTSD symptoms have turned to alcohol as a form of self-medication. Many veterans with PTSD say that alcohol reduces nightmares and difficulties initiating and maintaining sleep (DIMS). In many instances the experiences of war, PTSD, alcohol, combined with lethargic civilian attitudes of the problems veterans confront provides the ingredients of a recipe designed to accelerate the probability of increased veteran incarceration. This article addresses the aforementioned issues by analyzing the data collected during a study of 162 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans during a 15-month period, and spanning across 16 states. The data strongly suggest that veterans with PTSD and alcohol use/dependency issues related to combat increase the probability of veteran criminal justice entanglements."

You can read the full paper here: From War Zones to Jail: Veteran Reintegration Problems, JPJ, Vol. 8. No. 1, Spring 2011.

Want to know more about Dr. Brown?

"William B. Brown is an Associate Professor, with a PhD in Sociology, in the Department of Criminal Justice at Western Oregon University. He is also the Executive Director of The Bunker Project, a program that assists Afghanistan and Iraq veterans with alcohol, drug, posttraumatic stress disorder, and legal problems. He has been recognized by the courts in numerous criminal cases involving veteran defendants as an expert in the area of the military total institution and its effect on veterans re-entering the civilian culture, and the impact of military training and experiences relative to instantaneous responses by veterans charged with violent offenses. Dr. Brown is a combat veteran who served as an infantryman with the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Vietnam, served as a Drill Sergeant, eventually received an Infantry Commission, and served as a platoon leader in B Company 75th Rangers. When the Vietnam War ended he resigned his commission. His previous research includes prisoner re-entry, youth gangs, and sentencing processes." (p.3)

His earlier, 2008 publication on this issue, Another Emerging “Storm”: Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans with PTSD in the Criminal Justice System (JPJ, Vol. 5, No. 2, Fall 2008), challenged researchers and service providers to being preparation to support veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Category: Public Policy

Author: Selena Teji

America's war on drugs [video blog]

submitted on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 13:02 by CJCJ

~ CJCJ Senior Research Fellow, Mike Males

Category: Public Policy

Author: CJCJ

Will realignment cut costs and reduce California's prison population?

submitted on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 14:49 by Emily Luhrs

The most definitive answer I heard to this question at today’s panel on Realignment, sponsored by the Warren Institute on Law and Policy at UC Berkeley, was “no one knows.” The outcomes of criminal justice realignment are still unclear as it recently went into effect October 1st. Other factors include the difficulties in knowing how many offenders realignment will actually affect due to the specificity of offender categories outlined for local supervision and “justice by geography.” By this, Barry Krisberg, criminologist and President of the Warren Institute, is referring to the drastic differences between California’s 58 counties’ sentencing practices, jail capacities, and availability and commitment to alternative sanctions and community services.

A point stressed today was that realignment is first and foremost a fiscal measure developed through the budget process, not the legislative process which would have required more public input. It costs the state $55,000 to house an inmate in state prison each year and under realignment, counties receive $20,000 per inmate/year to supervise locally. By the numbers, this appears to be a cost-saving measure for the state, but when examining the details it becomes less clear. (For a nuts and bolts on realignment, see my previous blog and visit the California realignment website.) The range in panelists’ speculations on the ability of realignment to reduce prison population and ultimately corrections costs, fluctuated between "a decrease but not enough to reduce overcrowding," a stabilization of the population, and even an eventual rise in population, which would lead to a rise in costs.

1). The estimated number of inmates realignment is likely to affect is 26,000 but even if California’s prison population were to decrease over the next few years, it would still be below the 33,000 ordered reduction in the Brown v. Plata Supreme Court decision to reduce overcrowding. Additionally, if CDCR does find a way to reduce the population by 33,000 the system would still be over 100% capacity.

2). Only the non-serious, non-violent, non-sexual offenders with NO prior non-non-non status will have the opportunity for local supervision instead of state prison. This population may be smaller than expected because even though someone’s commitment offense may be drug-related (non-non-non), it is not unlikely that in their past they were involved in more criminal activity. The “no prior non-non-non” specification includes any previous offense, even if it was committed 30 years ago. In addition, counties, such as Alameda and San Francisco, were already supervising this population at the local level and therefore would not contribute to significant reductions in state prison populations.

3). Krisberg suggests the real source of overcrowding is “driven by length of stay, not admissions.” His concern is that after lower level offenders are diverted locally, 45,000-60,000 offenders serving life sentences will continue to be housed in state prisons. In order to make sustainable budget cuts, the supervision of those serving life sentences, must be examined because this aging population is the most costly.

The hope is that by diverting inmates to local supervision, counties will have more incentive to create innovative sanctions and utilize community reentry services. It is important that conversations regarding realignment focus on the facts rather than skewed media reports, as this can provide more opportunity for local acceptance of this population and ultimately a focus on rehabilitative options.

Category: Community Corrections

Author: Emily Luhrs

Second Chance Act funding threatened

submitted on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 10:22 by Emily Luhrs

Of the $2.3 billion currently allocated in the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Bill, $0 is included in the Senate’s version for Second Chance Act funding. Although full funding would require $165 million, there is an opportunity to restore, at least a portion of this crucial funding for fiscal year 2012. President Obama has requested $100 million and the House of Representatives request includes $70 million; however, agreement from both the House and the Senate appropriations committees is needed before heading to the Congress floor for a vote. See table below by CSG Justice Center's Reentry Policy Council.

The Second Chance Act awards grants to local government and community organizations who serve those re-entering society from prison or jail. This community-based focus has proven to be effective because of their deep understanding the populations they serve and use of evidence-based strategies. Below is a sampling of the bill’s grant projects:
state and local adult and juvenile offender reentry projects;

~ effective alternatives to incarceration;
~ family-based substance abuse treatment;
~ evaluation and improvement of educational methods at prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities;
~ technology careers training;
~ offender reentry substance abuse and criminal justice collaboration; and
~ nonprofit organization mentoring programs.

In addition, the bill focuses on targeting high risk offenders, including those with histories of substance abuse, homelessness, mental illness, particularly in communities with a higher representation of this population.

The revolving door of prison is the reality, with 70% recidivism rates in some states. Over 700,000 individuals are released from prison each year, in addition to more than 9 million released from jail each year. National commitment towards funding reentry programs is crucial because upon release from an institution where rehabilitation was not prioritized, most of this population will return without new opportunities or community support.

It is important for you to act now and sign CJCJ’s advocacy letter to pressure Senators to include funding for the Second Chance Act in this FY12 appropriations bill. California Senator Patrick Leahy has been a long time advocate of the Second Chance Act but we need him to pressure his fellow colleagues on the necessity of this bill.

To learn more, see list of talking points here.

Category: Public Policy

Author: Emily Luhrs

Pete Brook interviews CJCJ's Executive Director Daniel Macallair

submitted on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 07:29 by Selena Teji

Listen to this excellent podcast by Prison Photography's Pete Brook, interviewing CJCJ's Executive Director Daniel Macallair on the history of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice and the evolution of criminal and juvenile justice in California.

PPOTR #3: Interview with Dan Macallair of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice by Pete Brook

Category: Technical Assistance

Author: Selena Teji

California counties punished for best-practices

submitted on Tue, 09/06/2011 - 11:56 by Emily Luhrs

As counties prepare for criminal justice realignment, the disparities between counties’ sentencing practices become increasingly apparent. State-dependant counties, who have higher rates of state imprisonment, have been allocated substantially more funding than self-reliant counties. Rather than basing the funding allocation on county crime rates, the funding formula is based on the number of low-level offenders each county currently has in state prison. There is no doubt counties will need financial support from the state as responsibility for lower level offenders shifts to the local level, but why should self-reliant counties be punished for exercising non-incarceration alternatives at the local level and saving state taxpayer dollars?

Both San Francisco and Alameda counties will receive dramatically less funding, $5.8 million and $9.2 million, respectively, while San Bernardino is receiving $25.8 million from the state. Chief Probation Officers Wendy Still of San Francisco and David Muhammad of Alameda are disappointed with the legislature’s allocation of funds because they feel their counties are being subjected to an unfair funding allocation, rather than rewarded for utilizing best-practices and promoting rehabilitation over incarceration. San Francisco, a self-reliant county, saved taxpayers between $147 and $278 million in 2010 for their non-incarceration alternatives, as CJCJ’s recent report demonstrates.

Chief Still’s August 18th press release calls on the CA legislature to reassess the current formula, as the county needs an additional $8.3 million to fully implement their realignment plan. She states that restructuring the formula for counties “would not only allow innovative counties to become model blueprints and hubs of technical assistance for other counties, it would also incentivize state-dependent counties to pursue more effective local criminal justice practices.”

Alameda county, with a similar population and crime rate as San Bernardino county, will be dealing with an increased caseload after October 1st, and even though the influx will be smaller than San Bernardino’s, the current funding will not be enough to properly supervise them. Chief Muhammad indicates “Currently 15,000 people are on probation in Alameda County. Eleven thousand of them don’t have probation officers because of a lack of staffing and funding.” For effective supervision, focused on rehabilitation, the caseload of each probation officer should not exceed 50 people, envisions Chief Muhammad. The allotted funding is not sufficient, but the probation office has plans to work with many community agencies for support to fully meet the needs of each client.

In order to promote cost-saving measures in other California counties, the state should incentivize counties to pursue innovative rehabilitative programming by promoting model counties’, such as San Francisco and Alameda’s, best practices.

Category: Community Corrections

Author: Emily Luhrs