Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Fletes_Winter '16_Final

146 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Fletes_Winter '16_Final

  1. 1. Interaction Between Post-Release Community Supervision and Ex-Offenders: The Effects of Rehabilitation on Recidivism Rates Lorena Fletes March 11, 2016
  2. 2. Introduction: California has been dealing with overcrowding in prisons for the last few decades, as living standards of inmates are unhealthy, unsafe, and inhumane. Not only has this overpopulation caused health concerns, it has also put into question the system’s effectiveness. Over the past three decades, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has made efforts to counterbalance the spike of inmates. However, the CDCR has only been able to mask the problem by spreading inmates out, while maintaining problematic rates of recidivism contributing to the failure of inmate rehabilitation while hindering their transition back to society. The prison system was designed to not only bring a sense of security to its law-abiding citizens while penalize its offenders, but also to rehabilitate these individuals. Unfortunately, upon release, former offenders not only face recidivism; but also a much higher rate of mortality than the average citizen, due to their limited resources (Binswanger ). While in prison, inmates lack freedom and opportunities to make decisions for themselves losing their basic sense of responsibility. For many ex-offenders, reintegration becomes even more difficult as society shuns them as a result of previous convictions. With little to no support upon release, it becomes difficult for them to obtain housing, food, and employment in order to survive. It becomes unrealistic for them to reintegrate into society and maintain low recidivism rates, when they lack money, training and support upon release. In recent years, California has been setting in place population reduction measures. In 2011, California enacted Public Safety Realignment with the passage of Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109), moving many offenders from state prisons to county jails. This measure was not only intended to shift individuals from the prison level to county jails, but also intended to provide
  3. 3. better rehabilitation measures to reduce recidivism rates (Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report ). Significance: Since the 1980’s American, in particular California has witnessed an exponential increase in its prison population. In 2010, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) population was 287,444; of these individuals 162,821 were currently serving their sentence while 123,578 were on parole (Krimetz). In recent years, realignment has drastically decreased the prison population. According to the weekly summaries from CDCR, in February 2016 the total individuals currently serving a prison sentences were 127,326 (Weekly Report of Population). Since 2011, California has engaged in countless efforts to realign, although it is important to meet quotas, it is also important to ensure that individuals receive proper services to successful reintegrate. Many times communities become reluctant to provide the services needed to rehabilitate individuals. They become fearful that by providing treatment and employment services, they will be opening the doors to an influx of criminals who can potentials put their well being at risk or become competition in the job market, if rehabilitated. However, according to Penal Code Section 3003(a) an inmate who is released on parole shall be returned to the county, which was the last legal residence of the individual prior to incarceration ("Division of Adult Parole Operations Statutory Parole Requirements"). As individuals will be returning to the county in which they last resided in, it becomes optimal to provide the necessary resources for reintegration. After being in prison, where they lived on a set routine many individuals find themselves at a crossroads within the first few hours upon release as they must find immediate shelter to
  4. 4. spend the night. Unfortunately, this decision does not come with many alternatives, as the financial resources of those who do not have a home to return to, are limited. Many are forced to stay in shelters or spend the night on the streets considering the many barriers that exist to access public housing. Being on the streets not only hinders community supervision, but it also creates obstacles for rehabilitation, employment, and education, enabling old habits to reemerge. It becomes critical that we prepare ex-offenders to properly reintegrate into society upon release to reduce their possibility of recidivating. Since 2011, the Board of Supervisors in Los Angeles County introduced the Public Safety Realignment Team (PSRT), which focuses on coordinating and implementing a realignment plan. The purpose of PSRT is to involve departments and criminal justice agencies that are impacted by realignment in order to produce the best outcomes for the community (Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report). It is important to examine the impact that Post- Release Community Supervision (PRCS) programs are having, to better determine how they can be improved or expanded in other counties. It is important that California not only focus on reducing prison overcrowding, but also takes strides in rehabilitate individuals who have been released to ensure they do not return to prison. Background: In 2009, the United States had the highest incarceration rates internationally, housing about 2.3 million people in prisons and jails, while California alone housed about 171,281 inmates (Monthly Report of Population). According to the most recent California Prisoners and Parolees report conducted by CDCR, prior to Realignment, in 2010 the number of institutionalized offenders had dropped to 162,821, while the active parolee population consisted of 123,578 individuals (Krimetz). During the 2009-10 fiscal year, 42 percent had recidivated
  5. 5. Figure 1: Figure 2: within the first year of release and within three years of release this percentage had increased to 54.3 percent. As we can see in Figure 1, there was a decrease from previous years; however, recidivism rates along with prison overcrowding are still significant matters to deal with (Beard). California is now in its fifth year of one of its most endeavoring correctional reforms it known as “Public Safety Realignment” (AB 109). Although realignment is still in early stages it is difficult to denote the impact it is having on recidivism rates statewide. However, what we do know is that California’s prison population has significantly decreased in the years since realignments as noted in Figure 2. With realignment in place individuals are receiving new Prison population has significantly dropped to 127,312 individuals since its peak in 2009. 66.2% 65.6% 66.8% 67.5% 65.1% 63.7% 61.0% 54.3% 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Return to Prison - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total CDCR Population Total CDCR Population at the Beginning of the Year Source: CDCR 2014 Outcome Evaluation Report
  6. 6. opportunities to reintegrate, as AB 109 was motivated with the idea that counties can better target recidivism rates (Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report). However, as a state our obligations do not stop once individuals are released, it is important to help them successfully reintegrate into society. With the passage of AB 109 the state created legislation, which transferred authority over lower-level felons from state prisons to county jails, and from the parolee system to the probation system. Lower-level felons were classified as those convicted of non-violent, non-serious, non- sex offenses (Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report). AB 109 creates Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS), causing county probation departments to become responsible for the supervision of eligible offenders after their release from prison (Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report ). PRCS become responsible for the coordination’s of rehabilitation services for eligible offenders. Although AB 109 created a significant decrease in prison population it has caused great pressures on county jail systems. According to Los Angeles County Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report jail population has seen a drastic increase from 15,463 inmates the month before realignment to 19,600 inmates in March 2014. Within the following months this population once again dropped to about 15,770 inmates due to the implementation of Proposition 47. Prop 47, reclassified several felony drug and theft-related offenses to misdemeanors, allowing some individuals who were previously convicted as felons to be resentences for misdemeanor (Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report ). With the vast changes our prison and jail system are undertaking we must not only focus on the extensive reduction of inmates made over the last few years. Releasing so many individuals’ calls for an urgent evaluation of the programs offered at the county level, which are
  7. 7. intended to rehabilitate and easy individuals reintegration while reducing recidivism rates. As prisoners are released they are immediately challenged to find appropriate housing. Their efforts to find housing are generally hindered by their lack of financial means. Which in turn hinders their ability to enroll in course work, apply for jobs, and enter rehabilitation services, leaving them in a vicious cycle, which threatens their successful reintegration. ResearchDesign: Since the introduction of realignment counties have been delegated the task of introducing or expanding their rehabilitation services to better serve their populations needs. Several counties have introduced Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS) programs since the passage of AB 109, making it becomes important to examine the effectiveness of the programs offered. Effectiveness can be measured in a variety of ways: cost effective, reduction in prison population, recidivism, effect on crime rates, and impact on the local communities ("Californians for Safety and Justice"). For the purpose of this research, effectiveness will be measured based on the total number of participants who successfully completely different portions of the program and the impact the integration of these participants had on Los Angeles County. As L.A. County holds about one-fourth of California’s population and also has the largest jail and prison population, I believe it is important to take a closer look. L.A. County is demographically diverse, making it a culturally rich county, which provides an immense number of employment opportunities: construction, tourism, entertainment, manufacturing, and retail to name a few. Although the variety of employment opportunities in L.A. County are rather large there are several obstacles to those with limited resources as housing cost have been increasing at a faster rate in the county that across the state. Generally the more affordable regions in Los
  8. 8. Angeles County are also the regions, which lack employment opportunities. Considering public transportation in L.A. County is not very convenient or highly accessible it becomes difficult to get around and seek employment opportunities that are not within ones proximity. With limited mobility and ability to pay bills, L.A. County residents are forced on to the streets. Considering Los Angeles County is one of the leading economies it however, has numerous restrictions for those with limited resources. I believe the diversity and constraints LA County offers, makes it an excellent county to examine the impact of its PRCS program, as it can serve others as a benchmark to produce improvements in their PRCS programs. For any rehabilitation program to be successful it is important to have a suitable environment to maximize the benefits received by those partaking in PRCS programs. Given the unemployment rates, median monthly housing cost, poverty levels, and homeless rates in Los Angeles County, we can begin to examine the effectiveness and possible negative impacts this can cause on treatment and services provided. Looking at the PRCS program L.A. County currently has in place, I will look at the substance abuse, mental health, and housing/employment components the program offers to its participants. I will, look at the total number of people who entered the program, the number of people who completed the program, and those who have violated the program. Taking into account the currently circumstances in the county it will be easier to denote the effectiveness of the services while looking at the effects that PRCS programs have had on Los Angeles County. Methods: I reviewed the Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report released by the County of Los Angeles to determine the number of participates each program accepts, along with the positive and negative outcomes of each program. This will allow for a better understanding of
  9. 9. the effects realignment has had on L.A. County and how other counties can use these finding to implement better programs. It is necessary to take into account L.A. County’s poverty levels and median monthly housing cost as those determined by the U.S. Census, homeless rates determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and unemployment rates which are determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in order determine any possible impact they might have on the programs effectiveness. It is central to compare the numbers before and after realignment to determine the impact realignment has had on this county. Unemployment: Not only does Los Angeles County house the largest population in California it also operates the world’s largest jail system involving more than 30 criminal courthouses and eight jail facilities (Los Angeles County Jail Overcrowding Reduction ). Prior to realignment, L.A. County jail facilities contained approximately 15,463 individuals, which were largely composed of pretrial, sentences with a pending charges, and sentenced individuals (Austin, et al ). Simultaneously, around this same timeframe California was recovering from the Great Recession with an annual unemployment rates of 12.1 percent in 2010, Los Angeles County had a very similar unemployment rate of 12.5 percent (“Local Area Unemployment Statistics Map”). This made many fearful that releasing so many individuals would cause unemployment rates to maintain themselves at high levels. High unemployment rates would create larger pools of competitors in the job market. Others feared for their safety, as they believed individuals would return to unlawful activities in a matter of time since they would not be able to find employment. During the months following realignment L.A. County began to see a steady decrease in unemployment rates reaching 8.2 percent in 2014 and 6.7 percent in 2015. During the first three years, which is what we will focus on, crime rates maintained themselves at steady levels. In
  10. 10. 2015, crime rates in LA County peaked, but according to the mayor this crime spike can be attributed to Proposition 47, which changed some nonviolent crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. Economic Wellbeing: During the recovery period after the Great Recession, 2010 to 2014, California experienced a gradual increase in median monthly housing cost from $1,381 to $1,399 (U.S. Census Bureau ). Unfortunately, L.A. County has experience an increase in median monthly housing cost at much higher rates increasing from $1,347 to $1,412 (U.S. Census Bureau ). With approximately 18 percent of its population living in below poverty standards, the lack of affordable housing in L.A. County has driven many individuals into homelessness. Prior to realignment Los Angeles County’s homeless population stood at about 33,243 individuals, increasing to about 34,393 individuals in 2014 (“Continuum of Care Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports"). Although poverty rates, median housing cost, and homelessness in L.A. County are alarming they have maintained themselves rather stable with minimal increases over time. However, unemployment rates have dropped by nearly half making for promising conditions for those entering the work force. As the conditions in L.A. County have remained rather stable the effectiveness of Los Angeles’ PRCS program will be minimally impacted but the changing conditions the county experienced. Los Angeles PRCS: To obtain a preliminary understanding of the effectiveness of L.A.’s PRCS program, I will examine the different treatment options provided, along with the outcomes each program has had over the last few years. Considering realignment is in its early stages, many see it as a means
  11. 11. to allow inmates early release, as this is not the case it is important to examine the services the county has set in place along with the various social economic factors that might influence the outcome of the program (Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report ). Individuals released from county jails are placed in PRCS, unless their most recent prison conviction was for a serious or violent felony, they are high-risk offenders, or are designated with mental disorders (Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report). Felons currently in state prison will continue to carry out their sentence in state prison. PRCS will be offered to individuals for no more than three years, with the opportunity to terminate early if there are no probation violations (Luhrs). Over the course of the past four years (2011-2014) Los Angeles County has accepted a total of 24,947 participants, of which they have been able to terminate 13,559 cases (Figure 3). The 8,128 cases that are currently still active have been accumulated from all three years (Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report ). The prime rehabilitation services offered to PRCS participants are substance abuse, mental health, health care, employment and housing services. Detoxification locations have also largely increased their availability in L.A. County, adding about 180 treatment facilities (Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report ). 8% 33% 5% 15% 33% 6% 54% PRCS Participants Outstanding Warrants at End of Year Active Cases at End of Year Deported Termination due to a New Crime Succesful Termination Other Termination Figure 3:
  12. 12. Assembly Bill 109 has emphasized the importance of accessible office locations through the County in order to better serve this population. As noted on the map below, there are several probation offices, substance abuse prevention and control sites, mental health clinics, and housing/employment providers spread throughout the county (Public Safety Realignment Year- Three Report ). As we can see in Map 1, the AB 109 Locations are distributed largely around the areas where Postrelease Supervised Person’s (PSP) are concentrated. However, the locations are evidently out-numbered by they number of PSP. Although the department has gradually increased staff, it appears that we also need an increase in service locations to better serve this population. AB 109 – Probation Offices and Treatment Sites Source: Countywide Criminal Justice Coordination Committee 2015 Map1:
  13. 13. Substance Abuse Treatment: PSP are assessed by Community Assessment Services Centers (CASC) for substance abuse use disorders and referred to treatment when appropriate. Between 2011-2014, approximately 18,000 individuals were assessed, from this population 5,755 (32 percent) were determined to not need treatment, while 10,414 (58 percent) individuals required treatment (Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report). Yet, it is interesting that during the programs first year, there were 11,513 total accepted cases into the PRCS program, however only 4,481 were actually assessed (Figure 5). The second year witnessed a 53 percent increase in assessment while an 83 percent increase in substance use disorder referrals (2,210 to 4,046). During the second year there was only 6,865 cases accepted in the PRCS program in addition to the 9,109 active cases carried over from the first year (Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report). As there is a combinations of newly accepted plus a carry over from the Population Year One Year Two Year Three Total Total Cases Accepted 11,513 6,865 6,569 24,947 Active Cases at End of Year 9,109 7,957 8,128 8,128 CASC Total Cases 4,481 6,875 6,639 17,995 Treatment Required (Referred to Treatment) 2,210 4,046 4,158 10,414 58% 32% 6% 4% CASC AssessmentActivity Treatment Required No Treatment Required Other (Transfers) Refused Treatment Figure 4: Figure 5:
  14. 14. previous year it is understandable that the number of cases assessed and the number of individuals who require treatment would substantially change increase during the second year. Not to mention, as the program progresses and resources evolve, it becomes easier to address the needs of more individuals. Nevertheless, it becomes unfortunate that only about half of the individuals who require treatment actually receive this treatment as illustrated in Figure 6. It is important to further develop research in order to determine why only about half of the individuals who are identified as requiring treatment actually receive the treatment needed. It is vital to conclude why individuals who are referred to treatment are not actually admitted. Substance abuse can lead to a number of behavioral problems including aggressiveness, hallucinations, and loss of self-control to name a few. If only a fourth of those assessed properly complete treatment it is imperative to examine the disconnect between those assessed and those admitted. It appears that those who are admitted and discharged with a positive compliance in treatment have significant decreases in homeless status (21 percent), emergency room visits (36 percent) and physical health problems (30 percent) (Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report). Substance abuse treatment in L.A. County has proven to have a positive impact on those who take part in the program. Individuals with positive compliance to treatment present less risk (44 percent) of being arrested for a new crime, than those with negative compliance (58 percent) (Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report). Similarly those who participate in social support recovery activities were more likely to be discharged with positive compliance (61 percent) than Population Year One Year Two Year Three Total Admissions 1,434 2,185 2,279 5,898 Discharge 1,266 1,992 1,538 4,796 Positive Treatment Compliance 658 930 641 2,229 Negative Treatment Compliance 526 916 741 2,183 Other 82 146 156 384 Figure 6:
  15. 15. those who did not participate in social recovery activities (47 percent). While individuals engage in recovery programs it is imperative that they become involved in social recovery activities, not only does it increase their change of having successfully completing the program, it also significantly reduces their chance of a new arrest. Social recovery activities enable a support system while allowing individuals to build skills, which will become essential for reintegrating. Mental Health Treatment: The Department of Mental Health (DMH) provides the AB 109 population with mental health and co-occurring mental health- substance use disorder services. For individuals who are eligible, the DMH screens and identifies PSP’s prior to release from prison (Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report). Since 2011, the DMH has determined that 7,052 individuals in PRCS required treatment. The number of individuals who were assessed and referred to mental health treatment is only 1,051, substantially lower than the 5,992 individuals who were assessed and referred to treatment for co-occurring disorders (Figure 7). Unfortunately, with mental health treatment services, it is significantly more difficult to assess the positive and negative compliance rates. Nevertheless, the DMH witnessed an increase in treatment engagement from 45 to 67 percent in the second year, yet the third year witnessed a decline to 46 percent. Although there is a considerable decrease during the third year, this can be 15% 85% Individuals Assessed and Referred Mental Health Treatment Co-Occuring Disorders Figure 7:
  16. 16. attributed to those released because of Proposition 36. Having data from a few more years would allow us to better assess the impact of mental health treatments as we would be allowed to out weigh the effects of Proposition 36, making more accurate correlations between mental health treatments and arrests rates. Currently re-arrest rates for PSPs in mental health treatment are at 26 percent for those released in the first year, and 14 percent for those released in the third year (Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report). Unfortunately, these are not comparable groups since re-arrest rates for those released in the first year are an aggregate of all three years they have been out. In order to be able to determine the correlation between treatment compliance and arrest rates and an in-depth research study needs to be completed. It is essential to determine the exact number of individuals who were assessed, those who were referred to treatment, admitted to treatment, and compliance with treatment in order to determine the success rates between those who entered treatment versus those who did not enter treatment, but were referred to treatment. It is also critical to define how many individuals were re-arrested in the first, second and third year of their release. Housing and Employment: Housing and job readiness services are provided to PRCS participants through Health RIGHT 360 (HR360). HR 360 provided participants sober living, transitional housing, shelter, skilled nursing facilities, and recuperative housing services. As we can see in Figure 8, use for most resources begins to increase from year to year. Unfortunately, once again it is unclear if those utilizing the resources in year two and three are solely from the PSPs who were admitted in that year or if year two and three figures include participants whose cases were still active from the previous year.
  17. 17. This problem is once again presented within those taking advantage of HR 360 transportation and job readiness services. HR 360 also provides employment programs: job skills training, employment preparation, and employment placement to name a few. As public transportation in Los Angeles County is not very accessible the fact that transportation is provided to individuals is indispensible when searching for employment. Nevertheless, it is puzzling to see a decrease in demand for these services. Although unemployment rates for the county have substantially lowered, it brings to question if job readiness services are witnessing a decrease because ex-offenders do not have such a hard time obtaining employment or if there is another reason as to why this service is not being utilized. Referring back to Map 1, 0 204 4 1912 150 702 15 4809 255 854 1 4647 15 Board and Care Sober Living Sober Living with Child Transitional Housing Transitional Housing with Children Supportive Housing Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 358 3318 699 2330 197 2131 Transportation Job Readiness Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Figure 8: Transportation & Employment Figure 9:
  18. 18. we can see that Housing/Employment Service Providers are largely provided to PRCS participants and there location also seems to be highly accessible, however the data available is minimal. It becomes difficult to assess the effectiveness of job readiness since there is no explicate data as to how individuals are qualify to take part of HR360 employment opportunities or whether this component of the program is open to all individuals. Policy Suggestions: As we can see the effects of Assembly Bill 109 “Public Safety Realignment” have had minimal effects on the economic well being of Los Angeles County. One of the largest oppositions many had was the lack of currently employment. As those on the lower end of the spectrum have a difficult time obtaining employment in L.A. they feared that releasing a large number of individuals will only hinder their opportunities. This common misconception is reinforces as Penal Code Section 3003(a) states that an inmate who is released on parole shall be returned to the county, which was their last legal residence prior to incarceration ("Division of Adult Parole Operations Statutory Parole Requirements"). However, under AB 109 individuals are not being released early. AB 109 simply creates Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS) in which eligible offenders are placed under county probation supervision. Unfortunately, AB 109 did not have much impact on L.A. County as its unemployment rate largely decreased and began to stabilize itself after the Great Recession. Median monthly housing cost in L.A. County increase by about sixty-five dollars, this can also be attributed to the stabilization of the market, and not necessarily an increase in demand from those being released. Los Angeles County residents appear to have been impacted on a larger magnitude by the market than by the release of individuals, however it is those released that experienced the largest impact by the existing conditions of the county.
  19. 19. With the passage of AB 109 in 2011, Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS) programs came into effect, as it is believed that counties can have a greater impact on recidivism rates statewide. At this stage, it is still a bit early to determine whether L.A. County’s PRCS program had the intended outcome. With current statistics we can draw minimal conclusions, it appears that L.A.’s PRCS program is having positive effects on its participants. Individuals who engage in treatment appear to be doing better off reducing their rate of arrest and likelihood of being homeless. Yet, in order to measure its true effectiveness further data needs to be collected to on the participants who successfully completely different portions of the program. In the short run, it is essential that the different treatment and services provided collect data on the individuals who are referred to treatment but are not admitted. In order to have a lasting impact, the county needs to understand the disconnect between those referred and those who are admitted to treatment, in order to develop strategies to have those number resemble each other as best as possible. L.A. County must also account for the effects of Proposition 47 and Proposition 36 to better understand the direct impact the county’s efforts are having on rehabilitation. Employment, being a factor that largely contributes to successful reintegration needs to be studies in-depth. It is critical to collect, study and examine data on the individuals who enter PRCS programs based on their rate of employment, the individuals who obtained employment without the assistance of job readiness services, the individuals who engaged in different components of job readiness services, along with the rate at which they obtained employment. In the long term, it would be beneficial to collect data in regards to the number of individuals who take advantage of more than one component of the different treatments and
  20. 20. services offered by the county. By doing so we would be able to compare the success of individuals who became involved in more than one component of the program. If Los Angeles and other counties began to collect extensive data on the individuals who take part of their services, it would become easier to analyze the services offered to them. As of now, it is evident that the CDCR has been able to substantially decrease its population, now counties must focus on their PRCS programs to ensure they are providing individuals with the best resources possible to reduce their rate of recidivism.
  21. 21. Works Cited Austin, James et al. Evaluation of the Current and Future Los Angeles County Jail Population. Colorado: The JFA Institute, 2012. Web. 09 Feb. 2016. Beard,Jeffrey et al. 2014 Outcome Evaluation Report. Sacramento:Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2015. Web. 13 Feb. 2016. Binswanger, Ingrid A., et al. "Release from Prison - A High Risk of Death for Former Inmates." New England Journal of Medicine. MassachusettsMedicalSociety, 11 Jan. 2007. Web. 07 Feb. 2016. "Californians for Safety and Justice." About Public Safety Realignment.N.p.,2013. Web. 11 Feb. 2016. “Continuum of Care Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports." CoC Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports - HUD Exchange. HUD Exchange, 2014. Web. 11 Feb. 2016. "Division of Adult Parole Operations Statutory Parole Requirements." DAPO. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2016. Web. 12 Feb. 2016. Krimetz, Stephen et al. California Prisonersand Parolees. Sacramento:Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2011. Web. 14 Feb. 2016. "Local Area Unemployment Statistics Map." Map. Bureau of Labor Statistics, n.d. Web. 15 Feb. 2016. Los Angeles County Jail Overcrowding Reduction.Vera Institute of Justice, 2011. Web. 7 Feb. 2016. Luhrs, Emily. "Myths vs. Facts -- Clearing up the Realignment Debate."Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 29 July 2011. Web. 10 Feb. 2016. Monthly Report of Population. Sacramento:Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2016. Web. 15 Feb. 2016. Public Safety Realignment Year-Three Report. Los Angeles: Public Safety Realignment Team,2015. Web. 13 Feb. 2016. U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates Weekly Report of Population. Sacramento:Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2016. Web. 21 Feb. 2016.

×