City

State prison realignment less of a burden on local counties

By Sarah Burns | Senior Staff

California’s dramatic prison realignment plan enacted this month appears to be less of a burden for the counties around Berkeley than in other parts of the state.

An attempt to reduce prison overpopulation and rates of repeat offense, Gov. Jerry Brown’s realignment plan — which went into effect Oct.1 under Assembly Bill 109 — pushes responsibility for certain offenders and parolees from the state to county institutions.

Under AB 109, nonviolent, nonsexual and nonserious offenders will serve their sentences in county jails rather than in state prisons.

Alameda County can eventually expect a 267-inmate increase to its average population because of the change in policy, according to statistics from the state Department of Finance.

The bill came about after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in May determined that California’s current prison overpopulation had led to a violation of the inmates’ Constitutional rights and therefore mandated that California decrease its prison population to 137.5 percent of what the facilities were designed to hold within two years.

The realignment has raised contention from officials at various county organizations who worry that their institutions will not have the space nor receive the funding necessary to adequately take on the additional inmates and parolees the bill will funnel into county facilities.

The legislation does not entail the transfer or release of any current inmates from state institutions to the county ones. Also, in addition to the “three nons,” the bill lists 59 crimes — previously voted upon to receive longer and tougher sentences — that will not be transferred over to county facilities.

Agencies across the state have raised concern over potential public safety issues that might arise with the localization of incarceration.

Barry Krisberg, director of research and policy and lecturer in residence at the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy at the UC Berkeley School of Law — who testified at the U.S. Supreme Court trial — said these fears lack evidence.

“The notion that harsher, longer penalties reduce crime has been discredited over and over again,” he said.

The increase will not be as much a challenge for Alameda County as for other counties in the state. According to Alameda County Sheriff’s Department Sgt. J.D. Nelson, the 1989 construction of the Santa Rita Jail allowed for extra space, leaving them with “wiggle room.”

Marin and Contra Costa counties will see increases of 66 and 104 to their average prison population, according to the state’s Department of Finance.

Contra Costa County Undersheriff Mike Casten also said space would not be an issue for his county, but said the roughly $4.5 million realignment budget the state has outlined for the county will not be enough to orchestrate more than a “bare-bones” attempt at decreasing rates of repeat offenses.

According to Marin County Sheriff Robert Doyle, the approximately $3.4 million in funding allocated to his county is adequate, and because of Marin County’s historically low levels of incarceration, space should not be a problem for their facilities either.

Under the bill, counties will also have responsibility for parole supervision of prison inmates freed on or after Oct. 1 for nonserious and nonviolent crimes and for some sex offenders. Though the state Board of Parole will remain responsible for those already on parole, those who break the terms of their parole and who have not been paroled from life terms will serve their sentences at county facilities if their crimes fall under the bill’s provisions.

Sarah Burns is the lead crime reporter.

  • Anonymous

    That’s good news for Costa County, but no so much for the other 20 counties throughout the state who are currently operating under Court ordered population caps.  Not to mention the overcrowding and inhumane conditions in LA County, our nations’s largest system.

    Despite the funding and logistical problems such a proposal as realignment raises, no one is addressing the plain fact that county jails in California are simply not equipped to handle offenders sentenced to longer terms than those offenders they currently hold. They not only don’t have the room, the staff, the facilities, the programs, the infrastructure, the philosophy, the training or the architectural requisites to do what realignment expects or demands them to do. Simply put, jails were not built, intended or capable of holding massive numbers of felons for long periods of time. That is what prisons – however badly – were designed to do. And however convenient it might be to solve the state prison crowding problem by shifting the burden from the state’s prisons to the ill-equipped and already overburdened county jail systems, it is a terrible idea. is worse than “kicking the can down the road.” It is literally the problem of kicking the convict down the road. And that will not help the problem, the public or the convict. Things will be worse, as a result, plain and simple. Realignment proposes to shift tens of thousands of people from one system that is designed for one thing into a system that is designed to do an entirely different thing. That is folly. It is as if everyone believes, without knowing better or caring, that a bed is a bed, a cell is a cell, and a lockup is a lockup; that any one of them is as good or bad as any other. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are very, very different. And saying they are equally competent to do the same things does not make them so. Until someone with some sense and some authority stands up and makes that point loudly and clearly, we condemn ourselves to even more frustration, waste, expense, public harm and human suffering than our current correctional system has wrought for generations.

    • Anonymous

      They created their own problems with dumb on crime attitudes! You need to get over it! It’s already been signed into law. I can only suspect you are a prison guard  protecting your vested interest, the human commodity for profit! As you offer no solutions? Is it Michael Mason? Or Marley?  Crime is the lowest now since the 50′s. California paroles as many as 10,000 inmates every month. For an inmate that’s serving 6 months for a parole violation, they never get out of receiving so NO it’s not that much different! And Deputy’s are trained correctional officers! What’s your point really?   

      • Anonymous

        It’s Michael, but my friends call me Marley – for whatever it is worth.  No, I’m not a prison guard, but my line of work does make me somewhat of an expert on the California criminal justice system.  Realignment will have ZERO effect on my professional career, but it will have a huge impact on me and my fellow citizens of California – including you, Frank.  I’m not defending our current criminal justice system, obviously it is in need of reform.  My point is that realignment will only make things worse by passing the buck onto our already overburdened counties – this will solve NOTHING – other than to save the state some cash at the expense or our local governments.  REAL sentencing and parole reform would be a much wiser, cheaper, and less risky alternative to realignment.  I understand that our crime rates in CA are the lowest in decades, but did you ask yourself why?  Could one argument be that the criminals have been removed from society through incarceration?  Besides, my concern is what happens to the crime rate now that realignment is law.  Remember, laws can be amended – and Governor Brown has said himself that realignment will be undergoing constant changes as it rolls out over the next few years.   If you are unable to understand my point about prisons being designed for one thing, and county jails another, than I’m not sure how to help you in making that connection without taking your for a tour of both types of institutions.  I’m all for prison reform, but this is a predictable disaster in the making.  Thanks for caring, Frank!

        • Anonymous

          Thank you Michael, I have been to both types of institutions  over the last decade many times. Both are wasteful inefficient and counterproductive. Yet necessary for those that pose a threat to public safety, never meant for those we are simply mad at! I am glad we can agree that true reform is a much better answer! The fact is that as the system has been, the counties decide on the sentence and then pass the cost of incarceration onto the state. As more and more felony laws were added DA’s put those new laws to use reducing their own counties cost while placing an ever increasing burden on the state. California prison populations grew more than 500%. The state could never build it’s way out although we have tried with AB900 spending $7.7 billion dollars in prison expansion while other states close prisons and enjoy greater decrease in crime.  It is hopeful to many experts sentencing reform will be next to come and DA’s will find alternatives to jail or prison. The taxpayers by a great majority are unwilling to spend on jails or prisons, so sentencing reform is inevitable. 

  • Anonymous

    There should be no problems for these counties as they have always found alternatives to incarceration, they have developed programs to keep people out of prisons. On the other hand 18 of the 58 counties are responsible for the majority of inmates Kern, Riverside, an San  Diego to mention a few that overcharge and over sentence. Counties that historically have passed the cost of incarceration onto the state in an effort to be tough on crime. Perhaps now having to deal with the mess they create will push them towards keeping people out of jails and prisons. 

    • Anonymous

      You do realize, Frank, that the VAST majority of state prisoners have been on and FAILED probation numerous times before being sentenced to prison, right?  Our state prisoners, in almost all cases, are the individuals whom the counties could not find alternatives to custody for, usually because the individual refused to participate in any programing, resulting in their probation being revoked and the Court imposing their suspended prison sentence.  Statistics show that the average offender sentenced to prison has 7 felonies on their record.  What do you propose to do with the repeat offender who refuses to participate in drug treatment, spousal abuse treatment, GPS supervision, or reside in a drug treatment center?  Do you hold them accountable, or just let them ignore the Courts, probation, parole, and continue to victimize themselves and others?  Unfortunately, that is the reality of what the Courts, probation and parole have to deal with.  And of course, when they counsel, warn, refer to treatment and release a parolee on for burglary after his 3rd dirty test for meth, and then he goes out and beats and robs somebody to support his habit, people will lay the blame on the system for not placing him in custody when they had the opportunity.   

      • Anonymous

        You do realize Marley that the VAST majority of state prisoners have been sent to prison or returned to prison NOT for new crimes, but for technical parole violations. Parole officers belong to the same union as prison guards which benefit from jamming our prison system! Of course addicts have problems! They are addicts! Alcoholics often take years of  relapse before becoming sober! There are many programs that do work, yet the funding is being slashed?Why, because of the influence of law enforcement. DA’s far prefer the more costly incarceration without treatment! It is foolish and counterproductive.  The warden of Folsom prison put this way, “You put a dog in a cage and mistreat him daily, he will bite you when you open the door”. Shame on anyone that thinks putting people in prison and doing nothing with them and expecting them to be productive citizens when they are released is even an answer!  What you are preaching, we know does not work! And on top of that you assume all prisoners are violent! That also is completely untrue! The number of violent inmates has remained static for decades, it was the addition of a thousand new felony laws that has created this costly burden to taxpayers and poor public policy that does nothing to make us safer!     

  • Anonymous

    There should be no problems for these counties as they have always found alternatives to incarceration, they have developed programs to keep people out of prisons. On the other hand 18 of the 58 counties are responsible for the majority of inmates Kern, Riverside, an San  Diego to mention a few that overcharge and over sentence. Counties that historically have passed the cost of incarceration onto the state in an effort to be tough on crime. Perhaps now having to deal with the mess they create will push them towards keeping people out of jails and prisons.