level of SUD programming (at 35% participation). Of the 302 offender
participants from 2011–2016, 44.3% or 172 participants were classified as 1170, and 26.7% were classified as PRCS. In this initial phase of determining how large the cohort was and the degree to which this study cohort would be examined, a critical point for policy re-evaluation was revealed before any recidivism data was
examined: that perhaps Santa Cruz County needs to reevaluate, reconfigure, or refine the case assessment RNR process, referrals or programming, or all three, so that if in 2017 61% of the AB 109 still has a high or medium need for SUD programming as evaluated in 2013 by the CPOC as the baseline need for realignment offenders for this programming type, and only 35% of the dosage hours that offenders participate in are SUD programming, then the difference can be made up to meet the actual substance use disorder need in Santa Cruz County. 4. Incarcerated people have a substantially higher rate of substance abuse than the
general public (Chief Probation Officers of California, 2013). According to the State Department of Health Care Services, SUD estimates the prevalence rate in Santa Cruz County was 7.98%—the second-highest among medium-sized counties in California and 0.74% higher than the statewide prevalence rate of substance use disorders (Santa Cruz County Alcohol and Drug Program, 2014). According to DHCS, SUD costs the county over 207 million dollars a year, with 96% of this to “downstream” untreated SUD in health, criminal justice, social services, and property costs. Only 3.3% of the total costs to Santa Cruz County in 2014 went to the actual treatment of SUD, yet it is continually affirmed to have a positive return on investment in costs, including to criminal justice costs
downstream (Santa Cruz County Alcohol and Drug Program, 2014). Additionally, in surveys of state prisoners, only 22% of state prison inmates received treatment during their prison terms. If 35% of dosage hours are SUD-related, and there is a comparable percentage of offender participants, then the “Santa Cruz County Recidivism Study of Post-Realignment Offenders (2011–2016)” could
demonstrate that Santa Cruz County is doing significantly better than the state prison system and therefore possibly reducing the high costs of managing this offender population. This might be an area where counties can in fact perform better to meet the needs of the prisoner population and save taxpayer dollars. 5. Santa Cruz County AB 109 offenders of all types (870 individuals) across the
study period consumed approximately 84,381 dosage hours of recidivism reduction programming. SUD programming is a robust offering in Santa Cruz County to target recidivism reduction and rehabilitation. Of all of the recidivism reduction dosage hours in all program types consumed in Santa Cruz County during the study period, Substance Use Disorder Programming was the most consumed type of programming (at 75.9%) for a total of 64,057 dosages hours, which made it the most appropriate category of programming to single out to determine if the rate of recidivism was different in this cohort. Further, for the offenders who participated in SUD programming of all types, 81.5% of the recidivism-reduction dosage hours were dedicated to programming classified as SUD programming, and only 19.5% were dedicated to the other five categories of recidivism-reduction programming offered in Santa Cruz County, including Mental Health (1.7%), Employment (2.6%), Education (6.7%), Reentry (3.4%) and CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy) (9.6%).
6. Drug offenses and offenders were a key subgroup of the original AB 109 cohort of offenders sentenced to or transferred to counties to serve felony sentences, in county facilities and with county probation, and therefore a likely group to determine the rate of recidivism in Santa Cruz County post-realignment and the
impact of realignment on Santa Cruz County.
7. Drug or alcohol use or “substance use disorders” are linked not only to drug offenses themselves, which are a significant subgroup of realignment offenders and subsequent reforms, but also serve as a critical link to other crimes; including property crimes, our other focus group. In the first two years after the
implementation of realignment, the Santa Cruz County Probation Department, in a publicly available report, noted that while a complete study of recidivism could not be completed at the time of the report’s release (three years was considered the necessary timeframe), the first year of data showed that most of the new criminal offenses committed were similar to the crimes that led to their original prison incarceration, and much of the new criminal activity was “a continuation of drug-driven criminal behaviors that needed to be addressed through drug
treatment and cognitive-behavioral interventions.” (Santa Cruz County Public Safety, 2013). Similarly, through my 20 years working in the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Department on the streets and with inmates in the jails, I have learned that substance use disorders (SUD) are a nexus point for much of the criminal activity that lands offenders in jails and courts.
8. It was not practical for this study to examine dosage hours by program or among all programming types or to evaluate a specific program for its effectiveness in reducing recidivism. This subset of recidivism findings is presented and was selected to attempt to do what staff in Santa Cruz County are trying to do every year: determine which programs and program areas are best serving the needs of the community on a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, the programs’
ability to prevent future criminal behavior.
9. Drug offenses reclassified under Proposition 47, a subsequent realignment reform passed by state ballot initiative in 2014, placed an even more profound burden on counties by changing sentencing for certain minor personal use drug offenses to misdemeanors, instead of felonies, for a series of property offenses, and gave more inmates a higher chance for parole consideration (California Proposition 47, 2014). Though this complete recidivism study of Santa Cruz County cannot account for the degree to which these statutory reclassifications are misdemeanors for many personal use drug felonies of most illegal drugs, starting in 2015, every future recidivism study of California counties and Santa Cruz County specifically will need to account for the fact that the cohort of realignment offenders will not be directly comparable from October 2011–December 31, 2014 and after January 1, 2015 with regard to recidivism for realignment offenders, as a group as a whole and with this significant portion of drug offenders with minor drug offenses who are also usually linked to property offenses, our other singling out of “offender type” in this recidivism study. In January 2015, at the start of implementation of Proposition 47, it was announced that “as many as 1 million Californians may be eligible to change past felony convictions on their records under Proposition 47” in either the primary categories of property crimes or personal use drug offenses (California Proposition 47, 2014).
10. Drug Offenses comprise a significant number of reclassified realignment offenses under the original AB 109 and AB 117 felonies, designated as “non-violent, non- serious, and non-sex-related” offenses, and therefore recidivists in Santa Cruz
“Santa Cruz County Recidivism Study of Post-Realignment Offenders (2011–2016)”
Findings and Analysis
SECTION A:FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS OF RECIDIVISM BY NEW FELONY CONVICTIONS,