Laserfiche WebLink
an accurate risk assessment of the threat these offenders pose to society if they are realigned to county <br />facilities, or placed on Post Release Community Supervision. <br /> <br />Chief Jerry Powers from the Los Angeles County Probation Department recently stated the release criteria <br />for N3 offenders “has nothing to do with reality.” He said initially the State estimated the population of <br />released PRCS offenders would be 50% High Risk, 25% Medium Risk and 25% Low Risk. The reality is <br />3% are Very High Risk, 55% are High Risk, 40% are Medium Risk and only 2% are Low Risk offenders. He <br />said the High Risk and serious mentally ill offenders being released “are a very scary population.” One of <br />the special needs offenders takes the resources of 20-30 other offenders. <br />Assistant Sheriff Terri McDonald who is the county Jail Administrator recently stated the Jail has only 30 <br />beds for mentally ill offenders being released – when in fact she actually needs 300 beds to accommodate <br />the volume of serious mentally ill offenders being released that require beds. <br /> <br />Los Angeles County data shows 7,200 released offenders have had some sort of revocation. This number is <br />expected to increase because of a significant increase in the first four months of year two of realignment that <br />totals 83% of the entire first year of the program; 4,300 warrants were issued for offenders; 6,200 offenders <br />have been rearrested; and 1,400 prosecuted. Data reveals one in 10 offenders will test positive for drugs <br />during the first 72 hours after being released knowing they are required to report to a probation officer <br />during that time. Only one in three offenders will successfully complete probation. <br /> <br />There are more than 500 felony crimes that qualify State prison inmates for release under realignment. They <br />will be spending their time in cities with little, if any, supervision. <br /> <br />////////// <br /> <br />League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 2 <br /> <br />Staff: Tim Cromartie (916) 658-8252 <br />Committee: Public Safety Policy Committee <br /> <br />Summary: <br />This Resolution seeks to outline the deficiencies in the State’s current public safety realignment policy, as <br />implemented in 2011 by AB 109, and to identify policy changes that will assist State, county and municipal <br />law enforcement entities to cope with the expanded universe of offenders that are now being directed to <br />county facilities, resulting in increased related impacts on both local communities and municipal law <br />enforcement. <br /> <br />Background: <br />This resolution was brought to the Public Safety Policy Committee by individual members of that committee <br />who are increasingly concerned about municipal public safety impacts resulting from county jail <br />overcrowding, a problem that has intensified with realignment, resulting in certain categories of offenders <br />doing no jail time or being sentenced to time served. This has created a climate in which some offenses <br />receive little or no jail time, accompanied by a growing body of anecdotal evidence that property crimes <br />have correspondingly increased, with some, such as auto theft, being committed in serial fashion. Increased <br />criminal activity has strained the resources of many local police departments already struggling to more <br />closely coordinate information sharing with county probation offices to effectively monitor offenders on <br />post-community release supervision. <br /> <br />In addition, there is growing concern about the criteria established for determining which offenders are <br />eligible for post-release community supervision (the non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders). There is <br />so much concern that a May 2013 report of California’s Little Hoover Commission recommended adjusting <br />14