PROPOSITION 6 (a.k.a. the Runner measure, the

1
PROPOSITION 6(a.k.a. the Runner measure, the
Safe Neighborhoods Act, the Criminal Laws and
State Spending Statute)

• Impact evaluation
• by the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
• Oakland, CA

2
PROPOSITION 6

• A punitive approach to public safety a wasteful
  approach to public spending

3
Overview of Prop. 6

• 60 harsh changes in criminal law
• New spending
• 1 billion the first year
• 500 million each year thereafter

4
Overview of Prop 6 60 harsh and ineffective
changes in criminal law

• Limits courts discretion to not impose
  enhancements and upper penalties
• More charges where a 14-year old is tried as an
  adult
• Life sentences for attempting to intimidate a
  witness, judge, prosecutor or peace officer
• Life sentence for extortion
• No good time for anyone who commits any offense
  eligible for a possible life sentence.
• 15 to life if more than two persons enter a home
  to commit robbery
• Increased penalties for possession of
  methamphetamine, or possession for sale, or sale
• Ten year enhancement for gun possession by a
  person with prior felony conviction
• Punishes accomplices with penalties equal to
  principal
• Provide a cell phone or a weapon to a prisoner
  used in commission of a crime, you are guilty of
  the same crime
• False statement to law enforcement makes one a
  felony accomplice
• Limits courts discretion to provide probation to
  persons with prior auto thefts

5
Overview of Prop 6 60 harsh/ineffective
changes in criminal law, contd.

• Accused gang members
• 5 year sentence enhancement for recruiting a
  person under 14 to a gang
• Increased penalties for recruiting to a gang
• Person who recruits for a gang can be punished
  for the recruits crimes
• Admission of hearsay evidence against gang
  members
• Parolees
• Failure to register with police as gang member
  on first day after release can result in new
  prison or jail time
• Failure to register in all places where one
  sleeps can result in new jail or prison time
• Remove or tamper with a GPS tracking device, a
  new felony
• Undocumented persons
• Check immigration status of all persons in jail
  who are charged with, booked, or convicted of a
  felony
• No bail for foreign national without proof of
  legal residency for violent crimes and
  gang-related crimes

6
Overview of Prop 6 New spending for

• Temporary jails
• Additional State Gang Database
• Annual criminal background check on all in Sec. 8
  Housing in order to receive funding from Safe
  Neighborhoods Compliance Enforcement Fund

7
3/4 VOTE TO AMEND

• SIMPLE MAJORITY TO
• INCREASE PENALTIES

8
Overview of Prop 6 Fiscal Effects

• According to the Legislative Analysts Office
• Net state costs likely to exceed a half billion
  dollars annually primarily for increased funding
  of criminal justice programs, as well as for
  increased costs for prison and parole operations
• Unknown one-time state capital outlay costs
  potentially exceeding a half billion dollars for
  prison facilities
• Unknown net fiscal impact for state trial courts,
  county jails, and other local criminal justice
  agencies

9
What Prop. 6 does not and will not do
Adequately promote prevention and rehabilitation
Graph 1. Breakdown of spending (964 million)
10
What Prop. 6 does not and will not do Reduce
recidivism

• Failed parole strategy
• Reentry fund requires aggressive supervision of
  parolees affirms states right to conduct
  warrantless searches
• Ex-gang members who neglect to register all
  addresses face new sentence of 1-3 yrs.
• Expands the list of violations parole officer is
  required to report to Board of Parole
• Forces cities to strip ex-offenders of Section 8
  housing, but provides no alternative source.
• Punitive Provisions without reentry support will
  yield more parole violators, increasing the
  number of persons cycling through prisons.

11
What Prop. 6 does not and will not do Stop the
revolving door

• 51.9 of parolees return to prison as parole
  violators. 15.6 for new offenses
• Graph 2. 2006 admissions to CDCR

12
What Prop. 6 does do Lengthens sentences

• Increases (to life) penalty for home invasion
  robbery, carjacking, extortion
• Raising the costs of doing crime (by increasing
  penalties) will only work if there are
  legitimate opportunities that make the costs of
  the sanctions something worth avoiding. (Urban
  Institute)
• Runner does not provide these opportunities.

13
What Prop. 6 does do Tries youth as adults

• More youth sentenced as adults by creating a
  presumption of unfitness for juvenile court
  toward youth 14 involved in gang activity
• CDC report finds youth sentenced to adult prison
  commit more crimes after release than their
  counterparts in juvenile system (controlling for
  severity of first offense)
• Prison provides less rehabilitation,
  indoctrinates youth in beliefs and habits of more
  hardened offenders
• Is not cost effective keeping youth in the
  juvenile system saves 3 for every dollar spent
  (Urban Inst.)

14
What Prop. 6 does do Removes input from
important stakeholders

• Cuts community reps. and youth service providers
  from juvenile justice coordinating councils
• Excises drug treatment and mental health
  providers from Y.O. Block Grant funding
• Renders these institutions subjects to, rather
  than partners in, the reentry process
• Justice Department Police should encourage the
  community to engage in problem-solving
  partnerships by offering an opportunity for
  active participation inand ownership ofthe
  reentry effort. Runner measure does the
  opposite.

15
What Prop. 6 does do Requires new public
spending, without generating new public revenue

• According to LAO
• Current Spending 600 m
• Runner Continuing Appropriation 965 m
  COLA
• New Prison 500 m

16
NO REVENUE
Where does the money come from?
GENERAL FUND
17
Bottom Line

• Under Prop. 6, cities get funds tethered to a
  strategy of mass incarceration
• 60 harsh changes to criminal law
• more offenders being sentenced to state prison
  or jail ... for a longer period of time (LAO)
• Cities do not receive (and may potentially lose)
  money to implement services that strengthen
  high-incarceration neighborhoods to resist crime,
  nor the funds to provide adequately for
  ex-offenders returning to their neighborhoods.
• The more earmarks we impose on the General Fund,
  the more likely it is that other state programs
  will be cut

18
What We Need To Do

• We need a results-oriented approach to public
  investment, and a results-oriented approach to
  public safety
• Hard times require disciplined financial planning
• Incarceration alone cannot provide a
  comprehensive public safety strategy

19
Why? California today

• Housing crisis and state budget deficit (17
  billion)
• Prisons operating at almost double capacity
• Very modest revenue growth forecast for
  2008-2009 (LAO)
• Youth population on the rise Baby Boomers
  retiring
• Energy crisis / environment in jeopardy
• More healthcare investment
• To train young people to replace retiring workers
  (job openings for nurses projected to increase
  24.4 over the decade)
• To overhaul our energy infrastructure toward
  sustainability

Due to these factors, we desperately need
20
What we need to do Focus on high-returns public
investments

• Investment in education propels economic
  activity, increases tax revenues from
  high-skilled workers
• net return of three dollars for every dollar
  California invests (Campaign for College
  Opportunity)
• Investment in energy infrastructure improves
  public health, expands wealth-building
  opportunities for California workers in a growing
  industry, combats global warming

21
What we need to do Implement better models of
public safety

• Reinvest punishment spending in rebuilding the
  social and economic capacities of
  high-incarceration neighborhoods to resist crime
  (Justice reinvestment)
• Reduce recidivism via democratic coordination
  between housing, employment, health and mental
  health services (Urban Institutes 5-point
  reentry plan)

22
The Ella Baker Vision

• California cities need not be looked at as
  problems and need not be sources of incarceration
  and despair. Rather, our cities can be looked to
  for solutions, as centers of innovation and
  prosperity.
• A solution-oriented approach requires smart,
  balanced investment in education, infrastructure,
  health care, jobs creation, and public safety,
  based on a rational assessment of social,
  economic and environmental returns.

23
Addendum
Investment in incarceration yields negative
returns

• The most economically vulnerable communities bear
  the economic and social penalties of
  incarceration
• When we include the prison population, employment
  rates among non-college black men did not
  increase at all through the economic expansion of
  the late 1990s. (B. Western 2006)
• Earnings loss associated with incarceration is 35
  percent, when we compare ex-offenders to
  similarly positioned men (Western)
• The percentage of elderly prisoners has tripled
  over the last 25 years. Elderly prisoners cost
  twice as much as the average prisoner to
  incarcerate (San Joaquin Record)
• Since 2002, prison costs have increased at a rate
  (74) faster than any other major state program
  (Sacramento Bee)

24
Investment in incarceration yields negative
returns, cont.

• Californias prison budget will overtake
  spending on states universities within 5 years
  (SF Chronicle)