Every night between midnight and 3 AM the State of California releases approximately 10,000 men and women who have been incarcerated back to the county where they were sentenced. Many of these people have no family or friends to meet them; and they have no place to go once they are released. So in essence the majority of those coming back home each night are instantly homeless.

Statistics show that the first three days after one’s release is when they are most at risk of re-offending and landing quickly back in prison–primarily because they lack the basic resources of money, shelter and support. The State’s sky-high recidivism rate is a testament to how “broken” the system of “reentry” is.

But there is a ray of light. Contra Costa County (in the Bay Area) has taken on the issues of reentry by initiating a county-wide effort to feed, house, train and mentor their “returning citizens.” And in this video–which is the first to document this extraordinary program–you’ll hear how Contra Costa County Supervisors, Police Chiefs, the Sheriff’s Department, Probation as well as faith-based groups and business leaders are volunteering to help solve the reentry problem. And making a difference.

While none of those we interviewed claim it’s a perfect program, the numbers show that the love, care and concern demonstrated toward those coming out of our prisons has made a real difference in people’s lives. In fact the county’s recidivism rate, which was hovering around 65% when the program started a couple of years ago, is around 30% today.

We hope this program inspires you to help make a difference in someone’s life today.

And as always please feel free to post your comments.

Assembly Bill 109 is designed to reduce California’s prison population and recidivism rates in order to comply with the United States Supreme Court’s mandate to reduce prison overcrowding.  Here’s a brief history of California prisons leading up to AB 109:

• 1851, California opened San Quentin, its first prison. 150 years later it is still fully operational and houses death row inmates.

• 1858, San Quentin, originally built with 62 cells, housed over 600 inmates.  To address the problem of overcrowding the state builds more cells.

• 1933, the first women’s prison at Tehachapi was built. Until this time, San Quentin housed both male and female inmates.  

• 1977, “Determinate” sentencing is introduced by Governor Brown. Then California had a dozen prisons with 21,000 inmates. The scheme limits the discretion of judges and parole boards (Harvard Law Review, 2010). Determinate sentences are prison terms of a fixed duration. The court specifies the length of the term. After the defendant has served a certain percentage of his or her term, the Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation calculates when the defendant may be released, based on his or her accumulated credits.

• 1980, California houses 23,264 inmates in twelve prisons.

• 1994, California voters overwhelmingly approve the “Three Strikes” law for offenders convicted of three qualifying felonies a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life in state prison. The Law has contributed to California having the nation’s highest number of incarcerated offenders with life imprisonment terms (Moore, 2007).

• 1995, a class-action lawsuit places California’s prison mental health programs under the oversight of a special master. A federal judge criticizes state officials for their “recalcitrant refusal” to provide proper psychiatric care for inmates.

• 1998, the state budget for the CDCR hits $3.5 billion.

• 2001, a second class-action suit, Plata v. Brown is filed, alleging inadequate medical care in prisons because of overcrowding argued that the CDCR violated not only the Eighth Amendment, but also the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rogan, 2012).

• 2002, the lawsuit is settled, with the state agreeing to overhaul its prison healthcare programs by 2008.

• 2005, a federal judge declares he will take control of the prison healthcare system. Control is transferred to a federal receiver in February 2006.

• 2006, under Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, California hits a peak incarceration rate of 172,000 inmates (Rogan, 2012).

• 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger declares prison overcrowding an “emergency” and orders 8,000 inmates transferred to other states, despite increased costs.

• 2009, the state budget for the CDCR reaches $10.3 billion (CDCR, 2011).

• 2009, the average cost per inmate in the state of California increased California Realignment: Assembly Bill (AB) 109 grew to $48,536 per year (Harvard Law Review, 2010).

• 2009, the three-judge panel orders the state to cap its prison population at 137.5% of capacity, calling for release of nearly 43,000 inmates in two years to conform to constitutional standards. The order is ultimately put on hold pending appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

• 2011, The U.S. Supreme Court upholds the 2009 ruling and orders the state to shed more than 33,000 inmates from prison rolls in two years. California officials soon begin sending low-level offenders (that is offences considered non-violent, non-sexual and non-threatening), to county jails instead of state lockups to reduce the prison population, a process called “realignment.”

• 2011, the 33 State prisons housed more than 145,000 adult offenders and nearly 3,200 juvenile offenders making California’s the largest state-run prison system in the United States (CDCR, 2011).

• 2011, in April, California Governor Jerry Brown signs AB109, a 423-page measure called “Public Safety Realignment” into law, to comply with a federal court order which requires the largest reduction of state prison inmates in the nation’s history.

• 2011, the state budget for CDCR expenditures rise to 10%. (In 1980 expenditures were 4% of the budget (Rogan, 2012).

• 2012, as of April of that year, California corrections officials questioned whether AB 109 alone would enable them to achieve compliance with the Supreme Court’s mandated overcrowding reduction. While 10,000 prisoners get released from California’s prisons each month (Steigerwald, 2012), new prisoners are sentenced every week, and only those in the “three-non’s” categories can be housed in a county jail.

• 2013, Realignment does not reduce the prison population enough to meet the court order, but Governor Brown declares that “the prison crisis is over in California” and calls for returning the facilities to state control. The panel of federal judges does not rescind its order but agrees to extend the deadline for meeting the population cap from June 30 to Dec. 31.

• 2013, in June the judge’s ordered Brown to remove 9,600 inmates by the end of the year and threaten to hold him in contempt of court if he does not comply.

• 2013, Brown appeals the order to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the state begins preparing to comply. The governor announces a plan to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to house inmates in private prisons and other facilities. Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) is not on board and pushes his own proposal.

• 2013, between Brown and top lawmakers seek another extension for complying with the court order. If the judges grant the extra time, the state would fund rehabilitation programs intended to reduce the prison population. The judges appear open to the possibility of an extension, and delay the deadline for one month to allow state officials and lawyers for inmates to discuss a resolution.

• 2013, The U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear Brown’s appeal. The decision means California will still be bound by the prison population cap imposed by the judges. The negotiations announced in September will determine how much time the state has to reach that goal.

• 2013, Federal judges grant California two more years to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of the capacity for the state’s 33 prisons, extending the deadline from June 2013 to February 2016

(Whatever the cause, your prayers are needed)

There are always two or more sides to a story. And in the case of AB 109, the 423-page measure called “Public Safety Realignment” signed into law October 1, 2011 by Governor Brown, there are those in the Governor’s camp with “success stories” illustrating how the law is working.  And there are those who oppose Realignment, providing explicit “proof” it isn’t.

For example, after the law took effect, the Sacramento-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (CJLF), together with a number of police chiefs and sheriffs throughout the state began to report on new crimes committed by those released from prison, left free and unsupervised by Realignment.

And then in January 2013, the FBI preliminary report for 2012 showed increases in crime in California after six straight years of decreases.

The CJLF also cites FBI statistics showing that, while rapes were down nationally, they increased by 6.4% in California.  Property crimes also dropped nationally in 2012, but increased in California by 9.7%.  Even more dramatic, auto thefts in the state showed a 15% increase, while the national rate increased by 1.3%.

On the flip side there are successes. Like the AB-109 Auto Shop in Red Bluff. Deputy Sheriff Rich Ryan, the program’s overseer, says the program is a success.  AB-109 allows inmates to work on county vehicles, learning a valuable trade, while saving the county money.  And not just on the work done, but the $78 a day it would cost if inmates were in jail through cost avoidance. Chief Probation Officer Richard Muench says the program also eases up the overcrowding.

And both Yolo and San Joaquin Counties say crime is down in those areas.

Since the implementation of AB 109, the state prison population has been reduced by 27,000 inmates—the largest reduction of state prison inmates in the nation’s history.

And to comply with a Federal Court Order, the state must again release an additional 9,000 inmates from state prisons.

But not all inmates affected by AB 109 are set “free” in our communities.

Now that the State has shifted the responsibility for criminals convicted of what are defined as “low level” crimes–which include felonies like assault, spousal abuse, commercial burglary, drug dealing, identity theft, and auto theft—back to the counties, the law requires counties to sentence them.

And sentencing may require some to fulfill their terms in already over-crowded county jails, or a combination of jail time and probation, home detention, a treatment program or a job training program like the one in Red Bluff.

These monumental changes in our state prisons, county jails and their impact on our local communities need to be faced head-on. The problems faced by inmates, by those in our criminal justice system and by those who work in our prisons and jails won’t solve themselves.

While there are numerous opinions on all sides of the Realignment issue on how to solve these pressing problems, ultimately, it’s the answers of our all-wise, infinitely intelligent God we need—which applies to every single issue we face. And He will share—actually, He is right now sharing—those answers as we humbly listen for His voice.

As God is ever-present, isn’t it logical then that His answers are ever-present, right here to be revealed?

No doubt we all have a stance on the issue of Realignment. As well thought out as our positions on this issue may be, let’s remember that God’s solutions blesses all—not just one group here or there. God’s answers don’t take human “sides”. Like sunshine, His answers, His blessings embrace everyone at once. Let’s pray, and hear God’s all-encompassing solutions—just at hand, as Jesus proved by opening the prison doors for the sick, the insane, the disillusioned and the hungry in heart.

Comments:

Please share what God is sharing with you: