1. Measuring 109 In Fresno County
Chief Linda Penner
Barbara Owen
Yoshiko Takahashi
John Owen
Emma Hughes

2. Consequences of AB-109
This law shifted responsibility for specific categories of low-level convicted felons from the behemoth California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to the 58 individual counties.
Funding was provided for custody and programs, but not research at the state-wide level.
Fresno County stepped up and obligated money to Owen Research & Evaluation to “track and map” the process & outcomes.

3. Our approach: Hopes & Realities
Originally hoped to relay on automated data systems
Useful data systems:
Adult Probation System
Jail data system
Courts
District Attorney
Behavioral Health

4. Challenges Lack of unique identifiers Myth of “Share-net”
Varying degrees of utility and available support within each system

5. Original Plan Stakeholder interviews: What do you want to know?
Design of variable lists (thanx Susan Turner at UCI)
Vetted through CCP
Development of Research & Evaluation Committee
Planning for Monthly Report
Summer interviews to review utility

6. Fresno County AB 109 Six-Month Summary Report October 1, 2011–March 31, 2012
April 27, 2012
Complied from County Sources by
Owen Research & Evaluation

7. Fresno County AB 109 Cases
Monthly Caseload by Category (N = 1,525)
1,525 AB 109 offender cases were recorded in Fresno County Probation Database
PRCS: 998 (166 per month)
CJOs: 373 (62 per month)
Split: 154 (26 per month)
Comparison Between the CDCR Projection and the Actual Caseload (PRCS)

8. Offender Characteristics Top Five CDCR Sentences
PRCS Offenders
Offender Characteristics
Top Five CDCR Sentences
Category
Number (%)
Male
Female
901 (90%)
97 (10%)
African American
Caucasian
Hispanic
168 (17%)
220 (22%)
547 (55%)
Age at Release from Prison
Ave. 34.5
Median 32.5
Top Six Residential Zip Code
93706
93702
93727
93722
93703
93705
HS 11377(a): Possession of Drugs
VC 10851(a): Auto Theft
PC 666: Prior Conviction of Theft
PC 459/460(b): Burglary
HS 11350(a): Controlled Substance Possession

9. PRCS Problems 187 (19%) of the PRCS offenders were issued warrants.
More than half for “out of contact”
28 (3%) of the PRCS offenders received “Flash Incarceration.”
Almost all of them were designated as “high risk” offenders.

10. County Jail Offender Characteristics
Top Five Offense Codes
Category
Number (%)
Male
Female
283 (76%)
90 (24%)
African American
Caucasian
Hispanic
42 (11%)
102 (27%)
205 (55%)
Age at Sentencing
Average 32.9
Median 31.0
Jail Time
Average 21 months
Median 16 months
HS 11377(a): Possession of Drugs
PC 459/460(b): Burglary
VC 10851(a): Auto Theft
PC 496(a): Receiving Stolen Property
VC 23152(b): DUI

11. Split-Sentence Offender Characteristics
Top Five Offense Codes
Category
Number (%)
Male
Female
118 (77%)
36 (23%)
African American
Caucasian
Hispanic
24 (15%)
41 (27%)
74 (48%)
Age at Sentencing
Ave. 35.0
Median 32.0
Average Jail Time
Average Length of Jail and MSR
15 months
22 months
PC 459/460(b): Burglary
HS 11377(a): Possession of Drugs
VC 10851(a): Auto Theft
PC 496(a): Receiving Stolen Property
HS 11350(a): Controlled Substance Possession

12. Program Referral/Violations
1,503 referrals were made for 562 offenders.
MSR & PRCS Violations
5 (3%) of the Split-Sentence offenders had violated their MSR conditions.
78 (8%) of the PRCS offenders had petition of revocation hearings.

13. PRCS Offenders HS 11377(a): Possession of Drugs
Offender Characteristics
Top Five CDCR Sentences
Category
Number (%)
Male
Female
901 (90%)
97 (10%)
African American
Caucasian
Hispanic
168 (17%)
220 (22%)
547 (55%)
Age at Release from Prison
Ave. 34.5
Median 32.5
Top Six Residential Zip Code
93706
93702
93727
93722
93703
93705
HS 11377(a): Possession of Drugs
VC 10851(a): Auto Theft
PC 666: Prior Conviction of Theft
PC 459/460(b): Burglary
HS 11350(a): Controlled Substance Possession

14. PRCS Problems 187 (19%) of the PRCS offenders were issued warrants.
More than half for “out of contact”
28 (3%) of the PRCS offenders received “Flash Incarceration.”
Almost all of them were designated as “high risk” offenders.

15. County Jail Offender Characteristics
Top Five Offense Codes
Category
Number (%)
Male
Female
283 (76%)
90 (24%)
African American
Caucasian
Hispanic
42 (11%)
102 (27%)
205 (55%)
Age at Sentencing
Average 32.9
Median 31.0
Jail Time
Average 21 months
Median 16 months
HS 11377(a): Possession of Drugs
PC 459/460(b): Burglary
VC 10851(a): Auto Theft
PC 496(a): Receiving Stolen Property
VC 23152(b): DUI

16. Split-Sentence Offender Characteristics
Top Five Offense Codes
Category
Number (%)
Male
Female
118 (77%)
36 (23%)
African American
Caucasian
Hispanic
24 (15%)
41 (27%)
74 (48%)
Age at Sentencing
Ave. 35.0
Median 32.0
Average Jail Time
Average Length of Jail and MSR
15 months
22 months
PC 459/460(b): Burglary
HS 11377(a): Possession of Drugs
VC 10851(a): Auto Theft
PC 496(a): Receiving Stolen Property
HS 11350(a): Controlled Substance Possession

17. Program Referral/Violations
1,503 referrals were made for 562 offenders.
MSR & PRCS Violations
5 (3%) of the Split-Sentence offenders had violated their MSR conditions.
78 (8%) of the PRCS offenders had petition of revocation hearings.

18. Owen Research & Evaluation Sept. 28, 2012
AB Month Outcomes
Owen Research & Evaluation
Sept. 28, 2012

19. Overview 11-month data: October 2011 through August 2012
Outcomes from the Fresno County Adult Probation System
1,488 individuals were on Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS)
586 Individuals received Local Prison Only (LPO)
277 Individuals received Mandatory Supervised Release (MSR)
This brief report summarizes selected outcomes drawn from the Fresno County Adult Probation System database for the 11 months of corrections realignment (October 2011 through August 2012). Future reports will include data describing prison sentencing of the Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS) population, the early release frequencies, and other relevant data. A review of the Turning Point substance abuse program is also in the planning stages.
During this reporting period, the Probation data indicated that 1,488 individuals were on PRCS. During this same time period, 586 individuals received Local Prison Only (LPO) sentences and another 277 individuals received Mandatory Supervised Release (MSR) under the new sentencing law (1170h). Details describing this population follow.

20. 1. Referrals by Month Referrals by Month Total Number of Referrals Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Total
Total Number of Referrals 72
160
179
198
451
444
295
219
180
161
157
2,516
Probation 49 99
105 88
207
191 86 46 26 22 28
947
County Behav. Health 1 11 30 35
139
126 91 47
480
Job Placement 2 7 13 9 19 8 71
Turning Point 3
104 94 92
317
Day Reporting Center 4 16 15 10 54
Universal Health Network 14 87
Comprehensive Counseling 29 25 97
This chart tracks the types of referrals made for both PRCS and MSR cases by the Probation Department over the 11 months. Here, only those programs receiving 10 or more referrals in any one month are listed. Please note that individuals can receive more than one referral.
Note: Only those programs receiving 10 or more referrals in any one month are listed.

21. 2. Sanctions for the PRCS Population April through August 2012
Most Common Reasons
Action Taken
31% Verbal counseling
29% VOP hearing/bench warrant
12% Increased testing
12% Flash incarceration
8% of all referrals related to sanctions were for substance abuse treatment
Substance Abuse 38%
Substance
Abuse
38%
The probation database began to track sanctions given for those PRCS cases who failed to comply with one or more conditions of their supervision in April These data refer to a five-month period only.
During this time, 388 individuals received sanctions (including Flash). The two most common reasons were
Substance abuse 38%
Failure to report 28%
Actions taken by the probation staff included
31% verbal counseling
29% VOP hearing/bench warrant
8% of all referrals related to sanctions were for substance abuse
12% Increased testing
12% Flash incarceration
Failure
to Report
28%

22. 3. Flash Incarceration October 2011 through August 2012
PRCS Offenders (N = 1,488)
Most Common Reasons
11% (166 individuals) of all PRCS offenders received flash incarceration
37 individuals out of 1,488 PRCS offenders received more than one flash incarceration.
Substance
Abuse
29%
Other Reasons
31%
Substance
Abuse
29%
We also examined flash incarceration over the 11-month period. Just under 11% (166 individuals) of all PRCS cases received flash incarceration. A small percentage (37 individuals out of 1,488 individuals) received more than one flash incarceration. The most common reasons for flash incarceration were
Substance abuse: 29%
Failure to report: 23%
New charges: 17%
The majority (84%) of all “flash” cases were assessed as high risk, but two thirds of the violations were judged to be of moderate severity.
The average time from entry into PRSC to a flash incarceration was 4 months.
New Charges
17%
Failure
to Report
23%

23. 4. Warrants
Almost one third of all PRCS individuals had warrants issued over this 11-month period.
“Out of Contact” was stated as a reason in two thirds of the cases.
The average time from entry into PRCS to warrant was 85 days.
Almost one third of all PRSC cases had warrants issued over this 11-month period. “Out of contact” was the stated reason in two thirds of the cases. The average time from entry into PRCS to warrant was 85 days.

24. 5. New Sentences under 1170(h): Local Prison Only (LPO) & Mandatory Supervised Release (MSR)
LPO (N = 586)
MSR (N = 277)
Drugs
38%
21 Months in Jail on Average
16 Months in Jail on Average
14 Months on Post-Release Supervision

25. 6. Act Activities April through August 2012
Number of Contacts Made by the ACT (N = 962)
Common Reasons
for Service
Other
Reasons
23%
Attempted Contact
33%
Our data provides a summary of the ACT activities over five months: April through August 2012 when the data began automatic entry into the data base. There were a total of 962 contacts made by the ACT, with 464 specific individuals involved in these contacts. These contacts have increased over time: beginning with 125 contacts in April, rising to 275 in August 2012.
Over this five month period, about one-third of the services were attempted contact.
Compliance was the second most often reason for service at 17%, with residence verification (14%) the next most frequent reason for contact.
 About 6% of the contacts were related to serving warrants, and 7% were arrests.
Warrants
6 %
Compliance
17%
Residence
Verification 14%

26. 6. Terminations for the PRCS May through August 2012 (N = 141)

27. Kevin’s beautiful Dashboard

28. Chief Probation Officer Dashboard: Collects county-level data from probation departments and reports at

33. What we have learned….
Planning extensive annual report: stress offender outcomes and behaviors associated with them
More hands on involvement with research committee with quarterly reports
Developing more relationships with data partners