Produced by the Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, University of California, Irvine and The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
In the book Handbook on Risk and Need Assessment: Theory and Practice, Drs. James Hess and Susan Turner’s chapter compares the predictive power of two instruments and three methods to test improvements in predictions for Felony and Violent Felony recidivism for a release cohort of nearly 100,000 California offenders. They also hypothecized on some common limitations (with the domains captured) in the accuracy of the current recidivism risk assessments.
More information on the book can be found here: Handbook on Risk and Need Assessment – Theory and Practice
Lois Davis (RAND Corporation) and Susan Turner (University of California, Irvine)
San Francisco Chronicle, November 22, 2016
California’s Public Safety Realignment Act (AB109), transferred the responsibility for many nonviolent offenders from the state prison system to county jail or local probation. Most efforts to understand the effects of this law have understandably focused on jails, courts and public safety. But at Rand we focused on another key challenge to inmates’ successful re-entry — the health of such returning offenders and their need for physical, mental health and drug treatment.
To view article click here: Counties need to help parolees access health care
In the book Envisioning Criminology, Edited by Michael D. Maltz and Stephen K. Rice, Dr. Susan Turner’s chapter describes the inside story of her work in developing and testing a risk assessment instrument in California corrections.
If one glanced at the working paper on the Center for Evidence-Based Corrections website entitled “Development of the California Static Risk Assessment, CSRA,” the most likely reaction a reader might have is a yawn. He or she might think the project was pretty dry and uneventful. Not so. What began as a fast turnaround project, done in collaboration with our client, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, morphed into a saga that would try the patience of any researcher.
More information about the book is at: Envisioning Criminology
Following long bouts of litigation among inmates, prison guards, and state officials, in May 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of a three-judge panel that imposed a cap on California’s prison population and ordered the state to reduce its prison population to 137.5 percent of “design capacity” within two years. The primary basis for the court ruling was that the overcrowded prison system violated inmates’ constitutional right to adequate health care. In response to the 2011 Supreme Court decision, California adopted two measures, Assembly Bill (AB) 109 and AB 117, collectively known as realignment. These measures shift responsibility for certain low-level offenders, parole violators, and parolees, previously the state’s responsibility, to California counties. Realignment gives counties a great deal of flexibility in how they treat these offenders and allows them to choose alternatives to custody for realignment offenders. As time has passed since realignment began in October 2011, several studies have evaluated various aspects of the planning and implementation of realignment. The study reported here focused on the flexibility that the state granted counties in implementing realignment. In particular, the authors wanted to determine whether counties essentially continued and expanded what they were already doing in county corrections or whether they used realignment as an opportunity to change from “business as usual.”
To obtain the report please go to: Public Safety Realignment in Twelve California Counties