兰德-Impact-of-Proposition-47-on-Los-Angeles-County-Operations-and-Budget_110页_3mb

Summary of the Impact of Proposition 47 on Los Angeles County Operations and Budget

Core Content

Proposition 47, passed by California voters on November 4, 2014, aimed to reduce nonserious and nonviolent property and drug offenses to misdemeanors, with the goal of decreasing state prison overcrowding, shifting criminal justice spending toward violent crimes, and increasing investments in prevention and support programs. It was expected to reduce county criminal justice workload and associated costs, particularly in jails and probation departments. However, the legislation did not define how to track operational or fiscal changes, nor did it specify how county savings should be reallocated.

The RAND Corporation was commissioned in September 2016 to evaluate the impact of Proposition 47 on eight Los Angeles County departments: the District Attorney’s Office (DA), Public Defender (PD), Alternate Public Defender (APD), Sheriff’s Department (LASD), Probation Department, Department of Health Services (DHS), Department of Mental Health (DMH), and Department of Public Health (DPH). The objective was to develop recommendations for metrics and data systems to monitor the effects of Proposition 47 and other legislative changes.

Main Findings

Impact on County Operations and Workload

• District Attorney, Public Defender, and Alternate Public Defender Offices: These departments experienced an increase in workload due to the handling of petitions and applications for legal relief, as well as new filings. The increase was partially offset by a decline in felony caseloads, but serious and violent felonies have increased. Misdemeanor cases have also risen since the proposition's passage.

• Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department: There was a reduction in narcotics arrests for specific Health and Safety Code offenses, but an increase in larceny theft arrests. The overall custody population declined, but the number of functional beds dropped due to an increase in the mentally ill population. This group requires more resources, leading to increased workload and costs.

• Probation Department: The total probation population decreased due to legacy cases, but the reduction was not as significant as expected. The department still operates above national caseload recommendations.

• Health and Mental Health Departments: There is some evidence that individuals receiving Proposition 47 relief dropped out of mental health and substance use disorder treatment. Referrals from the criminal justice system to treatment programs also decreased, though the impact on general healthcare services remains unclear.

Challenges in Estimating Impact

• Data Infrastructure: County departments lack the infrastructure to monitor workload changes and translate them into fiscal impact.

• Resource Allocation: Savings from Proposition 47 were used to improve resource levels in some departments, but no funds were reallocated specifically for the proposition.

• Penal Code Changes: The new penal code made it difficult to identify Proposition 47-eligible cases using existing databases.

• Legacy Cases: A large number of legacy cases remain potentially eligible, with the eligibility window extended to 2022.

• No Clear Link Between Workload and Cost: It is difficult to estimate the exact cost savings due to the lack of direct financial reallocation.

Key Recommendations

Measuring Workload and Fiscal Impact

• Weighted Workload Studies: These studies can provide an objective measure of how staff spend their time and help forecast the impact of legislative changes on resources.

• Data Integration: A centralized database linking data across departments would help track service utilization and outcomes for Proposition 47 individuals, while protecting privacy rights.

Performance Metrics

• Goal One: Enhance public order and safety

  • Output Metrics: Number of arrests by offense type, citations and releases in the field, use of force.
  • Outcome Metrics: Crime rates, calls for service, recidivism rates (arrests, convictions, incarceration), probation violations.

• Goal Two: Provide opportunity for Proposition 47 legal relief

  • Output Metrics: Number of letters mailed, legal relief events held, participants at these events.
  • Outcome Metrics: Hits to the outreach website, proportion of contacted individuals seeking relief, number of individuals receiving legal relief.

• Goal Three: Improve offender service provision, reintegration, and rehabilitation

  • Output Metrics: Number of individuals referred to services by type, proportion of individuals with identified needs referred to appropriate services, number of inmates released with service referrals.
  • Outcome Metrics: Service use by offenders, program completion rates, housing status, substance use outcomes, mental health improvements, psychiatric hospitalizations, employment status, and restitution payments.

• Goal Four: Improve efficiencies in the justice system

  • Output Metrics: Number of interagency meetings, initiatives implemented, data-sharing agreements.
  • Outcome Metrics: Changes in case processing time, reduction in duplication of effort.

• Goal Five: Reduce costs to the justice system

  • Output Metrics: Workload data, staff time spent on different case types.
  • Outcome Metrics: Cost savings from reduced incarceration and increased use of community-based services.

Conclusion

Proposition 47 has had a complex impact on Los Angeles County operations and budgets. While it was expected to reduce workload and costs, the lack of clear metrics and data systems has made it difficult to measure and track these changes accurately. The study recommends the development of performance metrics and integrated data systems to better understand the effects of Proposition 47 and similar legislation on county operations and service utilization.