Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
General
What expert recommendations serve as the basis for Prop. 5?
Adult Treatment Diversion
The Legislature has already appropriated $150 million for adult
drug treatment. Why do we need to allocate more funds?
How will we know we’re getting our money’s worth?
How do we know that the treatment system will work?
How does Prop. 5 improve on Prop. 36 and increase accountability?
How would Prop. 5 make treatment more accessible?
Fiscal Impact
Will Prop. 5 cost the taxpayers money?
Are the cost savings of Prop. 5 real?
How does Prop. 5 allocate its funding?
How else might Prop. 5 affect the state fiscally?
Youth Treatment
What does Prop. 5 do to help young people?
Aren’t youth treatment services already available?
Do we know how much unmet need is out there?
Does Prop. 5 do anything to help at-risk youth before they become
involved with the criminal justice system?
If there is virtually no publicly funded youth treatment system
in place now, how do we know it will work?
Public Safety & Health
How will Prop. 5 affect the safety of our communities?
How does Prop. 5 protect the public from violent and serious
offenders?
Have these types of parole reforms been attempted elsewhere?
What does this mean for the people personally affected by Prop.
5?
How does Prop. 5 affect public health?
How does Prop. 5 make sure that we’re putting the right
people in treatment diversion?
Prison
How bad is the state’s prison overcrowding problem?
How does the prison overcrowding problem affect California?
How many prisoners are incarcerated for nonviolent and drug
offenses and what role does addiction play?
What solutions does Prop. 5 offer to the prison overcrowding
crisis?
What kinds of rehabilitation programs are offered in California’s
correctional system and how many inmates are receiving these services?
What programs does Prop. 5 create for prisoners?
Parole
How does California’s parole recidivism rate compare
to the rest of the US?
Why do so many offenders return to prison (recidivate) in California?
How will Prop. 5 help parolees avoid recidivism and re-enter
society?
How does Prop. 5 protect the public from violent and serious
offenders?
Have these types of parole reforms been attempted elsewhere?
How will Prop. 5 change the parole system for nonviolent offenders?
Are these parole reforms radical?
General
What expert recommendations serve as the basis for
Prop. 5?
Prop. 5 incorporates the recommendations of numerous experts, blue-ribbon
commissions, academic researchers, and policy makers including:
Reducing the imposition of parole on those who are least likely to re-offend
(Dr. Joan Petersilia, Professor of Criminology, Law & Society, UC Irvine;
Special Advisor to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, 2003-2007).
- Expanding funding for community based treatment (UCLA).
- Creating multiple tiers of treatment where offenders can be slotted based
on the severity of their offense and criminal history. (Little Hoover Commission,
UCLA). - Increased accountability measures to ensure that clients show up for drug
treatment (Little Hoover Commission, UCLA). - Increasing the availability of in-prison programming (Little Hoover Commission,
California Inspector General, Dr. Joan Petersilia) - Sealing of criminal records for successful treatment clients (Dr. Joan Petersilia).
- Creating statutory good time and work time credits for prison inmates (Little
Hoover Commission). - Reducing sanctions for minor parole violation to stop the prison/parole
revolving door (Little Hoover Commission). - Creating a centralized database for treatment diversion data (UCLA).
Adult Treatment Diversion
The Legislature has already appropriated $150 million
for adult drug treatment. Why do we need to allocate more funds?
Two independent and nonpartisan researchers have found that by spending more
money on treatment the state will actually save money. Currently, total state
funding for the largest adult drug treatment program, Prop 36, is $120 million.
This is barely half the $230 million recommended by independent researchers
at UCLA. These same researchers found that taxpayers receive $2.50 for every
dollar spent on the program. When the Governor proposed cutting Prop 36 funding
in 2007 the independent and nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended
reinstating the funds and warned that such cuts would cost the state more than
it would save. By their calculations the state receives $2 in benefits for every
dollar spent on Prop 36. Treatment spending is a clearly a good investment.
How will we know we’re getting our money’s
worth?
Prop. 5 sets aside up to $10 million a year so that the efficacy of court-supervised
treatment programs can be rigorously analyzed on a program-wide basis. It also
acts on recommendations of the Little Hoover Commission by increasing data reporting
requirements and oversight. This sets the foundation for a outcome-driven system.
How do we know that the treatment system will work?
Because we’ve done it before. Prop. 5 expands on the already existing
successful court-supervised treatment program, Prop. 36, which voters passed
in 2000. Over the last seven years, Prop. 36 has graduated 84,000 clients and
saved the state nearly two billion dollars with no increase in crime.
How does Prop. 5 improve on Prop. 36 and increase
accountability?
First, Prop. 5 implements the recommendations of independent researchers at
UCLA by increasing accountability for those who fail to show up for treatment.
Offenders and counties are held accountable for ensuring that offenders promptly
report for treatment. Prop. 5 requires defendants to report to treatment within
30 days of being ordered; if they do not, a hearing is held to determine the
reason for the delay. If the defendant is responsible, graduated sanctions may
be imposed; if the county is responsible, they must document their failure and
include it in an annual report submitted to the new Oversight Commission.
Second, based on recommendations of the Little Hoover Commission, Prop. 5 creates
a three track system of treatment where offenders can be slotted based on the
severity of their offense and criminal history. Offenders are subject to graduated
sanctions and jail sentences and can be moved to higher levels if they are not
successful in lower levels.
How would Prop. 5 make treatment more accessible?
Currently, low-level drug offenders with minor criminal records are unable
to participate in Penal Code 1000, an existing treatment diversion program.
PC 1000 also does not pay for the treatment of its participants. Prop. 5 would
widen eligibility, and provide funding for the assessment and treatment of these
low-level drug offenders with minor criminal records. Prop. 5 only requires
clients to pay for their treatment if they can afford it and never excludes
anyone for economic reasons.
Fiscal Impact
Will Prop. 5 cost the taxpayers money?
Prop. 5 pays for itself. While it does require increased spending on programs,
these costs are offset by reductions in prison and parolee populations. (It
now costs taxpayers $46,000 to incarcerate one person for one year.) This makes
Prop. 5 cost-neutral.
The independent and nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimates,
conservatively, that Prop. 5 will reduce the prison population by 18,000 and
the parolee population by 22,000 which translates into one billion dollars in
annual savings. The LAO also estimate that Prop. 5 will save $2.5 billion in
prisons we will not need to build.
Are the cost savings of Prop. 5 real?
Evidence and experience show that Prop. 5 will generate real savings. UCLA
conducted an independent cost-benefit analysis of Prop. 36 (a diversion program
that Prop. 5 builds on) and found that diversion “substantially reduced
incarceration costs.” According to UCLA researchers, Prop. 36 diversion
saves the state at least $2.50 for every dollar invested in its first year of
implementation, resulting in $173.3 million in net savings to state and local
governments. To date the program has saved California taxpayers nearly two billion
dollars. Prop. 36 is proof that diverting non-violent offenders from prison
to treatment saves money.
How does Prop. 5 allocate its funding?
Prop. 5 allocates $65 million for youth programs, creating a system of care
for at-risk youth under the age of 18 (where virtually no system currently exists);
$385 million for treatment and probation supervision for clients under a new
three-tiered continuum of care for adults arrested for nonviolent drug offenses;
and up to $10 million per year for a range of efficacy studies at public universities
in California.
Spending on rehabilitation for incarcerated people and people on parole will
be allocated out of the existing California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
budget.
How else might Prop. 5 affect the state fiscally?
Prop. 5 funds can be used to teach participants job acquisition skills. Prop.
5 also mandates that the arrest records of certain offenders be sealed, increasing
the likelihood and quality of employment. By increasing the employability of
tens of thousands of individuals each year, Prop. 5 promises to increase the
state’s tax base—and turn tax-spenders into taxpayers.
Youth Treatment
What does Prop. 5 do to help young people?
Prop. 5 creates a system of care for at-risk youth by:
- Dedicating annual funding of at least $65 million per year for youth treatment
programs, as well as about $4 million more from fines collected from adults
for low-level marijuana offenses; - Ensuring that the new system of care meets the spectrum of youth needs,
including family therapy, mental health interventions, educational and employment
stipends, and more; and - Requiring science-based educational programs and counseling, instead of
a misdemeanor conviction, for young people found in possession of small amounts
of marijuana.
Aren’t youth treatment services already available?
No. California currently offers almost no publicly funded substance abuse treatment
options for youth under the age of 18. This tragic and short-sighted failure
abandons young people to their drug problems, putting their safety, their physical
and mental health, and their futures at risk. Families, too often, have nowhere
to turn for help.
Do we know how much unmet need is out there?
According to the national Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
one of every twenty youth aged 12-17 in California are in need of substance
abuse treatment but unable to attain it. Many of these young people go on to
become adult offenders. This destructive path has played a part in the state’s
prison overcrowding crisis.
Does Prop. 5 do anything to help at-risk youth before
they become involved with the criminal justice system?
Yes. Unlike the current system, which basically requires a young person to
commit a crime before they can get help, Prop. 5 provides services to any youth
in need of treatment before the get in trouble with the law. Counties could
offer programs to youth and families by way of a school referral, a doctor’s
recommendation or the family’s own decision that some treatment is necessary
If there is virtually no publicly funded youth treatment
system in place now, how do we know it will work?
Youth treatment is available in other states and to the wealthy in California.
There is no doubt that intervening early in the lives of young people with drug
problems saves young lives and stops crime before it happens. Through the statewide
leadership of experts and stakeholders and through comprehensive studies, Prop.
5 will build on what we already know works and help youth-oriented programs
to evolve and improve in the years to come.
Public Safety & Health
How will Prop. 5 affect the safety of our communities?
The vast majority of inmates in our state prisons will eventually return to
our communities. Currently, these individuals are released with a few dollars
in their pockets and few prospects for employment and reintegration. With so
few options they too often resort to criminal behavior. Prop. 5 provides a better
way.
Prop. 5 makes rehabilitation, including drug treatment, a primary objective
of the state prison system. Counselors would begin reaching out to inmates at
least 90 days before they are released to begin a re-entry plan. Once on the
outside these inmates will receive whatever services they need to get their
lives back on track. These services include drug treatment, educational, vocational,
family and personal counseling and restorative justice programming. Parolees
will receive these services as needed for the duration of their parole tenure
and up to one year post-supervision.
How does Prop. 5 protect the public from violent
and serious offenders?
Nonviolent, low-risk offenders currently spend as long on parole as people
convicted of murder: 3-5 years. This overwhelms parole officers’ caseloads
so they aren’t able to watch anyone effectively—violent or nonviolent.
Under Prop. 5, nonviolent offenders—who have already served their time
behind bars and paid their debt to society—would be placed on parole for
one year and could earn their way down to six months through good behavior and
completion of rehabilitative programming. At the same time Prop. 5 would increase
parole terms for violent and serious offenders. In this way, Prop. 5 effectively
allows parole officers to focus their attention on violent offenders to keep
our communities safe.
Have these types of parole reforms been attempted
elsewhere?
- Similar parole reform programs, such as Washington State’s Offender
Accountability Act, have already significantly reduced recidivism and increased
public safety through a general policy decision to focus the bulk of resources
on higher-risk offenders. - Prop. 5 expands community-based treatment for nonviolent parolees, in order
to effectively and affordably reduce recidivism and support their re-entry
into the community. Research of similar programs in California and across
the US finds that recidivism is reduced by an average of 22%. That translates
into thousands of crimes prevented. - Prop. 5 builds on the successes of Prop. 36, California’s 8-year-old,
treatment-instead-of-incarceration law. According to independent researchers
at UCLA Prop. 36 had no negative impact on crime rates. - Nearly every other state in the US has moved to a system of parole that
incorporates offender characteristics in parole term lengths. California is
one of only two states with mandatory parole of equal duration for all offenders
regardless of offense.
What does this mean for the people personally affected
by Prop. 5?
- Under Prop. 5, nonviolent offenders in prison and on parole will have access
to more re-entry resources so that they can get back on their feet. These
resources can include drug treatment, educational, vocational, family and
personal counseling and restorative justice programming. Parolees are given
everything they need to put their lives back on track while on parole and
for up to one year post-supervision. - Under Prop. 5 fewer nonviolent offenders will be funneled into prisons plagued
by gangs and violence. That means fewer individuals who will be forced to
adapt to the violent and deviant prison culture. Rather than becoming institutionalized,
these individuals will stay in the community and receive treatment services
that will help them to achieve real lasting behavioral change.
How does Prop. 5 affect public health?
Prop. 5 will reduce the number of nonviolent offenders entering California
prisons each year with effective diversion programs and by ending the parole
system’s practice of cycling nonviolent offenders in and out of prisons
for minor violations. These changes will mean less overcrowding, better opportunities
for rehabilitation, and decreased transmission of disease—diseases that
are currently exacerbated by the overcrowding crisis and are spread to the community
at large when incarcerated people return home.
How does Prop. 5 make sure the right people are
getting treatment-instead-of-incarceration?
- Prop. 5 protects judicial discretion. Under Prop. 5, judges determine whether
to send to community-based treatment a nonviolent offender whose underlying
problem is drug dependency. A nonviolent offender with a drug problem may
be diverted to treatment, if the judge finds that drugs motivated the nonviolent
crime and that drug treatment would be in the best interests of public safety.
The offender does not make that call—the judge does. - Offenders convicted of a serious or violent felony are not eligible for
diversion under Prop. 5. The specification is in the name—Nonviolent
Offender Rehabilitation Act. Prop. 5 targets offenders with substance abuse
problems for treatment, thus getting at the root of criminal behavior and
breaking the cycle of addiction and crime.
Prison
How bad is the state’s prison overcrowding
problem?
- There are now more than 170,000 inmates in California prisons designed
to hold 100,000 people. This creates very difficult conditions, with increased
violence and negative effects on healthcare, treatment and rehabilitation. - A 3-judge panel of the federal courts has judged the conditions in California
prisons to be so bad that the judges have taken over the state’s prison
healthcare system. A federal receiver is now working through the system’s
problems and plans a $7-billion construction plan, funded by California taxpayers,
to create adequate medical care facilities. - Two weeks after the November 4, 2008, election, the same 3-judge panel will
begin a trial that could result in the judges taking over our state’s
whole prison system. Due to overcrowding, the judges appear poised to impose
a population cap on prisons, perhaps 30,000 to 40,000 inmates lower than the
current population. How the court might reduce the population so drastically
is not yet clear but one option being discussed is to release offenders early.
That “solution” would not differentiate between violent and nonviolent
offenders; the court could demand that they all get out early.
How does the prison overcrowding problem affect
California?
Health: Prison overcrowding does not just impact prisoners’
health and safety, but also the health and safety of California’s communities.
California’s failure to develop a comprehensive public health approach
to address drug abuse, addiction and mental illness threatens the health of
millions of state residents. Tens of thousands of nonviolent offenders with
addiction and mental health problems enter the criminal justice system each
year, where care is typically inadequate. At the same time, overcrowding exacerbates
the spread of communicable diseases, which are brought back into the community
as inmates are released.
Safety: Prop. 5 will reduce the number of nonviolent offenders entering
California prisons each year with effective diversion programs and by ending
the parole system’s practice of cycling nonviolent offenders in and out
of prisons for minor violations. These changes will mean less overcrowding,
better opportunities for rehabilitation, and decreased transmission of disease.
Cost: Prison overcrowding soaks up precious state resources that could
otherwise be spent on schools, hospitals and roads. California taxpayers currently
spend $10 billion a year on the prison system—and rising. Now the Federal
courts are demanding an additional seven billion dollars to improve prison healthcare.
For the cost of sending one nonviolent offender to state prison ($46,000 a year)
we could send a young person to Stanford with a full scholarship.
How many prisoners are incarcerated for nonviolent
and drug offenses and what role does addiction play?
Addiction and substance abuse are major driving forces for the current overcrowding
crisis. Over the past two decades, the number of incarcerated nonviolent offenders
has more than tripled—from 20,000 in 1986 to over 70,000 in 2006. About
20% of prisoners in California are incarcerated for a drug offense. However,
according to the prison administration itself, over 85% of people incarcerated
in California have a substance abuse problem. Over 30% of parolees are under
supervision as a result of a drug conviction. Drug addiction is a leading cause
of crime in California, with high prevalence among arrestees, prisoners and
parolees.
What solutions does Prop. 5 offer to the prison
overcrowding crisis?
Prop. 5 offers common-sense solutions to California’s prison overcrowding
crisis. The measure saves prison beds by requiring local sanctions, not prison,
to punish minor parole violations by nonviolent offenders. Instead, Prop. 5
will reserve prison beds for serious and violent offenders and sex offenders.
- According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, Prop. 5
will safely reduce the population by 18,000. Other estimates place this figure
at: 25,000-30,000 fewer nonviolent offenders incarcerated in state prisons,
and 35,000-40,000 fewer annual admissions for nonviolent offenses and minor
parole violations. - By safely reducing the number of nonviolent offenders locked up in our state
prisons, the Legislative Analyst’s Office calculates that Prop. 5 will
save Californians $2.5 billion in the next several years.
What kinds of rehabilitation programs are offered
in California’s correctional system and how many inmates are receiving
these services?
According to the California Inspector General’s report of 2007, the corrections
system does not provide meaningful rehabilitation services to most inmates and
parolees. Nonviolent offenders can languish for years behind bars without education,
vocational training, or rehabilitation programs of any kind.
These inmates are then released into our communities without access to support
services, and with no skills or opportunities to help them safely and successfully
be reintegrated into society. According to the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation, only 10% of prisoners are enrolled in any employment programs.
An estimated 85% of incarcerated persons suffer from substance abuse issues
but California’s prison system has only enough treatment beds for about
5% of the total population. What little programming exists is rendered ineffective
by severe overcrowding.
What programs does Prop. 5 create for prisoners?
Prop. 5 makes rehabilitation, including drug treatment, a primary objective
of the state prison system, requires reentry/rehabilitation programs in prisons,
and creates incentives for participation. Under Prop. 5, all incarcerated people
would receive rehabilitation services at least 90 days prior to release to begin
preparing for re-entry.
Parole
How does California’s parole recidivism rate
compare to the rest of the US?
In California, over two-thirds of parolees are returned to prison. That is
twice the national average.
Why do so many offenders return to prison (recidivate)
in California?
California returns a high proportion of offenders to prison after their release.
This is in large part due to California’s failed parole policies, especially
the policies of returning parolees to prison for technical violations of parole
like a positive drug test result or a missed appointment and the decision not
to provide rehabilitative services.
Parolees currently receive very few meaningful services pre- or post-release.
We know the negative impact of this failure: 60-80% of parolees are unemployed.
This lack of treatment and supporting services—including vocational, educational,
housing and mental health care services—directly affects whether or not
parolees will recidivate.
How will Prop. 5 help parolees avoid recidivism
and re-enter society?
Prop. 5 will refocus parole supervision for nonviolent offenders to prioritize
their re-integration into society, free from lives of addiction and crime. Prop.
5 will provide rehabilitation and reentry services beginning at least 90 days
before nonviolent offenders are released from prison onto parole supervision.
During this time counselors will help the inmates develop a re-entry plan, identify
the services they will need, and find where they can be obtained in the community.
These services will then be available, free of charge, to the parolee for the
duration of their parole term and for one-year thereafter. Services will include
employment, housing, mental health and substance abuse treatment so that parolees
will have everything they need to get back on their feet.
How does Prop. 5 protect the public from violent
and serious offenders?
Nonviolent, low-risk offenders currently spend as long under post-prison parole
supervision as people convicted of murder: 3-5 years. This overwhelms parole
officers’ caseloads so they aren’t able to watch anyone effectively.
Under Prop. 5, nonviolent offenders—who have already served their time
behind bars and paid their debt to society—would be placed on post-prison
parole for one year and could earn their way down to six months through good
behavior and completion of rehabilitative programming. At the same time Prop.
5 would increase parole terms for violent and serious offenders. In this way,
Prop. 5 allows parole officers to focus their attention on violent offenders
to keep our communities safe.
Have these types of parole reforms been attempted
elsewhere?
- Similar parole reform programs, such as Washington State’s Offender
Accountability Act, have already significantly reduced recidivism and increased
public safety through a general policy decision to focus the bulk of resources
on higher-risk offenders. - Prop. 5 expands community-based treatment for nonviolent parolees, in order
to effectively and affordably reduce recidivism and support their re-entry
into the community. Research of similar programs in California and across
the US finds that recidivism is reduced by an average of 22%. That translates
into thousands of crimes prevented. - Prop. 5 builds on the successes of Prop. 36, California’s 8-year-old,
treatment-instead-of-incarceration law. According to independent researchers
at UCLA Prop. 36 had no negative impact on crime rates. - Nearly every other state in the US has moved to a system of parole that
incorporates offender characteristics in parole term lengths. California is
one of only two states with mandatory parole of equal duration for all offenders
regardless of offense.
How will Prop. 5 change the parole system for nonviolent
offenders?
- The measure saves prison beds by requiring local sanctions, not prison,
to punish minor parole violations by nonviolent offenders. Parolees and former
parolees would get rehabilitation services to help them stay sober and to
return as productive members of society. - Prop. 5 will follow the lead of 48 other states that have successfully reduced
parole terms for the population least likely to recidivate, low-risk nonviolent
offenders. Under Prop. 5, nonviolent offenders—who have already served
their time behind bars and paid their debt to society—would be placed
on parole for one year and could earn their way down to six months. - According to the independent and nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s
Office, Prop. 5 will safely reduce the parolee population by 22,000, affording
parole officers more time to supervise serious and violent offenders while
saving taxpayer dollars. Other estimates have projected parole caseload reductions
of 30,000. - Prop. 5 will create a continuum of care providing rehabilitation programs
for prison inmates, parolees and former parolees, with the goal of reducing
recidivism and preventing future criminal activity by offering appropriate
services whenever they are necessary.
Are Prop. 5 parole reforms radical?
Prop. 5 would implement reforms that are conservative compared to numerous
expert proposals, and to proposals put forth recently by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Reforms that Prop. 5 does not include but that others have recommended include:
- Ending or dramatically reducing the imposition of parole on those who are
least likely to reoffend (Dr. Joan Petersilia, Professor of Criminology, Law
& Society, UC Irvine; Special Advisor to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, 2003-2007). - Waiving post-release super vision for certain low risk offenders with no
history of violence (Little Hoover Commission). - Waiving post-release supervision for low risk, nonviolent, non-sex offenders
(CDCR Expert Panel on Adult Offender Reentry and Recidivism Reduction). - Discharging parolees who are determined to be very low risk from parole
three months after they are released from prison (Corrections Independent
Review Panel). - Eliminating active parole supervision (“summary parole”) for
nonviolent and low-risk offenders (Gov. Schwarzenegger). - Eliminating parole (“direct discharge”) for offenders never
convicted of serious, violent, or sex offenses; offering earned early release
after five months of clean time for those with prior, but not current, convictions
for serious or violent crimes; earned early release after 16 months clean
time for violent and serious offenders (Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal
Review).