Pubdate: Sun, 22 Nov 2015
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 2015 Los Angeles Times
Contact:  http://www.latimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/248

HOW TO SPEND THE SAVINGS

Fewer felony cases and fewer jail inmates should translate into 
funding for other programs.

Thousands of felony cases that would have been prosecuted by the 
office of Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey became 
misdemeanors late last year because of Proposition 47. Lacey's 
caseload dropped precipitously - first, because police were making 
far fewer arrests for drug crimes and theft, so they were bringing in 
far fewer cases; and second, because so many of the cases they did 
bring in were now misdemeanors that went to L.A. City Atty. Mike 
Feuer and his counterparts in a handful of other cities - Pasadena, 
Long Beach, Santa Monica, even Hawthorne.

What is the value to the county of such a steep reduction in 
workload? Surely such a thing is quantifiable. If an increase in 
workload carries a cost, a decrease certainly brings savings. So how 
much savings? Where did it all go?

And what about the fact that L.A. County Sheriff Jim McDonnell, an 
outspoken opponent of Proposition 47, acknowledges that because of 
the ballot measure, he now has far fewer people moving through his 
jails? A year ago, the jails were so overcrowded that the sheriff 
could keep inmates who were convicted of misdemeanors for only 40% of 
their sentences. That number had at one point dropped to 20%. Today, 
the jail is still full, but inmates are being kept for 70% to 90% of 
their sentences because there are fewer new convicts coming in each day.

How much is that worth to the county? And what are the new savings 
(or costs) to other county departments in the criminal justice 
system, such as the Probation Department, the public defender, the 
alternate public defender and others?

As McDonnell and other critics of Proposition 47 have attempted to 
blame upticks in crime on the change in law, they argue that one of 
the measure's fatal flaws is a long delay in funding for drug rehab 
and other programs. It is true that the ballot measure creates a fund 
that will be unavailable until August 2016. Critics say that means 22 
months' worth of arrested drug suspects out on their own 
recognizance, free to engage in mischief, without any new programs or 
facilities available to put them on a responsible path.

But in fact there need not be any such funding gap. The state 
Legislative Analyst's Office studied the numbers and projected 
savings to counties from Proposition 47 at "hundreds of millions of 
dollars." Counties could choose, right now, to spend their savings on 
all those rehab and reentry programs that critics say are not yet funded.

Because the savings mostly come in the form of reductions in 
workload, though, they won't easily translate into cash unless they 
are accompanied by sufficient staff reductions to keep the 
per-employee caseload constant. Most of a county's costs are in payroll.

But even without workforce reductions - and just to be clear, The 
Times does not advocate layoffs - the decrease in caseload has a 
value that presents itself in the form of policy choices. With fewer 
felonies to prosecute, for example, the district attorney could 
choose to lighten each individual lawyer's caseload, or take on 
felony cases the office previously would have let go. Or assign more 
lawyers to commendable new programs like the unit to review wrongful 
convictions or the task force working to provide treatment instead of 
incarceration for mentally ill people accused of crimes. Or assign 
more lawyers - or fewer - to the important task of reviewing 
petitions by inmates now serving felony time for crimes that 
Proposition 47 turned into misdemeanors.

Transforming the reduced prosecutorial and incarceration caseload 
into an increased drug rehab and reentry services caseload would 
require some creativity. But the first step is to quantify the 
savings and acknowledge the choices.

Los Angeles County has not yet done that. It is in the nature of 
bureaucracy - especially public bureaucracy - for increases in 
workload to be accompanied by demands for more funding but decreases 
in workload to be absorbed without anyone offering up or even 
acknowledging their savings. Spending decisions are still made, of 
course, but absent public discussion, they are generally made by 
default. They should instead be made deliberately and publicly by the 
Board of Supervisors, the district attorney and the sheriff, as well 
as by nonelected county officials, with full acknowledgment of the 
costs and benefits of selecting one option over another.

Service providers who are working hard to help eligible applicants 
clean up their felony records and apply for housing and jobs argue 
that the county has funding to help them but is instead spending it 
on prosecuting and jailing. More than a year after voters adopted 
Proposition 47, they ask, where is the county implementation plan 
that acknowledges the savings and brings advocates, community groups 
and providers to the table to discuss policy choices?

Supervisors Hilda Solis and Mark RidleyThomas are working on such a 
plan, which is expected to come before the full board this month. It 
is a belated but welcome step in the right direction. County criminal 
justice leaders already convene regularly but have not yet seriously 
dealt with Proposition 47. The supervisors have made great strides 
this year by approaching their steepest challenges - homelessness, 
mental illness, child welfare - in a more thoughtful, strategic and 
productive manner, but have not yet applied that thinking to 
Proposition 47. The county has the capacity - and the obligation - to 
do far more than it has done until now to ensure that the voters' 
will is put into effect in a manner that enhances public safety and 
maximizes the impact of county resources.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom