Wednesday, February 29, 2012

RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Officials expect 450 more parolees... Press Enterprise Feb. 28, 2012


RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Officials expect 450 more parolees

/FILE PHOTO
The Robert Presley Detention Center in downtown Riverside. Riverside County's jails are at 97 percent capacity, according to county officials.
A
Text Size
Riverside County must supervise nearly 450 more state parolees than first expected under a state law that shifts responsibility for low-level offenders to local authorities, the county’s chief probation officer said Tuesday.
Under the law, known as public-safety realignment or AB 109, Riverside County had expected to oversee 1,688 parolees this year, Chief Alan Crogan told supervisors.
But based on the actual number from October through January, that total is expected to grow to 2,136 by June 30, Crogan said.
Since the program began Oct. 1, Crogan said some early assumptions — including the number of parolees — are proving untrue.
For instance, many of the parolees are classified as low-level offenders, Crogan said. But that is only for their most recent crime, he said.
“Many of them have substantial history of violence in their background,” Crogan said. “This just happens to be the last crime that they committed. We are seeing a much higher-risk group of people.”
Those criminal histories and the higher estimate of parolee numbers add to concerns local officials have long had about whether the state will provide enough money for counties to adequately supervise the parolees.
Under realignment, counties take jurisdiction over inmates released from state prison whose most recent crimes were classified as nonserious, nonviolent and, for sex offenders, non-high risk. In addition, those newly convicted of those same crimes would serve their sentences in county jails rather than state prison.
All of it is part of a statewide plan to meet a federal court order to reduce California’s prison population by 33,000 inmates over the next two years.
The state provided the county about $21 million to fund the program for six months this year. Crogan said the estimated cost for a full year will top $44 million.
Gov. Jerry Brown’s fiscal 2012-2013 budget proposal includes $842.9 million to help pay for realignment statewide, Crogan said. Riverside County’s portion is estimated at $53 million, he said.
Still, without a constitutional guarantee for the funding, Crogan and other county officials remain concerned whether the state will come through with the money next year.
“There are some significant challenges,” Crogan said of implementing the realignment program.
Crogan’s comments came Tuesday as supervisors approved a final plan for the realignment program. The discussion on the number of parolees overseen by local officials moved into a debate on how the county should increase its jail capacity to handle the influx.
The county’s jails are 97percent full. As of Jan. 20, 402 people had been sentenced to jail who normally would have gone to state prison. Another 586 people are serving jail time combined with supervised release, such as home detention.
Supervisor Jeff Stone pressed Sheriff Stan Sniff on what option for increasing jail space he prefers and which would be the most efficient: a large regional jail or expanded facilities in Indio and French Valley.
The county last year backed away from a plan to build a 2,000-bed, $300 million regional jail in Whitewater and decided to focus on enlarging existing jails. Future expansions at the regional jail called for as many as 7,200 beds.
The county currently has 3,904 jail beds.
“Right now, I am kind of like a tin cup,” Sniff said. “Any additional capacity will help us.”
But when pressed by Stone, Sniff said the Sheriff’s Department prefers a new, larger jail in the middle of the county.

Monday, February 20, 2012

Why Won't Washington Understand that Paying People to Be Unemployed Means More Unemployment? Feb. 20, 2012 by Dan Mitchell

Why Won’t Washington Understand that Paying People to Be Unemployed Means More Unemployment?

I’ve written periodically about the perverse incentives of the unemployment insurance system. Simply stated, there will be fewer jobs if the government subsidizes joblessness, and I even showed that this is a consensus position by citing the academic writings of left-leaning economists such as Larry Summers and Paul Krugman.
The San Francisco Federal Reserve also has produced research measuring the negative impact of unemployment insurance on the job market.
Now we have some additional academic research on the topic, and the results once again show that the unemployment insurance program causes a significant increase in unemployment.
The Emergency Unemployment Compensation program created in the summer of 2008 provided for unprecedented extensions in the duration of unemployment insurance (UI) benefits. Combined with persistent high unemployment and historically long durations of unemployment during the 2008 and 2009 recession, this extension of UI has prompted renewed interest in the impact of UI benefits on job search, the duration of unemployment, and the unemployment rate. …This paper uses multiple regression analysis to estimate the impact of extended UI benefits on the unemployment rate after controlling for the severity of the recent recession. The extension of UI is found to have a positive and significant impact on the national unemployment rate… The UI benefit extensions that have occurred between the summer of 2008 and the end of 2010 are estimated to have had a cumulative effect of raising the unemployment rate by .77 to 1.54 percentage points.
If you’re trying to educate a statist friend or colleague about the relationship between unemployment insurance and joblessness, this research should help. But you may also want to share this real-world story. And here’s another powerful anecdote.
Last but not least, this cartoon does a very effective job of showing the consequences of paying people not to work.