Prison realignment is the best way
The recent opinion piece by a psychologist at the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi about California's program for reducing prison overcrowding was full of inaccuracies ("What has realignment of prisons wrought? More than state warned," Jan. 9). As a corrections professional, Brik McDill should know better. Some of his claims were unsubstantiated, and some describe problems not attributable to public safety realignment. The bottom line is that California is legally required to reduce prison overcrowding, and realignment is preferable by far to a large-scale release of inmates.
Here's how realignment works. Starting Oct. 1, many low-level offenders who would previously have gone to state prisons were sent to the counties. The prison inmate population has now fallen 11,000 and should fall an additional 23,000 over the next 18 months.
Of course, this means more offenders are jailed or monitored at the local level. To help cover these costs, counties are receiving more than $400 million this year, and could receive more than $1 billion in 2013-14. Gov. Jerry Brown is seeking constitutional protection for this local realignment funding.
McDill also questioned how prepared the counties are to supervise and find homes for mentally ill offenders not on state parole. This was already a challenge before realignment. But the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the counties worked together on this in the past and continue to do so.
Realignment is the safest, most effective way to reduce California's prison overcrowding, and it will help reduce recidivism among low-level offenders who will now be closer to local support networks.
Jeffrey Callison
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Sacramento
