Austin Jfa Institute Evaluation of the Current and Future La County Jail Population 2012

• Topics: Crime/Demographics, Statistics/Trends

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

The JFA Institute

Denver, CO/Malibu, CA/Washington, D.C.
Conducting Justice and Corrections Research for Effective Policy Making

Evaluation of the Current and Future
Los Angeles County Jail Population
Prepared by
James Austin, Ph.D.
Wendy Naro‐Ware
Roger Ocker
Robert Harris
Robin Allen

April 10, 2012

720 Kearney St. Denver, CO 80220 Ph. 3033771556 www.JFAAssociates.com

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank a number of people who helped prepare this report.
In particular, Sheriff Leroy Baca made himself and senior staff available at all times
during the course of the study. Among his senior staff, Chief Alex Yim facilitated all
of the data requests and onsite visits. Commander Gerald Cooper and his staff
assisted in the extracting of the data needed to conduct the statistical analysis. In
particular Sgt. Ryan Vienna and Deputy John Jansen were very helpful in gathering
the data required for this study.

About the JFA Institute

Founded in 2003, the JFA Institute is a multi‐disciplinary research center whose
mission is to conduct theoretical and applied research on the causes of crime and
the justice system’s responses to crime and offenders. It receives diverse funding
from federal, state, and local governmental agencies, as well as from foundations
interested in developing and evaluating innovative crime prevention, law
enforcement, sentencing and correctional policies and programs designed to reduce
crime and to improve the quality of the adult and juvenile justice systems. We
disseminate our studies and policy recommendations through research reports,
criminal justice and criminology periodicals, books, and seminars.
Since the recent creation of the new JFA organization in 2003, we have become
actively involved in conducting research and providing technical assistance to state
and local agencies in several states. Our major clients include the National Institute
of Corrections, National Institute of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, and over 20
states and local public correctional and law enforcement agencies.
JFA is currently conducting similar jail studies for the New York City Department of
Corrections, Orleans Parish Prison, Maricopa County (Phoenix), Baltimore City
Detention System, Santa Cruz County, and San Francisco County.

Project Summary
Population, Crime and Arrest Trends
1. There has been a dramatic decline in the County’s crime rate since 2000 and
it is projected that the crime rate will continue to remain low.
2. The number of adults being arrested for felonies has declined, but the
number being arrested for a misdemeanor level crime has not. The major
reason why the misdemeanor arrest numbers have not declined is large
increases for people arrested for possession of marijuana, violation of city
ordinances and Failure to Appear (FTA) violations.
3. Collectively, the county’s demographic, crime and arrest trends suggest no
increases in the Los Angeles County Jail bookings.
4. While the County population will continue to increase, it will become an
older population and have a smaller proportion of the at‐risk population.
County Jail Trends
Bookings
5. There were approximately 400,000 admissions to the LASD’s jail and field
stations in 2011. Of this number about 143,000 were actually admitted to the
jail custody division. Due to multiple bookings within a year, there were
about 118,000 people booked into the custody division.
6. Consistent with the demographic, crime and arrest trends there has been a
decline in bookings. Specifically, in 1990 there were 260,765 bookings. In
2000 it was 162,406. In 2011 it had dropped to 142,862.
Jail Population
7. Consistent with the decline in bookings, the jail population had significantly
declined from a peak in 1990 of 22,000 to slightly under 15,000 by
September 2011.
8. The decline in the jail population has served to lower the county’s jail
incarceration rate to 152 per 100,000 population which is well below the
state rate of 189 per 100,000.
9. Jail population is largely composed of three separate legal statuses; pretrial
(45%), sentenced with a pending charge (18%), sentenced (37%). The
majority (78%)of the jail population is either charged or sentenced for a
felony level crime.
10. About half of the pretrial inmates are charged with a violent or sex crime.
Conversely only 25% of the sentenced population has been convicted of a
violent or sex crime.
11. There is a very large medium custody population (about 70%) which is
atypical of most California jail systems. The Northpointe Institute’s
classification system – in particular the re‐classification system‐ is not being
used properly which is causing some level of over‐classification.

Length of Stay
12. The length of stay (LOS) has not been declining, remaining at the 40 day
range. This number is significantly higher than the state average LOS of 17
days.
13. The longer LOS is related to a lack of pretrial release program, delays in court
processing of criminal cases, and the sentence lengths being imposed by the
court.
14. About 1/3rd of all bookings are released within three days – nearly 40 % are
released within 7 days. Those who are not released within 7 days will
remain in custody an average of 87 days.
15. Most (about 2/3rds) of the inmates are being released to community and/or
under the supervision of probation and state parole.
16. There is a large number of inmates being released to ICE. These ICE inmates
occupy about 2,100 beds on any given day in the jail.
Projected Jail Population Projections
17. Had AB 109 not passed, the current jail population would have likely
remained at the 14,500 – 15,000 level.
18. With the passage of AB 109, the sentenced population will increase by about
7,000 over the next two years and then stabilize.
19. AB 109 will also serve to reduce the technical parole population and the
CDCR inmate population waiting to be transferred to state prison.
20. The overall jail population will reach nearly 20,000 by the end of this year
and peak at 21,000 by the end of 2013.
Recommended Alternatives to the Projected Population and Capacity Options
21. The projected 21,000 inmate population can be safely reduced by about
3,000 inmates by implementing the proposed LASD pretrial supervision and
a re‐entry program for sentenced inmates using the innovative EBI
programs.
22. The bed capacity of the entire system can be increased by about 1,500 beds
by modifying the NCCF facility and assuming the management of the several
CDCR Los Angeles County conservation camps.
23. If the above two recommendations are implemented, the Central Jail can be
closed within two years and the LASD would still have sufficient bed space.
At a minimum it is feasible to move all men out of Central jail by end of 2013.
But this assumes the proposed LASD pretrial and re-entry programs are
implemented.
24. Other bed capacity options such as constructing a new female facility at the
PCD and/or re‐purpose the use of the Mira Loma facility collectively show

that should be more than sufficient bed capacity to manage the long‐term
projected jail population without the need for the Central Jail facility.
Other Issues
25. The Northpointe re‐classification custody system needs to be adjusted to
reduce the current level of over‐classification of males and female inmates.
26. The COMPAS risk assessment instrument needs to be validated on a sample
of released inmates. This is especially the case for the FTA risk instrument.
27. Since the LASD plans to expand the application of the EBI education programs, it
would be appropriate at this time to begin a formal impact evaluation. Such a
study can and should be done in tandem with the revalidation study of the
COMPAS instrument.
28. The LASD should develop a dedicated Research, Planning and Evaluation
division. Several existing LASD staff can be recruited to staff this unit.

Summary of Population and Capacity Options
Current
Trend
23,910
5,260
21,519

Option A
21,700
1,500
19,530

Option B
20,700
500
18,630

Option C
21,700
0
19,530

Populations by 2015
Pretrial
County Sentenced
Awaiting Transfer to CDCR
CDCR Tech Violators
ICE Mira Loma
AB 109
Totals

10,325
1,830
600
400
625
7,096
20,876

9,325
1,830
600
400
625
5,096
17,876

Surplus Beds @90% Occupied

643

1,654

754

1,654

Item
Capacity
Central Jail
Functional Bed Capacity@ 90%

Summary of LASD Suggested Bed Capacity Options
Facility
Central Jail
Twin Towers
CRDF
Peter Pitchess DC
NCCF
South
South Annex
East
Out Patient
Conservation Camps
New Women's Facility
Totals
Mira Loma
Grand Totals
At 90% Capacity

Current
5,260
4,820
2,380

Option A
1,500
4,820
2,380

Option B
500
4,820
2,380

Option C

4,294
1,536
1,624
1,944
600
0
0
22,458

5,294
1,536
1,624
1,994
600
500
0
20,248

5,294
1,536
1,624
1,994
600
500
0
19,248

5,294
1,536
1,624
1,994
600
500
1,500
20,248

1,452

23,910
21,519

21,700
19,530

20,700
18,630

21,700
19,530

0
4,820
2,380

Los Angeles Jail Population Projection 2011· 2015
Current Criminal Justice Policies

,
,i,
,

>"","

'",IS'

n;n,

..:'I"

',''''

'.0"

" ,m

"...'

l S,roo

~ 1, '"

10,000

'.'

""
-

NonAB109

NooA8109

- Tot>! J. il Popol>_

Los Angeles Jail Population 2011·2015
Current versus Alternative Policies

,•
,•
•
j
,,
!

13.CW

16.CW

1<.CW

11.001

2011

2011
- /oJto ' n . ti~~ jc;..

lOll

- C",non' PoIk~

Introduction
This report is designed to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the Los Angles County
jail population in terms of its attributes, current and future population trends. More
importantly, it provides a plan that will allow the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department
(LASD) to safely manage its jail population within its current jail facility capacity by
implementing evidence-based policies that have been adopted in other jurisdictions. The
plan has been reviewed by Sheriff Baca and he agrees with the plan’s recommendations
that will allow him to close the antiquated Central Jail facility and still safely manage the
growing number of AB 109 inmates and thus avoid costly jail construction.
The study was requested and funded by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
However, it was conducted with the strong support and cooperation of LASD and Sheriff
Leroy Baca. A wide array of data were collected to complete the analysis and
recommendations that was largely provided by the LASD. These data included detailed
data on people admitted and released from the LASD jail system as well as aggregate
level data on historical trends in Los Angeles County crime, arrest, jail bookings, releases
and overall jail population. These data were used to better understand what factors are
driving the jail population and what options can be employed to better manage that
population in the future.
In September 2011, the Vera Institute released a major study on the Los Angeles jail
system titled “Los Angeles County Jail Overcrowding Reduction Project”. 1That report
was based on over two years of research and analysis conducted by Vera. It’s fair to say
that the report found many inefficiencies in the current criminal justice process that were,
collectively increasing the jail population and costs. Over 30 recommendations were
made by Vera, most of which were designed to reduce the jail population. Unfortunately
to date, none of the recommendations have been adopted by the County’s criminal justice
system. Vera warned that there would be no impact unless “…every criminal justice
agency leader must commit to reducing unnecessary detention and incarceration in the
interest of justice and the efficient use of taxpayer resources” (p. iii). This level of
commitment has not occurred as of yet.
The recent passage and implementation of AB 109 (California’s Realignment Plan)
makes it more urgent that action be taken. We estimate and the LASD concurs that the
transfer of state sentenced inmates from the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) to the local jail will increase the County’s jail population by as
much as 7,000 inmates by the end of 2014.
This study focuses on actions that the LASD and Sheriff Baca can take to minimize the
impact of AB 109 as well as the other issues noted by Vera that serve to inflate the jail
population. Just two basic recommendations are offered which if implemented, will lower
the projected jail population.
1 Los Angeles County Jail Overcrowding Reduction Project, Final Report, Revised, September 2011, Vera
Institute of Justice.

Los Angeles County Population, Crime and Criminal Justice Trends
A jail population is the product of the number of people being admitted and how long
they remain in custody. In estimating the future size of any local jail population, it’s
important to understand some of the key factors that influence the number of jail
admissions.
One such factor is the current and projected size of the County’s resident population that
is most likely to be arrested and booked into the adult jail system. This high-risk group
consists of males between the ages of 18 and 39. According to the California Attorney
General’s Office, approximately 70% of the 1.2 million adult arrests that occurred in
2009 were people between the ages of 18 and 39. Further, 85% of these arrests were
males. The demographics of the at-risk population is also credited by criminologists with
the nation’s and in particular California’s declining crime rate.
The California Department of Finance provides projections of the state’s and each
county’s future resident population. For Los Angeles County, the total county population
is projected to grow by 24% over the next 40 years. However, for males age 15-39, the
population grows, but at a much slower pace. Further, the proportion of the males age
15-39 year population declines slightly from 18% to 16 % (a relative rate decline of 9%).
Table 1. Projected Los Angeles County Populations 2010-2050
Year
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
% Change

Total
10,514,663
11,214,237
11,920,289
12,491,606
13,061,787

Males
Age 15-39
1,871,503
2,019,401
2,050,341
2,014,661
2,111,033

24%

13%

% Of Total
18%
18%
17%
16%
16%
-9%

Source: California Department of Finance

The next factor to review is the County’s crime rate. The California Attorney General’s
Office is the repository for all of the crime data that is submitted by each county’s law
enforcement agency. Within each county are multiple law enforcement agencies which
always include the county’s sheriff.
The total number of serious crimes, which consists of murder, rape, robbery, assault,
burglary, theft and arson, has been declining for a number of years. Between 2000 and
2009, the most recent time frame available for California counties, shows a sharp decline
in the total number of serious crime since 2000 (Chart 1 and Table 2). Specifically, there
has been a 22% reduction with the largest decline being for violent crimes (53% decline).

Table 2. Los Angeles County Reported Serious Crimes 2000-2009
Category/Crime

2000

2009

Violent Crimes
Homicide
Forcible Rape
Robbery
Aggravated Assault
Property Crimes
Burglary
M.V. Theft
Larceny-Theft
Arson
Total Crime

90,037
1,000
2,761
28,416
57,860
293,735
60,597
64,265
164,602
4,271
383,772

54,747
699
2,114
24,528
27,406
244,672
50,558
46,710
144,589
2,815
299,419

%
Change
-39%
-30%
-23%
-14%
-53%
-17%
-17%
-27%
-12%
-34%
-22%

Source: California Attorney General, Criminal Justice Statistics Center

Both the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and LASD (the two major sources of
jail bookings) are reporting more current crime data. The LAPD is showing that serious
reported crimes dropped by 7% between 2009 and 2010. The LASD has just released
data for 2011 and 2012 for the months of January and February.
In its comparison, the LASD notes an uptick in the overall crime rate per 10,000
population the crime rate for those areas patrolled by the LASD (violent crimes have
increased 6% while property crimes increased 10%). However, the five-year trend for the
same two-month time period shows a 14% decline. More significantly, the crime rate
today in the areas patrolled by the LASD is what it was in 1975 and the homicide rate is
what it was in 1966.2
The number of people being arrested is a more central statistic as it reflects people who
have the potential for being booked into the LASD jail system. In terms of adult arrests,
the 2000 to 2009 patterns are somewhat mixed. The total number of arrests per year has
increased 287,640 to 328,182.
For felony level arrests there was an increase from 2000 to 2005 followed by decline by
2009. Basically, the number in 2009 was almost the same as it was in 2000 despite an
increase in the county population. So, the rate of arrests per 100,000 population has
actually declined. The only increase with the felony level crime group was “other” which
is not described in any detail.
Misdemeanor arrests represent a much larger group. Here, the trend has been upward but
only for three crimes – possession of marijuana, violation of a city ordinance and Failure
to Appear (FTA) for court orders. If one removes these three crimes from the total
number of misdemeanor arrests, the adjusted total is unchanged. The significant fact
about the FTA number is that such an arrest will result in a jail booking.
While this study does not directly concern FTA’s, the sharp increase in these arrests
suggests flaws in the current pretrial release process. For example, the Vera report noted
that once released on bail or bond, the defendant does not receive any reminders from the
court for the next scheduled court date. 3
In terms of more recent data, the LASD reported a total of 48,370 adult felony arrests and
82,589 misdemeanor adult arrests or a total of 130,959 in 2010. This compares to 46,829
felony arrests in 2009 and 80,023 misdemeanors or a total of 126,352. The LAPD
reported 129,133 adult arrests in 2010 versus 140,212 in 2009 – a 8% decline. If we
combine these two major agency arrest numbers, we see no major increase in total adult
arrests between 2009 and 2010.

2 http://file.lacounty.gov/lasd/cms1_148405.pdf
3 Vera Institute, 2011, page xv.

Table 3. Adult Arrests for Los Angeles County 2000-2009
Crime Type
Adult Felony
Total Felony
Violent
Property
Drugs
Other Sex
Other
Rate per 100,000 Adults
Adult Misdemeanor
Total
Marijuana
City Ordinances
FTA
Total Adjusted
Rate per 100,000 Adults
Grand Total
Rate Per 100,000 Adults

2000

2005

2009

108,318
35,596
28,245
31,894
1,685
10,898
1,727.40

131,176
31,260
32,073
46,411
1,617
19,815
1,992.20

112,264
30,808
29,302
30,780
1,739
19,635
1,626.50

179,322
9,044
28,277
18,154
123,847
2,859.70

197,487
10,801
36,178
25,589
124,919
2,999.20

215,918
14,727
37,052
40,281
123,858
3,128.20

287,640
4,587

328,663
4,991

328,182
4,755

Source: California Attorney General, Criminal Justice Statistics Center

Historical Jail Admissions, Length of Stay and Average Daily Populations
We now shift our focus to the three key attributes of a jail system: The number of
admissions, their length of stay (LOS), and the resulting daily jail population. In many
ways, the size of a jail population is the product of decisions made by other criminal
justice agencies. Certainly, the number of people arrested each year is a function of law
enforcement deciding whom to arrest and for what charges. Once arrested, the courts
decide whether to allow a defendant to be released on pretrial status (either vial bail or
own recognizance). If not released, the defendant will remain in custody until the court
disposes of the charges that have been filed by the prosecutor. Once sentenced, the now
offender may have to serve additional time in the jail until the sentence is completed.
There are other nuances in the factors that drive a jail population. If a defendant fails to
appear in court and is re-arrested, he or she will be returned to custody. If an offender
fails probation or parole, that will also often result in admission to the jail until that
matter is resolved. In the next section of the report additional data and analysis is
presented on these and other matters affecting the jail population.

As noted in the Vera report, once arrested, there are several locations a person can be
detained. The LASD operates over 20 field stations where an arrestee can be held in
custody for a short period of time. The LAPD has its own detention facility, as do other
law enforcement agencies. Since the focus of this study is the Los Angeles County Jail
system which consists of eight major facilities (excluding the Mira Loma facility which is
reserved for ICE inmates), we only analyzed people who were admitted to that core jail
system.
As shown in Table 4, there has been a dramatic change in all three key jail population
indicators. Since 1990, when the jail population was just over 22,000, it had dropped to
just below 15,000 by September 2011. Similarly, the jail incarceration rate per 100,000
had dropped from 247 to 152 by October 2011.
The primary reason for decline was a dramatic reduction in the number of bookings –
from 260, 765 in 1990 to 142,862 in 2011. The decline in bookings appears to be the
result of more persons being diverted at the LASD field stations and greater use of field
citations. More recently, as noted above, there has been a decline in the number of
persons arrested for felons.
The LOS data shows that since 2000, it has remained at the 40-day level. Compared to
other large jail systems, this number appears to be high. For example, Maricopa County
(Phoenix), Broward County (Ft. Lauderdale), and New York City, have lengths of stay
that are below the 30-day range. But it may be that the LOS has not declined to the levels
reported in other jurisdictions because as the Los Angeles jail population has declined,
the residual jail population has become increasingly composed of persons charged with or
sentenced for felony level crimes.
Table 4. Los Angeles County Jail Bookings, Length of Stay and Population
1990 - 2011
Attribute

1990

2000

2010

2011

Jail Bookings
ALOS
Jail Population
Incarceration Rate

260,765
31 days
22,003
247

162,406
43 days
19,297
203

151,932
40 days
16,663
170

142,862
39 days
14,863
152

County Population
Crime Rate

8.9 million
4,595

9.5 million
2,754

9.8 million
2,021

9.8 million
NA

Source: California Department of Finance, California Attorney General , and LASD Booking and
ADP Daily Reports

Table 5 makes some direct comparisons between the Los Angeles County jail population
and overall California jail population. These data come from the California Department
of Corrections (CDCR), Correctional Standards Authority (CSA) website plus data
provided by the LASD. What is striking is that the only two statistics that distinguish the
Los Angeles County jail population are the much longer LOS (39 days versus 17 days)
and the much lower jail incarceration rate. The state’s LOS would be much lower if Los
Angeles was removed from the calculations. One would have expected the longer LOS to
generate a much higher incarceration rate, but it does not.
Table 5. Comparisons Between Los Angles County and State-wide Jail Populations
September 2011
Indicator
Total Population
Pretrial
Felony
Incarceration Rate per 100,000 population
Average LOS

Source: CDCR, CSA Jail Survey, 3rd Quarter 2011

California
Los Angeles
71,293
14,749
71%
70%
80%
78%
189
152
17 days
39 days

Current Los Angeles Jail Admissions, Releases and the Daily Population Attributes
The next section of the report evaluates in greater detail the more current trends in Los
Angeles County jail admissions, releases and the daily population. The analysis is
necessarily separated into two time frames – pre and post AB 109. As most readers are
now aware, the passage of AB 109 is and will continue to have a profound impact on
both the state prison and local jail populations. Effective October 1, 2011, the state
courts began sentencing state prisoners convicted of non-violent crimes and who have no
prior violent or sex convictions to serve their sentence in the local jails. It is estimated
that over 20,000 inmates labeled as the N3s will now be housed in the local jails. Of that
number, about 7,000 are projected to be housed in the Los Angeles County jail system.
Consequently, all of the analysis must now take into account the sudden surge in the local
jail populations.
Relative to AB 109, the legislation will have no impact on total bookings and releases.
The same number of people who are arrested and convicted of N3 crimes will continue to
be processed by the court system. The only difference is that after being sentenced, the
prisoner will remain in jail until the sentence is completed. All of the good time he or she
would have received in the state prison still applies. A major difference is that there is no
longer any parole supervision requirements for the offender. Once the sentence is
complete, the person’s sentence is ended.
Chart 2 shows the most recent trends in the key legal statutes of the LA County jail
population. Significantly the two key non-AB 109 populations (pretrial and county
sentenced inmates) have actually declined slightly.

Chart 2. los Angeles Jail Population by Sentenced Status
July 20l0-February 2 12

Total

Pretrial

County Sentenced

Chart 3. Los Angles Jail Bookings Per Month
July 2010· December 2 1

i
~

t ,,",,

< ,,",,

•

- M.I~

Fom. lo. -

,."

:J
14

In fact, were it not for AB 109 the LA jail population would have been approximately
14,000. The increase has come from the AB 109 population which is rapidly
approaching 3,500 and is likely to peak in two years at 7,000. If one looks at the bookings
since July 2010, one sees a gradual decline in these numbers – again consistent with the
demographic, crime and arrest trends (Chart 3).
As part of the study, JFA received a large data file that consisted of all persons admitted
to the Los Angeles jail system via the Inmate Reception Center (IRC) since between
January and December 2011. JFA programmers transformed that large data file into two
key sub-files: One was a snapshot of the jail population as of December 2011 which
consisted of 16,277 people; the other was a file of all inmates admitted and released in
2011. These two data files offered some detailed analysis of the attributes of people
admitted and released from custody each year and the daily population that is housed in
the system. We also received a second snapshot data file that was created by LASD staff
on February 13, 2012 to verify our initial results and continue to track the growing AB
109 population.
The Daily Jail Population
Table 6 summarizes the key attributes of the daily population as of December 2011 for
each of the major facilities. These statistics may differ slightly from the formal inmate
counts reported by LASD on a daily basis, as there are some delays of entering all of the
transfer and placement movements in a timely manner. But in general, the population
attributes appear to be accurate and reflective of both the overall population and the
population assigned to each facility.
Each facility and the system as a whole have capacities that exceed the inmate
population. In total the inmate population was 16,277 while the total bed capacity was
20,445, not including the 1,624 beds at the temporarily closed South Annex facility. The
total bed capacity as of this date was about 22,000. But as will be pointed out later on, the
excess capacity will be largely exhausted in the next 18 months due to the influx of AB
109 inmates.
The population is largely male (88%) and largely non-white (49% Hispanic, 31% Black,
and 15% white) with an average age of 34 years. Approximately 13% of the population is
age 50 years or older while 28% are between the ages of 18 and 25 years.
Table 6A shows the primary offense of the February 12, 2012 population by sentence
status. The primary offenses are homicide, assault, robbery, drug possession, drug
possession with intent to sell, burglary and theft. Overall, about half of the pretrial and
pretrial/sentenced populations are charged with violent or sex crimes. This profile shows
that most of the minor crimes have been quickly removed from custody via the existing
pretrial release process. The fact that most of the sentenced population have been
convicted of a non-violent drug offense also shows that a sizeable portion of this
population may be more suitable for alternative placements.

Table 6. Attributes of the Los Angeles County Jail Population by Facility
December 2011
Twin
Central
PDC
PDC
PDC
Out
Mira
Attribute
Towers CRDF NCCF South
Jail
East
Patient Loma
Bed Capacity
5,260
4,820 2,380
4,294
1,536 1,944
559
1,452
Totals
3,763
2,814 1,916
3,523
886 1,491
211
737
Gender
Female
0%
1% 100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Male
100%
99%
0% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
Race
Black
35%
34%
34%
32%
31%
29%
47%
0%
Hispanic
44%
40%
39%
56%
45%
59%
38%
91%
Asian
3%
4%
3%
2%
3%
3%
2%
9%
White
18%
20%
23%
9%
20%
8%
12%
0%
Average Age
36 yrs
38 yrs
35 yrs 31 yrs 39 yrs 28 yrs
45 yrs
34 yrs
121
Average Days in
101
106
153
123
`102
Custody to Date
150 days
days
days
days 98 days days
days
days
Security Level
Low
12%
0%
20%
0%
21%
0%
7% 100%
Medium
68%
74%
67%
73%
79% 100%
72%
0%
High
20%
16%
11%
26%
0%
0%
19%
0%
Unclassified
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Legal Status
Pretrial
42%
50%
39%
44%
25%
44%
46% 100%
Pre and Sentenced
21%
19%
15%
21%
10%
25%
18%
0%
Sentenced
37%
32%
47%
35%
65%
31%
36%
0%
Charge Level
Felony
84%
82%
80%
85%
78%
87%
88%
0%
Misdemeanor
13%
15%
17%
12%
20%
9%
8%
0%
ICE
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 100%
Other
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
3%
3%
0%
% of Total
25%
18%
12%
23%
6%
10%
1%
5%
Source: LASD data files. Not included is the temporary IRC population (about 500
inmates) and the PDC South Annex facility which was closed as of December 2011. That facility has
a capacity of 1,624.

Total
20,793
15,341
12%
88%
31%
49%
3%
15%
34 yrs
127
days
15%
70%
14%
1%
45%
18%
37%
78%
15%
5%
3%
100%

Table 6A. Los Angeles County Jail Population as of February 2012
Primary Crime by Sentence Status

Most Serious Charge
Totals
Willful homicide
Vehicular manslaughter
Forcible rape
Robbery
Assault
Kidnapping
Lewd or Lascivious
Other sex
Sub-Total Violence/Sex
Drug sale
Drug poss w/ intent
Marijuana possession
Possession/other drug
Sub-Total Drugs
Burglary
Theft
MV theft
Forgery
Weapons
DUI
Arson
Other felony
Prob./parole violation
Other

Pretrial
6306
100.0%
899
14.3%
17
0.3%
67
1.1%
634
10.1%
1,082
17.2%
90
1.4%
169
2.7%
142
2.3%
3,100
49.2%
162
2.6%
167
2.6%
66
1.0%
648
10.3%
1,043
16.5%
549
8.7%
440
7.0%
21
0.3%
75
1.2%
62
1.0%
107
1.7%
32
0.5%
390
6.2%
39
0.6%
448
7.1%

Pretrial and
Sentenced
3120 100.0%
555
17.8%
8
0.3%
32
1.0%
390
12.5%
665
21.3%
37
1.2%
26
0.8%
65
2.1%
1,778
57.0%
83
2.7%
58
1.9%
34
1.1%
264
8.5%
439
14.1%
280
9.0%
211
6.8%
12
0.4%
47
1.5%
44
1.4%
48
1.5%
4
0.1%
170
5.4%
33
1.1%
54
1.7%

Sentenced
7022 100.0%
53
0.8%
16
0.2%
25
0.4%
257
3.7%
1,279
18.2%
10
0.1%
45
0.6%
96
1.4%
1,781
25.4%
298
4.2%
246
3.5%
107
1.5%
1,163
16.6%
1,814
25.8%
763
10.9%
1,087
15.5%
47
0.7%
170
2.4%
161
2.3%
239
3.4%
14
0.2%
305
4.3%
436
6.2%
205
2.9%

The inmate classification system used by the LASD to house inmates is based on a
decision-tree system that was developed by the Northpointe Institute. The vast majority
of inmates are assigned to medium custody with only 14% placed in high custody and
another 15% in low (or minimum) custody (Table 7). The proportion of low custody
inmates is quite small compared to other jail systems and California jails. The CDCR,
CSA jail survey noted earlier reported that for all of the California jails, the proportion
assigned to minimum custody is 24%. That percentage would be even higher if the Los
Angeles jail data were removed from the CSA statewide data which includes the LASD
data.

Table 7: Comparison of State Jail and Los Angeles County Jail Inmate
Custody Levels as of 2011

Custody Level
Max
Medium
Minimum
Total

State Total
Inmates
%
22,478
32%
31,425
44%
17,390
24%
71,293
100%

Los Angeles Jail
Inmates
%
2,148
14%
10,379
70%
2,304
15%
15,341
100%

Source: CDCR, CSA and LASD data files

There are two probable reasons for the low number of “low custody” inmates. First, the
design of the Northpointe Institute decision tree instrument now includes a
reclassification instrument that is to be applied to all inmates who have been in custody
for 30-90 days depending upon their current custody level. The reclassification
instrument, like all custody instruments, is designed to move prisoners to lower custody
levels based on their institutional conduct. Since the vast majority of inmates do not
become involved in serious disciplinary incidents while incarcerated, there should be a
large shift from maximum to medium custody, and, from medium to minimum custody.
As shown in Table 6, the average time served for the current jail population is 127 days
which means that the vast majority of the current population should be on the
reclassification instrument.
The Northpointe instrument design is also unique for three other reasons: It uses legal
status as a restriction (pretrial versus sentence), it does not use age which is a good
predictor of misconduct, and it does not have a separate scale for the females. All three of
these omissions tend to over-classify inmates.
The Northpointe reclassification instrument also makes it difficult for some inmates to
move to a lower custody level even if their conduct is positive. Further, based on
interviews with the LASD classification staff and Northpointe representatives, the LASD
is not applying the reclassification instrument as designed by Northpointe which is
further restricting the movement of medium custody inmates to minimum custody thus
causing some level of over-classification.
Spot audits of inmates housed at the South Facility found several well-behaved and older
inmates who were housed in low security dorms, but were classified by Northpointe as
high-medium (levels 7 and 6) custody. Clearly, the Northpointe system and the LASD’s
lack of adherence to the system needs to be addressed.
Another key statistic in Table 6 is the legal status of the inmate population. We had
reported that the LASD aggregate level reports show that 70% of the current jail
population is in pretrial status. But what that statistic does not show is that the 70%
included inmates who have been sentenced on one or more charges and have at least one
pending charge. Thus the percentage of “pure” pretrial cases is 45% and not 70%.

And for those that are in “pure” pretrial status (7,316 as of December 2011), 25% of them
had a “no bail” order imposed by the court. These and other factors serve to greatly
restrict the number of pretrial defendants who can be released on bail, surety bond or own
recognizance. These other factors are described later on in the report.
Jail Admissions, Releases and Length of Stay
Last year, there were over 400,000 admissions into the LASD county-wide custody
division which includes the various field stations.4 As reported earlier, only 142,862
resulted in being booked into the main county jail system. This section of the report
provides more detailed information on these admissions. What follows are some of the
major findings:
1. Of the 142,862 bookings in a year approximately 25,000 were the same person
who was admitted more than once in the 12-month time period. The actual
number of mutually exclusive people booked into custody is approximately
118,000 (Table 8).
2. The overall LOS for the people who were released was approximately 40 days.
3. Approximately 37% of the bookings are released within 7 days.
4. Those who are not released within 7 days have an average LOS of approximately
87 days.
5. The vast majority (66%) of the releases are people being released to the
community (pretrial) or under probation and parole supervision. Only 18% are
being released prior to having their cases disposed of by the courts. This statistic
shows that increasing the number of pretrial releases will have less of an impact
on the jail population as opposed to a) reducing the time people spend waiting for
their cases to be disposed of by the courts or b) reducing their time to serve after
being sentenced.
6. The most common reasons for people being released from custody are a)
completing inmates completing a sentence or b) being transferred to the custody
of another correctional agency.
7. There are large number of releases being made to the CDCR for both new court
commitments and parole violations. The numbers of releases will decline
significantly with the implementation of AB109. Taking their place, in part, will
be persons completing their AB 109 sentences at the Los Angeles County Jail.
8. However, the number of CDCR technical parole violation admissions and releases
will decline as use of the parole supervision is not longer required for the AB 109
sentenced offenders.
4 This number is consistent with the number reported in the previously referenced Vera Institute
study.

9. There is a large number of people who are released to the custody of ICE ( 19,725
releases in 2011). These releases are largely Hispanic males who spend an
average of 39 days in custody and occupy approximately 2,000 beds on any given
day. They are also largely low and medium custody under the Northpointe
Institute classification system.

Table 8. Summary Statistics on Jail Admissions and Releases – 2011
Total County-wide LASD Admissions
Total Jail System Custody Bookings
Number of People Admitted
Overall Length of Stay
% released within
1 day
2 days
3 days
7 days

400,000
142,000
118,000
39 days

Number Released after 7 days
Average LOS if not released within 7 days

70,000
87 days

19%
30%
36%
47%

Source: LASD data files

Table 9. Primary Release Reason – 2011
Release Reason
Pretrial Releases
Sheriff release
Pretrial Release to Detainer
Bond or Bail
Sheriff Misdemeanor Citation
Dismissal of Charges
Court Ordered Release
ROR
Sentenced Releases
Sentence Expired
Sentenced to Probation
Transfer to State Parole Supervision
Sheriff Shortened Sentence
Transfer to Other Custody
Transfer to Other State Prison
Transfer to CA Prison
Transfer to ICE/US Immigration
Other/Unknown
Total

Total
24,742
4,622
611
7,643
3,780
1,437
4,198
2,451
67,182
9,079
4,139
15,153
38,811
38,089
548
17,816
19,725
9,605
139,618

%
18%
3%
0%
5%
3%
1%
3%
2%
48%
7%
3%
11%
28%
27%
0%
13%
14%
7%
100%

Source: LASD data files

Table 10. Summary of Inmates Released to the Custody of ICE
2011
Total ICE Releases to USIM
Hispanic
Male
Low Custody
Medium Custody
LOS
Daily Population

19,725
18,095
19,002
8,574
10,713
39 days
2,100

100%
92%
96%
43%
54%

Source: LASD data files

Jail Population Projections
Relying upon these trends population projections were developed to estimate the future
size of the jail population. These estimates are separated into groups. The first estimate is
for the jail population that is not being sentenced under AB 109. In essence, it represents
what the population would have been had AB 109 not passed. The second is just for the
AB 109 population. It is based on a data file being managed by the LASD which records
the offense, sentence length, and projected time to serve as an AB 109 inmate.
Non-AB 109 Inmate Population
The current trends suggest that bookings and releases for the jail are likely to decline
slightly over the next five years. The at-risk population for the County is not expected to
increase. Crime rates are likely to remain low. In terms of arrests, they should also
remain stable as a function of stable crime rates and no additions to the law enforcement
patrol work force due to budget constraints. Overall there should be no increases in
bookings for next few years under good trends and policies. The LOS for the non-AB109
releases should also remain constant at the 39-40 day rate.
Based on these assumptions, the Non-AB 109 jail population will remain at the current
15,000 with two adjustments. Traditionally, there is a pool of sentenced inmates who are
awaiting transfer to the CDCR. Prior to October 1, 2011, this number averages about
1,100 inmates on any given day. Some portion of this group are now the AB 109
offenders who will included in the AB 109 estimate. As of February 1, 2012, the number
of state inmates with no pending charges had dropped to 612 or about 500 below the pre
AB 109 time period.
The second adjustment will be for the CDCR technical parole violators. Under AB 109,
there is no post release supervision requirements for the N3 offenders. This means that
the number of CDCR technical violators housed in the jail will also decline. Prior to AB
109, that number was 1,259. By February, it had declined to 748. One would expect that
number to decline even further over the remainder of the year.
Based on these two adjustments, the base projection for the Non-AB 109 jail population
declines to about 14,000 by the end of 2012 and remains at that level (See Table 11).
Should crime rates continue to decline there would be a further reduction in the jail
population but probably no more than another 1,000 reduction by 2015.
AB 109 Population Projections
The LASD has provided JFA with a data file that records key information about the
number and attributes of persons being sentenced under AB 109. As shown in Table 12,
as of February 29, 2012 there had been 3,535 persons so sentenced. The average sentence
is 765 days with a projected length of stay of 305 days (which includes their pretrial
credits). Based on these numbers, this population will reach approximately 5,454 by the
end of this year and peak at about 7,000 by the year 2014.

Table 11. Current and Projected Los Angeles Jail Population
Population
Male Pretrial
Female Pretrial
Male County Sent
Female County Sent
CDCR Sentenced
CDCR Tech Parole
ICE Mira Loma
Non AB 109 Total
AB 109 Males
AB 109 Females
Sub-Total AB 109
Grand Total

2011

End of Year
2012
2013

2014

2015

9,275
1,062
1,728
367
815
754
751
14,752

9,182
1,051
1,711
363
600
400
625
13,933

9,228
1,057
1,719
365
603
402
628
14,002

9,182
1,051
1,711
363
600
400
635
13,942

9,219
1,056
1,718
365
600
400
625
13,982

1,542
298
1,410

4,482
972
5,454

5,460
1,130
6,590

5,822
1,196
7,018

5,896
1,200
7,096

16,162

19,387

20,592

20,960

21,078

This number of 7,000 is consistent with an early projection made by JFA as part of the
federal court order in the Plata/Coleman case governing prison crowding in the CDCR.
That analysis also showed that significant percentages of this population were classified
by the CDCR using its risk assessment tool as moderate to low risk to recidivate (Table
13).
Some California counties have been reporting a drop in probation dispositions as
defendants opt out for an AB 109 sentence. This is due to the fact that most of these
inmates have already served 3-6 months in pretrial status, and would prefer to serve the
rest of their sentence in the jail with no post-release probation supervision.
Based on all of these trends it is estimated that the LA County Jail will reach almost
20,000 inmates by this year and peak at about 21,000 the following year and remain at
that level through 2015. Again these projections may be reduced is the crime rate and
bookings continue to decline albeit at a reduced rate. Any changes in the court
processing of pretrial cases by the courts would also serve to reduce the length of stay
and thus the pretrial population. Finally the size of the ICE population being held at the
Mira Loma facility which numbered about 600 as of March 2012 is subject to change.

Table 12. Key Attributes of AB 109 Sentences
October 2011 – February 2012

Total AB 109 Sentences
Gender
Male
Female
Most Serious Charge
Vehicular manslaughter
Forcible rape
Robbery
Assault
Burglary
Theft
MV theft
Forgery
Marijuana
Other drug
Other sex
Weapons
DUI
Hit and run
Arson
Other felony
Drug possession
Drug possession/intent
Drug sale
Missing

Avg.
Sent.
(days)

3,535

100.0%

765.0

Avg.
Days
to
Serve
305.5

2,898
637

82.0%
18.0%

775.2
718.4

310.2
284.4

4
3
9
115
509
884
39
118
94
4
2
161
102
4
1
197
915
193
170
11

0.1%
0.1%
0.3%
3.3%
14.4%
25.0%
1.1%
3.3%
2.7%
0.1%
0.1%
4.6%
2.9%
0.1%
0.0%
5.6%
25.9%
5.5%
4.8%
0.3%

851.5
730.0
635.2
737.8
691.5
712.8
698.5
654.8
691.5
699.3
486.0
613.0
617.0
608.0
1095.0
715.3
728.9
1189.6
1437.1
-

406.0
216.3
214.7
259.5
286.8
287.2
268.5
261.3
271.2
321.3
55.5
234.5
244.9
214.5
206.0
272.6
288.0
484.3
597.2
-

Table 13. Expected Attributes of the Los Angeles County AB 109 Inmates Based on
Inmates Housed in the CDCR July 2011.
Attribute
Total

Inmates
7,195

Race
Black
White
Hispanic
Gender
Male
Female
Crime
Person
Drugs
Property
Other

2,314
1,320
3,245
6,098
1,097
569
3,400
2,724
502

Attribute

100% CDCR Risk Level
High Drug
High Property
32%
High Violent
18%
Moderate
45%
Low
Mental Health Problem
85% Gang Member?
15% Any Prior Felonies?
Any Prior Serious Felonies
8% Any Prior Violent Felonies
47% Committed Crime on Parole
38% Committed Crime on Probation
7% ICE Hold

Inmates
958
1,525
927
2,149
1,493
1,050
1,167
4,331
0
0
2,146
1,120
648

%
13%
21%
13%
30%
21%
15%
16%
60%
0%
0%
30%
16%
9%

Source: CDCR data file

Recommended Population Control Options
In order to prevent the projected increase in the jail population two basic
recommendations are being made to the LASD – implement a pretrial release program
and a comprehensive re-entry program for all sentenced inmates. This section of the
report describes what these two programs would look like and their impact on the
projected jail population.
Pre-Trial Release
There is no question that the County lacks a comprehensive pretrial program. Although
the Los Angeles County Probation Department operates such a program, it has little if
any impact on those people being admitted to the custody division. What is required is
such a program that will deal with the significant number of inmates who eventually are
being released by the courts but are spending an excessive period of time in custody.
To test this proposition a pilot or “stress” test of criteria that could be applied to the
pretrial population was conducted with the assistance of the LASD. The focus was on the
existing pre-trial population. We began with the total pretrial population (about 10,545)
and then applied the following criteria for all pretrial cases that had been in custody for at
least 7 days with the number of inmates who are left after the criteria is applied:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Original pool of 10,545 pretrial inmates in custody;
Less those not already sentenced to another crime (7,044);
Less those with no outstanding warrants (4,978);
Less those with no “no bails” (2,964);

5. Less those with assaultive crimes that prohibit pretrial (1,753); and,
6. Less those in maximum or high security (1,367).
Here one can see that the number eligible for pretrial release drops to only 1,367. We
then applied to a random sample of the COMPAS risk instrument and found that a large
percentage were classified as high risk. However, the COMPAS risk instrument may
need to be adjusted for three reasons. First, it has not been normed on the Los Angeles
County population. Second, a prior study of COMPAS on Broward County jail
population by the Florida State University found the FTA risk instrument was not a
strong predictor or FTA. Third, as pointed out by JFA in its study of Broward County,
the so called high risk pretrial releases actually have low FTA and pretrial arrest rates. So
a better use of risk for this purpose would be higher risk rather than high risk.
The LASD has formulated a very comprehensive and detailed plan to implement a
pretrial supervision program.5 Based on the stress test noted above, that program, if
implemented with a sound risk assessment and supervision component, should be able to
reduce the projected pretrial population by 750 males and 250 females.6
Sentence Re-entry Programs
The most effective way to safely reduce the jail population will be to develop a re-entry
program where sentenced inmates would have their imposed sentences reduced by
participating in services that will serve to reduce their risk of re-offending.
The LASD has already made great strides in the area through its newly launched
Education Based Incarceration (EBI) program. On any given day, approximately 1,200
inmates are receiving counseling and education services that are designed to reduce their
risk.
As the same time, the County is not using so called “blended” sentences for the N3
inmates. Conversations with Contra Costa and San Diego County Probation Chiefs
indicate that their counties are using the blended sentences in a large proportion of their
AB 109 cases. But, it does not appear that this will occur any time soon in Los Angeles.
However, under AB 109, the Sheriff has the legal authority to place these inmates in the
community prior to the completion of their sentence under some form of supervision. In
Los Angeles, this supervision would be similar to the level being provided by the
proposed LASD pretrial community control division.
Prior research also shows that altering the inmate’s LOS does not have an impact on
recidivism for this class of offenders.7 The CDCR has also reported that significant
5 “Pretrial Services Project, Research, Roadmap, and Vision. Reducing jail population by target‐
specific measures while maintaining public safety.” LASD, Offender Services Division.
6 Such a program could also be operated by the Los Angeles Probation Department or a program
operated jointly by the LASD and Probation Department.
7
California Expert Panel on Adult Offender and Recidivism Programming. (2007). Sacramento: CA:
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

proportions of the AB 109 are not high risks to recidivate. So we can be confident by
using the EBI program as re-entry program , it will be possible to moderately reduce their
LOS without jeopardizing public safety.
One way that this could be achieved is for inmates who are sentenced to the county jail
(after having served several months in pretrial custody) be given the opportunity to
participate in one of the EBI’s many programs. Upon completion of a program, the
inmate would be released to community supervision and continuation of services as
required.
The impact on the AB 109 population can be estimated based on the following
assumptions.
1. There will be an estimated 8,500 AB 109 admissions each year.
2. 75% of these inmates will participate in the EBI programs prior to being released.
3. Upon completion, they will have their sentence reduced by an average of four
months.
4. 20% of these people will be re-arrested and be returned to custody for an average
of two additional months.
5. Based on these assumptions, the projected AB 109 population of 7,000 would be
reduced by approximately 2,000 inmates.
Bed Capacity Options and Recommendations
As noted earlier in the report, the current jail system has over 22,000 beds that if staffed
can be used to house inmates. This number does not include the 1,452 bed Mira Loma
facility located in Lancaster which is currently used exclusively for ICE detainees. This
section of the report describes several immediate and long-term opportunities to further
increase the current bed capacity and that ultimately would allow the closing of the
antiquated and poorly designed Central Jail facility. These are not the only options
available but suggest some pragmatic steps the LASD could take.
There is consensus within the LASD and other external observers that the long-term
objective is to eventually remove all of the male inmates now housed at the Central Jail
facility. But in so doing, the LASD will lose 5,260 beds. The so-called “new” part of
Central Jail has 1,836 beds but it is currently closed. The remainder of Central Jail is
used for a wide variety of low, medium and high custody inmates. In particular, there are
nearly 500 beds that are reserved for administrative segregation inmates and others that
must be kept separate from other inmates (K-10s).
One option to increase the bed capacity and in particular the maximum security beds that
the LASD would lose if Central Jail were to close, is to modify the current space at the
North County Correctional Facility (NCCF). NCCF is a modern maximum security
complex that is well suited for housing inmates in high and medium custody. It is
designed to operate as five separate units and provide for disciplinary segregation and

excellent medical and mental health service capabilities. It also contains three large
vocational service areas for printing, sign painting and clothing production. One option
we would recommend is to transform the three vocational training units into secure
housing units.
We estimate that the vocational area space could hold 600 cells, each being capable of
being double celled for a total additional bed capacity of 1,200 inmates. But assuming
that 100 of the cells would only be used for single cells, the more realistic bed capacity
would be 1,000. This would be more than sufficient to cover the K-10 and Administrative
Segregation beds now being used at Central Jail.
The vocational training services would be re-located in the newly constructed and larger
vocational training and education service center for the Sheriff’s EBI rehabilitation
programs.
The second opportunity to add approximately 500 minimum security beds would happen
by assuming the management of five CDCR conservation camps (including the Malibu
105 bed female unit).8 These five camps are being relinquished by the CDCR and can be
taken over by the LASD. These beds could be easily used to the rising AB 109
population since prior to the passage of AB 109, many of the inmates who are AB 109
candidates were housed in these camps
These two options, as shown in Table 14 would increase the overall LASD jail bed
capacity by about 1,500 beds.
A second option would be to reconfigure and renovate part of Central Jail and use it to
house most of the 1,900 women now housed at Century Regional Detention Facility
(CDRF). The logic of this alternative would be as follows: The current negative culture
associated with Central Jail would be transformed by having a much lower security
population there. CRDF would be used largely to house medium and low custody male
inmates. Having females would be a temporary move until a more permanent and
modern facility could be constructed for the women.9
Finally, there is the potential to construct a new female facility. The LASD has
preliminary plans for a 1,500 bed facility at the PDC. If the recommended pretrial and
re-entry programs are implemented such a facility would be sufficient to house the entire
female population. At issue is whether it would be wise to have all of the women at a
single location or be able to house some portion of the population in the downtown area
to facilitate court appearances and access to the medical facilities at the Twin Towers
facilities. These are details that need to be developed once the full effects of the pretrial
release and AB 109 re-entry programs are fully implemented.

8 There are an additional 5 fire camps that the county could add to the ones that are now being used
to house state inmates.

All of the jail bed capacity figures are reduced by 10% to allow for seasonal fluctuations
in the jail population and the need to separate special need and high-risk inmates. The
10% reduction will ensure the jail system will not be crowded for any sustained period of
time.
Table 14. Summary of Possible Bed Capacity Options
Facility
Central Jail
Twin Towers
CRDF
Peter Pitchess DC
NCCF
South
South Annex
East
Out Patient
Conservation Camps
New Women's Facility
Totals
Mira Loma
Grand Totals
At 90% Capacity

Current
5,260
4,820
2,380

Option A
1,500
4,820
2,380

Option B
500
4,820
2,380

Option C

4,294
1,536
1,624
1,944
600
0
0
22,458

5,294
1,536
1,624
1,994
600
500
0
20,248

5,294
1,536
1,624
1,994
600
500
0
19,248

5,294
1,536
1,624
1,994
600
500
1,500
20,248

1,452

23,910
21,519

21,700
19,530

20,700
18,630

21,700
19,530

0
4,820
2,380

Projected Populations and Capacity Options
Assuming the LASD is able to successfully implement the supervised pretrial and
sentenced re-entry programs program, plus make the recommended capacity adjustments,
would there be sufficient bed space to safely house the projected inmate population? The
answer is yes. Table 15 summarizes the results of the projected effects of each scenario.
The “base projection” represents the status quo with Central Jail remaining operational
and opening up its now closed units. It would also mean that the LASD is unable to
implement the supervised pretrial release program and the re-entry program.
Option A assumes that Central Jail remains partially opened by temporarily housing the
female population at a renovated portion of the facility and the rest of them at one of the
conservation camps. Central Jail may also be renovated to create classroom space to
provide much needed treatment services to the female population.

Option B reduces the female jail population to 500 and mostly pretrial women whose
family reside near downtown Los Angeles. Depending upon the ability of the LASD to
launch the pretrial and re-entry programs, it may be possible to relocate a sizeable portion
of the female population at the Twin Towers facility.
Table 15. Summary of Projected Inmates Population by 2015 and Capacity Options
Current
Trend
23,910
5,260

Option A
21,700
1,500

Option B
20,700
500

Option C
21,700
0

21,519

19,530

18,630

19,530

Populations by 2015
Pretrial
County Sentenced
Awaiting Transfer to CDCR
CDCR Tech Violators
ICE Mira Loma
AB 109
Totals

10,325
1,830
600
400
625
7,096
20,876

9,325
1,830
600
400
625
5,096
17,876

Surplus Beds @90% Occupied

643

1,654

754

1,654

Item
Capacity
Central Jail
Functional Bed Capacity@
90%

Option C envisions the construction of the new female facility at the PDC complex.
Current plans call for a 1,500 bed facility, which may or may not be needed for reasons
cited earlier in the report.
All of the options provide sufficient bed space with a 10% vacancy rate throughout the
system to ensure the jail system can safely manage the inmate population taking into
account seasonal fluctuations in the population and the need to separate high risk and
special needs inmates.
Other Issues
Inmate Classification
We have already noted that the current inmate classification system is over-classifying
inmates for medium custody. This is occurring due to LASD policy and the design of the
Northpointe Institute instrument. It should also be adjusted for females so that it does not
over-classify them. This latter point will be important as the Department determines the

best long-term facility solution for the women. These issues can and should be corrected
in consultation with Northpointe.
Pretrial Risk Assessment
In a similar manner, the COMPAS risk assessment system should be tested and normed
for the LASD jail population. In particular, the FTA risk assessment instrument should
not be used until the re-validation work is completed.
Evaluation of the EBI Programs
Since the LASD plans to expand the application of the EBI education programs, it would
be appropriate at this time to begin a formal impact evaluation. Such a study can and
should be done in tandem with the revalidation study of the COMPAS instrument.
Establish a Formal Research, Planning and Analysis Division
The LASD is fortunate to have a number of staff that are highly skilled in data extraction
and analysis. Yet, it seems much of this work and talent is not concentrated or structured
within a single unit. The LASD is like a major corporation without a formal R&D
capability. Such a unit would be issuing formal population projections every six months,
analysis of population trends and critical incidents, and, cost-benefit evaluations of new
LASD programs and policies. Such a division would be directed by a person with an
advanced degree in research methods, but experience in local corrections.