Data & Research
IMPORTANT CAUTION ABOUT INTERPRETING TRENDS DATA
BSCC provides various datasets to permit description of trends in critical measures over time, statewide and by county. Diverse patterns among counties reflect not only differences in policy approaches, but other county-specific factors such as the following:
- Income, poverty, unemployment, and crime rates.
- Features of illicit markets and associations such as street drug supply and demand, distribution systems for stolen autos and parts, and street gang allegiances and rivalries.
- Population densities and distributions of populations along geographic, racial, ethnic, age, and urban-rural lines.
- Available county resources, e.g., opening or closing of jail units; hiring or lay-offs of police officers, court-ordered population caps; and arrangements for leasing beds among counties;
The trends may raise useful questions about county-level patterns, but by themselves, do not answer those questions. No inferences about the comparative performance of counties, therefore, are warranted based on trends alone.
The Jail Profile Survey
The Jail Profile Survey (JPS), conducted since the mid-1970’s, is a data collection instrument that gathers responses from counties on local jurisdiction and county jails. This information provides counties a means of tracking changes in their populations and assessing and projecting program and facility needs. Some items are reported monthly, others quarterly; questionnaires are completed and returned to BSCC for review and public posting via the Jail Profile Survey Online Querying database and Jail Population Trends Dashboard.
JPS Online Query:
The published Jail Profile Survey data are reported by local agencies. Local agencies work hard to submit accurate data, but data collection is not uniform throughout the state. Due to local agency-specific data collection limitations some agencies cannot report all data elements. BSCC screens the data and communicates with reporting agencies to ensure accuracy and completeness, but does not conduct investigations or audits of the data or data collection process. The JPS database is a “live database” and represents point in time data. Previously reported data are regularly updated to reflect any revisions received from local agencies.
Jail Profile Survey-Online Querying (Updated March 15, 2019)
For PDF downloads of the “Jail Profile Survey Workbook”, “Rated Capacities of Type II, III, & IV Local Adult Detention Facilities”, and archived Jail Profile Survey Result Reports (quarter and annual), please click here.
Jail Population Trends – PDF (Updated March 15, 2019)
The AB109 Survey
The AB109 Jail Profile Survey is a data collection instrument completed monthly by counties to reflect the impact of AB109, specifically related to offenders sentenced Penal Code Section 1170(h) or released on Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS) or parole status who have been admitted or detained in local detention facilities. Participating agencies collect relevant data and submit completed questionnaires to BSCC for review and public posting via the Jail Population Trends Dashboard. There are eleven items listed on the AB109 Jail Profile Survey Monthly Report Form.
Local Adult Detention Facilities: Public Safety Realignment Raw Data (Oct. 2011 through Sept 2018; last updated 12/18/18)
The Juvenile Detention Profile Survey
The Juvenile Detention Profile Survey (JDPS) is a data collection instrument that gathers responses from counties on local juvenile detention facilities. This information provides counties a means of assessing and projecting program and facility needs. As with our other surveys, completed questionnaires are returned to the BSCC for review and public posting via the JDPS Online Querying database.
Juvenile Detention Profile Survey-Online Querying (Updated March 15, 2019)
The published Juvenile Detention Survey data are reported by local agencies. Local agencies work hard to submit accurate data, but data collection is not uniform throughout the state. Due to local agency-specific data collection limitations some agencies cannot report all data elements. BSCC screens the data and communicates with reporting agencies to ensure accuracy and completeness, but does not conduct investigations or audits of the data or data collection process. The JDPS database is a “live database” and represents point in time data. Previously reported data are regularly updated to reflect any revisions received from local agencies.
Performance Metrics for Community Corrections
“Performance Metrics for Community Corrections,” a report mandated by the Budget Act of 2014, outlines a set of interrelated metrics that are readily available and measurable that can assess how local community corrections systems are functioning. The county-by-county performance metrics identified address reported crime, arrests, supervision, incarceration, and local socioeconomic indicators. The socioeconomic indicators are part of the counties’ unique challenges impacting community corrections systems. To understand how criminal justice policy is working one must also consider the impact of these local conditions on the system. Taken together, these interrelated metrics can provide insight into the functioning of a county’s criminal justice system.
In addition to the report, the Board of State and Community Corrections annually updates Statewide and county-by-county data sets and tables of the performance metrics. The annual updates are designed to help counties, legislators, policymakers, researchers and other interested stakeholders assess how local community corrections systems are functioning. Having a way to analyze performance will allow policymakers to make informed decisions based on what they desire for their communities. The data sets and tables now provide data from 2007 through 2017 and compare changes since 2007.
- Click here to access the full report.
- Click here to access Statewide and county-by-county datasets and tables. Graphs and tables displaying trends over time in key measures may be retrieved for each county and for the state as a whole. The data sets and tables now provide data from 2007 through 2017 and compare changes since 2007.
- Click here to access the county profiles that can provide context to the metrics data.
BSCC Realignment Resources
In 2011, Governor Brown signed into law Assembly Bill (AB) 109 and AB 117, hereafter referred to as realignment, which made “fundamental changes to California’s correctional system to stop the costly, ineffective and unsafe "revolving door" of lower-level offenders and parole violators through our state prisons” (excerpt from Governor’s Press Release, April 5, 2011). Realignment:
- shifted responsibility for all sentenced non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders from state to local jurisdictions;
- established Postrelease Community Supervision (PRCS);
- changed the parole revocation process;
- tasked Community Corrections Partnerships (CCPs) with planning for the change and implementing the local plans; and
- gave local law enforcement the right and the ability to manage offenders in smarter and cost-effective ways.
For more information, click here
Inmate Sterilization Procedures (SB 1135) Data Collection
As part of SB 1135 and statute 3440(d)2A, the Board of State and Community Corrections is required to collect from California county jails all relevant information regarding the sterilization of inmates. The data will include the number of sterilizations performed, disaggregated by race, age, medical justification, and method of sterilization. It shall be compiled and published annually on the BSCC website.
Fifty counties responded to our disaggregate data collection survey, please see Table 1 for details. Of the 50 respondents who completed the survey, three counties reported inmate sterilization procedures were performed during the 2017 calendar year. Please see Table 2 for details.
Prior Data Sets:
The Jail Program Survey
The Jail Program Survey was a collaboration between the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) and a workgroup from the California Jail Programs Association. Information contained within the dashboard was self-reported by participants who completed a 2013 Statewide Survey on the types of programs provided to offenders in California adult correctional facilities.
City Law Enforcement Funding - FY 2015-2016
The 2015 Budget Act, (Chapter 11, Statutes of 2015, Item 5227-102-0001) allocates $20 million for front line law enforcement activities. Provision 2, of Item 5227-102-0001, requires city law enforcement agencies that are recipients of this funding to provide data on the number of use of force incidents that result in death or hospitalization (defined as a patient admission to any hospital bed for treatment, regardless of the length of the hospital stay).
Not all city law enforcement agencies received funding, so the data should not be used to make statewide conclusions.
Click here for the 2016 data collection reporting cycles.
Here is a link to the FAQs:
Data is available by reporting agency on the Agency Map and Agency Totals by County tabs. If data is not reported, then it will be displayed as "NR" throughout the dashboard.
Data will continue to be updated as non-reporting agencies submit data.
Police Departments used the City Law Enforcement Funding for a variety of projects. In the video linked here, the El Monte Police Department highlights a program involving young people and their parents.
City Law Enforcement Funding - FY 2016-2017
The 2016 Budget Act, Chapter 23, Statutes of 2016, Item 5227-102-0001 allocated $20 million to city police departments to increase positive outcomes between municipal law enforcement and high risk-populations. The grant required recipients to report data, and the Board of State and Community Corrections to compile and report that data to the Legislature by April 1, 2017.
The Budget Act directed the Department of Finance to work collaboratively with the California Police Chiefs Association to develop an allocation schedule that provided a minimum of 60 percent of the total funding to police departments employing 100 or fewer officers and gave further consideration to jurisdictions with:
- high homeless populations and mental illness rates,
- lack of existing resources for these efforts,
- a desire for co-deployment teams, which consist of peace officers with crisis intervention training and either a county mental health professional or health worker, and
- evidence-based programs that have been proven effective in improving interactions between law enforcement and high-risk populations.
That collaboration resulted in the disbursement of funding to 281 city police departments in 53 counties. Provision 2 allowed those departments to use the funds to supplement, but not supplant, the following:
- Homeless outreach teams
- Crisis Intervention Training for officers
- Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT)
- Resources for drug-endangered children
- Outreach to high-risk youth
- Youth diversion programs
- Gang and violence prevention programs.
Finally, Provision 3 required agencies that receive funding to report the following, as applicable:
- The number of new teams established, or planned to be established
- The type of training and the number of peace officers trained, or planned to be trained
- The type of equipment or resources that were purchased, or planned to be purchased
This report provides an alphabetical list of each agency that received funding, how much funding was received, and the description provided to BSCC from each of those agencies about how they used the funds.