Running head: SENATE BILL 618

Lessons learned from Senate Bill 618

Shawna Hodge
Columbia Southern University

SENATE BILL 618

Implementation of Senate Bill 618

During the late 1990s, the number of ex-offenders on parole increased throughout the
communities. This was due to the increasing number of prison population that had occurred from
the last thirty years. By 2008, one out of every 100 adults was behind bars and the U.S. held the
highest incarceration rate in the world. In California, the number of individuals was heightened
due to the policies related to parole which resulted in a revolving door for incarceration. The
problem that many prison systems were facing was the lack of rehabilitation for inmates during
their time of incarceration. The lack of funding provided little to no funds for rehabilitation
programs. Their problems were not addressed which led to many of them reoffending and ending
up back into the prison system. With researchers and policymakers across the country noting
these trends and their implications for communities, there was more attention paid to determining
how this revolving door could be stopped for a greater number of individuals, thereby increasing
public safety and ensuring best use of citizens' tax dollars (Mulmat & Burke, 2013). This
eventually led into the creation of the Senate Bill 618 San Diego Prisoner Reentry Program.
The Senate Bill 618 was created by the San Diego districts attorneys office and passed
into law on January 2006 but was discontinued in June 2012 due to budgetary constraints. The
goal of Senate Bill 618 was to create a successful reentry for offenders into the community. The
areas of focus included multidisciplinary input into case planning, utilization of social support,
presentence assessment, and ongoing case management from prison through community reentry.
Men and woman who had a felony for nonviolent crimes, with a prison sentence of seven months
to six years, were able to participate in the program. The program was very unique compared to
the traditional approaches used by the California correctional practices: Needs assessment and
case planning were created before an offender started their sentence. A life plan was then created

SENATE BILL 618

with program staff as well as the offender. They used four different tools to measure the level of
risk of recidivism. The life plan could be modified as needed by the participant throughout the
course of the program. They also had social supports. Offenders were able to meet with a number
of different supporters such as the probation officer, family members, pastors, etc. to ensure that
they were going to be successful in the reintegration process.
The Success of Senate Bill 618
It was up to the San Diego Association of Governments to conduct research as to whether
or not the program was successful or not. When conducting their research, they looked at
whether it was cost effective, recidivism, participant characteristics, etc. The impact of the
program on offender behavior was assessed with respect to four measures of recidivism for the
12-month period following release: parole violations, arrests, convictions and return to prison
(Mulmat & Burke, 2013). It was shown that those in the program were less likely to be rearrested
than the comparison group, however, the reconviction rates of a new offense within the first year
after release were similar. Their findings did suggest that those in the program had fewer parole
violations suggests that the program helped with parole compliance.
The program also helped focus on the needs of the offenders, providing different
programs while still in prison, and different supportive services while in the community. There
was a lower risk rate found in those that participated in the program. It was lowered due to
having a stable housing and employment. Those that were in the treatment group, eighty percent
were living in a stable household and sixty-seven percent were employed. It was also shown that
in the beginning it came with a higher cost compared to those not in the program due to the
necessary programs that were needed. As more time went on, it was starting to save money
because there was less people going back into the prison system once they were released.

SENATE BILL 618

Improving the Outcome of Senate Bill 618

It is possible that recidivism reductions could have been greater if the program had been
implemented in a manner more similar to the original design (Mulmat & Burke, 2013). The
program as a whole was very successful in lowering recidivism. It had been proven that those
that used the program were less likely to reoffend in the future. It had also been proven that it can
be very cost-effective to the traditional treatments that were being used. Many offenders were
also able to find stable housing and employment. This was able to help keep offenders busy and
out of trouble. They had people that they could turn to in the event that they felt like they were
struggling. The most important factors that are responsible for the success of the program are the
referrals by case managers, stable housing and being employed.
The program gave offenders a new chance at life in the short amount of time that is was
being utilized. The program was eventually stopped due to funding being discontinued. The
program proved it was saving money and it lowered the risk of recidivism, yet there was a lack
of funding for the program. It is important to get the offenders on the right track to become
successful people. There should have been budget cuts in other places. There also should have
been more time for the program to give back money rather than stopping it completely. The
program could have also been altered slightly to accommodate the expenses necessary for the
program. Professionals could have set up volunteering services which could have helped.
Ultimately, it was a bad decision to give up on a program that could be not only beneficial to the
offender but to the community as well. The long-term goal is to help these people so that they
can help themselves. They need programs like these so they can stay on track. Hopefully one
day, the program will find its way back into the system to help those that are in need.

SENATE BILL 618

Reference
Mulmat, D. H., & Burke, C. (2013). Addressing offender reentry: Lessons learned from Senate
Bill 618 San Diego prisoner reentry program. Corrections Today, 75(4), 24-27. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/criminaljusticeperiodicals/docview/1437302146/fulltextPDF/10C9B0
10D1704C24PQ/1?accountid=33337