By Jodie M. Dewey , Patrick Hibbard , Dennis P. Watson , Juleigh Nowinski Konchak and Keiki Hinami 

Roughly 24–36% of people who are incarcerated in the U.S. are formally diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD). Once released, individuals involved with the criminal legal system (CLS) face increased risks of return to use and fatality and are 129 times more likely to die from an overdose within the first two weeks of release compared to those without CLS involvement. People who are CLS-involved and who are seeking a recovery living environment can access temporary stable housing through recovery homes. However, entering a recovery home can be difficult due to fragmentation among recovery housing organizations and their non-uniform application and screening procedures. A navigation pilot program was implemented to provide clients with recovery home placement advice, pre-screening, and referrals in Cook County, IL. Existing research on recovery homes has rarely examined the importance of recovery housing navigation for enhancing service engagement among CLS-involved individuals receiving medications for OUD. Methods.   Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 22 clients and three recovery housing navigators as part of a program evaluation of the navigation program pilot. Qualitative software was used to organize and qualitatively analyze transcripts through several rounds of coding producing emergent themes, which were then triangulated, and expanded using navigator data. Results.  Clients seeking recovery home services reported multiple prior challenges securing safe and supportive recovery living environments. Despite low initial expectations, clients described their interactions with housing navigators in favorable terms and felt navigators worked with them effectively to identify and meet their housing and substance use needs in a timely manner. Clients also commented on their partnerships with the navigator throughout the process. Interactions with navigators also calmed fears of rejection many clients had previously experienced and still harbored about the process, which bolstered client-navigator relationships and client motivation to engage with additional services. 

Health Justice 2024 Sep 14;12(1):37

By: Omair Gill, Mia Bird, Johanna Lacoe, Molly Pickard, Steven Raphael and Alissa Skog

Consecutive sentencing is a practice where people serve sentences for separate convictions sequentially rather than concurrently. We analyze the application of consecutive sentences among all people admitted to California’s prisons since 2015, as well as the population of people incarcerated as of March 2023. KEY FINDINGS: • Frequency. Most prison admissions (56%) are ineligible for consecutive sentencing because they do not involve convictions for multiple offenses. Among admissions with multiple convictions, half (51%) receive consecutive sentences. In total, consecutive sentences are applied to less than a quarter of prison admissions in California (22%). • Contribution to sentence length. Overall, the time added by consecutive sentences increases the average prison sentence of the entire prison population by 8.5 months (roughly 13%). ◦ Among those admitted with consecutive sentences, it increases the average sentence by 35%, or three years (from 8.6 to 11.6 years). ◦ Consecutive sentences typically involve either the full sentence for an additional offense tagged on to the primary sentence or an additional sentence equal to one-third the prescribed sentence for the lesser ofense. While only 20% of consecutive sentences are for full additional prison terms (80% are for one-third terms), full-term sentences account for roughly 70% of the additional sentence years added through consecutive sentences since 2015. • Contributing factors. Among cases with multiple convictions, consecutive sentences are more likely to be applied when criminal cases involve offenses that occurred in multiple counties, the offenses are serious or violent, the most serious offense is a crime against a person, or the individual has prior prison admissions for serious or violent crimes. ◦ Multivariate models show that the likelihood of a consecutive sentence increases with the number of prior prison admissions, number of convictions, and age of the person admitted. People admitted with second- and third-strike enhancements are more likely (by roughly 12 to 18 percentage points) to receive consecutive sentences relative to admissions with multiple convictions without these enhancements ◦ Offenses receiving one-third consecutive sentences are more likely to involve property offenses, weapons offenses, as well as offenses like evading a police officer or identity theft. By contrast, the offenses receiving full-term consecutive sentences often involve crimes against a person, child victims, and various sex offenses. • County variation. The use of consecutive sentences varies across the state. Counties in far Northern California, excluding the coast, as well as those in the Central Valley, are more likely to impose consecutive sentences. Bay Area counties and most counties in Southern California are less likely to impose consecutive sentences. ◦ Average differences across counties in the types of cases resulting in a prison admission do not explain cross-county differences in the use of consecutive sentencing. ◦ American Indian/Alaskan Native and White people are more likely to receive consecutive sentences largely because they tend to be convicted in counties that are more likely to use consecutive sentencing. The opposite is true for Black, Hispanic, and Asian people. .   

Los Angeles: California Policy Lab, 2024. 39p.