Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:48 pm
Time: 8:48 pm
Results for -prison administration
1 results foundAuthor: California State Auditor. Bureau of State Audits Title: Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: The Benefits of Its Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions Program Are Uncertain Summary: The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Corrections) intends to use the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) software to help identify factors that cause inmates to commit crimes, so they can participate in such rehabilitative programs as substance abuse treatment or vocational education to reduce their likelihood of reoffending, thereby reducing overcrowding in the State’s prisons. California’s high recidivism rates and difficulties with prison overcrowding are well documented. In its October 2010 outcome evaluation report, Corrections reported that 67.5 percent of all felons released during fiscal year 2005–06 returned to prison within three years. Further, in May 2011 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling upholding the authority of a lower court to require that California reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of the design capacity of its correctional institutions. As of June 30, 2011, Corrections had more than 144,000 inmates in its various institutions, which were designed to accommodate only 80,000. However, the prospects that COMPAS will play a meaningful role in helping Corrections ultimately reduce prison overcrowding and lower its recidivism rates are, at best, uncertain. Corrections uses gender-specific versions of two different COMPAS assessments. The COMPAS core assessment identifies the needs of inmates entering the prison system, while the COMPAS reentry assessment evaluates inmates who are about to reenter society on parole. Our review found Corrections’ use of COMPAS during its parole planning process is not consistently enforced, while its use in reception centers — where inmates are initially evaluated and assigned to a prison — does not appear to affect decisions on prison assignments and, by extension, the rehabilitative programs inmates might access at those facilities. Corrections’ process at its 12 reception centers for assigning inmates to prisons is complex and considers factors such as an inmate’s history of violence, medical needs, gang affiliations, and the available bed space at suitable facilities that can accommodate the inmate’s security requirements. Our observations at one reception center and discussions with Corrections’ staff at seven others revealed that prison assignments are often not based on COMPAS. Instead, the inmate’s security level and the weekly placement restrictions imposed by Corrections’ Population Management Unit — the unit responsible for coordinating inmate movement within the prison system — are the primary determinants of prison assignment. Details: Sacramento: California State Auditor, 2011. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 10, 2011 at: http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2010-124.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2010-124.pdf Shelf Number: 122680 Keywords: -Prison AdministrationCorrectional InstitutionsCorrectional ProgramsParolePrison Over-crowdingPrisoner RehabilitationPrisons (California)Recidivism |