Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:30 am
Time: 3:30 am
Results for correctional programs (california)
2 results foundAuthor: Chapman, Steven F. Title: Evaluation of the Behavior Modification Unit Pilot Program at High Desert State Prison Summary: The Behavior Modification Unit (BMU) Pilot Program was implemented at High Desert State Prison (HDSP) on November 21, 2005. This program was developed and implemented to respond to disruptive inmate behavior that was not serious enough to warrant placement in the Administrative Segregation Unit (ASU) or Security Housing Unit (SHU), but was disruptive to the general population. The BMU was designed to provide alternative general population housing and programming for inmates deemed program failures. The goals of the BMU program are to: • modify recalcitrant inmate behavior, • eliminate and reduce the opportunity to repeat the behavior, and • provide non-disruptive inmates the ability to participate in programming without continual interruptions. Inmates are eligible for placement into the BMU if they fall into any of the five following categories: 1. Program failure, 2. SHUable offense per California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section 3341.5, 3. Organized criminal activity, 4. Refusal to double cell or participate in the department’s racial integration program, or 5. Indecent exposure. The Institutional Classification Committee (ICC) or Unit Classification Committee (UCC) has the responsibility of placing inmates into the BMU program who meet placement criteria. Inmates are initially placed in Work Group C, in which inmates receive zero work credit, and Privilege Group C, in which inmates’ personal privileges are limited, for at least 90 days. Subsequent BMU placements are for a minimum of 180 days. Upon placement in the BMU, inmates forfeit most personal property, including appliances. A total of 164 inmates were placed in the BMU program at HDSP during the period between November 21, 2005, and July 31, 2007. The findings indicate that the BMU program was associated with a reduction in the recalcitrant behavior of the 76 inmates who successfully completed the program and were present at HDSP for at least one month before entering and one month after completing the program. Specifically, the inmates who completed the BMU program had almost six times fewer Rules Violation Reports after completing the BMU program than before entering it. However, the results also suggest that, for the 137 inmates who were placed in the BMU and were present at HDSP for at least one month before and one month after entering the program, it was not effective in reducing recalcitrant behavior. Although these findings are encouraging, it is important to note that, due to the quasi-experimental nature of the research design, it is not possible to attribute the observed positive effects to participation in the BMU program. Because it was not feasible to randomly assign inmates to the program, the observed effects might have been due to events unrelated to it (e.g., changes in institution policy, correctional staff behavior toward inmates, or inmate behavior not directly related to the BMU program). Details: Sacramento: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Office of Research, Adult Research Branch, 2008. 81p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 15, 2011 at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/Behavior%20Modifcation%20Unit%20Evaluation%20July%202008.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/Behavior%20Modifcation%20Unit%20Evaluation%20July%202008.pdf Shelf Number: 121360 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCorrectional Programs (California)Inmate BehaviorInmate DisciplinePrisoners |
Author: California. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation Title: The Future of California Corrections: A blueprint to save billions of dollars, end federal court oversight and improve the prison system Summary: For years, California’s prison system has faced costly and seemingly endless challenges. Decades-old class-action lawsuits challenge the adequacy of critical parts of its operations, including its health care system, its parole-revocation process, and its ability to accommodate inmates with disabilities. In one case, a federal court seized control over the prison medical care system and appointed a Receiver to manage its operations. The Receiver remains in place today. The state’s difficulty in addressing the prison system’s multiple challenges was exacerbated by an inmate population that—until recently—had been growing at an unsustainable pace. Overcrowded prison conditions culminated in a ruling last year by the United States Supreme Court ordering the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to reduce its prison population by tens of thousands of inmates by June 2013. At the same time that prison problems were growing, California’s budget was becoming increasingly imbalanced. By 2011, California faced a $26.6 billion General Fund budget deficit, in part because the department’s budget had grown from $5 billion to over $9 billion in a decade. To achieve budgetary savings and comply with federal court requirements, the Governor proposed, and the Legislature passed, landmark prison realignment legislation to ease prison crowding and reduce the department’s budget by 18 percent. Realignment created and funded a community-based correctional program where lower-level offenders remain under the jurisdiction of county governments. In the six months that realignment has been in effect, the state prison population has dropped considerably—by approximately 22,000 inmates. This reduction in population is laying the groundwork for sustainable solutions. But realignment alone cannot fully satisfy the Supreme Court’s order or meet the department’s other multi-faceted challenges. This plan builds upon the changes brought by realignment, and delineates, for the first time, a clear and comprehensive plan for the department to save billions of dollars by achieving its targeted budget reductions, satisfying the Supreme Court’s ruling, and getting the department out from under the burden of expensive federal court oversight. Details: CA: California Department of Corrections & Rehabilition, 2012. 244p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 7, 2012 at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/2012plan/docs/plan/complete.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/2012plan/docs/plan/complete.pdf Shelf Number: 125339 Keywords: Correctional Administration (California)Correctional Health Care (California)Correctional Programs (California)Corrections (California)Corrections Reform (California)Parole (California) |