Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:48 am
Time: 11:48 am
Results for corrections reform (california)
3 results foundAuthor: Turner, Susan Title: Development of the California Static Risk Assessment Instrument (CSRA) Summary: Beginning in the mid-1990s, various public policy groups have made recommendations concerning reform of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) parole system. The Little Hoover Commission (1994-2007), the Independent Review Panel led by former Governor Deukmejian (2004), and the Expert Panel commissioned by the California Legislature through the 2006-07 Budget Act have all recommended reforms of the system. One of the central features of recommended reform models is a system of structured decision making for parole supervision and violation issues.1 Such a system would make decisions more consistent and amenable to a policy-driven approach. The panels recommended a system that utilized supervision and violation decision matrices that combined risk to re-offend with other factors to guide supervision and treatment. CDCR has incorporated risk and needs assessment in its “Logic Model” – the recently adopted conceptual framework guiding programming and decisions within the Department. Risk/needs assessment plays a key role from the time offenders enter CDCR reception centers through their release on parole in the community. The Department has adopted the Correctional Offender Management and Profiling Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) as their primary risk/needs tool. As of this date, CDCR is in the process of vetting COMPAS through a contract with researchers from the University of California at Los Angeles. In order to expedite the development of a structured decision-making matrix for parole purposes, the Reentry Strike Team commissioned work to develop a risk prediction model based on static risk factors derived from existing data sources at CDCR and the California Department of Justice (DOJ). The UCI Center for Evidence-Based Corrections (CEBC) was asked by CDCR to collaborate with their Office of Research to develop the scale. The Washington State static risk instrument developed by Robert Barnoski (Barnoski and Drake, 2007; Barnoski and Aos, 2003) served as the model for the tool’s development. Robert Barnoski served as a consultant to the project. The project was conducted under a very tight time line. The project began in October, 2007 and produced the California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA) tool by the end of January 2008. This report describes the development and validation of the CSRA. Details: Irvine, CA: Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, The University of California, Irvine, 2009. 39p. Source: Working Paper: Internet Resource: Accessed February 29, 2012 at http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/CSRA%20Working%20Paper.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/CSRA%20Working%20Paper.pdf Shelf Number: 118604 Keywords: Corrections Reform (California)Parole Supervision (California)Parole ViolationsRisk Assessment |
Author: Misczynski, Dean Title: Rethinking the State-Local Relationship: Corrections Summary: California is changing the way it manages its adult prisons and jails more comprehensively than at any time since statehood. The legislature has passed and Governor Jerry Brown has signed legislation (AB 109) to send roughly 30,000 prisoners to county jail rather than state prison. It makes counties responsible for supervising roughly 60,000 offenders released from state prisons after serving their sentences—offenders who would have been supervised by state parole officers in the past. It also makes it more difficult to return parolees to incarceration, and generally sends them to county jail rather than state prison if they are returned. These changes begin to take effect on October 1, 2011. Although nearly uniformly described as a realignment, these changes to California’s correctional system are more than that. To reduce crowding and costs throughout the jail and prison system, this year’s legislation, together with related bills enacted since 2009, reduce the time a prisoner will actually spend in prison (through increased sentence reductions for good behavior), reduce the likelihood of a return to prison for parole violations, increase the likelihood of forms of punishment short of incarceration, and increase the likelihood of early release for at least some prisoners. These changes reflect a long-dormant reality—that tough sentencing laws require money for adequate prisons and jails, more money than California has been willing to raise or spend. California has some experience with realigning corrections programs. An important example is the California Probation Subsidy Act, which was in effect from 1965 through 1978. Under this law, the state calculated the number of convicted felons who were likely to have been punished with jail time and county probation instead of being sent to state prison, based on each county’s historical record. It paid counties $4,000 for each additional convicted felon kept under county jurisdiction above this rate. This reduced state prison costs and overcrowding. The program was effective in that state prison admissions declined by 20 percent by 1970. However, state costs for this program increased rapidly with rising crime rates at the time. Counties complained that funding (which stayed at $4,000 per case) did not cover rapidly inflating program costs. Reformers complained that counties were not providing increased rehabilitative services. Sheriffs complained that keeping these offenders in the community increased local crime. This program is instructive. Perhaps most important is that long-term realignment success requires good-faith adaption to changing circumstances and program experiences—in addition to adequate funding in both the short and long term. This report offers background for this adult corrections realignment effort, briefly describes these complex changes, reviews how they may work out from the perspective of the state and the counties, and identifies important next steps, in terms of implementation and evaluation. Details: San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California, 2011. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 15, 2012 at http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_811DMR.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_811DMR.pdf Shelf Number: 124950 Keywords: Corrections (California)Corrections Reform (California) |
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) |