Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:13 pm
Time: 8:13 pm
Results for parole (california)
3 results foundAuthor: Taylor, Mac Title: The 2012-13 Budget: Refocusing CDCR After The 2011 Realignment Summary: In 2011, the state enacted several bills to “realign” to county governments the responsibility for certain low-level offenders, parolees, and parole violators. These changes will result in significant reductions in the inmate and parole populations managed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). These reductions will have various implications for how CDCR manages its prison and parole system. In 2011, the state enacted several bills to realign to county governments the responsibility for managing and supervising certain felon offenders who previously had been eligible for state prison and parole. Over the next few years, these changes will result in significant reductions in the inmate and parole populations managed by CDCR. The purpose of this report, which is the second of a two-part series examining the impacts of the 2011 realignment on California’s criminal justice system, is to identify the impacts of the realignment of adult offenders on CDCR’s operations and facility needs. Specifically, this report discusses whether realignment will enable the state to meet the prison population limit required by the federal court, and how the state should proceed if it appears that these limits will be missed in the time line specified by the court. In addition, the report discusses how the change in the makeup of CDCR’s inmate population following realignment will affect its housing, mental health, and medical facility needs, and provides recommendations on how to better match CDCR facilities with the remaining inmate population. We also discuss how realignment will impact the state’s fire camp program and how the state can ensure that this program continues to yield its full benefit following realignment. Finally, we describe how realignment will affect the need for rehabilitation programs and how to better match these programs to the needs of the remaining inmates and parolees. Details: California: Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), 2012. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 15, 2012 at http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis/2012/crim_justice/cdcr-022312.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis/2012/crim_justice/cdcr-022312.pdf Shelf Number: 124966 Keywords: Corrections AdministrationInmatesParole (California)Parole Supervision |
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) |
Author: Turner, Susan Title: The Impact of the California Parole Supervision and Reintegration Model (CPSRM) Pilot Implementation on Parole Agent Attitudes Summary: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) currently supervises approximately 125,000 offenders on post-release supervision, or parole. California's rate of parolees per population, currently 438 per 100,000 residents, is much higher than the national average of 315 (Glaze & Bonczar, 2009). This is due in part to the large prison population in California, which results in a large number of offenders released to community supervision at the completion of their sentences. Two sentencing decisions contribute to California's higher-than-average number of parolees. First, determinate sentencing laws introduced in 1976 resulted in fixed sentences of imprisonment for particular crimes, followed by mandatory release. This compares with a system of indeterminate sentencing, applied in some states, which sets minimum and maximum terms but leaves the release decision to parole boards (discretionary release). Second, California historically has released all prisoners to a period of supervised parole, usually for three years, rather than reserving supervision for some offenders and releasing offenders assessed to be a lower risk to the community with no supervision requirements. With so many offenders under parole supervision, inevitably many parolees violate parole, either by committing a new offense or through technical violations of their parole conditions (e.g., failing a drug test or missing a meeting with their parole agent). The return to custody (RTC) rate for a parolee in California is 66%, nearly twice the national average (Fischer, 2005), and on any given day, six out of ten prison admissions in California are returning parolees (Grattet, Petersilia, & Lin, 2008). In recent years, reviews of the corrections system in California have recommended reforms to implement evidence-based practices (EBP) into corrections policy. One common suggestion has been the targeting of parole supervision and treatment resources to those offenders most at risk of reoffending (Little Hoover Commission, 2007; Burke, 2009). Two recent legislative changes have altered California's parole system significantly. First, Senate Bill 3X 18 (Penal Code Section 3000.03), effective January 25th 2010, introduced Non-Revocable Parole (NRP), which placed ‘lower risk, low stakes' offenders into the community with no parole supervision or parole conditions, but still subject to warrantless search and seizure by law enforcement. To be eligible for NRP, offenders must have no prior serious or violent felonies, a low or moderate California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA) risk score, and not be required to register as a sex offender. Consequently, parole resources were targeted toward those offenders with a higher risk to reoffend who were most in need of assistance with reentry. Second, legislation changed the funding of agent caseloads, reducing caseloads from a funding ratio of 70 cases per agent down to 48:1. These two changes - the removal of a proportion of offenders from parole caseloads and the potential to lower the number of cases that each agent supervised - resulted in a unique opportunity for DAPO management to reconsider the way it supervised offenders to incorporate recent developments in EBP research and ‘best practice’ policies being introduced by colleague agencies elsewhere. In October 2009, DAPO convened a Parole Reform Task Force (PRTF) to recommend new policies and procedures in light of research findings and supervision methods used in other jurisdictions. The PRTF comprised 19 representatives from DAPO Headquarters and all four parole regions, and included ranks of Parole Agent 1 (‘rank and file’ parole agents), PA2 (Assistant Unit Supervisors), and PA3 (Unit Supervisors), in addition to Parole Administrators, Deputy Regional Administrators, and Regional Administrators. The Task Force met weekly through January 2010 and produced a report describing the new parole model, called the California Parole Supervision and Reintegration Model (CPSRM). The CPSRM represented a significant change to the way DAPO supervised offenders post-release. Sections in the Task Force report (i.e., pre-release planning, case management, case conferences, quality of supervision, agent workload, programming, parolee rewards and incentives, and parolee discharge procedures) carefully documented relevant research findings in support of the new practices outlined. At the crux of CPSRM was a move away from a ‘surveillance’ model of supervision towards an approach that emphasized both the quality of supervision, and the engagement of the parolee in the supervision process. Agents were trained in Motivational Interviewing (MI) techniques and used detailed comprehensive interviews to identify the criminogenic needs of parolees. These criminogenic needs formed the basis of the parolee’s case plan. Parolees were encouraged to identify tangible, small steps they could take every month in order to address these needs, and these tasks were written down in a Goals Report. Parolees were now invited to attend Case Conference Reviews in which their case plan was discussed; early discharge from parole was based in part on the level of commitment shown by the parolee in taking a more active role in his/her supervision. Based on the PRTF report a comprehensive DAPO policy manual was developed. Current plans are that CPSRM will roll out state-wide. Prior to its widespread implementation, a pilot implementation took place at four parole units in order to test policies in the field and make adjustments based on agent feedback. This report presents findings from surveys of parole agent attitudes during the CPSRM pilot implementation process. Details: Irvine, CA: Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, University of California, Irvine, 2011. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: accessed February 15, 2013 at: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/The%20impact%20of%20CPSRM%20pilot%20implementation%20on%20parole%20agent%20attitudes.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/The%20impact%20of%20CPSRM%20pilot%20implementation%20on%20parole%20agent%20attitudes.pdf Shelf Number: 127422 Keywords: Intensive SupervisionParole (California)Parole OfficersParole ReformParoleesPrisoner Reintegration |