Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:15 pm
Time: 9:15 pm
Results for parolees (california)
6 results foundAuthor: Grattat, Ryken Title: Parole Violations and Revocations in California Summary: This study examines parole violations and revocations in California based on the number of adults on parole at any point during the calendar years 2003 and 2004. The study is designed to generate concrete policy recommendations for the state. Details: Unpublished report to the U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2008. 150p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 21, 2010 at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/224521.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/224521.pdf Shelf Number: 113075 Keywords: Parole RevocationsParole ViolationsParolees (California) |
Author: Korber, Dorothy Title: ‘ A Courtroom Unlike Any Other’ Santa Clara County’s Parolee Reentry Court is a Case Study in Reducing Prison Recidivism Summary: The judge ran through his afternoon calendar at a sprinter’s pace. More than 50 cases cycled through the court in three hours – all of them parolees with a violation. Dirty drug tests. Missed appointments. New crimes. Such lapses normally would have sent them straight back to state prison. But today, instead of a prison cell, they are in Judge Stephen Manley’s crowded, bustling San Jose courtroom. This is Santa Clara County’s Parolee Reentry Court, where high-risk offenders get a second chance at redemption. If it works, everybody wins: the parolee rebuilds his life, his community is safer, and taxpayers save the thousands of dollars it would cost to return him to prison. If it fails, he is one more statistic in California’s dismal recidivism rate. California has the worst record in the nation for re-incarcerating parolees, with nearly 70 percent returning to prison within three years of release. To address this problem, in 2009 the Legislature passed Senate Bill x3 18, which created a pilot program testing whether a drug-court model can reduce recidivism. Santa Clara is one of six counties participating in the pilot. The aim of these Parolee Reentry Courts is to stop the swinging prison door. Details: Sacramento: California Senate Office of Oversight and Outcomes, 2011. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 14, 2011 at: http://www.momentumformentalhealth.org/document.doc?id=39 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.momentumformentalhealth.org/document.doc?id=39 Shelf Number: 122054 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCourtsParoleParole SupervisionParolees (California)RecidivismReentry |
Author: Grella, Christine Title: Female Offender Treatment and Employment Project (FOTEP) Final Evaluation Report FY 2003-2006 Summary: The Female Offender Treatment and Employment Project (FOTEP) was initiated in 1999, following legislation requiring the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to provide intensive training and counseling services for female parolees. The goal of FOTEP is to assist female parolees in their successful reintegration into the community following their completion of an in-prison therapeutic community substance abuse program (SAP) and discharge from prison. The FOTEP aims to promote recovery, to improve parenting skills and foster family reunification, and to assist participants in entering the workforce. Details: California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 2008. 10p. Source: FOTEP Final Evaluation Report, FY03-06 DRAFT: Internet Resource: Accessed May 13, 2012 at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/DARS/docs/FOTEP_EvalRpt_06.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/DARS/docs/FOTEP_EvalRpt_06.pdf Shelf Number: 125245 Keywords: Community-based CorrectionsFemale Offenders (California)Parolees (California)ReintegrationVocational Education and Training |
Author: California. Department of Corrections. Office of the Inspector General Title: Special Report: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Supervision of Parolee Phillip Garrido Summary: On June 10, 1991, federal parolee Phillip Garrido and his wife Nancy allegedly kidnapped 11-year-old Jaycee Dugard from South Lake Tahoe, California. Over the course of the following 18 years, Garrido reportedly sexually assaulted Jaycee–fathering two children–while holding her captive on the grounds of his residence in Antioch, California. For many of those years, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (department) parole division supervised Garrido. Despite numerous clues and opportunities, the department, as well as federal and local law enforcement, failed to detect Garrido’s criminal conduct, and victimization of Jaycee and her two daughters. On August 26, 2009, Garrido heinous crimes, and Jaycee was reunited with her family. In 1977, Garrido was convicted in state and federal court for kidnapping and repeatedly raping a 25-year-old female victim. The federal court sentenced him to 50 years for kidnapping while Nevada imposed a five years to life term for forcible rape. In January 1988, after serving 11 years of his federal sentence, the federal government paroled Garrido and released him to Nevada authorities to serve his state sentence. Seven months later, Nevada paroled Garrido, returning him to the jurisdiction of federal parole authorities to serve the remainder of his federal parole term. He resided at his mother’s house in Antioch, California throughout the terms of his federal and state paroles. In March 1999, the federal government discharged Garrido from federal parole, returning him to the jurisdiction of Nevada parole authorities. In June 1999, under the terms of an interstate parole compact, the department assumed parole supervision of Garrido on Nevada’s behalf because Garrido resided in California. On August 27, 2009, the day after the arrest of Garrido and his wife, the department held a press conference in which an official hailed the diligence of parole agents who had supervised Garrido. The official also proclaimed that Garrido had complied with his parole conditions, never receiving a violation. Other department officials have made similar public statements. While it is true that Garrido’s California parole was never officially violated, our review shows that Garrido committed numerous parole violations and that the department failed to properly supervise Garrido and missed numerous opportunities to discover his victims. The focus of this special report is limited to the department’s parole supervision of Garrido. However, it should be noted that Garrido was on parole under the jurisdiction of federal parole authorities from August 1988 to January 1999. During that time, Garrido allegedly kidnapped Jaycee Dugard and sexually assaulted her, fathering two children. Federal parole authorities also failed to detect Garrido’s criminal conduct and his victims. Details: Sacramento: Office of the Inspector General, 2009. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2012 at: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/BOI/Special%20Report%20on%20CDCRs%20Supervision%20of%20Parolee%20Phillip%20Garrido.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/BOI/Special%20Report%20on%20CDCRs%20Supervision%20of%20Parolee%20Phillip%20Garrido.pdf Shelf Number: 125318 Keywords: Offender SupervisionParolees (California)Sex Offenders |
Author: California. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Office of Inspector General Title: Special Report: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Supervision of John Gardner Summary: On May 14, 2010, John Gardner was sentenced to state prison for life without the possibility of parole for the rapes and murders of 14-year-old Amber Dubois and 17-year-old Chelsea King, and for the assault on 23-year-old Candice Moncayo with the intent to commit rape. Each of these heinous crimes occurred subsequent to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (department) September 2008 discharge of Gardner after he completed a three-year parole term for sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl in 2000. Our review revealed that during Gardner’s parole supervision, the department did not identify his aberrant behavior, including unlawfully entering the grounds of a state prison—a felony—as well as numerous instances of violating the conditions of his parole. Had the department aggressively monitored Gardner’s GPS data during parole, it would have identified his criminal act and parole violations, enabling the department to refer them for appropriate action. Successful prosecution of Gardner’s crime and administrative action in response to his parole violations would have sent Gardner back to prison, making it impossible for him to murder the two young girls and commit the attempted sexual assault. Indeed, the San Diego District Attorney advised us that had the department brought to her attention Gardner’s criminal act of entering the grounds of a state prison, she would have charged Gardner with a third-strike felony, which, if Gardner were convicted, could have resulted in his serving a 25-years-to-life sentence. The department did not identify Gardner’s crime and parole violations because even though it placed a GPS monitoring device on Gardner in September 2007, it did not require parole agents to review the GPS data associated with the device. We identified this weakness in our November 2009 special report titled The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Supervision of Parolee Phillip Garrido. In March 2010, the department issued a GPS monitoring policy that requires parole agents to periodically review GPS data for parolees such as Gardner. Nonetheless, the new passive GPS policy, although improved, remains deficient in meeting the department’s goal of aggressively monitoring all sex offender parolees. Under its provisions, the department remains unlikely to have detected crimes such as Gardner’s felony or many of his parole violations. The department’s current policy still ignores 87 percent of the GPS data collected for parolees such as Gardner. The policy also limits the time that parole agents spend in the field by imposing on parole agents laborious GPS data review techniques. However, by using Criminal Intelligence Specialists and better review techniques, the department could free up parole agents’ time, thereby enhancing public safety through effective parole supervision. These specialists could forward to parole agents any GPS data that requires further review and action. Finally, the department could also be more effective if it used the GPS system’s zonemonitoring capacity to a greater extent and realigned some of the responsibilities for reviewing the alerts that the zones produce. Details: Sacramento: Office of the Inspector General, 2010. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2012 at: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/BOI/Special%20Report%20on%20CDCRs%20Supervision%20of%20John%20Gardner.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/BOI/Special%20Report%20on%20CDCRs%20Supervision%20of%20John%20Gardner.pdf Shelf Number: 125320 Keywords: Offender MonitoringOffender SupervisionParolees (California)Violent Offenders |
Author: Murphy, Amy Title: Parole Violation Decision-Making Instrument (PVDMI) Process Evaluation Summary: California currently has the nation’s largest prison population (about 167,000 prisoners) (CDCR, 2009), and while some other state prison populations have declined in recent years, California’s continues to increase (Petersilia, 2008). Its prison expenditures are among the highest in the nation—per inmate, per staff, and as a share of the overall state budget. In spite of vast expenditures, California prisons remain dangerously overcrowded (now at 200 percent of inmate capacity), and a federal court has issued an Opinion and Order to reduce the number of inmates by over 40,000 (Grattet, et. al., 2008). Rehabilitation has also been scaled back, as classrooms have been converted to living space. California’s Expert Panel on Rehabilitation recently reported that nearly 50 percent of all prisoners released in 2006 sat idle—meaning they did not participate in any work assignment or rehabilitation program for their entire time in prison (California Expert Panel on Adult Offender Recidivism Reduction Programming, 2007). Two-thirds (66 percent) of all parolees return to prison within three years, nearly twice the average rate nationally (Grattet, et. al., 2008). Because of this high rate of failure, parolees comprise much of the prison admissions in California, accounting for nearly two-thirds (66 percent) of all persons admitted to California prisons in 2007 (Grattet, et. al., 2008). Over the last 20 years, the number of parole revocations has increased 30-fold in California, compared with a six-fold increase nationally (Travis, 2003). As an effort to address parolees’ high rates of recidivism and returns to custody, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) introduced and piloted the Parole Violations Decision-Making Instrument (PVDMI) in 2008-9, two years after the initial planning for the tool began. The PVDMI is a tool that uses parolee risk level and violation severity to make recommendations on addressing parole violations. This type of reform, using structured decision-making tools in parole practice, had been recommended by several public policy forums in California. The pilot took place over 90 days in four parole units, and the PVDMI was then implemented across the state. Details: Irvine, CA: Center for Evidence-Based Corrections The University of California, Irvine, 2009 (Revised February 2010). 82p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: Accessed March 15, 2013 at: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/PVDMI.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/PVDMI.pdf Shelf Number: 118614 Keywords: Decision-MakingParole RevocationsParole ViolationsParolees (California)Risk Assessment |