Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:29 am
Time: 3:29 am
Results for prisons (california)
10 results foundAuthor: California. Office of the Inspector General Title: Special Report: August 2009 Riot at the California Institution for Men Summary: The purpose of this special report is to identify the conditions and circumstances leading up to the riot and to evaluate the institution's and the department's actions in addressing the riot and re-establishing normal operations in the riot's aftermath. The report concludes that despite being warned of the inherent risks of housing reception center inmates in the open dormitories of the California Institute for Men in Chico's Reception Center West (CIM), the department took no substantive action to alleviate the security risks in that facility's design. Additionally, the report concludes that although the institutions heeded warnings from past reviews and audits by enhancing its emergency medical preparedness, there are still areas in thich CIM and the department could have improved their performance. Details: San Francisco: California Office of the Inspector General, 2010. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2010 at: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/BAI/reports/Special%20Report%20on%20the%20California%20Institution%20for%20Men%20August%202009%20Riot.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/BAI/reports/Special%20Report%20on%20the%20California%20Institution%20for%20Men%20August%202009%20Riot.pdf Shelf Number: 120177 Keywords: Prison AdministrationPrison RiotsPrisons (California) |
Author: Lindahl, Nicole Title: Intimacy, Manipulation, and the Maintenance of Social Boundaries at San Quentin Prison Summary: San Quentin is an infamous prison in US history, the subject of myths, cautionary tales, and cable network specials. And yet ask the men living inside its walls, and they will insist San Quentin is the best place to do time in California. Beginning in the mid-1990s, San Quentin’s gates were opened to volunteers from the San Francisco Bay Area interested in providing educational and therapeutic programs. The implementation of these programs disrupted the routines and norms governing social relations within San Quentin and provided a rich window into the daily operation of the prison as it responds to pressure. In this paper, I identify and analyze three narratives which surface in the official discourse used by institutional actors to describe the prison environment and compare these narratives with observations of daily life behind San Quentin’s walls. Ultimately, I argue that in contrast to popular portrayals of prisons, which depict prisoners and officers as locked in depraved and antagonistic relationship patterns, the very structure of San Quentin, and perhaps prisons more generally, is highly conducive to the development of intimate bonds between these groups. Details: Berkeley, CA: Institute for the Study of Social Change, Unviersity of California Berkeley, 2011. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: ISSC Fellows Working Papers: Accessed July 26, 2011 at: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/15w491vk?query=lindahl Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/15w491vk?query=lindahl Shelf Number: 122155 Keywords: InmatesPrisonersPrisons (California)RehabilitationSan Quentin |
Author: Ball, W. David Title: Tough on Crime on the State's Dime Summary: California’s prisons are dangerously and unconstitutionally overcrowded; as a result of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Plata v. Schwarzenegger, the state must act to reduce its prison population or face court-ordered prisoner releases. The state’s plans to reduce overcrowding are centered around what it calls criminal justice “realignment”, whereby California will send a portion of the state prison population to county facilities. The plan faces opposition from county officials, who see it as pushing the state’s problem on to the counties. But what if state prison overcrowding is really a county problem? I argue that state prison overcrowding is due in large part to county decisions about how to deal with crime. Using data from 2000-2009, I will show that California’s counties use state prison resources at dramatically different rates, and, moreover, that the counties which use state prisons the most have below-average crime rates. The contribution the Article makes, then, is twofold. First, it reinforces that incarceration in state prisons is one policy choice among many, not an inexorable reaction to violent crime. Counties can and do make different choices about how to respond to violent crime, including the extent to which they use prison. Second, the Article demonstrates why localities are crucial - and critically underexamined - contributors to state prison populations. Decisions are made at local levels about prosecution, investigation, plea bargaining, and sentencing, and these decisions are made by officials who are either elected locally (such as DA’s, judges, and sheriffs) or appointed locally (police and probation officers). Local policies and policymakers affect the state’s corrections budget, even though the state has no say in designing or implementing these policies. State officials must take these local differences into account, and create incentives for counties to behave differently. The problem is that it is difficult to distinguish between justifiable, crime-driven incarceration and optional, policy-driven incarceration. I propose a new metric for distinguishing between these two types of incarceration, one which defines justified incarceration in terms of violent crime. This would allow the state to manage local usage of state prison resources without either penalizing crime-ridden areas or rewarding prison-happy ones. This Article is the first of two articles dealing with the state/county prison relationship. While this Article quantifies the ways in which the extent of local prison admissions is not necessarily a function of the violent crime rate, a second Article will examine whether, given these differences, it makes sense for the state to subsidize county commitments to prison. Details: Unpublished Working Paper, 2011. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 10, 2011 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871427 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871427 Shelf Number: 122349 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyDecision-MakingPrison OvercrowdingPrisons (California)Violent Crime |
Author: 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 |
Author: Magnani, Laura Title: Buried Alive: Long-Term Isolation in California's Youth and Adult Prisons Summary: The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) is launching a national campaign, called STOPMAX, in May 2008, calling for the end of the use of solitary confinement in U.S. prisons. It is the successor of a campaign which Bonnie Kerness, of the New York Metropolitan Region of the AFSC, conducted in the early 1990s, when the development of security housing units was beginning its ascent. In California, the premiere organization to focus on these new maxi maxi prisons has been California Prison Focus (CPF). Under the leadership of Dr. Corey Weinstein, Luis (Bato) Talamantez, Charles Carbone, Georgia Schreiber, Leslie DeBenedetto, Judy Greenspan, and many others, CPF has conducted interviews with prisoners in these units and reported their findings. AFSC owes a great debt to these courageous folks, along with our brothers and sisters inside who are living for years at a time under the extreme conditions described herein. The other debt we owe is to the lawyers and psychiatrists who have challenged prison conditions in California and stuck around for decades to help monitor compliance. That would include the Prison Law Office, Don Specter, Steve Fama, Sara Norman and others, as well as Jane Kahn, of Rosen, Bien & Galvan, and Sarah Chester from the California Appellate Project. On the psychology end of things, Terry Kupers and Craig Haney have both made huge contributions in bringing horrific conditions to light. These folks are our heroes in this work. This is not a story that the public seems to want to hear. However, if we continue to anesthetize ourselves to the horrors being committed in our names, there is no hope for positive change. In May 2007, the AFSC Arizona office published Buried Alive: Solitary Confinement in Arizonas Prisons and Jails. This report is intended to be the California story of isolation in the state prisons and juvenile facilities. Details: Oakland, CA: American Friends Service Committee, 2008. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on December 7, 2011 at: http://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/Buried%20Alive%20%20PMRO%20May08%20.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/Buried%20Alive%20%20PMRO%20May08%20.pdf Shelf Number: 123504 Keywords: Adult CorrectionsJuvenile CorrectionsPrisons (California)Solitary Confinement |
Author: California. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Office of Inspector General Title: Special Report: Inmate Cell Phone Use Endangers Prison Security and Public Safety Summary: According to numerous California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department) officials, the possession of cell phones and electronic communication devices by California’s inmates is one of the most significant problems facing the Department today. Therefore, in February 2009, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) began a review into the proliferation of contraband cell phones in California prisons and how their use puts Department staff, inmates, and the general public at risk. During 2006, correctional officers seized approximately 261 cell phones in the state’s prisons and camps. However, by 2008, that number increased ten-fold to 2,811 with no end in sight. Inmates’ access to cell phone technology facilitates their ability to communicate amongst themselves and their associates outside of prison, to plan prison assaults, plot prison escapes, and orchestrate a myriad of other illegal activity. In addition, these devices can provide an inmate unrestricted and unmonitored access to the Internet, whereby they can communicate with unsuspecting victims, including minors. According to the Department, inmates are paying those involved in smuggling cell phones into California prisons between $500 and $1,000 per phone. There are currently no criminal consequences for the introduction or possession of cell phones in prison, making this activity merely an administrative violation. Furthermore, current security entrance procedures provide ample opportunities for staff and visitors to bring contraband into prison facilities without fear of discovery. Therefore, the introduction of cell phones into state prisons is a low risk, high reward endeavor. In addition to staff, other conduits for smuggling cell phones include visitors, outside accomplices, minimum support facility inmates working outside perimeter fences, and contracted employees. In an effort to combat this growing threat, the Department is supporting legislation making it a crime to introduce or possess cell phones in California’s prisons. Unfortunately, previous efforts to pass similar legislation have failed. In addition, technology that detects or jams cell phone signals is commercially available but potentially expensive and would require federal authorization to place into use. Other detection methods that have been used or are now in sporadic use, such as hands-on searches, metal detectors, and x-ray equipment, are more labor intensive and would require an increase in staffing and funding. Details: Sacramento: Office of the Inspector General, 2009. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2012 at: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/BOI/Special%20Report%20of%20Inmate%20Cell%20Phone%20Use.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/BOI/Special%20Report%20of%20Inmate%20Cell%20Phone%20Use.pdf Shelf Number: 125321 Keywords: Cell PhonesInmatesPrison ContrabandPrisonersPrisons (California) |
Author: California Council on Science and Technology Title: The Efficacy of Managed Access Systems to Intercept Calls from Contraband Cell Phones in California Prisons Summary: This report is in response to a July 7, 2011 letter of request to the California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) from four California State Senators (Senators Elaine Alquist, Loni Hancock, Christine Kehoe and Alex Padilla). As detailed in the front of this report, the senators asked CCST to provide input on the best way to prevent cell phones from getting into the hands of inmates and, if they do, how best to prevent calls from being completed without impairing the ability of prison authorities to make and receive official business cell phone calls. In addition, they asked CCST to undertake a study on the feasibility of Managed Access Systems (MAS) technology as an effective strategy to curtail the use of contraband cell phones in the California State Prisons. In their letter the senators indicated that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) had issued an Invitation for Bid (IFB), for replacement of the Inmate and Wards Telephone System (IWTS) including a requirement and specifications for the installation and operation of a MAS at each of the 33 State Prison sites to combat the problem of contraband cell phones in the California State Prison system. In exchange for the MAS system, the successful bidder/vendor would receive the right to operate and collect revenues from the IWTS landline phone system. Across all of the California prison facilities this IWTS use is estimated to be approximately 99 million minutes of landline calls. The CDCR IFB defines in detail the required parameters for the IWTS and the MAS. Details: Sacramento, CA; California Council on Science and Technology, 2012. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2012 at http://www.ccst.us/publications/2012/2012cell.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.ccst.us/publications/2012/2012cell.pdf Shelf Number: 126411 Keywords: Cell Phones (California)Evaluative StudiesInmatesPrison Contraband (California)PrisonersPrisons (California) |
Author: Males, Mike Title: Beyond Realignment: Counties’ Large Disparities in Imprisonment Underlie Ongoing Prison Crisis Summary: This publication analyzes the changes in state prison commitments by county since the implementation of the Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011 (AB 109), which redirects people convicted of low-level, non-violent crimes from state to county supervision. AB 109, commonly referred to as Realignment, is intended to reduce unconstitutional levels of prison overcrowding, save money, encourage counties to develop and implement best practices and alternatives to incarceration, and reserve state prisons for people convicted of serious offenses. However, while many counties have followed the mandate and dramatically reduced their prison commitments for low-level offenses, others continue to sentence high rates of these offenders to state prison. Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2013. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Brief: Accessed April 6, 2013 at: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Beyond_Realignment_March_2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Beyond_Realignment_March_2013.pdf Shelf Number: 128313 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformPrison OvercrowdingPrison ReformPrisonersPrisons (California) |
Author: California. Office of the Inspector General Title: Central California Women's Facility: Warden Mary Lattimore One-Year Audit Summary: Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found that Warden Mary Lattimore has satisfactorily performed her job as warden at Central California Women's Facility (CCWF). However, our surveys and interviews of prison employees revealed some problems that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and warden should address. Many interviewees and survey respondents voiced concerns that management does not work together as a team and is often fragmented. While many factors can influence the ways that staff and management view themselves, it is clear that Warden Lattimore must further her efforts to build a cohesive team through better communication with her managers. Our review also noted that although CCWF employees rated the prison's safety and security overall as average, CCWF has had riots in the main yard and more use-of-force incidents than in many male institutions. According to the warden and custody staff we interviewed, women's prisons are less violent than comparable men's prisons; moreover, at women's prisons, incidents and fights usually do not result in serious injury to inmates or employees. Yet employees at CCWF frequently use force to maintain security. One alternative identified by the use-of-force committee to decrease the need for force was additional education and training for staff working with mentally disordered inmates so that tensions may be defused without resorting to force. Details: Sacramento, CA: Office of the Inspector General, 2010. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 2, 2014 at: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/ARCHIVE/BOA/Audits/Warden%20Mary%20Lattimore%20One-Year%20Audit%20Central%20California%20Womens%20Facility.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/ARCHIVE/BOA/Audits/Warden%20Mary%20Lattimore%20One-Year%20Audit%20Central%20California%20Womens%20Facility.pdf Shelf Number: 133542 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationPrison AdministrationPrison WardensPrisons (California) |
Author: Austin, James Title: Contra Costa County: A Model for Managing Local Corrections Summary: Before and since Public Safety Realignment, an increasing number of California counties have faced litigation regarding overcrowding, including court-ordered population caps. In light of these pressures, it is important to note successful models for reducing jail populations, costs and recidivism rates. Contra Costa, California's ninth most populous county, offers such a model, especially since the County has crime and arrest rates similar to the rest of the state. Specifically: 1. In Contra Costa County, individuals are incarcerated and placed on probation and parole at a rate that is one-half the rest of the state of California. 2. Before Public Safety Realignment, the County sent only 13% of people convicted of a felony to prison, versus the statewide average of 20%. 3. Over a three-year period, people on felony probation in the County had a recidivism rate of 20% - far lower than the 60% or higher rates statewide found in other studies. 4. Contra Costa County has the state's highest rate of split sentences (when a judge divides a sentence between a jail term and supervised probation). The County splits nine out of 10 sentences (far higher than the 28% state average), which has effectively neutralized the impact of AB 109 on its jail population. 5. Unlike other jurisdictions, Contra Costa County issues shorter probation terms. For example, neighboring Alameda County typically gives a five-year probation term for individuals convicted of a felony crime. In Contra Costa, most probation terms are within the 24-36 month range, matching a growing body of evidence that longer terms can not only be unnecessary (for public safety gains) but actually can have negative effects. Details: Denver, CO: JFA Institute, 2014. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 14, 2014 at: http://www.jfa-associates.com/new%20from/JFA%20doc06.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.jfa-associates.com/new%20from/JFA%20doc06.pdf Shelf Number: 134089 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCriminal Justice PolicyJailsPrisons (California)Public Safety Realignment |