Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Our latest headlines

Arnold's Freedom to Choose: Subprime Lending Regulation and the Bubble in California
California and the Nation’s Financial Mess: It’s About Transparency
Conservatives Should Be Appalled by the Iraq War and the Administration’s Other Self-Destructive Policies on Terror
Regarding California’s Deadliest Train Collision: What Was Learned and Done Thus Far and What May Lay Ahead
Three Overlapping Seats Winnable in Central California Blue Wave: Congress, State Senate, and Assembly
Taking a Close Look at Prop 4, Californians Will Vote No—As They Have Two Times When Similar Measures Were on the Ballot
Stuck in Traffic? Think a Moment on How Important High Speed Rail is to California

About Us

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

Books

Reforming Our Prisons in 2008: Can California Get Rational Sentencing and Parole Reforms in the Crucible of the Budget Crisis?

By Frank D. Russo

The outcry over Governor Schwarzenegger’s proposal last week to release 22,000 prisoners as part of a budget deficit reduction plan has drawn some predictable responses—mostly expressions of horror and fear mongering ala Willie Horton about criminals coming to your neighborhood. It came as a shock to Assembly Republicans—and taking a look at what the Governor had to say repeatedly last year about prisoner releases, this is actually very understandable. In fact, the Governor’s proposal has been criticized by leading Democrats such as Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Nunez as being irresponsible and he voiced his opposition last week shortly after the Governor spoke.

The reality is that some prisoners will have to be released early and sentences need to be brought more in line with what is needed to protect Californians. This is either going to happen through a Federal Court order because of overcrowding or through action by the state—in the form of executive orders of the Governor or legislation. Aside from the numbers and categories of criminals to be released early or diverted from the prisons, the biggest flaw in what the Governor has put forth is that those being released will be put on summary probation—meaning none of them will be supervised by a parole agent and in the main they will not receive the help needed to prevent them from committing new crimes and being back in the prison system—if there is room for them in the jails or prisons in the state. While from a financial standpoint we may be saving the $40,000 per year that it costs to incarcerate a criminal, it is penny wise and pound foolish not to spend some fraction of that amount to counsel, supervise, and provide what is needed to keep many of them from returning.

The legislature gavels into a special session today to act on the fiscal emergency declared by the Governor and find ways to deal with a $3 billion shortfall the state faces in the year that ends June 30, 2008. One of the areas they must look at is the ballooning budget of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The rise in this area of the state budget has been meteoric for decades—with a 12% increase in 2006 alone.

And it went up at an even higher rate last year. 2007’s prison construction bill, AB 900, means we will spend an additional $7.4 billion on top of the current annual operating budget of more than $10 billion. A San Francisco Chronicle news article warned last May that: “Based on current spending trends, California's prison budget will overtake spending on the state's universities in five years. No other big state in the country spends close to as much on its prisons compared with universities.”

The 45 days allowed by Proposition 58 for the legislature to act in this special session and the urgency of the situation may bring about some thoughtful policy in this area or it may prove an impossibility and devolve into a new orgy of demagoguery and what our Governor calls “Kabuki theater”—a stylized and ritualized play on the stage of politics where our elected leaders try to prove they are tougher on crime. Given how we have gotten into this mess, with the constant one-upmanship of over 1000 laws passed ratcheting up sentences for all sorts of crimes since 1977 when California switched to a determinate sentencing law scheme (fixed terms rather than leaving some discretion in sentencing and releasing criminals with an eye towards rehabilitation), I am somewhat dubious. California is now responsible for 1 out of every 5 new inmates in the country in prison. Some Republicans in the legislature still don’t get it. Tomorrow, during the regular session, the Assembly Public Safety Committee will take up at least two proposals to increase sentences and add to that list of 1000.

We haven’t seen, yet, the actual language of what the Governor is putting forth, although there should be specifics in the bill that was transmitted to the legislature along with his proclamation of a fiscal emergency under Proposition 58. But if press reports and what Department of Corrections officials are saying are at all accurate, it sounds a bit like Jonathan’s Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.”

From last week’s San Jose Mercury News:

"There is going to be a population that does not spend one day in prison," corrections spokesman Oscar Hidalgo said.

“The department said those convicted of drug offenses, drunken driving, white collar or property crimes such as vehicle theft, grand theft or receiving stolen property likely would serve little or no time.”

James Tilton, Schwarzenegger’s Director of the California Department of Corrections, according to the Sacramento Bee: “said the releases will only be available to inmates classified as non-serious and non-violent who are not sex offenders – including their prior convictions. Qualifying inmates will be placed on summary parole, meaning no supervision, and can be returned to custody only if they get convicted of a new crime and are sentenced to more than 20 months.” [Emphasis added] No time at all if the sentences is less than 20 months? I have a hard time believing this is actually what the Governor is proposing.

While we wait for the details of the Governor’s bill, which will be scrutinized by the legislature and undoubtedly modified, there needs to be some review of what we have known for some time so we don’t repeat the mistakes of the past.

Take a look at “Why Prison Reform Doesn’t Happen” in which former California State Senator Jackie Speier gives this advice:

“Given that 95 percent of inmates will be released from prison within five years, it is critical that rehabilitation efforts affect as many inmates as possible. But, only seven percent of inmates receive alcohol treatment although 42 percent have a high need for treatment. Worse yet, only 2.5 percent of inmates with a serious need for drug treatment actually receive treatment during their time in prison. Again, California recycles rather than rehabilitates men and women who have broken the law.”

Consider what some of the experts in criminology have had to say in “Stanford Report and Recommendations Show Need for a Sentencing Commission in California to Complete Reform Already Under Way”, building on recommendations of many prior reports including that of former prosecutor and Republican Governor George Deukmejian. Pass AB 160 or SB 110—now on the floors of both houses of the legislature—to create a sentencing commission.

Look at the data from the National Council on Crime and Delinquency and consider the report they have released just a few days ago, including this passage:

“The number of released prisoners has increased in California more than in any other state in the nation. In 1980, 11,759 prisoners returned to their communities; less than 25 years later that number is 113,000, an increase of almost 1000%. In the Golden State, 65% of parolees end up back in prison within three years; nationally that figure is only 35%.

“Many released prisoners are ill-equipped to live successful lives. Too often, they have low levels of job training and literacy. As a result of incarceration, they are disenfranchised, barred from public housing, and refused jobs. Facing hopelessness and obstacles, a parolee will often violate probation or commit a new crime and land back in prison.

“The intent of punishing rather than rehabilitating was to "get tough on crime." But in reality, aggressive incarceration without effective reentry programs is inhumane for the prisoner, unsafe for our communities, and extremely expensive for all taxpayers.

“How do we correct a parole system the California Little Hoover Commission called in 2003, "a billion dollar failure?" Successful reentry depends on having a system of services—housing, jobs, mentoring, meals, addiction treatment, and mental health services—in place and immediately available to prisoners returning home. This can be achieved at the community level through the development and implementation of a data-driven, evidence-based strategic plan.”

Consider what other states are doing about prisons: looking at rehabilitation.

Take a look at the San Francisco Chronicle article from 2005, “California's system for parolees called ineffective revolving door”. The time line at the end of this excellent article is very telling of the history we must not repeat:

“1976: 21,088 total prison population, 2,233 parolees returned to prison.

1977 California adopts fixed sentencing, reducing parole board's role in determining when inmates are ready to be released.

1990 A blue-ribbon commission says the prison system compromises public safety by relying so heavily on punishment and recommends drug treatment and work programs for parolees.

1991 Facing a budget crisis, Gov. Pete Wilson orders that parolees who test positive for drug use be sent to treatment instead of prison.

1994 Wilson's parole policy is attacked by rival in governor's race for allowing dangerous parole violators to avoid prison and commit new crimes.

2003 Little Hoover Commission calls California's parole system a "billion-dollar failure," noting that 48 states do a better job helping released convicts re-enter society and stay out of prison.

2004 Schwarzenegger administration announces new programs for parolees. A year later, plagued by poor planning, they are dropped.

2004: 163,939 total prison population, 76,565 parolees returned to prison”

I’m glad to see a change in the Governor’s own rhetoric in the last couple of weeks and his coming to grips with the reality of the state’s swelling prison population. Although he really didn’t answer the question on Thursday when asked if his prison release proposal was budgetary or otherwise, this is what he had to say:

“Q: If the people are sending enough money to Sacramento for state spending, the inmate -- the early inmate release proposal then, is that more of a philosophical thing on your part than budgetary?

“GOVERNOR: No. I think first of all, as you know, we are having parole reforms already on the way. Second of all, we have institutions that were built for 100,000 people and there 172,500 people in there. I think the federal judges are breathing down our neck and saying that we're going to put a cap on you, 140,000 prisoners, that's all you can have in there. So there are all kinds of problems developing.

“Now, it happens to be also at the same time that we have a budget situation where we want to cut across the board. And so therefore when we say across the board, even though some people criticize that, I say that was the fair way to do it, and we really went after every program. Now, of course there are programs that one party enjoys that we are cutting, this program and that program, and another party will enjoy different programs that we are cutting, and one party will be dissatisfied with one program cutting, and all of this will happen.

“This is a budget that doesn't please everybody, I know that for sure. And you will have people coming out of this room afterwards and spinning why this is all terrible. But the bottom line is, I think this is the fairest way to go, and we wanted to show and send a signal that we don't cut back on what is popular amongst Republicans, or cut back of what's popular amongst Democrats. It was across the board.”

Regardless of the reason for his conversion, this is a far cry from what one paper described last September as “trying to whip up opposition to any move by the courts to release thousands of prison inmates before they've completed their sentences.”

Around that time, the Governor’s office put out releases such as this one: “Schwarzenegger Joins with Assembly Republicans, Law Enforcement Officials to Warn of Dangers if Felons are Released into Communities”:

“Public safety is the most important thing to us all, and our communities have the most at stake at this. And this is why we must do absolutely everything that we can to prevent the federal three-judge panel from ordering criminals to be released early out of our prisons. We have sheriffs here, district attorneys, probation officers, Assembly Members, and all of these people think exactly the way we think, and they know exactly what we know, that releasing criminals back into our streets will be a public safety disaster, and it is absolutely unacceptable.

“So I fully support their effort. Public safety has always been my No. 1 priority, and I’m proud to support local law enforcement. We are doing everything, absolutely everything we can, to protect our communities and to make sure that no one is released early because of overcrowding. The only ones that should be released is if they have served their term and if they are safe to go out into society.” [Emphasis added]

One can see the charges next year by demagogues. They will switch their ire from Federal Court Judges to those running for re-election. Just take a look at the Assembly Republican page that begins with the question: “How many dangerous criminals will be on the loose in your neighborhood?” and lots of scary photographs.

It will take Profiles in Courage for Democrats (since probably no Republicans will join in) to heed the words of Democratic President pro Tem Don Perata on the Senate floor last April when the prison construction bill was passed:

“So we’re jammed up in this situation right now because we have fallen in love with one of the most undocumented, nonevidentiary beliefs. And that is somehow you get safer if you put more people in jail.”

Our elected leaders will need to hear from those of us who would like to see the unaffordable and unworkable status quo of the prison-industrial complex challenged. Think about this and contact the Governor and your legislator. The 45 day clock is ticking.

Posted on January 14, 2008

Comments

This is so sensible. I think we need to be just as vocal as the tough-on-crime folks. The only disagreement I have with this article is the quote about spending more on prisons than education. In the governor's proposed budget, he is allocating $10.3 billion for corrections and $43.7 billion for k-12 education with another $14.6 billion for higher education. The $10.3 billion for corrections is additionally augmented with the $7.2 million from AB900.
The tough-on-crime folks always fail to recognize the simple fact that inmates are going to be released one way or the other: either by the 3-judge panel... or the governor.
I hope our democrats can demonstrate political courage and do the right thing.

Posted by: Eileen Tracy at January 15, 2008 08:05 AM

Frank, I think you missed an important factor that sets California apart. That is California's Three Strikes Law.One of every four inmates is a striker.About 26% of the inmate population.California incarcerates 4 times as many strikers than all the other three strikes states in the nation combined.Proof how out of step California is compared to the rest of the nation. 688 persons are serving 25 years to life for simple drug poessession.under CDCR policy none are eligable for a substance abuse program until two years before the end of their sentence.This handful of drug users cost California almost 30 million dollars each year.Re-sentencing and treating this small group of inmates would save California over a half billion dollars.

Posted by: Frank Courser at January 15, 2008 08:46 AM

Eileen, I think the "more on prisons than education" is related to higher education not K-12.

Posted by: Morri1 at January 15, 2008 10:43 AM

One major flaw in the parole system is that very few, if any, parolees are discharged from parole supervision even those who have successfully completed one year of continuous parole. Many parole officers say :business is good. And they are correct. Business is booming and the procedure for discharge, enumerated in the Penal Code, evaporates when a parole officer decides a parolees' prior conviction(s) precludes eligibility for discharge. The concept of "summary parole" is reasonable because it provides a procedure to keep in place a framework of law enforcement. Public safety is not compromised one iota. The State of California should not be compelled to reform felons on the street. The State of California has compromised rehabilitation and in its place is punishment. The prison apparatus should require that a parolee obtain a marketable skill before being released into the community. A series of programs could train felons in 90 days instead of 270 days or one year. While many will decry that 90 days is insufficient, the idea is to communicate a work ethic. A felon preparing for release would be required to submit a "release study plan" to a Correctional Counselor. This plan differs significantly from mere participation in a classroom. A potential parolee shall be required to formulate a workable strategy. This plan is looked at by the parole agent. In this regard, both parolee and parole agent can now share a common goal and objective. Presently, a parole agent looks for technical rule violations and there is only one rule. "Testing". A parole agent does not have a clue as to what a parolee aspires for or what "makes a parolee tick". The "release study plan" gives a parole agent a glimpse at what a parolee looks for. A parole agent and a parolee are two strangers tied together by a file made by the parole agent when the parolee is released. The parole agent snaps a picture of the parolee, punches holes in the "rap sheet" and then an entry is made and conditions reviewed. Nothing is in the file about the plan? The parole agent is lost as to what the parolee intends to do because the requirement of a "release study plan" is missing. The parole agent's responsibility: Registration Requirement and Testing. The parole agent and the parolee are essentially odd bed-fellows because they share nothing in regards to a plan or objective to be reached. In retrospect, if a parole agent had in the file a release study plan, a line of communication is open and the approach for reintegration or the transition back into the commmunity and society at large has meaning. The parole agent has a tool to help shape the parolees aspirations. Rehabilitation is more than a concept, more than a dream, it is a practical and reasonable outlook embracing responsibility for good citizenship. Give the parole agent a handle and reformation begins. T^his is better than a parole agent working with a newly constructed file with a photo and a rap sheet. All potential parolees' have a file and the file contains information about the committment offense. Although many parolees' are successful, there are far too many who fail in the transtion phase. There are are host of reasons for the failure to obtain gainful employment. The objective to assist a parolee can be achieved. This method communicates a vision attainable. The parole agent has something to talk about that is meaningful that the parolee concieved. Crime is not going to be solved by the "release study plan". However, the release study plan is a correctional tool that enables the odd bedfellows to work together. The simplicity of the reintegration plan is that it operates as a mirror because the parole agent becomes law enforcement officer and a concerned person interested in rehabilitation. A parolee taking little steps to reach the goal outlined in the release study plan is real, and the goals are not something hidden secretly within, but a reaonable idea discussed and hopefully realized between them. A release study plan might begin with obtaining food stamps or a bus pass. Each idea communicated opens the door for progress. While criminals will lie, and connive, and venture into waywardness, some parolees will be reached and be discharged from parole. Yes, business can be good and the good can be visualized as it unfolds. Certainly, many plans will be impractical, impossible, and yet many parolees will discover that they can do it. The failures on parole can be reduced. The workload on the parole agent is no greater than it would be if a release study is required of a parolee. Parole agents require assistance and the parolee can be cooperative especially when they understand what responsilities belong to them. Today, parole agents cow parolees into submission because they lack a open line of communication. It is equally important that some training occurs in the prison environment. Nobody is saying that the prison environment is theraputic at all, prison gangs and the number of years imposed as punishment rackle the individual. But our present discussion centers upon rehabilitation. There is no one solution or formula and experts in peneology got agendas which are full of hope and statistics. The prison experiment at massive housing for public safety is successful at massive housing only. I trust I have been successful at articulating a viable approach for understanding the complex problem of parole and the parolee and the parole agent.

Posted by: John Harrison at January 17, 2008 03:05 AM

Posted by: NEALIE at January 17, 2008 09:32 PM

Yep the parole system is all screwed up. I am on parole I have been out for one year. I do not have one single mark against me in my period of parole. Convicted of a DUI in 2005 I served two years in prison (this due to a prior that made the ten year rule by three days), tonight my 'agent' calls me and informs me that the 'board' has decided to retain me on parole for another year. I asked when the hell did that happen? when did I go in front of the board? Why haven't I gotten any notice? as required by law? She states she will call me back, she does and then says that the word isn't official, it wont be until the board makes it official. I ask her how the hell did she come this conclusion? "because my supervisors are reccomending retention". I stated then, that I am entitled to due process and that I have the right to see any and all documnets/reports etc. submitted, further, I am also to be given notice. I also pointed out that we are not in the 13th month so I can't be reviewed until the 13th month which is February. So lets look at something here, I have been gainfully employed since minute one of my release, I have maintained steady housing since day one of my release, I have had full custody of my teenaged son, I have NOT HAD ONE SINGLE mark against me while on parole and to top it all off I purchased my mothers estate (who passed while locked up)of 60 acres with two homes on it for 440 thousand dollars, I have enrolled in the DUI program, I do attend and record weekly AA meetings...what else am I supposed to do? I am actively involved with local and state goverment (to small degree) due to the nature of my job. I have had no involvement with law enforcement prior to this incident (8 years)...so one must wonder? I agree with the above writer, business is indeed good for parole. When I was relaeased my agent told me that I was sleeping on the streets. Isnt that interesting and while incarcerated I fought fires and saved Californians homes, lives, property and livelyhood and in the course of that service to the fine citizens of the state I had an accident with a saw and lost half of my index finger and pretty much made my thumb useless. This while being directly responsible for saving a home on a fire.
This is my reward? another year of you have to pee here, go there, bend over here and can't leave the county? They wonder why the damn prisons are so full? Am I whining? yep, do I deserve to whine? yep, I think so. Given my truthful statements above does it really look like I have a penchant to return to criminal behavoiur? Hope the citizens enjoy paying for my supervision. Hell after the news I got I guess it's a wonder I am remaining sober? or maybe thats the idea. My story is a prolific look at how the CDCR doesn't care. They should be indicted for mafia type of behavoiur. Thanx

Posted by: Macheen Shaughnessy at January 23, 2008 11:09 PM

when are the prisoners going to start getting released?

Posted by: gary v at March 26, 2008 06:27 PM

I'm for the early release of non-violent inmates. Our inmate population is breaking America and hardening our men and women who really don't need to be. Drug users in the prisons who did 3 strikes, they are addicts! Being an addict in my opinion does not make a person a criminal, alcohol is another addiction that even judges, attorneys, doctors face. It's what they do during their addiction that can cause the criminal activity. What has it all come to? Those men and women in prison because of drug addiction, they need to come out and seriously get help. Many addicts have seeked help and gone back out again and again, these people need to keep getting their recovery and working their recovery. Eventually they may get it. But life in prison is a waist of life and money. That money would be better spent on their recovery and while having them in recovery, why not put them to work in the society doing community service while on disability. We need a seperate disabilty program for these people. Theirs should help them while in recovery but still require them to work doing community service while still being supervised. Our money is going to the wrong places. Thank you for allowing me to state my opinion.

Posted by: CindyAnn Austin at March 29, 2008 11:59 PM

Posted by: SAMFLUTCH at September 17, 2008 08:07 PM

Posted by: SAMFLUTCH at September 17, 2008 08:08 PM

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker