Re-entry Program for Women Parolees

As reported on the CDCR website, the first cohort of female parolees is graduating from the Female Residential Multi-Service Center (FRMSC) in Sacramento. The FRMSC, founded a year ago, is the first of its kind in California and provides gender specific programs (the need for which was so eloquently explained by Barbara Bloom a while ago) and services for female parolees. Here’s more about the program:

Twenty-five women can stay at the center from six months to a year. They are referred to the FRMSC from a parole agent or the Board of Parole Hearings upon release from prison, or in lieu of returning to prison for a violation.

The FRMSC offers a variety of gender responsive services including case management, trauma treatment, substance abuse and domestic violence education, life skills development, family focused services, parenting classes, educational services, GED preparation, vocational training and family reunification services.

…

When a woman arrives to the FRMSC she is assessed by the treatment team which includes an alcohol and drug counselor, family therapist, program director, vocational developer and parole agent. She is then evaluated in the following areas: substance abuse history, traumatic life events, family history, housing needs, legal issues, medical issues, employment and educational history. Based on these assessments, the team will identify strengths and needs and will try to maximize the potential of each individual woman.

…

In order to graduate from the FRMSC program, women either must be employed, enrolled in a vocational training program, or taking college courses. Also, graduates must have a stable place to live.

And true to the spirit of humonetarianism –

Housing a woman at an FRMSC is cheaper than the average cost of housing her in prison. It costs approximately $109 per day at the FRMSC compared to $126 per day at an institution.

Let’s Do Something


After a series of legal struggles, Troy Davis’ life is in danger again.

The 11th Circuit denied his request for a new trial, rejecting his argument of actual innocence.

This is not a California issue, but it concerns all of us. May 19 has been declared a Global Day of Action for Troy Davis. Whatever you think about the death penalty, please read more about this case, and if you have a feeling, as I do, that something very wrong is about to happen, let’s do something.

State Senate Panel Approval: Progress in Cate’s Confirmation

A State Senate Panel has voted to confirm Cate as CDCR secretary, but the conversation included some difficult questions, as reported in the Sac Bee and in the Daily Roundup from Capitol Weekly.

The vote came after Cate complied with a request to submit a “benchmarks” report to members setting rehabilitation and education goals.

Steinberg called Cate “the right person for the job” but said the secretary would need “a lot of help.”

. . .

Steinberg asked why, out of a population of 155,000 in traditional state prisons, Cate’s goal is to have only 15,837 prisoners in academic classes by June 2010.

“It does beg the question: What about the rest of the inmates?” Steinberg said.

. . .

Steinberg also asked about Cate’s goal to have 300 mentally ill parolees receiving comprehensive housing and mental health services by June 2010.

Right now, about 22,000 parolees receive limited services at clinics, but no parolees are in a comprehensive program.

Cate, whose resume includes extensive prosecutorial experience, spoke at our conference last month about the difficulties and expenses involved in making programs available to prisoners. He now has his hands full implementing his plan for making $400,000,000 budget cuts.

Sentencing Commission Bill: Vaguer Definitions

At the request of one of our readers (thanks, Tom!) , we’re posting some more information about the legislative proposal to create a California Sentencing Commission. At our conference in March, Kara Dansky, Executive Director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, discussed the potential for reform using a commission, as well as answered some possible critiques of the idea. For more on that, here is her review from a while back on the California Progress Report. 

Here is the proposal itself, from Assembly Member Bass, after a few changes made in mid-April. As you’ll see when you read it, the main change is moving the sentencing intentions and definitions out of the proposal itself, as well as out of the hands of the legislature, and into the hands of the commission, whose purpose is now defined much more vaguely:
There is hereby established an independent, multijurisdictional body to provide a nonpartisan forum of statewide policy development, information development, research, and planning concerning criminal sentences and their effects. 
This is much vaguer than the original intent behind the proposition, and may have to do with the ability to better “sell” a body whose authority is not clearly defined, as well as with the will to keep the commission free from constraints. It also might mean that their decisions would not necessarily be binding. Who knows? Interestingly, Crime Victims United of California consider A.B. 1376 a “placeholder” bill, and see it as a cause for concern.

More on the CDCR Budget Cut (again, from secondary sources)

I wonder why CDCR does not have the budget cut details posted to its website. All they have done so far, in terms of public information, is to tweet about others’ responses to the plan. At this point, therefore, I can provide some more details about the plan and about different reactions to the plan.

You may recall the $400,000,000 cuts from the Governor’s budget action in February, which included the Governor’s expectation that the cuts be implemented ““in a manner that promotes rehabilitation and preserves public safety.” The original budget action also mentioned some specific ways to deal with the problem:

Counties will recall that over the last several years a range of proposals have been put forth by a variety of sources — expert panels, the Administration, and the Legislature, among others — that aim to reform the corrections system, while realizing cost savings. These proposals include various approaches to parole reform, credit enhancement, increasing thresholds for property crimes, and other sentencing changes. It is not certain whether CDCR will pursue these or other means for achieving the $400 million in savings, but the CDCR Secretary and staff have assured counties and local law enforcement stakeholders that they welcome input and suggestions, given that any reform effort is sure to impact local governments and local public safety. CSAC will continue to be engaged on counties’ behalf regarding these proposals and any others that may be considered in order to meet the Governor’s directive.

Here are the main changes, as they appeared on the Chron, the L.A. Times, and the Sac Bee:

  • Reduction of parole population by 25% (about 30,000 parolees), focused on nonviolent offenders
  • Impact of reduction: lesser parole violations, less returns to prison – a projected reduction of 4,000 in prison population
  • Expansion of good behavior credits for inmates who successfully complete educational/rehabilitative programs – a projected reduction of 4,000 inmates
  • Increased use of GPS monitors for parole violators, rather than a return to prison
  • A change in the definition of grand theft, which will raise the threshold from $400 to $950 (the previous number was set in 1982!)
  • Elimination of 150-200 positions at CDCR’s Sacramento headquarters
  • Closure of one juvenile prison
  • As a concession to law enforcement opponents: proposed legislation that will allow police to search former prisoners and seize evidence of a crime from them without a warrant for at least three years after their release, even if they are not on parole

Some initial thoughts:

The decrease in parolee numbers is probably a healthy thing. I wonder whether it will be tied to severity of offense or to some measure of risk assessment (CDCR, please post the details on the website!). Most importantly, the hope is that the decisions on who is let off the hook will be in line with the parole reform suggestions that CDCR had begun working on.

The concession seems to be quite dramatic, its constitutionality seems questionable, and it certainly does not lie in CDCR’s realm of expertise. Search and seizure raise constitutional issues, and in the current climate, given that this exercise of power doesn’t have a price tag attached to it, I don’t see CA courts, or even the Supreme Court, dismissing such legislation. The Supreme Court has been typically dismissive of the rights of former prisoners in respect ot search and seizure, exemplified by its decision in Samson v. CA (2006), which allows for a suspicionless search of parolees. So, this concession will be a legislative expansion of Samson to non-parolees as well.

While a 8,000-inmate reduction may seem dramatic to victim advocacy groups, it is a far cry from the 50,000-inmate reduction suggested in the Plata v. Schwarzenegger tentative decision, and will have a very small effect on the overcrowding problem (not that releasing 50,000 inmates with no re-entry programs to speak of is a good idea in this economy, as we argued elsewhere).

One prison is closing down. Will the CDCR continue building other prisons? Three weeks ago there was still talk of looking for $810,000,000 (twice the budget cut!) for purposes of prison expansion.

What do you think?

BREAKING NEWS: -$400,000,000

That is the budget cut for CDCR. Today, CDCR Secretary Matthew Cate announced his plan to cope with the significant reduction in corrections budget. As reported on this morning’s Chron, Cate,

tasked with finding $400 million in cost savings, unveiled proposals Friday to save money by reducing the number of parolees by 30,000 and the state’s prison inmate population by 8,000 by next summer.

We knew this was coming for quite a while; Secretary Cate mentioned the dilemmas involved in crafting the plan back in late March. The objecting parties are, as expected, victim advocacy groups and the prison guards union.

There are no details of the plan yet on the CDCR website, but once the full plan is posted, we will analyze and comment. Stay tuned.

Keeping Track of Inmates: CDCR to Revamp its Offender Database

Here are some highlights from the CDCR press release (the full story is here):

SACRAMENTO – The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) announced today the intent to award a contract to EDS, an HP company, to begin a multimillion-dollar effort to automate and streamline offender data systems. The project, called the Strategic Offender Management System (SOMS), will consolidate existing databases and records and replace manual paper processes over a four year contract period. . . SOMS will replace more than 40 aging electronic and paper database systems, which are becoming increasingly difficult and costly to maintain. The system will contain an “Electronic C-file” for inmates and provide the opportunity for electronic data exchange–with Jails, Courts and the Office of Prison Healthcare Services.

This is an excellent idea. And, if this happens in the time allotted, and with the available resources, it could do wonderful things, such as make sure that folks aren’t subject to parole/probation requirements in three counties at the same time.

Incidentally, it probably wouldn’t be a bad thing to similarly improve the criminal court database, too. Currently, the data is on several different silos, and is rather inaccurate, which, among other problems, also hinder the ability to do research work on CA courts.

One Hand Criminalizeth, and the Other Decriminalizeth Away


Two interesting and seemingly unrelated events were reported on the news yesterday. The L.A. Times reported on the oral argument in the school strip search case. Here is the full text of the oral argument, and as can be seen from the Justice’s questions, suspicions and the War on Drugs played an important part in the courtroom discussion, as did concerns about the risks of over-the-counter drugs (the search in the case was conducted to find ibuprofen in the 13-year-old’s underwear). Two interesting examples from the transcript, which blur the distinction between drugs and pills:

JUSTICE SCALIA: Had it been the case that, as I recall, someone had — well, students were popping ibuprofen, weren’t they?
MR. WRIGHT: Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE SCALIA: I guess they might pop aspirin as well. I’m not aware that one gets a high on either one of those.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I’m sorry, your answer to me was they have to take it seriously. My question to you is, what is the administrator supposed to do? He sees a white pill; nobody can tell him what it is. Is he allowed at that point to search the undergarments or not?
MR. O’NEIL: No.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: He’s not?
MR. O’NEIL: He is not.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Even if it turns out to be — you know, I don’t know, some very deadly drug?
MR. O’NEIL: Mr. Chief Justice, we do not believe that this Court should get in the business of deciding that searches are okay for, for example, heroin, but not okay for cocaine.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: That’s what you just told us we should do, in answer to Justice Alito’s question.
MR. O’NEIL: No, I simply — the point was simply that if there is some common understanding that a type of contraband is generally secreted in a certain way, and the example is crack, and there is a known understanding that crack can be hidden in that way, that that would be relevant to the totality of the circumstances.
JUSTICE SOUTER: And I don’t see why your answer might not be different if, under the Chief Justice’s question, he didn’t know it was ibuprofen. All he knew was that it was a white pill. He’s not a pharmacologist, he doesn’t know what’s in it. Wouldn’t the reasonableness of the — wouldn’t the scope of reasonable search at least potentially be greater for the undifferentiated white pill than for the known ibuprofen?

At the same time, the SF Chron reports that, due to budgetary constraints, the Contra Costa DA’s office will no longer prosecute several misdemeanors.

Kochly wrote that he had long taken pride in saying that his office could do “more with less.”

“Unfortunately, we have now reached a point where we cannot maintain the status quo,” he said. “We will definitely be doing ‘less with less’ as a prosecution agency.”

The changes are needed to help eliminate a $1.9 million budget deficit in the district attorney’s office for this fiscal year. By month’s end, six deputy district attorneys will be laid off, and 11 more will have to be let go by the end of the year, Kochly said.

Criminal justice policy is made in many sites, on many levels, and by a variety of actors. It is not a well-planned, intentional conspiracy. As David Garland wrote in The Culture of Control, the “history of the present”, as he calls it, is characterized mainly by punitive measures, but there are also counterexamples. Note that the counterexample in this case has to do with costs (humonetarianism raising its head once more), and that in the oral argument the Justices are not preoccupied with the issue of costs.