More CDCR Cuts in New Budget Deal: California Police Chiefs Wage War on Potential Inmate Release

The new California budget deal has been struck yesterday, and among other policies, it includes $1.2 billion in unallocated cuts to CDCR. While the San Jose Mercury reports that inmate release is not explicitly mentioned as one of the cuts, the broad issue is still on the table. As expected, some are not thrilled with this humonetarian move. The Sac Bee reports:

The campaign, expected to consist of thousands of phone calls, targets Democrats who plan to run for higher office next year, represent hotly contested districts, or who have been sympathetic or outspoken about law enforcement issues in years past.
“Frankly, it will not be possible for anyone who votes for the early release of felons to ever be taken seriously on public safety issues again,” the campaign said in a memo to participants.
As part of a much larger plan to bridge the budget gap, the prison agreement would cut $1.2 billion from the prison system, which Melekian and other opponents fear could release more than 19,000 prisoners before their sentences expire.
“The concern is that the only way that you get to that amount of money is to release people from prison,” Melekian said.
He said police chiefs are also concerned that there is no money available to help with prisoners’ return to society.
“There’s no money for job training – there’s no money to do anything to transition these folks from institutional life to life back in the community,” he said. “It’s more than just releasing them. It’s releasing them with no real plan for dealing with them.”
Also see the report from UPI.

While releases of non-violent offenders would do good to a system that had no business locking up so many people in the first place, the concerns regarding reentry are certainly warranted. The time to think about reentry options for these released inmates is now.

Proposed GPS Monitoring of Domestic Violence Offenders

(GPS tracking device image courtesy Slate Magazine)

Violators of domestic violence protective orders are increasingly subjected to GPS monitoring in several States, as reported by the NY Times and by the Chronicle. Implementing such legislation in CA, as opposed to Illinois and Texas, is somewhat of a challenge. The Chron elaborates:

Without GPS, police have been lax to follow up on complaints that partners are ignoring protective orders, said Tara Shabazz, executive director of the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence.

However, Shabazz and her organization oppose California’s proposed GPS legislation because it would require the state to order GPS tracking for an offender without providing details on how to implement it.

. . .

In California, the cash-strapped government can’t pay for the program, said Alexis Moore, the president and founder of Survivors in Action, a California-based advocacy group. Similarly in Texas, no money was appropriated for GPS implementation.

Given our financial situation, relatively inexpensive alternatives to incarceration or confinement can and should be considered, which does not mean we should not examine such technologies with a critical eye. How is the GPS system managed and monitored? And, should we rely on it to the exclusion of community programs to treat abusive partners, of which we have several in CA?

Back in CA

Dear Readers,

Thank you for your patience with the recent scant posting. I’ve been away, backpacking through China (and, incidentally, learning a bit about the Hong Kong correctional system). We’re returning to a regular posting schedule and look forward to informing you and being informed by your comments and emails.

Best, HA

Senator Cuts a Special Deal to Keep Parolees Out of His County


One of the sex-offender related legislative innovations of the last decade was the introduction of residence restrictions. As we explained elsewhere, residence restrictions, which prohibit registered sex offenders from living near schools or parks, have made many parts of California inhabitable for those formerly for sex offenses, many of whom have become homeless.

As to others, well, it turns out that at least one CA lawmaker thought they should stay out of his county, even before Jessica’s Law was enacted. . The Sac Bee reports:

In what state Sen. George Runner characterized as a “side agreement” with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the prison and parole agency said it would limit assignments of released offenders into the Antelope Valley to those who had “historical ties” to the area….

CDCR officials, saying that the deal violated the law, terminated the agreement this spring.

“When we took a look at it, we said we can’t treat offenders in this county any different than offenders in any other county,” said Terri McDonald, the CDCR’s chief deputy secretary for adult operations.

Runner sees the agreement as a proper way to correct the imbalance generated by the habit of “dumping” parolees in Lancaster Valley.

“From the very beginning, there was not a connection between the issue of ‘Jessica’s Law’ and this particular issue of parolees in the Antelope Valley,” Runner said in an interview.

He said that the location of a major, maximum-security prison in the Antelope Valley combined with the area’s relatively cheap housing made it “easier to dump (parolees) in Lancaster.”

I think this story is an interesting lesson in the side effects of sweeping punitive legislation, and it is a good reminder of the inequality between different counties. Can we imagine how the segregation of parolees into specific counties might contribute to the big differences in how they are treated and perceived?

Receivership News

Volume 2(6) of the Receivership newsletter, Turnaround Lifeline, is out. Among other issues, you’ll find information on creating an electronic repository of the inmates’ medical files, as well as on containing the H1N1 flu virus (an issue we reported about here).

Although closing to visitors was considered necessary to minimize the possibility of an influenza pandemic, it came at an unfortunate time for many- the prisons were closed on the weekend of Mother’s Day… [f]ortunately for all involved, only a very small percentage of CDCR’s pending probable cases of the H1N1 “Swine Flu” virus were confirmed by the State Testing Lab and the virus was contained. Dr. Winslow attributes this success to “fast and effective action by our medical and custody staff throughout the State.” He goes on to note that the steps taken by CDCR and CPHCS during the flu outbreak “appear to have helped avoid a potentially dangerous situation.” Visitation has since resumed and the previously cancelled Mother’s Day visitation trip has been rescheduled for June 26th, but precautionary health measures have been implemented to ensure the continued containment of the H1N1 “Swine Flu” virus.

There are also interesting features on telemedicine and on the pharmacy improvements. True to the spirit of humonetarianism, telemedicine is advocated as a cost-saving measure.

Father’s Day: “Get on the Bus” Program


The enclosed video reports on an initiative of developing healthy father-child relationships in a DC jail. Similar initiatives are occurring locally, as we read today in a heartwarming report from the CDCR website:

“Approximately 200,000 children in California have an incarcerated parent and live with relatives or in foster care who may be unable to travel the distance to visit their father,” said CDCR Secretary Matthew Cate. “This event will help strengthen the bond between father and child and that’s especially important when these men are released from prison.

“Today, 17 buses filled with more than 500 children and their caregivers traveled from major cities across the state to California Men’s Colony (CMC) in San Luis Obispo and Correctional Training Facility (CTF) in Soledad.

“Seeing these children greet their fathers is a dramatic and unforgettable picture,” said Get on the Bus Executive Director Sister Suzanne Jabro. “These children pay the high price of separation from their fathers and this is a monumental effort by the community and the state to strengthen those family bonds.”

There is a small but interesting literature on fatherhood from within walls. Justin Dyer, for example, uses identity theory to argue that prison interferes with the experience of fatherhood. A healthy relationship between father and child, even while the father is incarcerated, is a proven factor in reducing recidivism. Here’s a fascinating curriculum by Carl Mazza, teaching parenting skills to incarcerated fathers through a narrative technique:

The role-plays become problem-solving exercises between father and child even though, obviously, the children themselves are never present. With each weekly topic, the men are strongly encouraged to be insightful into their own past experiences and motivations. For example, in the unit concerning instilling cultural/racial pride, the men first need to examine how they really feel about bring from a specific cultural group. They are encouraged to react to the various stereotypes (both positive and negative) regarding their cultural group. They need to remember how they felt as boys and whom they held as role models. While there is always a lively discussion, the men are not forced to disclose their feelings. Disclosure occurs when individual students feel the need to do so.
And here’s a helpful bibliography on children of incarcerated parents, courtesy of the Family and Corrections Network.
Happy Father’s Day!

Correctional Budget Cuts at the Local Level: Decrowding Shasta County Jail


(Shasta County Jail building image from the Sheriff’s website)

Not long ago we discussed the plan to shift state prisoners into local facilities, as well as the local resistance to the plan. This may not be as feasible as the Governor’s office believes, since many local facilities face financial difficulties of their own.

This morning’s Redding Record Searchlight reports on more humonetarian occurrences on the local level.

According to the Shasta County Sheriff’s website, the Shasta County Jail is a high security facility, with a capacity of 381 inmates, 317 males and 64 females. It seems that this capacity has been reached through aggressive parole revocation operations, and the plan now is to scale back on jail time and on parole operations to relieve the budgetary distress.

Here is what seems to be going on:

Shasta County’s drunken drivers, petty thieves and drug users are less likely to serve jail time. Parolees will be given a bit more leeway on violations that can send them back to prison. And even fewer prisoners police bring to the Shasta County jail will spend a night in a cell.

Local officials say that’s the reality now that Shasta County’s 381-bed jail is 150 inmates smaller.

As jailers have been quickly and quietly working to release a third of the inmates from the jail because of budget cuts, local law enforcement officials have been meeting to plan how they’re going to deal with the sudden loss of space at the already chronically full jail.

…

The decision to clear out a floor of the jail came earlier this month after the Shasta County Board of Supervisors refused Sheriff Tom Bosenko’s pleas to find other ways to trim from the county’s general fund budget rather than make him cut more than $2 million cut from his budget.

Bosenko has since ordered the floor closed and the layoffs of six jail employees.

Jailers began freeing up jail space almost immediately after the decision, mainly by stepping up their “capacity-release” program that lets newly admitted prisoners go free, often before they’d even had time to post bail.

“We’re trying not to do a mass release,” said Lt. Sheila Ashmun, the jail’s second-in-command.

Tax Cannabis 2010: More Marijuana Humonetarianism

In 2010, we may expect to see on our ballots this proposal, which essentially aims to legalize the possession of up to one ounce of cannabis for adult Californians. The language of the proposal is still in draft format and was last amended today; the people behind the proposal are soliciting responses.

What is interesting, and controversial, is the market and fiscal aspect of the proposal, which gives cities the prerogative to set sales tax, procedures and legalization as they please. In that sense, control over possession and sale would be very localized (and I wonder how that would work for the Feds, especially considering the federal lack of respect for permissive local rules, as per Virginia v. Moore).

More Death Penalty Humonetarianism

More bipartisan disgruntlement about the death penalty, fueled by its dysfunctions and discontents: yesterday’s Chron featured an op-ed from Republican lawmaker Tom Harman.

In 2008, the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice issued a report stating that the death penalty system in California was failing. In California, as of 2008, 30 inmates had been on Death Row for more than 25 years, 119 for more than 20 years and 240 for more than 15 years. Is California doing something wrong? Absolutely.

Delays in obtaining legal counsel, the appeals process, court-ordered moratoriums and other stalling tactics are routine. These delays ultimately place more value on the life of a convicted criminal than on that of the victim. I believe this is unacceptable to the victims, their families and the voters.

The sad truth in California is that killers on Death Row are far more likely to die of natural causes than at the hands of the state. As the commission noted, the interminable delays that have become the hallmark of the system have weakened the death penalty’s effect on deterring crime.

Harman is a staunch believer in the death penalty, and so his contribution to the debate is particularly interesting. It is also timely, considering the upcoming public hearing on the lethal injection and the Day of Action on June 30th. Here’s Jonathan Simon’s take on this. And here’s another example of this interesting trend.