Prop 9 Lives: Access to Parole Suitability Hearing Content


The CDCR website reports on an implementation of one of Prop 9’s aspects: Victims, and others, will have access to an online transcript of the inmate’s parole suitability hearing before the parole board. The transcripts are emailed to the victim, free of charge, or mailed for a flat fee of $25 per transcript.

This raises understandable concerns about confidentiality, which are answered by limiting the availability of this information to registered victims. The request webpage reads:

Marsy’s Law, Penal Code section 3041.5 (a) (4) permits the victim, next of kin, members of the victim’s family, and two representatives designated by the victim to request and receive a stenographic record of all proceedings. Any persons requesting a hearing transcript must be registered and meet the criteria of a victim as identified through the Office of Victim and Survivor Rights and Services (OVSRS). Please note: You must be registered in order to have your transcript request processed.

Now, the form used to request victim services (see image) allows you to register even if you are a “concerned citizen.” However, it does limit notifications of parole hearings to victims and next of kin. It would make sense to similarly limit the ability to request a transcript. Moreover, this mechanism does not prevent forwarding the email received by victims to others.

Given the potential for wide dissemination of parole suitability hearing information, the question is: Does the public have a right to know the content of the hearing? What do you think?

State Plan a Mix of Releases and Correctional Expansion

I’ve just finished going over the CDCR population reduction plan in all its more-than-100 page glory (including the depositions). For those who rejoiced in the original August order to reduce population, the plan will be a disappointment; but even those who found the panel’s reasoning problematic will find little cause for rejoice.

Here are the essentials: The state stands behind the measures it proposed previously, in the noncompliant plan submitted September 18. Those included credit enhancements for good behavior, a certain quota of inmates housed in out-of-state facilities, more reliance on community corrections, sentence commutation, and parole reform (including the recently approved summary parole for nonviolent offenders).

In addition, the state proposes to seek changes to legislation that impedes broader use of the out-of-state option, privatization, shifting jurisdiction to county jails, and accelerated construction of prisons. It does so while expressing doubts about the federal panel’s authority to require violation of state laws; according to the state, therefore, these measures are necessary to bring the plan to the 137.5% reduction level.

The depositions provide concrete numbers regarding the reduction rates.

Jay Atkinson (Chief of Offender Information Services Branch) estimates that the California Community Corrections Performance Incentives Act of 2009 generates a system of rewards for probation success. Implementing it will achieve an approximate reduction of 1,915 inmates. In addition, releases based on good behavior credits will yield 2,921 reduction; raising the threshold of grand theft from $400 to $950 will yield a 2,152 reduction; and programs for alternative custody for low-risk offenders will achieve a 4,800 reduction. My summary: 11,788 total reductions. Atkinson cannot provide estimates for the reductions resulting from parole reform, but those may yield additional reductions.

Scott Kernan (Undersecretary of Operations) states that, by approximately January 2011, CDCR anticipates housing a total of 10,468 inmates at out-of-state facilities. In addition, it will push to remove an existing clause that mandates termination of the out-of-state program. Changing this clause will allow the state to expand its out-of-state program by 1,500 beds by December 31, 2011. In addition, the state plans to pursue privatization options more aggressively (the out-of-state options themselves are privatized.) Contracting with private facilities will provide an additional 5,000 beds for inmates removed from state institutions. Finally, CDCR will engage in a complicated game of musical chairs, which will involve shifting inmates around, switching between male and female inmates in some institutions, closing down 3 male facilities, and creating more community correctional facilities. This option will yield no more than a 800 inmate reduction. Total seems to be 17,768. Combining the two statements, the grand total seems to be a 29,556 reduction.

I haven’t checked up the math on the additional 10,000 reduction, but the plan suggests that this will be achieved through a combination of programs: commutation sentences, changes in juvenile facilities, and other measures that were mentioned in the original plan.

***

As can be seen by these two contrasting depositions, the state is pursuing two “prongs” of overcrowding solutions: the type that the court wished to encourage – namely, early releases, parole reform, and sentencing reform – and the type that the court will be very disappointed in, such as increasing prison construction and shipping more inmates out of state. Interestingly, these measures are predicted to yield more reductions than shuffling people within the existing incarceration options. The plan has, therefore, a bit of a “split personality”. Some of it expands the penal monster and some of it works to decrease it (in the spirit of humonetarianism.) I assume the court will be rather dismayed by this. Leaving the reduction methods up to the state opened the door for the state to cling to the old solutions of expansion, contraction, and exporting Californians to other states; but since the panel was convened for the sole purpose of solving the problem of constitutional violations in health care, its ability to have a general say regarding the system’s size is rather limited.

***

There is another issue which, while not directly yielding reductions, merits attention. At the panel’s request, the remaining depositions describe the impact of cuts to rehabilitative programs on prison conditions.

Sharon Aungst (Chief Deputy Secretary of the Division of Correctional Health Care) states that the decrowding will not improve treatment for the mentally ill, but the cuts in rehabilitative programs will have an adverse effect on weekly activities for mentally ill patients.

Robert Ambroselli (Acting Director, Division of Adult Parole Operations) estimates that the parole sites and programs have served a combined 18, 449 people, though some of these may be repetitive (enrolled in more than one programs). The expected $41,000,000 reduction in operational budget will lead to delays in finalizing and activating new sites.

Finally, Elizabeth Siggins (Acting Chief Deputy Secretary for Adult Programs) states that the budget cuts will lead to a significant reduction in treatment slots. 4,633 inmates (a 5000 reduction) will be benefitting from community-based aftercare treatment. Substance abuse programs will be available to 1588 inmates (4000 reduction). There will not be changes to in-custody drug treatment, the parolee service network (serving 863 inmates) and the female offender treatment and employment program (serving 412 inmates). 80,000 parolees will be getting employment opportunities through California New Start.

***

These are grim news indeed. It would appear that, over the next few years, possible gains with regard to health care will be offset by losses in terms of rehabilitative programs. The panel’s program to reform California prisons through the opportunity to intervene in health care seems to have been frustrated by the methods adopted by the state.

A final thing to remember is that the state’s plan is not to be construed as abandonment of its appeal to the Supreme Court. The state consistently repeats, throughout its legal documentation, the right to appeal the order, which it still maintains is erroneous. Given the particulars of the current plan, it remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will see the panel’s attempt to fix the health care system in a favorable light. It is a sober reminder, though, that judicial review of state institutions is an imperfect and limited solution, and while it has the ability to change policies and practices in ways that are impossible through legislative and administrative channels, its narrow, case-by-case focus may have unpredictable, and disappointing, outcomes.

Why is California Eliminating Rehabilitation?

Yesterday Prof. Aviram posted analysis of the newest Plata/Coleman panel court order. She points out, “The panel wants to hear more about the use of rehabilitation and reentry in the community as a population reduction measure that might actually improve public safety.”

So I thought I’d post this cover story from 10/17 last Friday’s LA Times. The piece highlights poignant personal stories of incarcerated, and formerly incarcerated, female addicts. It also provides a damning quote from a recent Schwarzenegger insider: “Kathy Jett, formerly Schwarzenegger’s top aide for prisoner rehabilitation, said gangs may attempt to fill the void created by the absence of programs.”

For purposes of this blog, though, the article also provides some worrisome statistics.

  • Rehab services lose $250 million a year, more than 40% of what they now get and a quarter of the $1 billion total sliced from the prison system.
  • “At the same time, the state is eliminating 45% of the seats in its substance-abuse programs for parolees.”
  • The featured rehab provider previously helped 756 women, and will now reach only 175.

These changes seemed almost calculated to increase addiction and recidivism. One might speculate that even the Governor is knowingly passing on the problem of prison overcrowding to the next administration rather than addressing any of its root causes.

CDCR Report: Parole Violations

The CDCR report, which we previously discussed here, provides some information about the rate of parole violations and their role in overcrowding.

On December 31, 2008, there were 123,597 felons and civil narcotic addicts on parole in California, a 2.6 percent decrease from 2007. During 2008, 142,954 offenders were admitted to an institution as a new admission or a parole violator and 139,535 offenders were paroled, discharged or otherwise released from custody.

The report also provides some data on parolees who were returned to prison, which would allow us to discuss recidivism, to some extent.

If I am interpreting the data correctly, the following two graphs show the percentage of inmates with a previous parole history out of all prison population (if I’m mistaken, please correct me). If that is the case, it would appear that a bit over 10% of all male prison population and around 12% of the female prison population are in prison for violating their parole terms. The report in itself does not provide us with any information about the type of parole violation that led these parolees to prison, and one would hope that parole reform is shifting toward a focus on serious violations, rather than “technical” violations of terms.

The other bit that merits some attention, however, is the blue line, which, if I understand correctly, depicts the number of entering inmates arrested for new crimes who also happen to be parolees. These numbers say less about the scope of parole enforcement and more about its job providing hope, rehabilitation, and a new future for people leaving prison. Even if we are not rearresting people for parole violations at the rate we thought we were, we’re still not doing a great job creating opportunities and incentives that pull people away from new crime.

More on Sex Offender Monitoring

The CDCR website reports on the Adult Parole Division’s Operation “Eagle Eye”, which consists of GPS monitoring of sex offenders in state fairs. We’ve already discussed California’s fascination with GPS monitoring, its promise and discontents. Here’s the newest in that vein:

Every sex offender on active parole has GPS monitoring as part of their supervision requirements. Any sex offender parolee who entered the fair zone set off an alarm notifying parole agents of their whereabouts. Once a notification was received, on-site CDCR parole agents tracked an offender’s movement and investigated if any law, parole violation or any public safety issue existed. During the various runs of the fairs, CDCR parole agents received numerous zone alerts, which culminated in parolee arrests for violations of special conditions of parole.

“When it comes to the supervision of sex offenders, we cannot and will not compromise public safety,” said Marvin Speed, District Parole Administrator. “Operation Eagle Eye was so beneficial to enhancing public safety that we will replicate the operation at other venues.”

Parole Documentary from Prisons Under Pressure

I have been pleasantly surprised by the CCPOA-funded documentary series Prisons Under Pressure. The series is a bit dramatic in terms of editing and presentation, and somewhat shallow in its coverage of the broader social issues, but actually provides a lot of interesting information and includes some fascinating interviews. Episode 4, which you can see here, discusses the dysfunctionalities of parole in California and examines the roots behind the success of some programs. The video includes interesting interviews with Mimi Silbert from the Delancey Street Foundation and with Harriet Salarno from Crime Victims United of California.

While the CCPOA’s political power and relationship with governors since the 1980s has been criticized by some as a major contributor to the ratcheting up of sentencing, and their involvement in funding political campaigns (such as the Three Strikes Law and the No on 5 campaign) a source of concern, I think they should be commended for funding this documentary, as well as for their public support for a sentencing commission.

When Our Monsters Age and Fall Ill: Thoughts on Susan Atkins’ Life and Death

(Atkins parole hearing image courtesy The Daily Mail)

Susan Atkins, member of the notorious Manson Family and participant in heinous and violent crimes, passed away at the age of 61. The L.A. Times features an excellent, detailed story on Atkins’ life, her crimes, and her time in prison, including the brain cancer that put an end to her life. Atkins served 38 years in prison, and in her last years lost a leg and became paralyzed as a result of her cancer. She was repeatedly denied parole in light of the severity of her crimes.
The Atkins case is an illustration of the important place retributivism still occupies in the public consciousness. Retribution was the only reason behind the denial of Atkins’ parole. She was terminally ill, fully (and apparently honestly) remorseful of her part in the Manson murders, and clearly incapable, physically and otherwise, of committing any further crime. In that sense, the Atkins case is a pure example of the power of such considerations.
The extent to which we defer to retributivism when dealing with a symbolic act that has colored much of our attitudes and imagination of crime in the late 1960s and beyond is a serious question, but I think the more interesting question is whether less extreme cases, involving less notorious acts, would merit the same deference to retributivism when making parole decisions. In the majority of cases, aging and health may give rise to considerations of declining risk and propensity.
Theories of life-course criminology have been quite a trendy field in criminology over the last few years. A good intro to this field is this great piece by Robert Sampson and John Laub. The nice thing about the article is its sensitivity to variation in types of crime, as well as to “turning points”, such as marriage, which dissuade some offenders from crime. Sampson and Laub also do a good job at describing the limitations of using life course criminology as a predictive tool for release. Nevertheless, the trends are thought provoking, especially when we are presented with veteran inmates such as Atkins, who have been in prison for decades and decades. Add to the mix the budgetary implications of treating the old and the infirm, and we can question the value of retributivism as an overriding, all-powerful ideology of incarceration and release.

Relying on Technology: GPS Monitoring of Sex Offenders

(image courtesy CDCR)
Yesterday, the CDCR website featured a press release about the use of GPS monitoring to preclude sex offenders from attending the California State Fair. This is an addition to a series of reports about the increase in using GPS monitoring systems to track down parolees and offenders on bail. As one might expect, the focus of supervision has been, in the last years, on sex offenders (read this fascinating 2006 report by Jesse Janetta on GPS usage on San Diego sex offenders), but its uses exceed this category. A while ago, we reported the intent to use GPS systems to follow domestic abusers on restraining orders in California; according to the New York Times, this seems to be a growing trend in other states as well.

The appeal of electronic monitoring is quite understandable. The technology itself is readily available from commercial providers, and, once the system is set in place, the marginal cost of adding parolees to the pool of supervised subjects is not overwhelming. It is certainly less time consuming than adding one more file to the already overflowing docket of parole officers. However, it is important to keep in mind not only what GPS is, but also what it is not.

  • GPS does not necessarily prevent crime. Technology does not make the streets crime-proof, and once in a while, tragedies will occur.

  • GPS is not the perfect community-based sentencing alternative. In our enthusiasm to seek out alternatives for incarceration, we should keep in mind that technology is just technology – nothing more, nothing less. In the absence of help with housing, education and vocational skills, GPS monitoring in itself will probably not significantly contribute to a decrease in recidivism.

  • GPS harbors the threat of expansion. In his 1985 book Visions of Social Control, Stanley Cohen warned us against the tendency of correctional systems to “widen the net” and expand. As surveillance becomes cheap and available, there are likely to be less restraints on including more people in the pool of supervised subjects. This is part of a larger trend, which Malcolm Feeley and Jonathan Simon identify as The New Penology: perceiving people in large aggregates, according to their level of risk.

Secretary Cate Proposes Alternatives to Inmate Release

(image courtesy CDCR)

Secretary Matthew Cate’s column on Flash Report makes a few suggestions for shrinking the correctional budget without releasing inmates.

While no one is happy to be in the position of discussing a $1.2 billion reduction in the corrections budget, the Administration has developed a proposal in coordination with local law enforcement that is smart on crime, cuts prison populations, and saves taxpayer dollars. It is our hope that this reasonable and measured package can allow us to achieve our budget cut targets, without the early release that the public has feared.

Cate’s proposal includes a reduction in the reincarceration of parole violations (a 5,300 reduction in prison population); using GPS monitoring as a prison alternative for low-risk offenders; adjusting property crime thresholds; moving undocumented immigrants to the hands of the Feds; providing good behavior credits for early release; and taking several administrative measures to save money. All in all, the proposal does not differ much from the Governor’s proposal; the magical words “inmate release” aren’t there, but there are a variety of release equivalents, packaged in a way that makes them easier to digest.