Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564916
label
[Corrections, Board of] - Coordinated California Corrections: Field Services, July 1971 (3 of 5)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564916
contentType
document
title
[Corrections, Board of] - Coordinated California Corrections: Field Services, July 1971 (3 of 5)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Reports
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564916
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
bc49a6a8d1387978
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: [Corrections, Board of] -
Coordinated California Corrections:
Field Services, July 1971 (3 of 5)
Box: P33
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
1
5.
4
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM STUDY
PAROLE TASK FORCE REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
xi
CHAPTER
I.
INTRODUCTION AND STUDY METHODS
1
Scope of Parole Task Force
2
Study Methods
2
Interviews with parole staff
3
Interviews with parolees
3
Interviews with paroling authorities
3
Auxiliary interviews
4
Questionnaires
4
Attendance at parole board hearings
4
Observation and interaction
5
Summary
5
II.
PAROLE MODEL
6
Definition
6
Purpose
7
Professional Base
7
Working Tools for Parole
7
Relationships with Other Parts of the Correctional
Continuum
8
Decentralization of Parole Services
9
Parole Boards: Structure, Functions, Members
10
Paroling Laws and Practice
10
Some Major Requirements for Parole Supervision
11
Recapitulation
12
CHAPTER
PAGE
III.
THE JUVENILE PAROLE SYSTEM: STUDY FINDINGS
16
Administrative Structure
17
Recommendation 1
20
Philosophy and Policies
20
In theory
20
In practice
21
Functions
23
Classification
23
Recommendation 2
24
Rehabilitation/reintegration
24
In theory
24
In practice
24
Resources
25
Staff
26
Supervision
26
Recommendation 3
27
Para-professionals and volunteers
27
Recommendations 4 - 5
28
Personnel policies: hiring and promotion
28
Recommendations 6 - 8
28
Training
29
Recommendation 9
31
Working environment
31
Caseloads
31
Recommendation 10
32
[iii]
CHAPTER
PAGE
Morale
32
Recommendation 11
33
Communication
33
Working conditions
33
Recommendation 12
34
Community relations and community resources
34
Recommendation 13
34
Fiscal support
34
Parole as the Client Sees It
35
Evaluation of Current Program
38
General recidivism
38
Length of parole
39
Recommendation 14
40
Community Treatment Project
40
Recommendation 15
41
Increased Parole Effectiveness Program
42
Goals and methods
42
Evaluation
43
Who Should Handle Parole?
44
Recommendation 16
44
Summary
44
IV.
THE ADULT PAROLE SYSTEM: STUDY FINDINGS
50
Administrative Structure
50
Communication
51
Recommendations 17 - 20
53
[iv]
CHAPTER
PAGE
Implementation of the Division's Mission
53
The mission
53
The Work Unit Program
54
Use of trainees and para-professionals
54
The division's "sucess rate"
54
Some problem areas
55
Recommendations 21 - 25
60
Personnel Matters
60
Recruitment
60
Promotions
61
In-service training
61
Recommendations 26 - 29
62
A Look at the Future
62
Problem
64
Need
64
Problem
64
Need
65
Summary
65
V.
THE CIVIL NARCOTIC ADDICT PROGRAM
69
Introduction
69
Narcotic Laws at the National Level
69
The California Civil Addict Program: Legal History
71
California's Civil Addict Program: Its Functions
and Purpose
72
Of special note
73
[v]
CHAPTER
PAGE
The Narcotic Addict Outpatient Program
75
Administrative structure
75
Recommendations 30 - 32
77
Underlying philosophy
78
Parole Agent's reaction to administrative philosophy
and policy
79
Training needs
80
Recommendation 33
81
The NAOP in operation
81
Client entry
81
Supervision goals
82
Treatment methods
82
Detecting drug usage
84
Comment
85
The Methadone Maintenance Program
85
Comment
85
Program effectiveness
86
Program effectiveness from the client's point
of view
88
The Narcotic Addict Evaluation Authority view
of program effectiveness
89
Comment
90
Summary
91
VI.
COMMUNITY-BASED CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS
96
Facilities Operated by the Department of Corrections
97
[vi]
CHAPTER
PAGE
Crittenden Center
97
Central City Center
98
General observations
98
Facilities Operated by the Narcotic Addict
Evaluation Authority
100
Parkway Center
100
Vinewood Center
100
General comments
101
Facilities Operated by the Youth Authority
101
Privately Operated Facilities
104
Adult Parole Outpatient Clinics
104
Recommendations 34 - 37
104
VII.
CALIFORNIA PAROLING AUTHORITIES
107
Characteristics
107
Structure
107
Selection and appointment
109
Recommendations 38 - 41
110
Number and size of boards
110
Narcotic Addict Evaluation Authority
110
Women's Board of Terms and Parole
111
Recommendations 42 - 44
113
Auxiliary staff
113
Recommendation 45
113
Training
113
Recommenation 46
114
[vii]
CHAPTER
PAGE
Public education
114
Recommendation 47
114
Functions
114
Term-setting
115
Recommendations 48 - 50
116
Granting parole
116
Recommendation 51
116
Conditions of parole
117
Recommendation 52
117
Revocation of parole
117
Recommendations 53 eithe 56
123
Discharge from parole
124
Recommendation 57
125
VIII.
NATIONAL PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS
127
Law Enforcement
127
Courts
128
Community Services
130
Volunteers
131
Supervision
132
Summary
133
APPENDIX A
135
[viii]
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
I.
Staff Perceptions of Youth Authority Structure and
Organization
19
II.
Staff Perceptions of Goals
21
III.
CYA Staff Training
30
IV.
CYA Wards' View of Parole
36
V.
CYA Parole Violation Rate: 1961 - 1970
39
VI.
Mean Number of Months on Parole for Wards Removed
from Parole: 1965 - 1970
40
VII.
Staff Perception of Communication in the Division
52
VIII.
Staff Perception of Clarity of Philosophy and Policy
in the Division
56
IX.
Staff Perception of Extent to Which They Have a Voice
in Decision-Making
58
X.
Civil Addict Program Population Movement
86
XI.
Outpatients Returned to Institution
87
XII.
Characteristics of California Paroling Authorities
108
XIII.
Initial Revocation Hearing
119
XIV.
Pre-Revocation Hearing Procedures
120
XV.
Revocation Hearing
122
[ix]
LIST OF CHARTS
CHART
PAGE
I.
Civil Addict Program Administrative Structure
76
[x]
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Juvenile Parole
1.
The Youth Authority administration should totally commit itself and
maintain its commitment to a participatory style of management.
In the event that consolidation occurs between the Youth Authority
and Department of Corrections, it is imperative that this style of
management be put into operation from the very start of the new
Department of Correctional Services, in line with the new nature
of the State correctional apparatus recommended by the System Task
Force.
2.
The Youth Authority should strengthen its ongoing development and
use of classification systems, with particular emphasis on integrat-
ing such efforts between institutions and parole.
3.
First line supervisors should be carefully selected on the basis of
ability to maximize effectiveness of line workers under them and
should be retained in such positions only as long as they are doing
this. They should be delegated increasing authority and responsi-
bility, should be involved more in decision-making crucial to the
agency, and should receive greatly increased training in effective
managerial techniques.
4.
The Youth Authority should make every possible effort to revive
and expand its para-professional program. Similarly, it should
recruit and involve volunteers to a much greater extent.
5.
The State should amend section 1029 of the Penal Code and any other
laws or policies that prohibit the hiring and permanent appointment
of ex-felons as peace officers provided they have shown evidence of
being rehabilitated and have successfully completed a probationary
period of employment.
6.
The Youth Authority and the State personnel board should engage in
an ongoing re-evaluation of personnel policies and procedures, es-
pecially those related to hiring and promotion, with participation
in such evaluation by all levels of staff.
7.
The State should hold "open" examinations, i.e., not restricted to
current State employees, for every civil service position. Similarly,
the State should participate with the counties in developing a per-
sonnel system that would allow the transfer or promotion of employees
between various correctional agencies, without loss of benefits, pro-
vided they meet the necessary requirements.
8.
The State should create the equivalent of a Parole Agent III position
that would involve direct supervision of clients (i.e., carrying a
caseload).
Summary of Recommendations
9.
The State should develop a training network of State and county
trainers and training resources, similar to the CO-ACT Model, to
provide or coordinate necessary training for all parole (and other
correctional) staff.
10.
The standard for parole caseloads should be reduced to at least
that set for probation subsidy caseloads (i.e., substantially
below 50 cases).
11.
Administration should continue strong efforts to inform staff of
the future direction of the agency together with the full impli-
cations for staff, to involve staff in the future shaping of their
agency, and to train them for the types of roles that will be played
by the State.
12.
A careful evaluation of clerical and stenographic needs should be
made to formulate a more realistic ratio of such assistance for
parole staff.
13.
The State should increase its efforts to inform and involve the
public in all levels of correctional services, and to maximize
its use of community resources.
14.
No ward should be retained on parole involuntarily more than two
years unless it can be demonstrated to the parole board, at least
every six months, that the protection of the community is sub-
stantially increased by SO doing.
15.
The Youth Authority should make a stronger commitment not only
to the further experimentation with but also the implementation
of differential community-based treatment, in lieu of institu-
tionalization, particularly with those youths for whom such a
program has already been demonstrated effective.
16.
The State should enact permissive legislation, allowing the State
and individual counties to contract with each other for either
jurisdiction to handle both probation and parole services in any
county.
Adult Parole
17.
The administrative structure of the CDC Parole and Community Services
Division should be reviewed to assess the advisability of reducing
the number of administrative levels through which communications
must be channeled.
[xii]
Summary of Recommendations
18.
Whenever a particularly important or possibly controversial change
in policy, procedure, or legislation is to be communicated, the
communication should be made by the appropriate headquarters admin-
istrator on a face-to-face basis (at regional or district staff
meetings) with all divisional staff concerned, to allow for ques-
tions from those who need interpretation of the change, and to
avoid possibly conflicting interpretations by intermediate admin-
istrators.
19.
The deputy director, assistant deputy director, and other appropri-
ate headquarters staff should spend the maximum amount of time
possible in direct contact with field staff, especially the line
workers, to increase opportunities for direct two-way communication
and to enhance the line worker's feelings of importance and "be-
longing".
20.
Division administrators should constantly place great emphasis, in
their contacts with regional and district administrators and with
unit supervisors, on the vital importance of their responsibility
to maintain open, two-way communication between top management and
line staff.
21.
In view of the heavy pressures exerted on parole agents as a result
of both volume and program expansion, they should be given continuous
and explicit support and assistance at the level of their major deci-
sion-making responsibility--the application of philosophy and policy
to the specific case.
22.
A strong and continuous effort should be made to develop much greater
participation by all staff in the decision-making process, both as
to expression of opinion on important issues and as to feedback to
staff regarding the reasoning behind decisions made.
23.
The California Department of Corrections should establish an over-
all caseload standard at least equal to that of probation subsidy
programs (substantially below 50), but should at the same time develop
more sophisticated strategies of differential treatment.
24.
Parole agents should be given every possible encouragement to make
recommendations completely consistent with their honest opinions in
cases up for revocation hearing. Whenever a parole board decides
contrary to staff recommendations, the board should indicate the
basis for its decision.
25.
The California Department of Corrections should expand its efforts to
hire, train, and promote minority group members.
26.
The Department of Corrections should develop its own fully staffed
recruitment program.
[xiii]
Summary of Recommendations
27.
Funds should be budgeted and approved to allow for substantial ex-
pansion of trainee and parole aide programs.
28.
Every effort should be made to re-vitalize and strengthen the de-
partment's in-service training (or staff development) program.
29.
A plan should be developed and funded for the systematic, special-
ized training of staff with in-service training responsibilities.
In addition, Recommendations 6 through 9 and 16 in Chapter III on
the California Youth Authority are also applicable to the California
Department of Corrections.
Narcotic Addict Outpatient Program
30.
The State should provide funds adequate to the development and con-
tinued operation of a meaningful and efficient research program for
the NAOP.
31.
A community relations program should be incorporated in NAOP's or-
ganizational structure.
32.
A liaison committee concerned with decisions concerning clients
should be formed with representatives from both the Authority and
program staff.
33.
California's top correctional administrators should appoint a select
body of persons whose sole and specific job, in conjunction with
academicians and correctional and medical practitioners across the
nation, is to design, within a specified but adequate period of
time, a training model for those engaged in the handling of drug
addiction.
Community-based correctional programs
34.
The State should strengthen and expand its Community Parole Center
Program for youth with increased emphasis on developing programs
that will allow earlier institutional release and fewer returns.
35.
In the event youth and adult services are consolidated, the State
should experiment with using these Community Parole Centers for
adults as well as for youths. Otherwise, the Department of Corrections
should increase its Community Correctional Centers but model them
more after the Youth Authority's centers, i.e., with increased em-
phasis on integrating institutions and parole and on becoming an
integral part of the community.
[xiv]
Summary of Recommendations
36.
The State should expand its use of community-based work furlough
centers for inmates, particularly for women, and should use them
for other types of furloughs such as vocational training and educa-
tional programs.
37.
The State should enact legislation permitting inmates on furlough
to reside in privately operated facilities via contractual arrange-
ments.
Paroling Authorities
38.
All parole board members should be appointed by the Governor, through
a process of merit selection, and should be confirmed by the Senate.
39.
Appointments should normally be to full-time positions and should be
for six year overlapping terms.
40.
The Director of the Department of the Youth Authority should be neither
the chairman nor a member of the Youth Authority Board.
41.
AZZ of the parole boards should form liaison committees with the appro-
priate institutional and parole staff to discuss and resolve problems
of mutual concern.
42.
Consideration should be given to integrating the Women's Board of
Terms and Parole into the Adult Authority, in which case at least
two women members should be added to the Adult Authority.
If this occurs, a Women's Advisory Committee should be created to
advise the new Department of Correctional Services and all the boards
on special concerns relative to women and girls.
43.
The Adult Authority, Youth Authority Board, and Narcotic Addict
Evaluation Authority should be renamed the Adult Parole Board, Youth
Parole Board, and Narcotic Parole Board, respectively.
44.
The Narcotic Parole Board should be made a full-time board.
45.
Each board should, through a process of merit selection, appoint
an administrative officer and whatever number of hearing officers
may be necessary, to perform whatever duties it wishes to delegate.
46.
The proposed Department of Correctional Services and the various
parole boards should form a training committee to develop specific
training programs in correctional decision-making for all board
members and hearing representatives, as well as for any correctional
staff for whom it may be relevant.
[xv]
Summary of Recommendations
47.
Each California parole board should regularly publish and distribute
both informational brochures and annual reports.
48.
The California Penal Code should be amended to set one year as the
minimum term to be served prior to parole for every person committed
to state prison.
49.
The Adult Authority and Women's Board of Terms and Parole or, if
they are consolidated, the Adult Parole Board should set terms as
soon as adequate evaluative materials are available. The burden
of proof should be on the system to justify any subsequent extension
of those terms.
50.
All of the parole boards should review each case regularly (such as
every six months) to evaluate whether individual inmates are ready
for parole.
51.
The Adult Authority should make every possible effort to reduce its
median term for inmates to a period approaching the national average.
52.
Conditions of parole should be clear, kept to a minimum, and tailored
to the individual case.
53.
Although many of the following procedural safeguards already exist
in respect to revocation hearings, they should be adopted by all of
the boards and should be codified:
1. Boards should meet at least once a week to consider revo-
cation matters.
2. Hearings should be conducted by at least two board members
or hearing representatives; if hearing representatives are
used, their decisions should be confirmed by at least two
board members.
3. Written advance notice of the charges should be given to
the parolee and, in the case of juveniles, to his parents
as well.
4. The parolee should be present at least at his final revo-
cation hearing.
5. The parolee should be able to hire and confer with an
attorney prior to the hearing; attorneys should be able
to write to and personally confer with board members prior
to the hearing.
[xvi]
Summary of Recommendations
6. Any witnesses should be able to write to board members;
parents of juveniles should be able to confer with board
members prior to the hearing.
7. Correctional institutional or parole staff should be avail-
able, at the parolee's option, to assist him in "telling
his story" to the board.
8. Every effort should be made to minimize the parolee's time
in custody before disposition. The final revocation hear-
ing should be held no more than 14 working days after the
parolee is delivered to the reception center; hearings should
not be postponed unless necessary and should never be post-
poned beyond 30 days unless it is absolutely crucial.
54.
All of the boards should conduct regular hearings in more major popu-
lation centers of the State.
55.
The Adult Authority, Women's Board of Terms and Parole, and Youth
Authority Board should make efforts to consolidate initial and final
revocation hearings whenever appropriate.
56.
The board members or hearing representatives who hear a case should
personally notify the parolee of their disposition or recommendation
at the end of the hearing.
57.
ALL of the parole boards should hold a formal hearing to consider
discharge for every parolee who has completed two years on parole
since release from a prison, juvenile institution, CRC, or county
jail sentence. In the event discharge is denied, the board should
hold a subsequent hearing on that case at least every six months.
In all of these hearings, the "burden of proof" should be on the
parole system to justify retention of the parolee under supervision
any longer. These requirements should be codified.
[xvii]
"Ideally, it is constructive in character,
individualistic in its service, flexible in its
use of resources and geared to changing needs."
The Practitioner in Corrections
California Probation, Parole and
Correctional Association
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND STUDY METHODS
If there is a single principle to which all members of the criminal
justice system agree, it is that all parts of the system are highly inter-
dependent and interrelated. The effectiveness of any one segment of the
system has a direct relationship with the effectiveness of all other seg-
ments, i.e., failure in one part of the system increases the burden on
other parts of the system.
It is the fact of interrelatedness, commonly referred to as a "con-
tinuum of services", which makes it difficult to assess any one segment of
the continuum as a separate entity. This is true within as well as among
segments. For example, decisions made by parole boards are influenced by
their perception of the effectiveness of the rehabilitative work that has
been done with the parole applicant by institutional staff, and the parole
board's decisions, in turn, affect the parole supervision program. Parolees
released too early and those released too late will require different kinds
and intensities of parole supervision than those released when they have
reached the point of maximum benefit from institutional treatment.
Almost all persons know that parole falls at the very end of the
correctional continuum. This is where those who have tried, and failed,
wind up. It is where the public screams the loudest when even the best
parole supervision goes awry, and the parolee once again attacks the commun-
ity. It is the point at which felons and juvenile delinquents are often
presumed by the public to have "mended their wicked ways", but instead may
recidivate at an alarming rate.
This all suggests that parole has the most difficult task of all--that
it carries the heavy end of the correctional burden. This suggestion is
partly true, though not altogether. Parole has its own responsibilities and
should properly discharge them, or be called to account. But a more basic
fact is that once an offender reaches the parole status, all other parts of
the correctional system must also then stand trial. Either they have paved
the path for acceptable behavior or they have not--and the extent to which
they have succeeded will directly affect parole outcome.
Yet, were it not for these connecting links, necessary social controls
would be completely out of the question. The immediate problem is that the
correctional field has not yet learned how to use the "continuum" of services
to best advantage.
- 2 -
This concern flows through the very heart of the present study: to
discover ways in which jails, institutions, probation departments, courts,
parole services, and community correctional programs can better integrate
their assorted responsibilities, to the end that crime and delinquency can
be better controlled (and reduced if possible), and offenders persuaded
that acceptable coping behaviors are not beyond their reach.
I. SCOPE OF PAROLE TASK FORCE
This part of the Correctional System Study is concerned with parole
services for both juvenile and adult offenders. Items selected for study
were generally as follows:
1. Administrative structure, especially the positioning of authority
and lines of communication.
2. A review of California laws as they pertain to the parole system.
3. Stated administrative policies (philosophy, personnel practices,
program objectives).
4. Policies as reflected in line staff parole practice.
5. Kinds and quality of results achieved by the parole system with
respect to client rehabilitation.
6. Community-based correctional programs.
7. The Narcotic Addict Outpatient Program.
8. The total Parole Board system--its structure and function.
The major study findings are presented under two main headings:
Juvenile Parole System and Adult Parole System. However, certain aspects
of the study were of specialized nature and are thus presented apart from
the main body of study findings.
II. STUDY METHODS
The planning phase of the study was begun by considering the purpose
and function of the parole process and determining what steps should first
be taken in examining California's parole system. Since the charge was to
cover the entire parole system, not just parts of it, decisions concerning
timing, staffing patterns, and orientation for field staff were also necessary.
Subsequent planning involved the selection of field staff, setting
the date for the beginning of field work, determining field assignments, and
- 3 -
making arrangements for a review of California laws pertaining to parole.
In addition, contact was made with NCCD's Research Center to discuss alter-
native ways of obtaining necessary data and information relative to the
study.
Involved in planning also were several conferences with the study
director. These were for the purpose of clarifying the Parole Task Force's
role in the study and to inform staff of the study's overall objectives.
To provide continuity with the other Task Forces, the parole study
was concerntrated in the same fifteen counties selected by the overall
Correctional System Study. Field work was carried out by a research team
of ten persons, all of whom were experienced correctional practitioners
from other states. Study techniques employed by the research team were as
follows:
Interviews with Parole Staff
In order to get the widest possible representation, interviews were
held with line staff, district and regional supervisors, unit supervisors,
and top administrative staff of both the California Department of the Youth
Authority and the California Department of Corrections.
The purpose of these interviews was two-fold: (1) to gather factual
information; and (2) to discover what philosophical differences exist among
parole staff, and to consider how these differences impinged on the parole
program.
Interviews with Parolees
Task Force staff interviewed adult and juvenile parolees, both in-
dividually and in groups. The purpose was to learn how parolees viewed
the parole system, and to ascertain whether they felt that they had or had
not been helped by the parole process.
Interviews with Paroling Authorities
Contact was made with all four parole baords, and 18 out of 24 members
were interviewed. This aspect of the study was considered especially impor-
tant since the respective boards make the final decision as to whether an
offender may enter parole status. It also provided opportunity for deter-
mining whether or not board members and parole staff thought alike with
respect to offenders, and what kinds of changes in board structure the board
members deemed necessary to enable them to do a more effective job.
An additional four members of the Adult Authority who were not inter-
viewed individually were interviewed together with the entire Authority rela-
tive to revocation hearings.
- 4 -
Auxiliary Interviews
Some contacts were made with police officers and sheriffs, probation
officers, mental health workers, and with volunteers. However, these were
few in number due to time restrictions. The combined numbers of juvenile
and adult parole system representatives interviewed are as follows:
Regular parole staff
368
Supervisory staff
85
Collateral persons
82
Parolees
352
Administrative staff
38
Parole Board members
18
Board representatives
5
Board administrative officers
2
Questionnaires
Three sets of questionnaires were used in conducting the study. One
was designed for juvenile and adult parole agents, (the same questionnaire
in both cases), another for juvenile and adult parolees, (the same question-
naire in both cases), and the third for parole agencies elsewhere in the
country. The staff questionnaire contained both qualitative and quantitative
items in approximately equal amount. This was partly true for the parolee
questionnaire, but eliciting attitudes and feelings was the main objective.
The out-of-state questionnaire was developed for the purpose of learning
something about the workings of other parole systems, with particular refer-
ence to new programs and ideas which appeared to be promising in the field
of parole.
Questionnaire returns were as follows:
Of 750 distributed to parole staff, 456 (61%)
were completed and returned.
Of approximately 1,000 distributed to parolees,
435 (44%) were completed and returned.
Of 69 sent to out-of state parole agencies, 49
(71%) were completed and returned.
Attendance at Parole Board Hearings
While time and distance factors precluded attendance at all phases of
paroling and revocation hearings of each of the four boards, Task Force staff
did observe a number of hearings of the Adult Authority and Youth Authority.
Following these hearings, board members or hearing representatives and parolees
were interviewed to elicit their comments about and reactions to the decision-
making process. Unfortunately, however, the small number of hearings attended
- 5 -
provided limited information concerning many aspects of the paroling and
revocation functions.
Observation and Interaction
There were many instances during the course of the study where Task
Force staff were invited to sit in on budget hearings, staff conferences,
unit meetings, group counseling sessions with clients, and other related
assemblies. In some situations, the role of the individual study staff
member was that of observer; i.e., though invited to attend, he did not
actively participate in the meeting. He was thus able to pay close atten-
tion to what was being said and to the interactions of other individuals
in the group. In other instances, Task Force staff were indeed very much
involved in group activity and discussion. This provided an excellent oppor-
tunity for increased insight and understanding of parole system problems
and issues.
Summary
The findings and recommendations of the Parole Task Force are based
principally on interviews with all levels of staff and with parolees, ques-
tionnaires distributed to staff and clients, interviews with parole board
members, and direct observations of their proceedings, general observation
of parole operations, a review of the relevant literature, and regular
meetings and discussions with the overall Correctional System Study staff.
CHAPTER II
PAROLE MODEL
Parole must be viewed, not as a separate system, but as one of many
connecting and overlapping systems, all of which pertain to human behavior
in general and to the parole process in particular. Further, behavior must
be recognized as an attribute common to all persons party to the parole
process. To understand parole, then, one must look not merely at what the
parolee says and does, but also at the activities of his various helpers
and at community attitudes toward him. In short, one must look at the
parolee as he interacts with the criminal justice system and with his total
environment.
Given these principles, any effort to design a model for the practice
of parole must be based on the belief that parole is basically a matter of
human relationships and human interactions. To the fullest extent possible,
the model presented here is intended to reflect this belief, and applies to
both adult and juvenile parole processes.
It should also be noted that, while many of them are not repeated here,
the Parole Task Force strongly endorses those generic principles applicable
to the entire correctional system which are outlined and discussed in the
System Task Force Report.
I. DEFINITION
Parole is defined as "the release of an offender from a penal or
correctional institution after he has served a portion of his sentence, under
the continued custody of the State and under conditions that permit his
reincarceration in the event of misbehavior."
"Parole is a continuation of the prison sentence under conditions of
prescribed freedom within the community.
The first of these definitions of parole was written by the U. S.
Attorney General in 1939; the second is contained in the Parole Agent Manual
of the California Department of Corrections. It is interesting to note that
the former calls attention to the ominous pendulum of reimprisonment ever
swinging over the parolee's head whereas the latter stresses a community-
based process with considerable "freedom" for the parolee. This difference
reflects a substantial shift of focus in correctional thinking over the
years. However, to formulate a truly progressive definition of parole, it
is necessary to incorporate the concepts of rehabilitation and reintegration.
The Parole Task Force suggests the following definition:
Parole is the legally sanctioned release of an
offender from a correctional institution to the
open community under temporary restrictions for
the community's protection and under professional
guidance and supervision directed at reintegrating
him into society.
- 7 -
II. PURPOSE
The predominant aim of parole is to protect society by preventing, or
reducing the likelihood of, further illegal behavior. The second objective
is to help the parolee make a good adjustment to necessary social controls,
and to discover ways that he can put his abilities to self-satisfying and
socially constructive use, i.e., to rehabilitate and reintegrate him into
society. The Parole Task Force views these two goals as normally compatible
and maintains that the community is best protected by the rehabilitation and
reintegration of the parolee.
III. PROFESSIONAL BASE
As in probation, parole practice has traditionally been predicated
upon the philosophy and tenets of the behavioral sciences. While the approach
or emphasis has varied between and within various jurisdictions, parole has
drawn variously from the disciplines of social work, psychology, psychiatry,
sociology, and, in recent years, criminology. Thus, although parole is not a
discrete professional entity, its practitioners are frequently accorded profes-
sional status. It is expected that parole officers will adhere primarily to
a professional role involving the dispensing of competent social services from
one person (parole agent) to another (parolee), and also coordinating the
community's services aimed at reintegrating the offender back into the society.
It should further be the case that within legal and ethical limits these ser-
vices, in whatever combination proves most efficacious, should be directed at
preparing the parolee for the resumption of responsibility for himself and his
behavior.
IV. WORKING TOOLS FOR PAROLE
The needs and capacities of parolees vary greatly from one person to
another. For this reason, parole agents must have at their disposal, and know
how to use, many different kinds of personal skills. They must also rely on
a wide variety of community resources both for routine and for unusual types
of case situations. Accordingly, the normal array of "working tools" that a
parole agent must be able to provide include:
1. Positive client/professional working relationship (this must include
the ability to relate to and effect behavioral change in parolees)
2. Flexible plan of treatment, participated in by the parolee
3. Individual counseling
4. Family counseling
5. Group counseling
- 8 -
6. Community contacts and referral sources pertaining to:
a. employment
b. education
C. medical care
d. family relationships
e. peer relationships
f. reception of client back into community
g. halfway houses
h. parole centers
i. recreation
j. volunteer assistance
k. religion
V. RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER PARTS OF THE CORRECTIONAL CONTINUUM
If the parolee is to succeed on parole, he must leave the institution
with the feeling that he wants to and can succeed. To help foster that atti-
tude, the parole agent assigned to the prospective parolee should take an
active part in pre-release planning. Ideally he should be assigned at the
time the offender is committed to an institution. This not only provides
continuity of service, but also allows more time for a primary relationship,
essential to the parole process, to develop between the agent and offender.
At the same time, the parole agent can and should consult directly with
institutional personnel, who are frequently able to supply information regard-
ing the client leading to a more effective treatment plan than would have been
possible through written reports alone.
Optimally, planning for parole should begin the moment an offender is
placed in an institution. What he does and what he learns in the institution
has a direct bearing on the timing of his release, so frequent assessment of
his adjustment to the institutional program is most important. Also necessary
is a systematic program whereby some correctional person (preferably the parole
agent) is concurrently working in the community with the offender's family and
local community resources in preparation for his release. As the President's
Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice has pointed out:
"It is of little use to improve the reading skills
and motivation of an
offender if the community
school system will not receive him when he is placed
on parole.
It makes little sense for a correc-
tional institution to offer vocational training if
an offender cannot find related work when he returns
to the community."
In light of recent trends to minimize parole conditions and make them
more consistent with life in the free community parole agents should work
closely with law enforcement bodies with the aim of reducing the myriad minor
reasons for revoking parole. For obvious reasons, close contact between the
two groups has always been necessary. But if violation criteria are to be
changed, police officials should be so apprised and accompanying changes made
in their contacts with parolees.
- 9 -
VI. DECENTRALIZATION OF PAROLE SERVICES
Thoughout the various Task Force Reports, it has been emphasized that
correctional services should be delivered at the local community level to the
greatest degree possible. This principle is especially crucial for the field
of parole, since it has the obvious advantage of keeping the parole agent
"where the action is". The decentralized "store front" or community center
approach is highly recommended in that it places the agent where he is most
likely to:
1. Be immediately available to his own clients
2. Be able to handle crises situations, both those of clients and of
the neighborhood in general
3. Come to know, first hand, what the community is like and what its
attitudes toward parolees are
4. Be able to develop and use community resources for his clients
5. Provide close supervision of clients, and thus reduce the likeli-
hood of their posing a threat to the community
There are at least four other advantages to be gained from the decen-
tralization of parole services. All are extremely important to the parole
function. First, by decentralizing services they are made visible to the
public eye, thus encouraging a greater amount of public understanding of the
correctional system's operation. Heightened understanding is the only way
community support, cooperation, and participation can be elicited.
Secondly, decentralization means that the parole agent is in a good
position to recruit volunteers and develop a corps of aides who could be of
great assistance both to parolees and parole agents. The community's role,
both at auxiliary agency and volunteer levels, should range from direct
program participation to acting in advisory capacity in decision-making
processes.
Third, the increased interaction resulting from combined professional
and community efforts would make it possible for parole practitioners to
express accountablility not only to clients but to the public they serve.
Fourth, the increased involvement of the community would facilitate
its acceptance of and responsibility for reintegrating its own members.
While it is not necessary that community-based parole functions be
carried out by the local jurisdiction, State-county contracts should be
permissible whereby a county provides parole services for persons residing
in its jurisdiction.
- 10 -
VII. PAROLE BOARDS: STRUCTURE, FUNCTIONS, MEMBERS
Parole boards should be independent decision-making bodies who represent
the public as a check-and-balance in the correctional system (similar to the
role of the court at the local level). They should neither be under the control
of the correctional agency whose clients they evaluate, nor in any way policy-
making for that agency. In brief, one of their greatest values lies in their
independence. On the other hand, every effort should be made to develop close,
cooperative working relationships between the boards and agency staff.
The duties of parole boards should be to establish policies and proce-
dures regarding all aspects of the paroling function; to make all decisions
regarding the granting, revoking, and terminating of parole (including the
setting and modification of conditions of parole) unless these responsibilities
are delegated to hearing representatives; if the latter occurs, to serve as a
review board on contested or appealed cases heard by hearing representatives
and to hold hearings on cases which are highly controversial.
Both the number of boards and the number of members on each should be
no larger than necessary to adequately perform their functions.
Appointments should be through merit selection, and members should serve
for six-year overlapping terms, All members should have an educational and
experiential background which would enable them to understand the causes of
illegal behavior and methods by which such behavior could be modified.
Continuous training in correctional decision-making and parolee problems
should be provided to all board members and any hearing representatives:
=
It is vital that board members know the kinds of
individuals with whom they are dealing and the many
institutional and community variables relating to
their decisions. The rise of statistical aids to
decision-making and increased responsibilities to
meet due process requirements make it even more
essential that board members be sufficiently well
trained to make discriminating judgments about such
matters. "4
VIII. PAROLING LAWS AND PRACTICE
The Report of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Admin-
istration of Justice has asserted, "While there should always be a maximum
time for confinement, the law should not establish a mandatory minimum sentence. "5
The offender should, whenever possible, be present during parole hear-
ings and should be personally informed of all decisions by whomever makes the
decisions. 6
- 11 -
During revocation hearings, parolees should be permitted opportunity
to provide both written and oral materials in their defense, including written
statements prepared by other persons. In the event that parolees admit a law
violation upon which the revocation is based, they should have the opportunity
to present matters in mitigation or extenuation.
IX. SOME MAJOR REQUIRMENTS FOR PAROLE SUPERVISION
Because of their direct applicability to this model, the principle
suggestions of the President's Crime Commission regarding parole supervision
are quoted here. The Parole Task Force urges that they form the base for
developing a formal statement of parole standards in California.
1. "Research is needed to develop two kinds of information:
(1) an effective classification system through which to
describe the various types of offenders who require
different styles of supervision and the types of parole
officiers who can provide them; and (2) a set of treat-
ment theories and practices which can be applied success-
fully to the different types of parolees.
2.
=
pre-release and immediate post release programming
should receive a very high priority among efforts to
strengthen parole services. "8
3. "The [parole] officer should be in contact with the
offender's family prior to release and make arrangements
when necessary with schools, mental health services,
potential employers, and other community resources. 119
4. The rules and conditions of parole "
seem to be best
when they are relatively few, simple, and specifically
tailored to the individual case. But no matter how well
rules are chosen, the final test lies in how well they
are applied and sanctioned. This involves great skill
and sensitive judgment on the part of the parole officer.
Training, rigorous personnel screening methods, and
effective staff supervision are critically needed if
that level of skill and judgment is to be developed
and maintained. "10
5. "The task of a parole officer is generally seen as develop-
ing close working relationships with police departments
rather than performing law enforcement functions directly. "11
- 12 -
6. "The best estimate available from current research
seems to be that caseloads should generally average
35 per officer. At that level, some offenders who
needed it could be closely supervised in caseloads
of 20 or lower, and others could be handled adequately
in caseloads as high as 75 or even more. "12
(While California has for some time been working in
the direction of reduced caseloads, they have con-
tinued to remain considerably higher than the standard
recommended by the President's Commission.)
7. = parole services should make use of volunteers and
subprofessional aides in demonstration projects and
regular programs. "13
8. =
parole officials should develop new methods and
skills to aid in reintegrating offenders through active
intervention on their behalf with community institutions. "14
9. "Substantial service-purchase funds should be made avail-
able to parole agencies for use in meeting imperative
needs of individual offenders that cannot otherwise be
met. "15
X. RECAPITULATION
While there have been many changes in parole practice over the past
thirty years, such as new treatment techniques, expanded research, more
sophisticated experimentation and so on, the basic principles and philosophy
have for the most part remained the same. For example, the following
statement drawn up by delegates to the 1939 National Parole Conference still
stands as a model of progressive parole theory and practice today (with one
exception which will be noted below):
"A Declaration of the Principles of Parole: WE, THE
DELEGATES TO THE NATIONAL PAROLE CONFERENCE, ASSEMBLED
AT THE REQUEST OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
AND REPRESENTING THE GOVERNORS OF THE SEVERAL STATES,
THE JUDICIARY, FEDERAL, STATE, AND MUNICIPAL LAW ENFORCE-
MENT OFFICIALS, THE CHURCH, THE COMMUNITY, AND THE VARIOUS
PENAL AND CORRECTIONAL SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES,
RECOGNIZING THAT
Practically all imprisoned offenders are by operation of
law ultimately released, and that Parole, when properly
administered and carefully distinguished from clemency,
protects the public by maintaining control over offenders
after they leave prison, do declare and affirm that For
Parole Fully to Achieve Its Purpose:
- 13 -
1. The paroling authority should be impartial, non-
political, professionally competent, and able to
give the time necessary for full consideration of
each case;
2. The sentencing and parole laws should endow the
paroling authority with broad discretion in deter-
mining the time and conditions of release;
3. The paroling authority should have complete and
reliable information concerning the prisoner, his
background, and the situation which will confront
him on his release;
4. The parole program of treatment and training should
be an integral part of a system of criminal justice;
5. The period of imprisonment should be used to prepare
the individual vocationally, physically, mentally,
and spiritually for return to society;
6. The community through its social agencies, public
and private, and in cooperation with the parole
service should accept the responsibility for improv-
ing home and neighborhood conditions in preparation
for the prisoner's release;
7. The paroled offender should be carefully supervised
and promptly reimprisoned or otherwise disciplined
if he does not demonstrate capacity and willingness
to fulfill the obligations of a law abiding citizen;
8. The supervision of the paroled offender should be
exercised by qualified persons trained and experienced
in the task of guiding social readjustments;
9. The state should provide adequate financial support
for a parole system, including sufficient personnel
selected and retained in office upon the basis of
merit;
10. The public should recognize the necessity of giving
the paroled offender a fair opportunity to earn an
honest living and maintain self-respect to the end
that he may be truly rehabilitated and the public
adequately protected. "16
- 14 -
The only point that does not fit a progressive model for parole
today is number 7. As mentioned early in this chapter, a modern statement
of parole philosophy must remove the emphasis on prompt reimprisonment and
replace it with a stress on releasing the offender on parole to the community
as soon as possible, consistent with public protection, and make every effort
to keep him there through effective rehabilitation and reintegration.
- 15 -
FOOTNOTES
lu.s. Attorney General's Survey of Release Procedures, 1939.
For other definitions, see Strahorn, Probation, Parole, and Legal Rules
of Guilt, 26 J. Crim. L., C&P.S. 168 (1935-36); McCay V. Harris, 108 Utah
407, 160 P. 2d. 721 (1945).
²Department of Corrections, Parole Agent Manual, State of California
(Sacramento, 1964), Foreword.
3President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice,
The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (Washington: U.S. Government Printing
Office, February 1967), p. 165.
⁴President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice,
Task Force Report: Corrections (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1967), p. 67.
5Ibid., p. 208.
⁶Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, The Legal
Challenge to Corrections (Washington, 1969), p. 38.
7 Task Force Report: Corrections, op. cit., p. 68.
8
Ibid.
9
Ibid.
10Ibid., p. 69.
11 Ibid.
12Ibid., p. 70.
¹³Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, op. cit.,
p. 168.
14 Ibid., p. 169.
15 Ibid., p. 170.
16 National Conference on Parole, Parole in Principle and Practice: A
Manual and Report (New York: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1957),
pp. 182-183.
CHAPTER III
THE JUVENILE PAROLE SYSTEM: STUDY FINDINGS
This chapter will deal with the parole operations of the California
Youth Authority. While some comments will be made about the Youth Authority
Board, as perceived by parole agents, major discussion of the Board will be
reserved for Chapter VII.
In keeping with the overall mission of this study, which is to suggest
ways of improving the correctional system, the current juvenile parole system
will not be described in minute detail. Rather, attention will be focused
primarily on those issues considered most relevant to needed systems change,
accompanied by observations and discussion which emphasize future direction
more than present achievements. However, the point must be made that the
Parole Task Force considers California's youth parole system to be one of
the most progressive in the country, and one strongly committed to continual
striving for further improvement. The reader is asked to keep this in mind
as study findings are presented and discussed.
During the course of this study, as often happens in studies of any
duration, a significant change occurred which made current evaluation of the
CYA parole operation very difficult. This was the recent Increased Parole
Effectiveness Program which became operational under a grant from the Calif-
ornia Council on Criminal Justice in April, 1971. The potential impact of
this program is so widespread that it may well alter or even remedy many of
the deficiencies found by Task Force staff. However, because the predicted
impact is still potential, part or complete remedy of problems can not and
should not be assumed at this time.
Of necessity, then, this Report is mostly based on the key observations
and findings of Task Force staff obtained at the time of their field work in
October, 1970. It is expected that recommendations made will follow logically
from those findings. (Reference will be made, however, to the Increased Parole
Effectiveness Program in a special section near the end of the chapter.)
After examining the administrative structure and the general philosophy
and policies of CYA parole, the chapter will look at the primary functions
and resources of the parole operation, examine parole through the eyes of the
client, and evaluate the current program. The last two sections of the chapter
will deal with: (1) the Increased Parole Effectiveness Program; and (2) State
versus local responsibility for parole services.
If the Youth Authority and Department of Corrections are consolidated,
as is recommended in the System Task Force Report, references to the Youth
Authority would then be applicable to the new Department of Correctional
Services.
- 17 -
I. ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE
Large correctional organizations, like other bureaucratic entities,
have traditionally developed a pyramid type of structure and employed what
is often referred to as "scientific management". This involves a triangular
line authority organization with policy-making, decision-making, and controls
centralized at a single focal point--the top. The President's Commission on
Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice described as follows "the
internal organization of most correctional agencies":
"Their bureaucratic structure is typically hierarchical,
with rigid chains of communication and command. Official
directives tend to lose their rationale and justification
as they filter down through the system. For every
official directive there are likely to be many unofficial
interpretations which occur in discussions outside of the
official channels of communication. Many subordinate
officials have to depend upon unofficial versions of
policy in order to gain any sense of what is expected of
them".
While this style of management was very much in vogue thirty or forty
years ago, many business and industry organizations have long since abandoned
"scientific" or military type management because it proved ineffective in
accomplishing production objectives with a minimal number of internal stresses.
The Youth Authority has also developed and maintained this type of
administrative structure in its parole operations. The Parole Manual describes
the Department's lines of authority and communication as follows:
"The formal lines of administration within the Division
of Parole starts at the top with the Office of the
Director to the Division Chief; to the Deputy Chiefs;
to the Regional Supervisors of Parole; to the Supervis-
ing Parole Agents; to the Parole Agents. Unless other-
wise specifically directed, assignment of work and
general orders of operation shall move along this line.
Suggestions, grievances, and special requests of any and
all nature shall be made by each person to his immediate
superior.
In the recent past, CYA has been making serious efforts to decentralize
its authority structure by encouraging a more active participatory role among
lower level management and line staff. Some examples are as follows: sub-
stantial authority has been delegated to regional administrators; many offices
and parole centers have been relocated in smaller units, closer to clientele;
staff of all levels have been placed on department-wide committees, such as
the Human Relations Advisory Committee; additional training and administrative
staff have been assigned to the various regions.
- 18 -
Despite these changes, inherent handicaps such as size and geography,
and the rigid chain of command traditions imbued in many middle-management
personnel, continue to pose problems. Also, the great bulk of staff services
(such as research, program development, personnel management, and other
specialized functions) are still located far from most field operations. It
would therefore appear, despite the substantial progress in decentralization,
that the Youth Authority has not yet made a total commitment to a participatory
style of management which pushes decision-making power, program responsibility,
and necessary supportive service to the lowest possible level.
Top level administrators disputed this, but the evidence was clear
from staff comments and responses. During interviews, line parole agents
often expressed the view that authority was too concentrated at "the top";
that they had little or no voice in policies; that action rarely, if ever,
seemed to be taken on suggestions they made through the chain of command;
and that their innovativeness and sometimes "risk-taking" treatment efforts
were often hampered by lack of support. Several agents stated that the
cardinal rule in the agency was "protect the agency" or "don't rock the
boat". They said that when "the pressure was on", they were often not backed
up by their superiors. In brief, they perceived their agency as taking a
conservative posture and leaving the "risk-taking" to individual agents.
These attitudes were also expressed in questionnaire data results.
Table I reveals that two-thirds of all staff (including administrators and
supervisors) felt that they had little or no voice in decision-making within
their agency. Both upward and downward communication were perceived as
unsatisfactory, especially by line workers who also saw CYA as discouraging
flexibility and creativity, and as being basically conservative in its outlook.
An additional problem cited was that services units within the Youth
Authority, such as budget and personnel, traditionally have been oriented
more toward controlling instead of serving field operations and line staff.
For example, one supervisor asserted that the role of the Personnel Board
and personnel policy was geared to keeping staff in line. It was also
stated that, to a large degree, budget personnel control program, yet involve
line workers in their decisions only minimally, if at all.
These findings make it apparent that the Youth Authority still has a
long way to go to create a truly participatory style of management as recom-
mended by the President's Commission.3 (The type of organizational structure
and administrative style recommended by the Correctional System Study is
discussed in detail in the System Task Force Report.) At the same time,
there is substantial reason for an optimistic outlook. The Director himself
recently informed the Rehabilitation Services Division staff at their annual
conference that the traditional Youth Authority "is in the full agony of its
death throes", though, unfortunately, "some members of our staff still cling
to and harken back to an organization that has ceased to exist". He also
asserted:
"I can assure you that the Youth Authority is going to
continue changing at an accelerated rate. Flexibility
in both management and program is critical to our future
growth and development. "4
- 19 -
TABLE I
STAFF PERCEPTIONS OF YOUTH AUTHORITY STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION
(Percentage distribution*)
ALL
LINE
ADMINISTRATORS
STAFF
WORKERS
& SUPERVISORS
QUESTION
(N=186)
(N=145)
(N=41)
1. Estimate to what extent you have a
voice in the decision-making of your
agency.
Strong voice
7
5
15
Inbetween
26
29
17
Little or no voice
67
66
69
2. Estimate how good the downward commun-
ication (i.e., from agency head down)
in your agency is.
Good
19
18
22
Fair
32
30
39
Poor
49
52
39
3. Estimate how good the upward commun-
ication (i.e., from line workers up)
in your agency is.
Good
18
14
26
Fair
29
28
32
Poor
54
58
42
4. Estimate how progressive and "risk-
taking" your agency is.
Clearly progressive
16
15
20
Inbetween
32
30
37
Clearly conservative
53
54
44
5. Estimate the degree to which your agency
encourages flexibility and creativity.
Clearly encourages
27
27
24
Inbetween
37
32
56
Clearly discourages
36
41
20
*Columns may not total 100% for a specific question due to rounding.
- 20 -
Recommendation
1. The Youth Authority administration should totally commit itself
and maintain its commitment to a participatory style of management.
In the event that consolidation occurs between the Youth Authority and
Department of Corrections, it is imperative that this style of management be
put into operation from the very start of the new Department of Correctional
Services, in line with the new nature of the State correctional apparatus
recommended by the System Task Force.
II. PHILOSOPHY AND POLICIES
In Theory
The Youth Authority Act spelled out its purpose in 1941 as follows:
"To protect society more effectively by substituting
for retributive punishment methods of training and
treatment directed toward the correction and rehabil-
itation of young persons guilty of public offenses. "5
Over the past thirty years, the Youth Authority has in large part
retained this stated objective, but in addition has attempted to place equal
weight on the two goals mentioned in the Act, viz. protection of society and
the rehabilitation of youth. In discussing CYA goals and philosophy, many
agents referred to the Parole Manual, which describes the duties of parole
agents as follows:
"The parole agent serves two distinct yet compatible
purposes in the treatment of delinquency: (1) assist-
ing the wards assigned to him in their rehabilitation,
and (2) the protection of society. He must maintain
the clear perspective of his duties so that the needs
of his wards and the safety of the community are main-
tained in the proper balance and one not being met to
the exclusion of the other. "6
Parole Task Force staff viewed both of these statements of purpose
as satisfactory, but with certain reservations. First, while the attempt
to balance rehabilitation and community protection is necessary, the primary
goal should clearly be stated as protection of the public (as is done in the
Youth Authority Act), in the event the two objectives conflict with each other.
Secondly, important as rehabilitation is, helping a client to readjust to
society may be even more important as a secondary goal. The concept of reinte-
gration is relatively new, and it carries a specific message: The parole system
(and other correctional systems as well) needs to concentrate increasingly on
how offenders relate to their total environment rather than, as one academician
put it, "dinking around with their psyches".
- 21 -
In this regard, the Youth Authority very recently formulated a new
statement of its correctional mission--a statement which endorses the position
taken by the Correctional System Study, viz:
=
the Department seeks to reduce the probability
[rate] of continuing illegal behavior of youth under
the jurisdiction of a criminal justice agency. 117
(emphasis added.)
In Practice
Parole staff were asked both what is and what should be their primary
goal. Table II indicates that almost all of the parole staff stated that the
primary goal should be either rehabilitation or public protection, with a
strong preference for the former. In spite of the official statements quoted
in the preceding section, staff could not agree on what is the actual goal of
the Youth Authority. It is clear, however, that many agents feel that their
department does not stress rehabilitation to the extent that it should. One
might surmise that considerable dissatisfaction, confusion, or, at least,
disagreement must result--an inference generally supported by Task Force
interviews with staff.
TABLE II
STAFF PERCEPTIONS OF GOALS
PERCENT
QUESTION
RESPONSE
1. What should be the primary (i.e., most important) goal
of corrections?
Punishment
1
Keeping offenders "off the streets"
0
Protection of society
37
Rehabilitation of offenders
57
Other
4
Unclear or no opinion
2
2. What actually is the primary goal of your agency?
Punishment
2
Keeping offenders "off the streets"
5
Protection of society
40
Rehabilitation of offenders
33
Other
6
Unclear or no opinion
13
- 22 -
Further evidence of ambivalence or lack of clarity was provided by
staff response to the question: "Estimate how clear the philosophy and
policies of your agency are". Thirty-five percent of all employees said
they were definitely unclear while only 20% felt they were clear. This
finding is consistent with those presented in Table I in the previous section.
When interviewed, many parole agents indicated that they did not really
know what was expected of them in their daily work. When asked to elaborate,
they pointed to the dual power structure of the Youth Authority administration
and Board as the core of the problem. On the one hand, they said that it was
their understanding that CYA administration was responsible for setting policy
and for implementing policy in daily practice. Policies were to be interpreted
and passed down the chain of command. In reality, however, they did not per-
ceive it as working this way at all. For although Section 501 of the Parole
Agent Manual declares that orders and directives flow down from the Office of
the Director, the Manual also explicityly states:
"When an order is made on the case of a ward by a
duly constituted Board or Panel thereof of the
Youth Authority, the staff shall expeditiously
execute the order. "8
In effect, then, not only is the parole agent responsible both to the
Board and to the Department, but there is a pervasive feeling that policy for
everyday parole agent duties is set by the Board, not by the Department. The
problem is exacerbated by the fact that most agents believe that Board policy
runs counter to Departmental policy. At the center of this concern was the
common perception of the Board as overly conservative, too concerned about
community reaction (mainly law enforcement), and focusing too much on legal
points, documentation of client visits, etc.
A few even went so far as to say that there was little point in abiding
by any policy other than those set by the Board since they so often took pre-
cedence over the dictates of both administration and the Parole Agent Manual.
While the Parole Agent Manual theoretically spells out a rather complicated
procedure for resolving such inconsistencies and conflicts,9 many parole agents
obviously either do not use it or do not feel it is effective.
Although not comfortable with this arrangement, several agents pointed
to some practical advantages. One is that it permits an immediate supervisor
to be of considerable help to line staff, even though indirectly. The super-
visor has direct contact with the Board since he normally presents all cases
in his unit to it. Hence, he is in a position to intercede for the agent by
helping him to convince the Board of specific recommendations which the agent
believes to be necessary for the accomplishment of treatment objectives.
Another advantage is that since the agents know what the Board expects
by way of written reports and what the many inclinations or "biases" are of
its individual members, it is not difficult to "slant" reports in a direction
that manipulates the Board. While the agents are aware of and very much
concerned about the ethics involved in this situation, many feel that it is
often the only way to achieve desirable treatment objectives. In short, the
- 23 -
Board is considered to be SO conservative with respect to revocation decision-
making that some parole agents are willing to compromise their own ethics for
what they perceive as the best interests of their clients.
Although this situation is not unique to parole, it should be remedied.
As with probation officers who write different reports for different judges,
parole agents will probably always be tempted to mold their reports in such
a way as to obtain the disposition they desire. However, this inclination
must be strongly resisted if the correctional profession is to maintain its
integrity. Removing the Youth Authority Board completely from the Department
of the Youth Authority (as recommended in Chapter VII) should enable staff to
write the facts honestly and objectively as they see them, without fear of
repercussions of any kind. (The Probation Task Force is recommending that
probation officers not be appointed by the Judiciary for the same reason.)
Separating the Board from the Authority should also help to clarify and unify
the philosophy and policies of the Department since they will then emanate
from a single source. This is not to suggest that the two bodies should
remain aloof from one another. On the contrary, every effort must be made
to develop and maintain coordinated and cooperative relationships between the
Board, the Youth Authority, and all parole personnel.
III. FUNCTIONS
The two primary functions or tasks of parole are classification and
rehabilitation/reintegration of offenders. Generally speaking, the California
Youth Authority has been a national leader in both of these areas, particularly
in terms of program planning and development.
Classification
Considerable time and effort is expended in reception centers and other
institutions to classify all wards by one or more systems that have relevancy
to treatment techniques. However, much of this effort seems lost when youths
are paroled. For example, two-fifths of all line agents indicated that they
use no classification system whatever with their clients. An additional 30%
replied that they used one, but found it of no significant help in treating
their clientele. This corroborates Task Force interview findings which
indicated very little sophisticated use of a classification system. A sizeable
number of staff mentioned that they had been trained in I-Level classification.
But they added that they did not normally use it, ostensibly because it was
complicated and time-consuming. One agent classified all his cases according
to astrology, supposedly facetiously, and felt that it was as meaningful as
anything else. Task Force staff found little evidence to dispute this.
There were a few noteworthy exceptions to the situation described above.
These were found in special programs with significantly reduced caseloads, such
as the Community Treatment Project and the Guided Group Interaction Program. 10
A particularly progressive direction pursued in some units was the "matching"