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
118564918
label
[Corrections, Board of] - Coordinated California Corrections: Field Services, July 1971 (4 of 5)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564918
contentType
document
title
[Corrections, Board of] - Coordinated California Corrections: Field Services, July 1971 (4 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
118564918
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
b3183a669a9020bb
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 (4 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/
- 24 -
of workers and clients according to the worker's ability to deal with a
particular type of youth (a concept supported by 70% of all staff). However,
the normal differentiation seemed to be merely the one mentioned in the Parole
Agent Manual, viz. "regular supervision cases", which were to be seen once a
month, and "special service cases", to be seen twice a month. 11
Recommendation. 2. The Youth Authority should strengthen its ongoing
development and use of classification systems, with particular emphasis on
integrating such efforts between institutions and parole.
Rehabilitation/Reintegration
In Theory. As previously mentioned, the California Youth Authority
has long been in the forefront nationally in planning and developing correc-
tional strategies. In keeping with this tradition, the Department has recently
drawn up and endorsed one of the most progressive policy statements on program
planning in existence. While this document is brief and, in many respects not
implemented, it clearly sets forth a series of premises for correctional
planning which "represent the conceptual framework and guide used for compre-
hensive program planning by the Department of the Youth Authority": 12
1. Divert from the System
2. Minimize Penetration into the Criminal Justice System
3. Maximize Capacity for Differential Care, Treatment and Custody
4. Normalize Correctional Experience
5. Maximize the Involvement of the Volunteer and the Offender as an
Agent of Change
6. Minimize Time in Correctional System
7. Maximize Research and Evaluation for Feedback and Organizational
Change
The Parole Task Force concurs totally with all these principles and
suggests the addition of another, perhaps implied in number 5: Maximize the
Use of Community Resources.
In Practice. The Youth Authority has a number of carefully planned,
experimental treatment programs in operation, primarily in large urban centers.
These programs (notably the Community Treatment Project, Guided Group Interaction,
Part Way Homes and Community Parole Centers) have been described and evaluated in
regular CYA reports. 13 Unfortunately, however, the youths participating in these
programs comprise only 10% of the total parolee population (approximately 13,500
- 25 -
wards). 14 The great majority of rehabilitation/reintegration efforts take
place in excessively large caseloads and are left up to the ingenuity and
skills of the individual agent. (The new Increased Parole Effectiveness
Program attempts to ameliorate this situation by reducing caseload size and
requiring a differential case approach, involving careful and ongoing case
planning between agents and supervisors.)
Also noteworthy is increased Departmental effort to integrate insti-
tution and parole services. By placing both components of the system in one
Division of Rehabilitation Services, and by pilot programs which assign cases
to parole agents while wards are still confined, some progress is being made
toward coordinating the services of both. Examples of these pilot programs
are the Community Parole Centers (evaluated in some detail in Chapter VI),
the Ventura Intensive Treatment Program, and the KITE program at Nelles--all
of which involve "in-and-out" caseload assignments. Administration feels
that another recent program of value is the "temporary detention" program in
which wards can be held in one of the institutions up to thirty days at the
request of the individual parole agent. Approximately 2,000 youths were so
detained between July, 1970 and March, 1971.
While this program has potential for considerable abuse and must there-
fore be judiciously exercised, it has the definite advantage of handling minor
violations expenditiously without the necessity of requesting a Board hearing
or the risk of lengthy reinstitutionalization.
Finally, staff were asked to estimate "the general guality of correc-
tional services" in their agency. Only 21% of line workers and 42% of admin-
istrators rated it highly while 32% and 15%, respectively, indicated it was
of low quality. Since the great majority of respondents were from regular
parole units, it is surmised that many of the pessimistic responses reflected
frustration about unmanageable caseloads.
To summarize, the California Youth Authority has developed an extremely
progressive set of principles by which its operations should be guided. A
number of noteworthy programs have been put into effect, and a major reorgan-
izational step has been taken to better coordinate services. It appears,
however, that these developments and changes have not overly-impressed the
great majority of line workers and administrators. The Parole Task Force
urges the Department to continue its quest for providing more effective
services especially aimed at reintegrating wards back into their respective
communities.
IV. RESOURCES
This section will examine the key resources available to carry out the
Youth Authority's mission. "Resources" is used here in a very broad sense,
referring to any factor that contributes to the CYA's efforts in accomplishing
its goals.
- 26 -
The principle resources to be discussed are staff, training, general
working environment, community relations and resources, and fiscal support.
Staff
The consistent impression Task Force members had of Youth Authority
staff was that the majority was seriously committed to its work and dedicated
to assisting youths make a successful adjustment in society. At the same
time, a sizeable minority appeared to be either "burnt out", i.e., coasting
on their jobs and trying to expend as little effort as possible, or excessively
law enforcement oriented. Perhaps this is inevitable in large correctional
organizations whose staff come from widely varying backgrounds and work
experience. Nevertheless, many staff expressed frustration with the system's
inability to either "revitalize" or remove such persons.
In addition, even highly dedicated line staff, laboring under severe
handicaps, were very discouraged. Caseloads are excessively large and the
proportion of "hard-core" difficult-to-manage clients has been steadily
increasing since the advent of probation subsidy; 15 a strong "hold-the-line"
State budget has hampered program enrichment and the development of auxiliary
resources; training is minimal; and many staff feel that their agency does
not adequately support treatment efforts.
Supervision. Supervisors are generally seen as the pivotal workers in
an organization. They are the key link between administration and line workers
who carry out agency operations. As such, they are crucial links in the
vertical communication network. They are also the primary trainers and enablers
of line workers, a role which generally "makes or breaks" the organization.
Accordingly, it is essential that these individuals be selected carefully, be
delegated appropriate authority and responsibility, and be provided with ongoing
training necessary for their job.
While many staff expressed high regard for their supervisors, others
complained that either they received too little supervisory assistance, or
that their supervisors were too controlling and restrictive. A not infrequent
assertion made by line staff and higher administrators was that a number of
these critical first-line supervisor positions were filled by persons who were
incompetent or "burnt-out".
Questionnaire results, however, indicated that about two-thirds of line
staff evaluated their immediate supervisors as being "qualified", "helpful",
and "available". In fact, supervisors and administrators were slightly more
critical of their superiors than were line workers. It will be recalled in
Table I that fully 69% of the supervisors and administrators asserted that
they had little or no voice in decision-making matters. Apparently these
persons feel more restricted than do the lower echelon personnel.
- 27 -
A number of first line supervisors asserted that they were not allowed
as much participation in decision-making important to the organization, such
as budget appropriations and personnel decisions, as they should be. Some
also mentioned that they needed more training in management and supervisory
techniques than was available. The general consensus, however, was that,
top level administration did want to involve them increasingly in decision-
making processes.
Recommendation. 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 responsibility, should be
involved more in decision-making crucial to the agency, and should receive
greatly increased training in effective managerial techniques.
Para-Professionals and Volunteers. While there is almost always a
certain amount of staff resistance, at least initially, the use of para-
professional and volunteer workers is now a well-established and well-accepted
resource in corrections. 16
Although the actual hiring or involvement of para-professionals and
volunteers was found to vary greatly from office to office, parole staff were
generally found to be favorably disposed toward them, both in interviews and
in questionnaire responses. Questionnaire results showed that 85% of line
workers were willing and able to use para-professionals, and 78% asserted
that they could use volunteers in their normal work. In fact, 93% of all
staff felt New Careerists "should be allowed and encouraged to work their
way up to regular line and supervisory positions
provided they meet the
necessary requirements". This support is not to say, however, that there
have not been some negative incidents with some of these workers or that
there has been no conflict between them and professional staff. As with any
other staff, "New Careerists" need to feel that they are an important part
of the organization, and they need to receive ongoing training and supervision.
Unfortunately, the "New Careerist" program is being eliminated in July,
1971 due to budget restrictions. Administration pointed out that this program
had been poorly planned, e.g., CYA had little or no involvement in the selec-
tion process, no career ladder was made available for these persons, and the
prohibition against ex-felons becoming parole agents prevented some from ever
being promoted to that category. However, administration did indicate that
every effort is being made to retain those "New Careerists" who had become
formal State employees by reallocating funds from other sources. Additionally,
a study is being made of the specific functions of entry level positions to
determine if certain tasks could not be handled by para-professionals.
Recommendations. 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.
- 28 -
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.
Personnel Policies: Hiring and Promotion. Few staff had serious
objection to initial employment requirements. About 85% felt that minimum
qualifications should be a bachelor's degree in the behavioral sciences, with
most staff also favoring a year's graduate training or relevant experience.
However, many complained about promotional procedures and opportunities.
Dissatisfaction with the current set-up was pervasive, and clearly surpassed
the gripes of a few malcontents or the grumblings of those who had not been
promoted. In fact, 81% of all line workers and 76% of supervisors and admin-
istrators replied "no" to the question: "Are you basically satisfied with the
promotional system in your agency?" Specific complaints included the observa-
tions that administration often manipulated civil service lists to promote
"favored employees"; that written tests were often irrelevant; that there was
little feedback on test results as to why or in what areas individuals performed
poorly; and that there were increasingly fewer promotional opportunities due to
declining commitments to the State's juvenile institutions.
Minority hiring and promotion has been an issue of special consternation.
While many staff declared that the Youth Authority has traditionally been a
"white organization", it was generally acknowledged that the current adminis-
tration was making a concerted effort to hire minority persons. Many staff
were found to have strong feelings on this issue and expressed different points
of view. On the one hand, a number of minority personnel, particularly
militants, asserted that Blacks and Chicanos were not being hired or promoted
to anywhere near the degree they should. On the other hand, some Caucasian
agents felt that administration was trying to promote minorities even if they
were not as qualified as others. Some went SO far as to suggest that additional
credit was being given to minority persons on the oral exam. The racial issue
in the CYA is one that is reflective of society in general, and one would be
simply burying one's head in sand to deny that it was a pervasive concern among
both staff and clients.
Finally, there was overwhelming support (84% to 87%) for revising the
policies of the entire correctional personnel system to allow employees from
any part of the system to transfer, without loss of rank or benefits, to any
other correctional agency in the State. Similarly, 97% of all staff supported
the creation of a separate promotional series for case-carrying agents, parallel
to at least the first line supervisor level. In this way, outstanding parole
agents would not have to become administrators to be promoted.
Recommendations. 6. The Youth Authority and the State personnel board
should engage in an ongoing re-evaluation of personnel policies and procedures,
especially those related to hiring and promotion, with participation in such
evaluation by all levels of staff.
- 29 -
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 personnel system
that would allow the transfer or promotion of employees between various
correctional agencies, without loss of benefits, provided 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).
Training
It seems a strange paradox that there should be almost universal
agreement regarding the importance of sound basic training, yet study after
study points to the lack of adequate training as a major problem. The present
study is no exception. Although three-quarters of all parole staff acknowledged
the existence of some in-service training, they rated both its quantity and
quality as low. Table III reveals that while most staff acknowledged the
existence of some type of in-service training, they did not view it as being
pertinent, ongoing, or individualized. Only 17% of line workers and 9% of
administrators reported that they received even a full hour of training per
week. Verbal assertions repeatedly supported these questionnaire results,
with heavy emphasis on the need for more and better training at the crucial
point of agency orientation. The major reason given for this situation was
a "bare bones" training budget. This indeed seems to be the case since only
$32,165, or less than .4% of the parole budget is allocated for training. 17
Since comprehensive studies of training and manpower concerns were
conducted in 1968 and in 1969-70, the reader is referred to those documents
for a detailed analysis of the current state of training needs, allocation
of resources, gaps in training, and a lengthy series of recommendations which
Task Force members generally support. 18
The Youth Authority is well aware of its training deficiencies, and
has recently taken steps to strengthen its training resources in parole by
the new Increased Parole Effectiveness program. But much more needs to be
done. Any significant improvement will necessitate a strong administrative
commitment to training; a vastly increased budgetary allocation to cover
training time and travel; the hiring of specialized trainers; adequate funds
for conferences, workshops, special equipment such as videotape; and accessible
library facilities.
An additional problem referred to in the training studies mentioned
above is the very poor coordination between the State's various training
resources. Specifically, the Youth Authority has its own internal training
program and at the same time maintains a separate training program for county
probation officers through its Community Services Division. The Department
of Corrections also has a probation training program as do many of the county
probation departments. On top of this, within both CYA and CDC, there are
- 30 -
TABLE III
CYA STAFF TRAINING
(Percentage distribution*)
ALL
LINE
ADMINISTRATORS
STAFF
WORKERS
& SUPERVISORS
QUESTION
(N=186)
(N=145)
(N=41)
1. Does your agency have in-service
training for employees of your level?
Yes
76
75
80
No
24
25
20
2. Is this training relevant?
Yes
48
45
56
No
52
55
44
3. Is it individualized?
Yes
20
22
13
No
80
78
87
4. Is it ongoing?
Yes
36
35
41
No
64
65
59
5. If you receive in-service training,
how many hours per month?
1-2 hours per month
62
63
59
3-4 hours per month
23
20
31
5-9 hours per month
12
13
9
10 or more
3
4
0
*Columns may not total 100% for a specific question due to rounding.
- 31 -
separate training programs for institutional and parole staff. With training
resources at a premium, this duplication is both costly and highly inefficient.
Recommendation. 9. The State should develop a training network of
State and county trainers and training resources, similar to the CO-ACT
Model, 19 to provide or coordinate necessary training for all parole (and
other correctional) staff.
Working Environment
Caseloads. One of the most serious handicaps found within the juvenile
parole system was excessive caseload size. Although the State requires that
counties must have substantially below 50 cases per probation officer in order
to qualify for State subsidy, 20 Youth Authority parole agents have been stag-
gering under caseloads averaging 72 boys or 56 girls. This has been the case
for 90% of the 13,500 wards on parole. 21 In view of the fact that virtually
all of these cases are youths with whom the counties had been unable to cope,
even in local camps or specialized subsidy caseloads, this situation is an
absurdity.
The Youth Authority itself has frankly admitted the inadequacy of this
program:
=
the present parole program provides a minimum
level of surveillance and those limited case work
services which do occur are almost an incidental
product arising out of other activities. "22
"The total effect has been to substantially reduce
the level of protection we offer the public and
the level of effective service we are able to
offer to clients. "23
The Department also points to related parole deficiencies:
"(1) insufficient time for case services and super-
visory case management;
(2) case assignment based on geography and insistence
on uniform caseload size;
(3) the lack of meaningful discussion and review of
case-services delivered; and
(4) the systematic development of new alternatives for
parolees.
Needless to say, systematic research related to any of
these areas is completely missing. "24
This situation apparently caused such problems that Task Force members
were informed of considerable effort to "beat the system". For example, some
staff indicated that directives occasionally came down not to discharge youths
- 32 -
at critical budget times, to transfer cases in such a way as not to lose
positions, etc. This type of manipulation seemed to be generally accepted
as necessary to protect the work force.
Recommendation. 10. The standard for parole caseloads should be
reduced to at least that set for probation subsidy caseloads (i.e., substan-
tially below 50 cases).
Morale. Another serious problem in CYA parole today is poor morale.
This was a consistent observation of Task Force staff throughout most parts
of the State. Many experienced CYA personnel said morale was clearly the
lowest it had ever been in their recollection. Fifty percent of all parole
staff indicated in the questionnaire that morale was definitely low (compared
to 34% of CYA institutional workers and 29% of adult parole staff); only
15% said morale was high.
Oddly enough, reasons for low morale appeared to center around the
positive effects of probation subsidy. Since 1965, the number of wards
committed to the Youth Authority has declined steadily25 (see Juvenile
Institution Task Force Report). Mainly, this has been due to the efforts
of county probation departments to work with as many malleable youth as
possible, and to refer to the State only those who seem incapable of respond-
ing well to probation supervision. The obvious outcome has been an increase
in the proportion of difficult hard-core cases in CYA institutions and on
parole. Yet parole caseload sizes have remained much the same (until the
recent Increased Parole Effectiveness Program), and there has been little,
if any, increase in auxiliary services or enriched programming which would
make the agent's job more manageable.
Reduced commitment rates have also had the effect of contracting rather
than expanding parole operations. In turn, this has resulted in fewer
opportunities for promotion. Parole staff are becoming increasingly anxious
about these conditions. They no longer see job security or promotional
opportunities as something to be taken for granted. In fact, some staff
pointed out that the only recent boost to morale was the inclusion of parole
agents in the safety retirement program, allowing earlier retirement.
Surprising as it may seem, the morale factor has not yet observably
affected staff dedication to the work they are doing. According to question-
naire responses, 70% of all staff were planning to make a career in corrections
and would recommend the field to other persons. Only 7% planned to leave
corrections and 12% would not recommend it as a career.
In several respects, the future for parole staff is likely to become
even more difficult and more uncertain. In a sense, the die has been cast.
The direction for correctional services is clearly to move them as much as
possible to the local, i.e. county, level. If the State subsidy program is
shored up, fewer and fewer wards will be committed to the State. In conse-
quence, there will be fewer jobs for State employees in parole (though there
- 33 -
may well be an increase of jobs in such areas as consultation, training,
and other specialized services).
Conditions like these are painful to contemplate and harder yet to
accept. It is therefore imperative that administration continue to inform
staff, at all levels, of the future direction of their agency and, to the
fullest extent possible, provide them with the opportunity of participating
in the shaping of its destiny. Administration must also make every effort
to provide for the future of its staff, and to develop the kind of staff
that will be needed in the State's newly emerging role in corrections. This
new role is spelled out in the System Task Force Report.
Recommendation: 11. Administration should continue strong efforts to
inform staff of the future direction of the agency together with the full
implications 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.
Communication. As Table I indicated, communication, particularly
upward, was perceived by most staff as generally poor. Many acknowledged,
however, that the administration was making a serious effort to improve the
flow of information in both directions. Several agents pinpointed the levels
of middle-management as the primary obstacle to good communication. They
asserted that if this obstacle were removed, "communication would be at an
all-time peak".
In a State as large as California, difficulties in developing an
effective communication network must be expected. Further, for California,
it can be predicted that the problem will worsen, at least for a time, as
CYA continues to decentralize. Administration must do everything it can to
anticipate the onset of new communication problems, and at the same time seek
ways of resolving those already existing. Difficult as this sounds, it is
not an impossible task. For when all staff become truly involved in key
decisions pertaining to agency function, legitimate claims of communication
barriers should no longer be possible.
Working Conditions. Aside from the major problem of excessive case-
loads, general working conditions appeared satisfactory. Over 90% of staff,
for example, described both their working conditions and salaries as "fair"
or "good". Not surprisingly, the major complaint was directed at inadequate
clerical help; 25% of staff said such assistance was insufficient. This
appears in large part directly due to the ratio of only one clerk-typist
position for every 220 cases in a unit, plus one-half position for each unit
supervisor. This is barely more than half the mandatory standard imposed
on probation subsidy units by the State of three such positions for every
unit, all of which must have substantially less than 300 cases. 26
- 34 -
Recommendation. 12. A careful evaluation of clerical and stenographic
needs should be made to formulate a more realistic ratio of such assistance
for parole staff.
Community Relations and Community Resources
According to questionnaire results, 92% of all staff felt that the
public does not understand what corrections is all about. A meager 4% believed
that society is supportive of correctional endeavors as against 68% who said
it is not. These perceptions are considerably more pessimistic than those of
the probation officers (see Probation Task Force Report), and indicate something
about the community's attitude toward parolees and the agents' anticipations of
the type of reception wards receive when released from YA institutions. As all
of the Task Force Reports have noted, it is evident that a great need exists
for vastly increased public education and improved public relations, not only
for parole but for all of corrections.
As for community resources, the most frequently mentioned needs were
satisfactory living arrangements (such as group and foster homes), a much
wider variety of mental health resources, and more employment opportunities
for older wards. Many line staff expressed eagerness to involve the community
by enlisting the aid of volunteers in the important job of parolee rehabili-
tation and reintegration. One of the most promising Youth Authority programs
concerned with treating youth at the community level and with community
involvement is the Parole Center Program which is discussed in Chapter VI.
Administration has taken a very progressive stance on the issue of
community involvement. The Director, in a recent address to the Rehabilitation
Services Division, stressed repeatedly that the future direction of corrections
is clearly to care for the offender in the community, and to involve residents
of the community as agents for change. In his words, "virtually all of the
changes confronting us are based on a theme of expanding community-based pro-
grams". 27 The key question here is whether this philosophy will filter down
throughout all levels of staff, and if so, what commitment will staff make to
it. The answer (at the county as well as State level) may well be the single
most important factor affecting the thrust and success of correctional efforts
for years to come.
Recommendation. 13. The State should increase its efforts to inform
and involve the public in alllevels of correctional services, and to maximize
its use of community resources.
Fiscal Support
Compared with other State correctional programs, financially the CYA
parole program appears to be faring relatively well. This may be partly due
to society's general interest in youth. However, parole programs, like most
other State operations, are feeling the financial pinch of increased citizen
- 35 -
opposition to higher taxes. This was dramatically illustrated at an important
meeting attended by a Task Force member, and to which all supervisors and
administrators from half of the State had been invited to discuss the budget.
The principal speaker opened the session with the statement: "Gentlemen, this
is an issue of survival. We are talking about saving jobs and preserving the
system." He went on to suggest that survival of the system was so uncertain
as to necessitate considerable budget manipulation.
A related problem was the feeling of many line and middle-management
staff that they had little or no input in budget preparation. Even the above
mentioned meeting, apparently the first of its kind, was perceived by some as
primarily an attempt to elicit consensus on what was already a fait accompli,
rather than true staff involvement in budget planning and decision-making.
If parole staff members misconstrued the underlying intent of that meeting,
then administration needs to clarify the intent.
V. PAROLE AS THE CLIENT SEES IT
Table IV summarizes questionnaire responses of approximately 253
parolees. Since questionnaires were distributed and returned in a confidential
manner and since respondents averaged a full year on parole, the answers are
believed to be generally honest and perceptive. The most significant finding
was that on virtually every question dealing with the parolee-parole agent
relationship, two-thirds (and often more) of the wards gave very positive
responses; extremely few expressed negative feelings about their parole agents.
However, when a question was raised about the parole system in general, 39% of
all respondents gave a negative rating, i.e., "makes little difference one way
or the other" or "makes people worse".
Panel (group) interviews brought out additional critical comments.
These centered around society's labeling and rejection of the parolee (e.g.,
schools and jobs were often closed to them and police frequently harassed
them), while parole agents did little that was of any significant help. Some
comments along this line were:
"The system just tells you lies, passes you along, and
puts you back on the street with nothing having been
changed."
"The worse thing that happens is coming out and having
everybody know you are a parolee. It hurts you in
school, especially trying to get a job, and even with
the chicks."
"Parole's a joke. It does nothing for you. Keeps a
few people employed perpetuating the hoax on the
public."
- 36 -
TABLE IV
CYA WARDS' VIEW OF PAROLE
PERCENT
QUESTION
RESPONSE
1. How well do you and your parole officer get along?
Very well
69
Fairly well
21
Not well at all (i.e., poorly)
2
Don't know him well enough
8
2. How interested do you think your parole officer really
is in you?
Very interested
64
Somewhat interested
23
Not interested
1
Don't know
12
3. How much help has your parole officer been to you?
A great deal of help
57
Some help
29
No help
3
Haven't had him long enough to tell
10
4. Do you think your parole officer is trying to help you?
Yes
91
No
1
Don't know
8
5. How often do you generally see your parole officer?
Have never seen him
3
Once a week
20
Every two weeks
18
Once a month
40
Every two months
8
Every three months
3
Less than every three months
8
6. Where does your parole officer usually see you?
Have never seen him
3
His office
40
Your home
45
A "field" office where he sees other parolees
7
Mail or phone
2
Other
3
- 37 -
TABLE IV (Continued)
PERCENT
QUESTION
RESPONSE
7. Has he ever come to your house?
Yes
86
No
14
8. Do you trust your present parole officer?
Yes
81
No
3
Not sure
16
9. Do you trust the parole department in general?
Yes
49
No
19
Not sure
32
10. Would you like to change from your present parole
officer to another?
Yes
4
No
82
Doesn't matter
13
11. If you were to ask for another parole officer, do you
think you could get one without any negative consequences,
i.e., without it being held against you or hurting you in
some way?
Yes
23
No
32
Don't know
45
12. Overall, how would you rate your present parole officer?
Very good
65
Generally good
23
Fair
10
Generally poor
1
Very poor
1
13. Frankly, do you feel parole:
Helps people
61
Makes little difference one way or the other
31
Makes people worse
8
- 38 -
In group interviews, parolees also pointed to the parolee-agent
relationship:
"My parole agent was authority-oriented and built
more fences than helped me. Each meeting drove
us further apart."
"I got a good parole agent. He didn't think he
was a cop. He was available but not always on
my back.
"Having a damn good parole agent that can relate
and listen is the key.'
The most common theme was that success or failure was primarily up to
the individual parolee:
"If I ever wanted anything, it's me who starts
the ball rolling."
"Either an individual will make it or not, but
not because of parole."
To summarize, the data clearly suggest that a good deal of rapport
exists between the parole agent and his charge. However, the system of
parole is viewed with suspicion (e.g., only 23% of the clients felt that
they could get another parole officer without having it held against them),
and the community is perceived as being rejective. In the view of the parolee,
any positive change, therefore, is likely to come about as a result of changing
aspects of the system and by changing community attitudes. Because he is
viewed in such a favorable light, it would appear that the parole agent is in
the most strategic position to effect such changes.
VI. EVALUATION OF CURRENT PROGRAM
General Recidivism
How effective is the CYA parole program? This is a critical question
not only for CYA parole but for the entire correctional system. Over the past
decade, scarcely more than one out of three juvenile parolees in California
completed parole without violation. Table V reveals that the violation rate
has, in fact, remained fairly stable for at least the past ten years. This
picture is not surprising in view of repeated past client failure in local
rehabilitation programs, and since CYA must deal with the most "hard-core"
offender.
- 39 -
TABLE V
CYA PAROLE VIOLATION RATE: 1961-197028
(Based on wards removed from parole)
VIOLATION
YEAR
RATE
1961
65.1
1962
65.2
1963
64.2
1964
63.3
1965
64.2
1966
62.8
1967
64.0
1968
66.3
1969
64.6
1970
62.9
There has been a slight decrease in violators in the past two years
despite the more difficult caseloads occasioned in part by the probation
subsidy. But this is not enough. The State of California is in to position
to be complacent about its handling of youthful offenders--not even in the
face of occasional spurts of success. The reality is that, in today's society,
delinquency is here to stay. If any additional progress is to be made in
protecting society and successfully rehabilitating and reintegrating juvenile
law-violators, an ever increasing commitment to prevention and corrections
must be made.
Length of Parole
Table VI indicates that the mean length of stay on parole has been
rising steadily. Since nearly 90% of all violations occur within the first
two years on parole, 29 it is not at all clear why parole supervision for
non-violators should be significantly lengthened beyond two years, particularly
for girls. If any part of the answer has to do with attempts to preserve
parole agent positions, then stronger procedural safeguards will of course
be mandatory. Table VI also reveals that the mean number of months on parole
for violators has increased from 12.8 in 1965 to 17.2 in 1970. This reflects
the YA's increased willingness to retain its parolees in the community as long
as possible, and is consistent with the philosophy of reintegration.
- 40 -
TABLE VI
MEAN NUMBER OF MONTHS ON PAROLE FOR WARDS REMOVED FROM PAROLE: 1965-1970³⁰
(By type of removal and sex)
YEAR
TOTAL
NON-VIOLATORS
VIOLATORS
TOTAL
1965
17.1
24.9
12.8
1966
17.5
25.4
12.8
1967
17.9
25.1
13.9
1968
18.3
25.9
14.4
1969
19.4
26.5
15.6
1970
21.2
27.9
17.2
BOYS
1965
16.4
23.9
12.6
1966
16.7
24.3
12.6
1967
17.3
24.3
13.7
1968
17.7
25.2
14.3
1969
18.8
25.8
15.4
1970
20.1
26.7
16.7
GIRLS
1965
22.0
29.2
14.7
1966
22.2
29.9
14.4
1967
21.7
28.4
15.1
1968
21.7
28.9
15.1
1969
23.2
29.2
17.2
1970
27.0
32.7
21.0
Recommendation. 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 substantially
increased by so doing.
Community Treatment Project
Since 1961, the Youth Authority has been piloting a community-based
program, in lieu of institutionalization, which has received world-wide
recognition. The Community Treatment Project (CTP) classifies youths according
to a sophisticated interpersonal maturity (I-level) scale, "matches" them with
agents who have been rated most likely to be effective with them, and carries
out a highly individualized or differential treatment program in small caseloads.
While there are a number of theoretical and practical shortcomings in this pro-
gram, (a major one being unusually high time demands), results have been very
- 41 -
encouraging. 31 At fifteen months and twenty-four months, CTP wards had failure
rates which were roughly two-thirds that of control groups and all other parolees
in the State. 32 There is also evidence that "the State has saved several million
dollars in capital outlay", due to elimination of initial institutionalization
and a much lower return rate. 33
Since volumes of descriptive and evaluative data are available about CTP,
this report will name only those factors which have "made a substantial contri-
bution to the comparative effectiveness of CTP. "34
1. matching of youths and agents
2. ability and perceptiveness of agents
3. intensive and/or extensive intervention
4. differential and treatment-relevant decision-making
5. working through of the agent/youth relationship as a major vehicle
of treatment
Researchers offer this important note of caution:
"CTP's effectiveness is not simply a result of its
having operated within a community setting: all
available evidence suggests that the avoidance of
institutionalization, in itself, contributes little
if anything to the experimental-control differences
in parole success. In other words, it is the differ-
ential or intensive/extensive treatment aspects--as
reflected in, and supported by, the above five factors
--which appear to be of fundamental importance. "35
CYA also claims that 89% of all youth eligible for the program do at
least as well as other parolees who are institutionalized (an average of
nine or ten months) before parole, that 36% perform better in CTP, and that
only 10% do better in the traditional program. 36 As Gibbons pointed out
several years ago, "these results strongly suggest that community treatment
stands as an effective alternative to institutionalization". 37 In fact, the
Youth Authority has asserted that it "no longer views community treatment
in lieu of institutionalization as, largely, an 'experimental' venture". 38
If this is a firm position, then the Youth Authority and the State of California
must make an even stronger commitment to these findings.
Recommendation. 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 insti-
tutionalization, particularly with those youths for whom such a program has
already been demonstrated effective.
- 42 -
VII. INCREASED PAROLE EFFECTIVENESS PROGRAM
As mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, CYA initiated its
Increased Parole Effectiveness Program (PEP) in April, 1971, several months
after the Parole Task Force had completed its field work. However, because
of its implications for the future, it merits inclusion in this Report.
Since a detailed description of PEP is available, 39 attention here will focus
mainly on program goals, methods for obtaining those goals, and general pro-
gram aspects.
Goals and Methods
The Youth Authority has formulated two long-range objectives for PEP,
one general and the other specific: 40
1. reduce crimes committed by wards under its jurisdiction;
2. reduce parole returns sufficiently to enable closure of 400 plus
beds by April 1, 1973.
It lists the following as the key methods and procedures to attain
these goals:
"(a) Planned programs of enriched services to parolees
on a differential case-by-case, unit-by-unit basis;
(b) Systematic changes in the decision-making process
as it relates to the use of community alternatives
for parolees;
(c) Training and consultation for parole agents to enable
them to develop new community alternatives for parolees;
(d) Special training and consultation to supervisors to
enable them to implement new procedures for counseling
and case review with parole agents; and
(e) Ongoing evaluation to: (1) identify effective programs;
(2) give feedback for administrators, managers and work-
ers on performance; and (3) measure the degree to which
program objectives are achieved. "41
The CYA is receiving $1,800,000 Federal "seed" money over a two-year
period to implement PEP. The expectation is that a decrease in the parole
violation rate will make the program self-supporting within that time. Of
major significance is the fact that "this plan commits the Youth Authority
to reallocating funds presently going into institutional programming to an
improved, effective parole services operation" 42 This type of commitment
and reallocation is one that might well be increased within the CYA and
duplicated by other correctional agencies in general and by adult correctional
institutions in particular.
- 43 -
By reducing caseloads to a flexible average of 50-1, and by significantly
strengthening the training program (by $93,000 over two years), the Department
hopes to provide the time, increased skills, and resources necessary to retain
more high-risk youth in the community.
Evaluation
Because of its newness, no valid assessment of PEP's effectiveness can
be made at this time. However, there is no bar to discussing its emphasis
and its potential impact.
Two particularly favorable aspects of PEP are that it decreases caseload
size, and that it apparently triples CYA's training capacity for parole staff.
Its heavy stress on training and on increased effectiveness of first-line
supervisors (intended to change their role from "caseload auditor" to "resource
manager") 43 follows the recent statewide training study recommendations. 44
However, it perhaps leaves unresolved a problem acknowledged by many staff,
specifically that a number of supervisors are, in effect, "semi-retired".
More aggressive administrative action may still be necessary to remedy this
situation if training does not. Action must also be taken to further reduce
parole workloads, since they are still in excess of subsidy standards set for
the counties, and to correct the earlier mentioned inadequate clerical ratio.
Caution must be exercised with respect to the time and functions of the
line worker. While many constructive additons have been made by PEP--increased
training, case staffings, supervisory consultation and controls, research, etc.
--there is a distinct possibility that, in combined form, they may place such
a time burden on the worker as to negate the reduction in his caseload. Conver-
sely, if the caseloads are reduced without these additional resources and more
effective supervision, agents are likely to continue handling cases in the same
manner they always have (as has occurred in some probation subsidy programs).
Methods for accommodating to these issues must be developed, and should include
reduced paperwork and increased emphasis on client-oriented activities.
Finally, there is the uncomfortable question as to what will happen to
PEP and the overall parole program if the CYA is not able to sufficiently lower
its return rate within two years (a goal that will be increasingly difficult if
counties drastically reduce their commitments even further as is strongly
recommended by the Juvenile Institution Task Force Report). The question is
not intended to imply that the required objectives will not be met. In fact,
there have already been some reports of a turnabout in staff morale and enthus-
iasm. Also, despite the questions raised in this discussion, Task Force staff
is strongly convinced that PEP has potential for making the most dramatic impact
on parole operations in many years. The sincere hope is that this potential
can be realized and that concerns raised here will therefore ultimately be
completely dissipated.
- 44 -
VIII. WHO SHOULD HANDLE PAROLE?
Assuming that State commitments continue to decline, there is good
probability that caseloads will be spread thinly over considerably widened
geographical areas. This will necessitate more agent time per individual
case, and make it increasingly difficult for agents to make maximum use of
local resources. For these reasons, and because local probation departments
provide services closely comparable to those of parole, many correctional
and public officials are suggesting that county probation departments might
well be a more effective and less costly vehicle for providing parole as
well as probation services. Many clients were under local probation super-
vision before commitment to the State, and unless it can be demonstrated
that State field services are more effective than county aftercare programs,
there seems no logical reason why these clients, once paroled, cannot again
be supervised by local authorities.
On the other hand, as pointed out in the Probation Task Force Report,
there may be instances where counties, especially small ones, might wish to
have the State provide not only parole but probation services as well.
In either case, provided State and county agreement has been reached,
there should be no legal barrier to their making respective arrangements on
a contractual basis. The financial implications of such a contract, as these
relate to the new subsidy program recommended by the Correctional System Study,
are discussed in the System Task Force Report.
Recommendation
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.
IX. SUMMARY
This chapter has described the juvenile parole system in the State of
California. It began with an examination of the administrative structure of
the Youth Authority in terms of the style of management manifested by the
Department. Basic in this was the concern with communication patterns and
the extent to which staff participate in the decision-making process. This
was followed by a discussion of the Youth Authority's philosophy, policies,
and functions.
The section on Resources dealt with staff roles, including those of the
supervisor and the para-professional; matters of training, caseloads, and staff
morale were also examined. In addition, interview and questionnaire data were
presented to depict client views of parole and of the Youth Authority.
- 45 -
The final sections of this chapter dealt with the topic of effectiveness
of the Youth Authority, and included an assessment of the Community Treatment
Project as well as the newly established Increased Parole Effectiveness Program.
Some of the major findings of the Task Force are as follows:
1. Despite the trend toward simpler and more flexible organizational
structures, the Youth Authority continues to be handicapped by
its large size and traditional hierarchical structure. Staff at
all levels in the hierarchy, particularly line workers, are dis-
satisfied with communications in the Department. There is also
the definite feeling, again among line workers, that they do not
have enough voice in important policy matters affecting field
operations. In brief, there is the general opinion that the
Department is conservative and unwilling to experiment with new
ideas.
2. There is a pervasive belief among parole agents that the Youth
Authority Board, not the Department, sets important policies and
defines the duties of the agent. They feel that Board policies
are too conservative and law enforcement-oriented, especially in
matters of parole revocation. As a result, many parole agents
"slant" their reports and thereby manipulate Board members.
3. The morale of the parole staff is poor. Among the factors responsi-
ble for this condition are poor communications, and little or no
voice in policy-decisions, both of which are mentioned above. How-
ever, perhaps even more important are the changing parolee character-
istics leading to serious management problems, and above all, the
lack of promotional opportunities. Since 1965, the length of time
on parole has increased five months. Thus, despite the fact that
greater numbers of youth are being diverted from State institutions,
parolees are now serving longer periods of time under supervision.
This is resulting in a "piling-up" of parolees in each agent's
caseload. In short, it would not be inaccurate to state that the
staff feels "locked in" a system where they are overworked, have
inadequate clerical assistance, are denied the privilege of trans-
ferring from one agency to another, and feel that they do not have
the support of the administration.
4. There are a number of "soft spots" in the staffing of YA personnel.
One has to do with a number of first-line supervisors who are
"coasting", either because they are not capable of providing agents
with supervisory leadership, or because they are "burnt out".
Another has to do with the underrepresentation of CYA parole agents
from racial and ethnic minority groups. This unfortunate situation
exists in the adult parole system as well. A third "soft spot" in
staffing has to do with the employment of para-professionals and
New Careerists, and it is extremely unfortunate that persons of
great potential value to corrections may no longer be recruited
because of budget restrictions and poor planning.
- 46 -
5. Despite the above problems within the YA staff, parole agents have
been able to maintain good rapport with their clients. The question-
naire data clearly indicate that the parolees have very positive
attitudes toward their agents. However, they are not nearly so
positive toward the system, and view it with a good deal of uncer-
tainty and suspicion.
6. While a precise statement regarding the effectiveness of the YA's
program is not possible, available data indicate that the violation
rates over the past ten years have remained relatively constant. In
fact, since 1968 they have decreased slightly, even though there are
more "hard-core" cases under supervision. In addition, the period
of time spent on parole before violation has increased steadily since
1965, suggesting a concerted effort on the part of the parole agents
to retain their charges in the community.
7. The Community Treatment Project, now formally a part of the Youth
Authority program, has shown consistently that it is superior to
institutionalization as a method of programming Youth Authority
wards. In addition to the CTP, the Youth Authority has recently
launched the Increased Parole Effectiveness Program (PEP). One
of PEP's specific goals is to close approximatley 400 institutional
beds by April 1, 1973. The achievement of this goal will be
facilitated through increased staff training and reduced caseloads,
both to be important ingredients of PEP.
8. As will be evident in the next chapter, many of the observations
made by the Task Force in this chapter, and summarized above, also
apply to the Parole and Community Services Division of the Depart-
ment of Corrections. The CYA and CDC have many problems in common.
For example, as will be seen in the following chapter, the adult
parole system is encumbered by five administrative layers that
encourage rigidity and bureaucratic "red tape". The Division is
also plagued by communication problems. Policies are not clearly
stated, and line staff report little or no voice in important
decision-making matters, and, in general, feel "locked in" their
positions.
- 47 -
FOOTNOTES
¹President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice,
Task Force Report: Corrections (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1967), p. 16.
2Department of Youth Authority, Parole Manual, State of California
(Sacramento, revised August 1, 1966), Section 501.
3Loc. cit.
4Department of Youth Authority, Staff News, State of California
(Sacramento, April 16, 1971).
5California Welfare and Institutions Code, Article I, Chapter 937,
Section 1700.
⁶Department of Youth Authority, Parole Manual, op. cit., Section 521.1.
7Department of Youth Authority, "Program Planning Policy", State of
California (Sacramento, April 12, 1971), p. 1. (Mimeographed.)
⁸Department of Youth Authority, Parole Manual, op. cit., Section 502.10.
9 Ibid.
10Department of Youth Authority, A Guide to Treatment Program, State of
California (Sacramento, April 1970).
Department of Youth Authority, Parole Manual, op. cit., Sections
520.2 and 521.7.
12Department of Youth Authority, "Program Planning Policy", op. cit.,
pp. 3-6.
3Department of Youth Authority, A Guide to Treatment Programs, op. cit.;
Department of Youth Authority, The Status of Current Research in the California
Youth Authority, State of California (Sacramento, July 1970).
14Department of Youth Authority, "Project Proposal: Increased Parole
Effectiveness", State of California, Submitted to California Council on Criminal
Justice, January 21, 1971, p. 34. (Mimeographed.)
15 Ibid., pp. 24-26.
16See: Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, Offenders
as a Correctional Manpower Resource (College Park: repreinted November 1970);
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, op.
cit., pp. 102-104.
- 48 -
Footnotes
17CYA Budget, 1970-71.
8California Task Force on Correctional Manpower and Training, Mobilizing
Correctional Manpower (Sacramento, September 1968); Department of Youth Authority,
Training for Tomorrow, State of California (Sacramento, July 1970).
19 See: Training for Tomorrow, Ibid.
20 Department of Youth Authority, Rules, Regulations, and Standards of
Performance for Special Supervision Programs, State of California (Sacramento,
revised November 1969), p. 4.
21 Department of Youth Authority, "Project Proposal: Increased Effective-
ness", op. cit., p. 34.
22Ibid., p. 21.
23Ibid., p. 26.
24 +Ibid., pp. 26-27.
25 Department of Youth Authority, A Comparison of Youth Authority Wards:
1961-1970, State of California (Sacramento, September 1970), pp. 6-7.
26 Department of Youth Authority, Rules, Regulations, and Standards of
Performance for Special Supervision Programs, op. cit., pp. 14-15.
27 Department of Youth Authority, Staff News, op. cit.
28 Department of Youth Authority, Annual Statistical Report: 1969,
State of California (Sacramento, 1970), p. 27; 1970 statistics obtained from
Division of Research.
29 Department of Youth Authority, State of California, statistics to be
published in 1970 Annual Statistical Report of Division of Research.
30 Ibid.
31See: Don C. Gibbons, "Differential Treatment of Delinquents and
Interpersonal Maturity Levels Theory: A Critique", The Social Service Review,
44 (March, 1970), pp. 22-33; James Robison, The California Prison, Parole
and Probation System, Technical Supplement No. 2, A Special Report to the
Assembly. (Sacramento: California Office of Research: undated), pp. 56-62.
32Ted Palmer, "California's Community Treatment Project for Delinquent
Adolescents", accepted for publication in 1971 issue of Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency, p. 14. (Mimeographed.)
33Ibid., p. 16.
- 49 -
Footnotes
34Ibid., pp. 18-19.
³⁵Department of Youth Authority, The Status of Current Research in the
California Youth Authority, op. cit., p.5.
36palmer, op. cit., p. 21.
37Don Gibbons, Society, Crime, and Criminal Careers (Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall, 1968), p. 528.
38palmer, op. cit., p. 15.
39 "Project Proposal: Increased Parole Effectiveness", op. cit.
40Ibid., p. 32.
41 Ibid.
42Ibid., p. 30.
43Ibid., p. 37.
44See: Department of Youth Authority, Training for Tomorrow, op. cit.
CHAPTER IV
THE ADULT PAROLE SYSTEM: STUDY FINDINGS
I. ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE
The adult parole system in California is a function of the Parole and
Community Services Division of the Department of Corrections. The Division
is administered by a Deputy Director, responsible to the Director of the
Department. The Deputy Director is assisted by an Assistant Deputy Direc-
tor and various administrative and staff personnel in the headquarters of-
fice in Sacramento. He is also supported by Departmental Services, such
as the Management Services Division, the Research Division, and so on.
At the next level of administrative structure are six Regional
Offices, each headed by a Regional Administrator. Regions I through IV
are constituted primarily on geographic lines, covering the entire state;
while Regions V and VI are primarily constituted functionally, to adminis-
ter certain specialized programs, such as the Narcotic Addict Outpatient
Program, the Parole Outpatient Clinics, etc.
The Regions, in turn, are subdivided into Districts, and the Districts
into Units, administered by District Administrators and Unit Supervisors
respectively. Thus there are five administrative levels of staff in the
Division, including the line staff level.
In any administrative structure as large and as complex in its func-
tions as this one, one of the major maintenance tasks is communication. The
expectation that communication problems will arise is heightened when the
large and complex organization is a professional one, in which the decision-
making process must take place at every level, including the line workers.
In the final analysis, it is the line worker who delivers the service to
the division's clients, both parolees and community. He must, therefore,
apply decisions made at all levels to the specific case situation. Thus,
if there is any breakdown or distortion of communication, in either direc-
tion, between the line worker and the top level of administration, it will
have a negative effect on the line worker's ability to implement the divi-
sion's mission.
To add to the division's problems of communication and of adminis-
trative control and supervision, the number of parolees assigned to adult
parole agents for supervision has shown a marked and accelerating increase
over the past few years. On February 1, 1965, adult male felon parolees
totaled 10,127 (this figure excludes adult female felon parolees and civilly
committed narcotic addict parolees). Over four and a half years later, on
June 30, 1969, this group of parolees had increased by 8%. Just one year
after that, on June 30, 1970, they were up almost 19% over the 1965 figure. 1
And as of April 1, 1971, the increase in this group had grown. to about 40%
above the 1965 figure. When adult female felon parolees and civilly com-
mitted narcotic addict parolees are added, the April 1, 1971 total of
parolees under supervision is 19,922.2
- 51 -
According to a study made by the Department's Research Division,
certain key characteristics of felon offenders committed to the Department
of Corrections, the vast majority of whom are ultimately released on parole,
have apparently been changing over the past decade. 3 The changing character-
istics will be discussed at a later point in this chapter, but the pertinent
point here is that changes in the characteristics of the parole population
require corresponding changes in programs and staffing patterns in the divi-
sion.
The need to adapt both to rapidly increasing volume and to changing
program needs has put a tremendous strain on the whole structure of the
Parole and Community Services Division. The following sections will attempt
to identify those spots at which this strain may become, or already has be-
come, evident and will suggest ways in which remedial action may be taken.
II. COMMUNICATION
Since the quality of its communication system directly affects the
ability of any organization to fulfill its mission, the Parole Task Force
staff devoted a substantial proportion of its time to assessing the quality
of communications within the Parole and Community Services Division. Find-
ings were somewhat mixed.
Divisional field staff, from regional administrators to line staff,
were in general agreement that dissemination of information from the top
levels of administration was good with respect to the substance of new
policies, procedural changes, and legislation. However, since some poli-
cies, procedures, and legislative changes are subject to interpretation be-
fore being converted into action, and since there are three administrative
levels between division administration and line staff, some problems have
arisen regarding the intent of such communications. Line staff, in particu-
lar, expressed the feeling that communications from department or division
administration sometimes became distorted (though perhaps unintentionally)
by the time they were received.
In general, the division's field staff viewed upward communication
as more of a problem than downward communication. At each level, the feel-
ing was expressed that efforts to communicate upwards were frequently either
intercepted or diluted at the next higher level, with the result that top
administration frequently remained uninformed regarding the problems and
frustrations of the division's "lower echelons".
Table VII reproduces the responses to two items in the confidential
questionnaire distributed to staff in the areas covered by the California
Correctional System Study. These responses generally support the verbal
feedback received by Task Force staff, and suggest several observations.
First, only a minority of the staff would rate the quality of communication
in a very favorable light. About one-third of the staff--line workers,
supervisors, and administrators--evaluated the quality of communication
- 52 -
(downward or upward) as being "good" or "excellent". Fully 33% asserted
that downward communication was either "bad" or "poor" and 43% rated up-
ward communication in the same unfavorable light. Second, the line staff
is more dissatisfied with the quality of communication, in either direction,
than are the supervisors and administrators. Third, the supervisors and
administrators are more dissatisfied with upward communication than with
downward communication.
This evidence of dissatisfaction with communication in the division,
while not overwhelming, is sufficient to serve as a warning of possible
impending trouble. It is not unreasonable to assume that much of the dis-
satisfaction expressed is due to the cumbersome, multi-layered administra-
tive hierarchy of the division described at the beginning of this chapter.
TABLE VII
STAFF PERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATION IN THE DIVISION
(Percentage distribution*)
LINE
ADMINISTRATORS
ALL STAFF
WORKERS
& SUPERVISORS
QUESTION
(N=268)
(N=204)
(N=64)
1. Estimate how good the downward
communication in your agency is.
Excellent
7
6
11
Good
24
23
27
Fair
37
36
40
Poor
21
24
13
Bad
11
12
10
2. Estimate how good the upward
communication in your agency is.
Excellent
6
5
6
Good
27
27
27
Fair
24
24
27
Poor
29
28
30
Bad
14
15
11
*Column totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.
While the Parole Task Force recognized that responsible administra-
tors were aware of a problem in this area and were taking steps to resolve
it, the following recommendations are made to lend support to, and perhaps
to increase, the efforts now being made.
- 53 -
Recommendations
17. The administrative structure of the division should be reviewed
to assess the advisability of reducing the number of administrative levels
through which communications must be channeled.
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 administrator
on a face-to-face basis (at regional or district staff meetings) with all
divisional staff concerned, to allow for questions from those who need
interpretation of the change, and to avoid possibly conflicting interpre-
tations by intermediate administrators.
19. The deputy director, assistant deputy director, and other appro-
priate 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 "belonging".
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.
III. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIVISION'S MISSION
The Mission
As with other components of any modern, progressive corrections system,
the basic mission of the adult parole component is the protection of society
through reduction of the probability of continued or renewed illegal behavior
by parolees. In a parole system, the two major elements of this mission are
the rehabilitation and reintegration into law-abiding society of the maximum
possible number of parolees; and the removal from society and reincarceration
of those who have committed, or are in imminent danger of committing, further
aggressions against society. The multiplicity of techniques, programs, and
resources developed to achieve the parole mission preclude a full description
here; but, for an excellent and brief description of adult parole supervision
in California, the reader is referred to the introduction of a report made
to the Legislature by the Department of Corrections in December, 1970. 4 The
extent to which a parole system is able to increase the number of parolees
reintegrated into society and to reduce the number reincarcerated, while
maintaining a consistent or increased level of protection of society from
criminal acts by parolees, constitutes its "success" rate. The following
subsections, then, will briefly review two of the more noteworthy programs
inaugurated during the past decade by the Parole and Community Services
Division to achieve its mission; look into the division's "success" rate;
discuss some of the problems related to the division's program expansion; and
suggest actions needed to reduce or resolve those problems.⁵
- 54 - -
The Work Unit Program
The stated objectives of the Work Unit Program, which was inaugurated
as of February 1, 1965, were "to serve the public interest by a reduction
in new crime and aggressive acts committed by parolees; by providing in-
creased assistance to the parolee; and by a reduction in the cost of hand-
ling offenders within the correctional system. "6 Between 1965 and 1970,
substantial progress has been made toward all these objectives and is statis-
tically demonstrated in the study already cited.7 Of even more significance,
however, are the statistically verified indications, in the same study, that,
coincident with the creation of the Work Unit Program, there was a general
increase in the "success" rate of the whole adult parole system. Why this
came about is a matter of speculation at this time, but the implication re-
mains that a powerful thrust toward keeping the parolee out of prison has
been generated in the entire adult parole system, and some thoughts on the
subject will be presented later.
Use of Trainees and Para-Professionals
Some of the most disturbing and most frequently discussed trends of
the past decade have been the combined urbanization and suburbanization of
the nation's population, the rapid increase in the proportion of minority
group members in the inner city populations, and the growing alienation of
these sub-cultural groups from the majority culture. When recognition of
these trends is related to the fact that approximately 50% of California's
CDC population consists of minority group members, it adds up to a major
problem for an organization expected to "rehabilitate and reintegrate" its
clients. The simple answer would seem to be, "Hire more staff from among
the State's minorities", especially since 77% of the 199 line workers and
81% of the 64 supervisors and administrators who checked the ethnic group
item on the questionnaire indicated that they were Caucasian. But the answer
is not that simple. Among minority group members who could qualify for posi-
tions as parole agents, not enough apply. In an attempt to alleviate this
problem, the division has employed three kinds of para-professional person-
nel: (1) student professional assistants; (2) correctional casework trainees;
and (3) parole aides. The parole aides, in particular, are recruited pre-
dominantly from economically depressed sections of urban areas to help bridge
the communications gap between a largely Caucasion middle-class parole staff
and the largely minority group populated communities in which they must
function. As yet, it is only a small beginning, but in the next decade, it
may prove to be one of the most important steps yet taken by the parole system.
The Division's "Success Rate"
When measured by the percentage of parolees still in parole status
two years after release from prison versus the percentage that had to be re-
incarcerated, as well as the percentage who had committed new felonies, the
success rate of the parole division showed a remarkable improvement follow-
ing inauguration of the Work Unit Program. 8 From a high of 47% returned to
55 I 1
prison within two years of their release in 1962, the rate dropped to 32%
returned to prison within two years of their release in 1967. At the same
time, 20% of those released in 1962 had committed new felonies within two
years of release, while only 12% of those released in 1967 had committed
new felonies within two years of release. In short, while reducing the
number of parolees returned to prison by almost 33%, they had also reduced
the number of new felonies by over 41%.
As stated earlier, however, the most interesting aspect of this im-
proved success rate is that it occurred in both Conventional Units and Work
Units. 9 Of the parolees released between May, 1965, and June, 1968, 34%
had been returned to prison within two years from Conventional Units, and
33% from Work Units. The Work Units, however, did have a somewhat better
record in protecting society, since 15% of those returned from Conventional
Units had committed new felonies, as compared with 12% from the Work Units.
Thus, of the 9, 145 parolees in Conventional Units, 1,335 committed new felonies
whereas of the 8,392 in Work Units, 982 had new felonies.
Just why the Conventional Units began to show a marked improvement
in success rate quite soon after the establishment of the Work Unit Program
is a matter of speculation. It may have reflected motivation through com-
petition. It may have reflected the desire of line workers to prove their
right to be transferred (or "promoted" as they perceive it) to the smaller,
more professionally rewarding caseloads in the Work Units. It may have re-
flected an increased conviction among parole agents that top administration
was sincerely interested in keeping parolees out of prison as long as they
did not pose a serious threat to society. In all likelihood, it was a com-
bination of all of these factors. Whatever the reasons, it is clear that
the introduction of a new program, with emphasis on the belief that parole
supervision can work if given a real chance, greatly improved the function-
ing of the whole system. It also raises the question whether the gains al-
ready made will be lost if this program is not expanded and strengthened.
A return to the prior (and much lower) level of success rates would cost the
State's taxpayers millions of dollars (to say nothing of the human cost).
Considering the cost differential between parole and incarceration, it has
been estimated that to date the savings in operational costs under the new
program have exceeded five million dollars. The savings in capital outlay
for institutional building may be as high as 45 million, part of which is
attributable to the Probation Subsidy Program. 10
Some Problem Areas
As was indicated earlier in this chapter, there have been a number
of "growing pains" related to the parole division's rapid expansion, both
in numbers of parolees under supervision and in new program development.
These changes have consumed tremendous amounts of administrative time, thought,
and energy, with the result that regular organizational maintenance tasks may
have been partially neglected. In this section, some of the problem areas
noted by the Parole Task Force, both in on-site interviews and through returns
on the questionnaire, will be discussed.
- 56 -
One of the foreseeable results of a combined increase in overall
parolee caseload and development of new programs is that a substantial
number of parole agents would be relatively new, either recently recruited
or recently assigned to their current jobs. And, as a matter of fact, the
Task Force found that, of 204 parole agents responding to the questionnaire
issued in October, 1970, 114 (56%) had been on their present assignment for
two years or less. When this finding is combined with those in Table VII,
on communications, the results obtained in Table VIII, are not too sur-
prising. It is likely that the weighting toward the "unclear" end of this
scale among parole agents indicates an expression of anxiety about making
decisions on specific cases. In interviews with Task Force staff, a sub-
stantial number of parole agents expressed the feeling that it was the parole
agent, not the supervisors or administrators, nor even the Adult Authority,
who was "blamed" if a parolee got into serious trouble. Yet they also felt
that they were evaluated on the basis of how many parolees they can keep out
of prison. Adding to this possible anxiety was the feeling, expressed by a
number of parole agents, of the existence of conflict between the philosophy
of the Adult Authority (which they perceived as punitive) and that of the
division. Apparently, then, there is a real need to give increased support
and security to parole agents, particularly those who are fairly new, with
respect to the division's "new" thrust.
TABLE VIII
STAFF PERCEPTION OF CLARITY OF PHILOSOPHY
AND POLICY IN THE DIVISION
(Percentage distribution*)
LINE
ADMINISTRATORS
ALL STAFF
WORKERS
& SUPERVISORS
QUESTION
(N=268)
(N=204)
(N=64)
1. Estimate how clear the philosophy
and policies of your agency are.
Very clear
6
4
13
Clear
27
24
36
Average
36
36
34
Unclear
21
25
11
Very unclear
10
11
6
*Column totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.
The Task Force found that, in spite of its apparent generally favor-
able influence on overall parole outcome, the existence of the Work Unit
Program caused some dissension among parole agents supervising Conventional
caseloads. As indicated earlier, most parole agents considered assignment
to a Work Unit caseload as a promotion, not just a lateral transfer. In
addition, they have seen the figures on parole outcomes showing that agents
with the smaller caseloads are really not much more successful than those
- 57 -
with the much larger Conventional caseloads. As a result, many feel that
the total divisional caseload should be redistributed SO that caseloads would
be more or less equalized. To accede to this feeling without further re-
search might prove to be a mistake--a step in the wrong direction--but the
fact that the feeling is there does constitute a warning that some action
should be taken. The ultimate answer probably lies in continued intensive
research to determine more precisely than is now known what kinds of offen-
ders can profit most by assignment to caseloads of various sizes, and what
types of supervision are most effective for different types of offenders.
It is very likely that some parolees will profit by intensive supervision,
while others would fare better under less direct methods; some need help
with environmental problems and others do not; still others would profit by
frequent contacts whereas others would not. Research would indicate the
number and kinds of units that would best meet the needs of different types
of parolees. For the Department of Corrections to move in this direction
will, of course, require the understanding and the help of those who draw
up the budgets and those who approve them.
One impediment to implementation of the division's mission is the
small, but statistically significant, minority of parole agents who con-
sciously oppose the principle of keeping as many parolees out of prison
as is possible within reasonable limits of public safety. Task Force staff,
in interviews with parole agents, found an estimated 15% to 20% who con-
tended that the adult parole system was not providing adequate protection
to society under present policy. In light of the steadily declining number
of new felonies committed by parolees over the past five or six years, it is
difficult to understand the reasoning behind this point of view; but never-
theless, it continues to exist. To staff conducting the interviews, this
point of view seemed to reflect, not the factual situation, but rather a
personal feeling that "wrong-doers must be punished", and that the most
appropriate place for law violators is in prison. A few of these parole
agents seemed to consider themselves to be strictly law enforcement officers
rather than helping agents, and even believed that they should carry guns in
their work, which is contrary to agency policy. Removal of this impediment
would seem to require either a thorough reorientation of the parole agents
involved or their release, so that they might seek employment in more com-
patible lines of work.
While it is true that someone at the top of any organization must
have the ultimate responsibility and authority to make policy decisions, it
is also true that the greater the participation in the decision-making pro-
cess on the part of those delivering services, the more committed they will
be to their tasks. The Parole Task Force questionnaire included an item on
this matter, and the divisional field staff were asked to estimate the degree
of their participation in the decision-making process. The results are pre-
sented in Table IX. While the responses of the supervisors and administra-
tors are slightly weighted toward the upper end of the scale, line staff
responses are heavily weighted toward the lower end. Fully 58% of the line
workers, and 30% of the supervisors and administrators, claimed that they
had little or no voice in decision-making. These responses reveal rather
strong feelings among line staff that they are left out of the decision-
- 58 -
making process, and these feelings constitute a threat to the quality of
the agency's delivery of services.
TABLE IX
STAFF PERCEPTION OF EXTENT
TO WHICH THEY HAVE A VOICE IN DECISION-MAKING
(Percentage distribution*)
LINE
ADMINISTRATORS
ALL STAFF
WORKERS
& SUPERVISORS
QUESTION
(N=268)
(N=204)
(N=64)
1. Estimate to what extent you have
a voice in the decision-making of
your agency.
Very strong
6
4
10.
Strong
18
14
29
Fair
26
24
32
Little voice
30
32
25
No voice
21
26
5
*Column totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.
The point at which parole agents said they felt the greatest degree
of conflict between policies of the division and policies of the Adult
Authority was the revocation process. In Chapter VII, recommendations are
made for certain changes in the Adult Authority's revocation procedures,
and these changes, if adopted, should alleviate a part of this conflict.
It must be borne in mind, however, that the difference between the proper
functions of the Adult Authority and those of the parole agents will natu-
rally result in (sometimes serious) differences of opinion on specific cases;
and this can occur when neither side is actually "wrong".
Another problem area of the division's mission is being engendered
by the changing characteristics of adult felons committed to the Department
of Corrections by the superior courts of the State. In a study referred
to earlier, the Department's Research Division found that those committed
over the past decade are becoming younger, have more prior offenses, have
used weapons more frequently in their offenses, started breaking the law
earlier in their lives, and SO on. Thus, inmates released to parole over
the past few years are tending to be more impulsive and assaultive than the
parolee population of preceding years. 11
The Work Unit Program, started in early 1965, with its smaller case-
loads and more intensive supervision (caseloads are set at 35 compared to
an average of 70 for Conventional Units), seems to have dealt successfully
with this phenomenon to date. However, inadequate financial support for
- 59 -
the WU Program is now forcing the division to place a higher and higher
percentage of the parolee population in Conventional Units and a smaller
and smaller percentage in Work Units. In 1965, 56% of the parolee popula-
tion was in Work Unit caseloads and only 44% in Conventional caseloads.
By June 30, 1969, 48% were in WU caseloads and 52% in Conventional case-
loads; and by June 30, 1970, the 1965 figures had been exactly reversed.
This forced redistribution of the parolee, due to inadequate finances, into
much larger caseloads could eventually result in reversing the "success
rate" of the division. On the other hand, the fact that the Conventional
Unit success rate caught up with and is now virtually identical with that
of the Work Unit Program suggests that caseload size is not the sole factor
in determining parole failure or success. Rather, it is now commonly ac-
cepted by correctional authorities that it is the nature and quality of
treatment efforts, and their relevancy for individual offenders, which are
the key factors in program effectiveness. In short, while excessive case-
load size hamstrings any meaningful rehabilitative or surveillance efforts,
differential handling and individualized treatment are far more important
than the number of clients. 12 As the President's Commission on Law Enforce-
ment and Administration of Justice concluded in 1967:
"Those experiments with reduced caseloads have shown
that to reduce recidivism requires classification of
offenders with differential treatment for each class. 13
The Youth Authority's Community Treatment Project and recent Increased Parole
Effectiveness Program, discussed in Chapter III, are viewed as progressive
steps in this direction. While caseloads of 70 are well above the standards
set by virtually all recognized correctional authorities¹⁴ and 40% above the
mandatory maximum limit for probation subsidy programs, 15 the California
Department of Corrections should strive not simply to reduce more of its
caseloads, but also to develop more sophisticated strategies of differential
treatment.
Mention has already been made of the difficulty, as well as the vital
importance, of recruiting members of racial and ethnic minorities for the
adult parole system. Task Force staff view the increased hiring of minority
group members who can effectively communicate and work with the State's
growing minority population is crucial to the further progress of the system.
Private industry, faced with the same problems, has resorted to programs very
similar to the trainee and parole aide programs of the parole division. As
mentioned in the Probation Task Force Report, such programs often seem quite
costly in terms of immediate returns, but their real value lies in long-range
results. If California's adult parole system is going to be relevant and
effective in dealing with changes in the broader society, as well as in the
parolee population, it is imperative that these forward-looking programs which
facilitate greater hiring and training of minorities be budgeted for contin-
uation and expansion.
- 60 -
Recommendations
21. In view of the heavy pressures exerted on parole agents as a
result of both volume and program expansion, they should be given contin-
uous 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
overall caseload standard at least equal to that of probation subsidy pro-
grams (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 de-
cision.
25. The California Department of Corrections should expand its efforts
to hire, train, and promote minority group members.
IV. PERSONNEL MATTERS
Recruitment
One of the most important recruitment issues is the one already
touched on in the preceding section--the recruitment of staff from minority
cultures and ethnic groups. But the problem of recruiting correctional
staff is actually much broader than that. A study made by the Harris Poll
a few years ago showed that only a very small fraction of young people to-
day are interested in entering the correctional field as a profession because
the work is too difficult and frustrating, and the rewards are inadequate.
Interestingly enough, when the division's field staff were asked, "Would
you recommend corrections as a career to a young person?" 73% of 204 parole
agents and 81% of 64 supervisors and administrators said "yes", 10% of the
agents and 8% of the supervisors and administrators said "no"; the balance
of both groups were "not sure". Thus the great majority of those with ex-
perience in the field would recommend it to others, and this suggests the
need for vigorous support of programs such as student professional assistants
and correctional casework trainees, to give young people a chance to judge
for themselves after having had some actual experience. It also suggests
the possibility of a staff position at the departmental level which would be
devoted full-time to working with high schools and colleges to inform students
- 61 -
of the many kinds of job opportunities in corrections and to serve as a
recruiter for existing vacancies. This staff person could also advise
interested students and others on the areas of knowledge with which they
should become familiar before taking the Personnel Board examinations for
various correctional positions.
Promotions
When asked "Are you basically satisfied with the promotional system
in your agency?", 71% of line staff and 63% of supervisors and administra-
tors said "no". To conclude that all of those persons dissatisfied were
those passed over for promotions or were malcontents would be an oversimpli-
fication - although it is conceded that some of the expressed dissatisfac-
tion may come from this source. Interviews with staff elicited a number
of specific complaints about the promotional process. Some staff felt that
too much emphasis was placed on a person's ability to pass written tests,
to be articulate before a review panel, and to "pass" a supervisory evalu-
ation which may or may not be objective. Other concerns among employees
were the variation between different raters for the same position, and sus-
picion (justified or not) that key administrators were exerting pressure
upon departmental representatives serving on oral panels to rate condidates
in a predetermined manner. The amount of dissatisfaction suggests that on-
going reevaluation of the entire promotional process should be maintained,
with participation by all levels of staff.
As was the case with Youth Authority parole staff, there was extremely
strong support (93%) for creating the equivalent of a Parole Agent III case-
carrying position so that outstanding caseworkers would not have to become
administrators in order to be promoted. A clear majority (though not as high
a percentage as Youth Authority staff) favored allowing workers to compete for
promotional openings in other correctional agencies in the State (70%), and
permitting them to transfer, with the same rank and salary, to other agencies
(57%).
In-Service Training
In a professional organization, the in-service training program serves
three purposes, two generally recognized, and one frequently overlooked: (1)
orientation of new staff or staff recently assigned to new responsibilities;
(2) continuing education of staff in their profession; and (3) the development
of staff through the exchange of ideas and experiences, of common convictions,
goals, and methodology. Without such a program, provided regularly in suffi-
cient quantity and quality, new or recently assigned staff will rapidly become
"stagnant", all staff will tend to fall behind on recently developed knowledge
in their field, and the various units of the agency will tend to "ride off in
all directions" rather than pursuing commonly perceived objectives through well-
tested methods.
- 62 -
While the parole division has an in-service training program, both
the quality and the quantity appeared to be somewhat spotty. Sixty-three
percent of all staff indicated that training was ongoing; 53% felt it was
relevant; and only 19% said it was individualized. Of the 86% reporting
that they had received any type of in-service training, roughly one-half
received 1 or 2 hours per month and only one out of five received a full
hour or more per week. The recent expansion in case volume and in program
diversification makes it all the more important that the training program
be strengthened and intensified. One possibility that should be given
serious consideration is that training capabilities might be increased by
pooling the resources of the Department of the Youth Authority, the Depart-
ment of Corrections, and other correctional agencies in the State. Another
is that funds be budgeted to send selected members of staff, on a regular
basis, to institutes and seminars established to train "trainers". These
trainers could then be used to upgrade the training techniques of super-
visors and administrators with ongoing in-service training responsibility.
Generally speaking, the content of training can better be acquired at in-
stitutes and seminars established for that specific purpose.
Recommendations
26. The Department of Corrections should develop its own fully staffed
recruitment program.
27. Funds should be budgeted and approved to allow for substantial
expansion of trainee and parole aide programs.
28. Every effort should be made to re-vitalize and strengthen the
department'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.
V. A LOOK AT THE FUTURE
In order to consolidate and expand gains made by the Parole and Com-
munity Services Division during the past five or six years, and to avoid
the possibility of losing its present momentum toward an increasingly success-
ful correctional program, several aspects of the division's program need sub-
stantially increased financial support. In an undated memorandum addressed
to the California Council on Criminal Justice, entitled "Problems and Needs",
a copy of which was provided the Parole Task Force in October, 1970, the
Department of Corrections listed a number of problems and what was needed
- 63 -
to alleviate them. Three of these "problems and needs" are particularly
pertinent to this discussion and will be quoted verbatim:
"Problem
To increase public protection by strengthening parole
supervision. A new system, called the Work Unit Parole
Program was introduced in 1964 [sic], which strengthened
parole supervision and increased parole success.
Need
The Work Unit Parole Program is limited to the supervision
of less than half the adult male felons. The need is to
place the entire felon group under Work Unit parole super-
vision.
Problem
Inmates leaving prison on parole and parolees having
problems frequently require temporary support and assistance
to make their adjustment in society.
Need
Fifty-bed Community Correctional Centers strategically
located throughout the State will establish a more orderly
and success-prone transition from prison to community living
for selected parolees and inmates. Economic and program sup-
port will be provided at these centers, and a portion of the
center will be used for work and training furloughs.
Problem
A large percentage of the Department of Corrections in-
mate and parolee population are minority group members who
live in poverty areas. In working with individuals from
this population, the Department confronts communication
barriers and client-worker cultural differences which are
serious obstacles to client rehabilitation.
Need
In order to increase the effectiveness of Corrections in
this difficult area, the following resources are required:
1. Parole Agent Assistants who are recruited from
poverty areas and have experience and communica-
tion skills in working with minority group members.
2. Employment of Community Organization Specialists
to develop training programs for Parole Agents
- 64 -
regarding minority group relations and community
resources, the specialist to act in a liaison capac-
ity between the Parole Division and the indigenous
groups and local community organizations.
3. In recent years emergence of volunteer organizations
and self-help groups in the field of corrections re-
presents a community resource in treatment of parolees,
including emergency housing, family subsidies, and nar-
cotic and alcoholic recovery programs. Contracting for
services with these organizations will result in better
parole outcome. "16
In addition to the three quoted above, there are two other "problems
and needs" requiring attention if California's non-institutional corrections
programs are to be even better in the future than they are in the present.
Problem
As a result of many factors, the "glue" that holds the parole division
together is beginning to loosen. While the far-flung staff of the division
seem, in general, to have a good idea of what is going on in the division's
program, many raise questions as to why or how. Doubts about "why" arise
from inadequate two-way communication, and those concerning "how" result
from inadequate orientation and on-the-job training.
Need
To maintain a unified (not "uniform") approach to new and expanded
programs, it is requisite that every individual with any kind of responsi-
bility for implementation of those programs have two things: (1) understand-
ing of, and belief in, those programs; and (2) fundamental knowledge of the
theory on which the programs are based and of the recommended methodology
for their implementation. To meet the first need, there must be continuous,
open, two-way, participatory communication. To meet the second requires a
greatly expanded, and more continuous, orientation and in-service training
program.
Problem
As the rehabilitation and reintegration programs for offenders become
a larger and larger part of the corrections system in California, the rigid
demarcation between State and local jurisdictions becomes more and more un-
realistic. Sometimes the best (and most effective) State programs and the
best local programs are functioning in the same locality, while the weakest
of each is functioning in some other locality.
- 65 -
Need
There is a need to find some way of making the very best service,
whether provided by a State or by a local agency, available in every county
of the State. Therefore, there is a need for permissive legislation to be
enacted permitting State and local corrections agencies to contract with
one another for provision of rehabilitative and reintegrative services in
a given locality. Such legislation could significantly reduce unnecessary
duplications, increase the utilization of the most effective elements of
both State and local agencies, and reinforce the present momentum toward
reducing the probability of continuing or renewed illegal behavior by the
system's clients.
VI. SUMMARY
This chapter has described the system of adult parole in California.
Some of the major Task Force findings are as follows:
1. As is true of the California Youth Authority, the Parole and
Community Services Division of the California Department of
Corrections is handicapped by its large size, its traditional
chain of command, and especially by its multi-layered adminis-
trative structure. Within this type of bureaucratized setting,
many of the problems observed in the Youth Authority were also
observed in the adult parole system. Operations are hindered
by poor communications, little or no voice in important decision-
making matters, and lack of clear statements of policy and philo-
sophy.
2. The adult parole staff believes that the Adult Authority is
working at cross-purposes with the division. (This was also
a pervasive belief among Youth Authority parole staff vis-a-vis
the Youth Authority Board.) The philosophy of the Adult Authority
is seen as being too punitive and retributive. The greatest
area of conflict is seen to lie in the parole revocation process
which is also the greatest source of conflict between the Youth
Authority parole agents and the Youth Authority Board.
3. Despite a recent statement in the administration's policy, to
retain parolees in the community as long as possible, not all
of the staff subscribe to it. There is a definite split wihin
the staff among those who view parole primarily in "law enforce-
ment" terms, and those who view it primarily in terms of "service".
The former group believes that the administration's posture is
too permissive, while the latter group whole-heartedly endorses
it.
4. The division's Work Unit Program was designed to provide more
effective supervision by reducing caseloads. Since its inaugur-
- 66 -
ation, violation rates, due to the commission of new crimes,
have been decreasing. However, the same trend has also been
observed in the division's Conventional Units, suggesting
that the existence of the Work Unit Program has had an over-
all salutory effect upon parole service. However, some dis-
sension has been noted among agents supervising Conventional
caseloads primarily because assignment to the Work Unit Pro-
gram is considered to be a promotion and not simply a lateral
transfer.
5. As was true for the Youth Authority parole staff, the adult
parole division staff was found to be dissatisfied with pro-
motional opportunities. In both systems there is an over-
whelming endorsement of the idea of creating a Parole Agent
III case-carrying position, which would allow outstanding
parole agents to be promoted without having to go into admin-
istration.
6. Again, as was true of the Youth Authority staff, there is a
marked underrepresentation of adult parole agents drawn from
various racial and ethnic groups. Approximately 80% of the
adult parole staff is white, and yet 50% of California's
parolees are non-white. 17 The division has been attempting
to recruit agents from the various racial and ethnic groups,
but has not as yet had a great deal of success. It is also
attempting to expand its program of recruiting para-profession-
al persons, but as yet it operates only on a small scale.
- 67 -
FOOTNOTES
Department of Corrections, Parole and Community Services Division,
A Report to the Legislature on the Work Unit Program, State of California
(Sacramento, December, 1970), p. 8.
²Figures as of March 31, 1971, obtained from Statistical Unit,
California Department of Corrections, on June 7, 1971.
3 Department of Corrections, Research Division, A Study of Inmates
at Intake -- 1960-1969, State of California (Sacramento, March, 1971).
4 Department of Corrections, Parole and Community Services Division,
op. cit., pp. 1-4.
5 For additional programs, see Chapter VI, "Community-Based Correctional
Programs".
6 Department of Corrections, Parole and Community Services Division,
op. cit., p. 5.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid., Table A3, p. 12.
9 Ibid., Table B3, p. 16.
10 Ibid., pp. 25-26.
11 Department of Corrections, Research Division, op. cit.
12 Don Gibbons, Changing the Lawbreaker (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice
Hall, Inc., 1965); Robert Carter and Leslie Wilkins, "Some Factors in Sen-
tencing Policy", Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Policy Science,
Vol. 58, No. 4, 1967), pp. 503-504; Department of Youth Authority, The
Status of Current Research in the California Youth Authority, State of
California (Sacramento, July, 1970), p. 5.
13 President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice, Task Force Report: Corrections (Washington: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1967), p. 29.
14Ibid., p. 189; Department of Youth Authority, Standards for the
Performance of Probation Duties, State of California (Sacramento, February
1970), p. 11.
15 Department of Youth Authority, Rules, Regulations, and Standards of
Performance for Special Supervision Programs, State of California (Sacramento,
revised October, 1969), pp. 4-5.
- 68 -
Footnotes
16Department of Corrections, "Problems and Needs", a memorandum
addressed to the California Council on Criminal Justice (undated).
17 Department of Corrections, California Prisoners: 1968, State of
California (Sacramento, 1969), p. 66.
CHAPTER V
THE CIVIL NARCOTIC ADDICT PROGRAM
I. INTRODUCTION
California's Civil Narcotic Addict Program is an unusual and complex
operation whose basic function is the control and treatment of narcotic
addicted individuals. Jointly responsible for the program are the Narcotic
Addict Evaluation Authority (NAEA), the California Rehabilitation Center
(CRC) and its affiliate branches, and the Narcotic Addict Outpatient Program
(NAOP).
In this chapter, the job of the Task Force staff was to provide a
general assessment of the NAOP. Meeting that requirement called for a some-
what different approach from that used in other parole component tasks.
This was due to the fact that the program has undergone many changes since
its inception ten years ago, and even now is feeling the impact of recently
amended law and a shift in philosophical emphasis and program objectives.
Task Force staff saw these changes as good and necessary, but many of them
are so current that it was not possible to measure their effectiveness at
the time field work was in process. By the same token, there seemed little
to be gained by examining in any detail past practices which presumably would
soon give way to new ones. (This is, of course, an oversimplified statement.
Change normally takes place only over a period of time, and even then not
without considerable overlap between the old and the new.) Based on these
conditions, it was concluded that the best course was to examine the differ-
ences between past and present program characteristics, then to assess the
significance of these differences in terms of current program operations.
The chapter will be divided into four parts: (1) a condensed review
of the history of national narcotic laws (as groundwork for the main dis-
cussion); (2) a review of California law in connection with civil commitment
provisions; (3) an overall description of the Civil Narcotic Addict Program;
and (4) a description and discussion of NAOP structure and function.
II. NARCOTIC LAWS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL
In 1932, the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act was promulgated by the Commis-
sioners on Uniform State Laws. This Act is still in use, and except for
California and Pennsylvania, has been adopted by all states, though with
various kinds of modifications through the years. 1,2 Arizona, for example,
inserted a section providing for confinement and treatment in the state
mental hospital of persons convicted under the Act. 3 Delaware inserted
sections relating to confinement and treatment of addicts, and manufacture,
possession, and sale of hypodermic needles. 4 Florida provided for examina-
tion and treatment of habitual users of narcotic drugs, and in 1970 passed
an entirely new Act relating to drug abuse. 5,6 The purpose of the 1970 Act
is "to provide a comprehensive program of human renewal for drug dependents
- 70 -
and rehabilitation centers and after-care programs
[and to] protect
society against the social contagion of drug abuse and to meet the needs of
drug dependents for medical, psychological and vocational rehabilitation,
while at the same time safeguarding their individual liberties. 117
During the past decade, three very important pieces of drug legis-
lation were enacted at the Federal level. One was the Drug Abuse Control
Amendments of 1965 whose main provisions are "the limited manufacture, sale,
and distribution of any controlled drug to certain designated classes of
persons
and requirement
that inventories be taken and records
of receipts and dispositions be maintained. "8
The second was the Model State Drug Abuse Act. "Under this Act,
which automatically subjects a drug to State control upon its designation
under the Federal law, State and Federal authorities could immediately
combine to control the drug. "9
Third was the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966 which
authorized $15 million for each of the following three years for grants
to state and local governments for narcotic programs and facilities. 10
The purpose in citing these Federal Acts, and the varying state
accomodations to the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act as well, is to emphasize
that "the nation's approach to narcotic addiction has changed fundamentally
in the past few years. "11 For even if the application of penal sanctions
still predominates in most jurisdictions, the effort toward the greater
understanding and better control of addiction is increasingly evident.
This trend is further exemplified by the President's Commission on
Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice statement that "the enactment
of laws authorizing or compelling commitment of drug addicts for purposes
of treatment has been the most important development in recent years in the
drug abuse field. 12 This point of view was based on the recognition that
addiction is a medical illness and that customary methods of dealing with
it were proving most unsatisfactory.
In some part, what accounted for poor results in early addict pro-
grams was insufficient provision for follow-up treatment and the tendency
of volunteers to abandon treatment efforts long before any benefits could
be derived from them. 13 It was the effort to correct these and related
problems which gave birth to the concept of "civil commitment", a term
defined by the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Adminis-
tration of Justice as follows:
"Civil commitment is generally understood to mean
court-ordered confinement in a special treatment
facility followed by a release to an outpatient
status under supervision in the community, with
provision for final discharge if the patient ab-
stains from drugs, and for return to confinement
if he relapses. "14
- 71 -
III. THE CALIFORNIA CIVIL ADDICT PROGRAM: LEGAL HISTORY
California was the first state to initiate civil commitment procedures
when the legislature enacted the original law establishing the California
Civil Addict Program under direction of the California Department of Correc-
tions and the Adult Authority for the commitment and treatment of narcotic
addicts in 1961. 15 At that time, the main provisions of the act were as
follows:
1. civil commitment for treatment
2. establishment of the California Rehabilitation Center
to house those committed
3. a mandatory aftercare program, including reduced case-
loads, chemical testing to determine narcotic use, and
authorization for a halfway house
4. a mandate for research into the rehabilitation of
narcotic addicts. 16
On the premise that legally enforceable commitment is the only way
to get addicts to undertake treatment, and to make post-institutional treat-
ment available to them, the act included:
a. a program of civil commitment for treatment of
volunteers who believe themselves addicted or
about to become addicted, for non-volunteers
identified as narcotic addicts or in imminent
danger of addiction, and for persons convicted
of misdemeanors and certain felonies whose basic
problem appeared to be narcotic addiction or
excessive use of narcotics.
b. a compulsory period of legal control (institu-
tional and outpatient) for therapeutic reasons. 17
Several amendments to the original law have been made since 1961. In
the Supreme Court's decision in Robinson V. California in 1962, the law's
interpretation of addiction as a crime was struck down as unconstitutional,
and legislative amendment was accordingly made. 18 In 1963, many of the indices
of criminality found objectionable by the California Supreme Court In re De
La 0 were removed from the original statute. At that time also, in addenda
to the De La 0 decision, the Narcotic Addict Evaluation Authority was estab-
lished and provision made for administrative responsibility for the release
program to be transferred from the Adult Authority to the Narcotic Authority.
In 1965, legal provision for the law was removed from the Penal Code and
placed in the California Welfare and Institutions Code.
- 72 -
Significant statutory revisions made in 1970 are as follows:
1. The deletion of the six months minimum confinement period
prior to release to outpatient status
2. The authorization to discharge civilly committed addicts
after two years (instead of the original three) abstention
from narcotics in the community and otherwise compliance
with conditions of release
3. Authorization for civilly committed addicts to participate
(on a voluntary basis) in approved Methadone Maintenance
Research Programs. In addition, Senate Bill No. 1271,
approved by the governor and filed with the Secretary of
State in September 1970, provides in Section 5617:
a. that a county mental health service may include a
program for the continuing treatment of narcotic
addiction by methadone, and
b. that the Department of Mental Hygiene shall estab-
lish guidelines for the arrangements between local
mental health facilities and county probation de-
partments enabling methadone maintenance to serve
as an alternative to commitment to the California
Rehabilitation Center in Corona.
4. Assembly Bill No. 472, approved by the governor and filed
with the Secretary of State on June 1, 1970, provides that
where release to outpatient status is warranted the Direc-
tor of Corrections shall so certify to the Authority. If
certification has not occurred in the preceding twelve
months in the anniversary month of the commitment of any
person committed under Chapter 167 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code, his case shall automatically be refer-
red to the Authority for consideration of the advisability
of release in outpatient status.
As will be discovered at a later point, these statutory changes substantially
influenced program goals and directions.
IV. CALIFORNIA'S CIVIL ADDICT PROGRAM: ITS FUNCTIONS AND PURPOSE
Administratively, the Civil Addict Program provides that the NAEA,
CRC, and NAOP shall be separate bodies. However, their respective functions
are highly interdependent as is implicit in the Welfare and Institutions Code
which states: "The narcotic detention, treatment and rehabilitation facility
referred to herein shall be one within the Department of Corrections. "19
- 73 -
The issue of interdependence is an important one. For even though
the Civil Addict Program is a multiple operation, any action taken at one
level will automatically affect the remaining portions of the program. The
following condensed description of respective NAEA, CRC, and NAOP responsi-
bilities will help to illustrate the point.
CRC staff prepare case history data on inpatients which are subsequen-
tly used by institutional officials for classification and treatment purposes.
In addition, CRC staff provide treatment and counseling for institution resi-
dents. Both individual background information and treatment results are used
by NAEA as an aid in making release decisions. Although CRC staff are admin-
istratively responsible to institutional authorities, their work is generally
based on tasks and policies articulated by NAEA, and on the needs of residents
in terms of release preparations.
NAOP staff (field parole agents) work with releasees or outpatients
in the community and are charged with the responsibility of supervising clients
and keeping records on them. When necessary, they also make appropriate re-
ports to NAEA for consideration of return to the institution, or any other
factor which would modify the individual's current outpatient plan. The parole
staff is also under separate administration, but the impact of NAEA's broad
range leadership role is recognized, particularly as it relates to the reten-
tion of individuals on outpatient status for long periods of time.
In the performance of its duties, NAEA, as the paroling board, draws
heavily upon the services of both institution and parole staff. Although
the board has statutory responsibility for making release, revocation, and
discharge decisions and policies, it has no statutory responsibility for the
administration of the Civil Addict Program itself. However, through action
on cases being considered for release or return, the Authority does contri-
bute indirectly to the making of administrative policies governing the con-
trol, treatment, and release of outpatients. 20
It should also be noted that the three bodies share a common purpose,
namely:
"the receiving, control, confinement, education, treat-
ment, employment, and rehabilitation of persons under
the custody of the Department of Corrections or any
agency thereof who are or have been addicted to nar-
cotics or who by reason of repeated use of narçotics
are in imminent danger of becoming addicted. "21
It is hoped that this discussion will convey the intended message,
specifically that the Civil Addict Program is closely integrated as to
function and provides, of itself, a given continuum of services.
Of Special Note
At one juncture, the Task Force staff strongly felt that the total
addict program should be removed from the jurisdiction of the California
- 74 -
Department of Corrections, and such action was tentatively recommended. The
main rationale was: (1) that there was no true provision for voluntary entry
to the program inasmuch as "volunteers" are locked into the system immedi-
ately upon acceptance, with no option for later withdrawal other than at the
expense of paying legal penalty; (2) there appeared to be undue disparity
as to length of institutionalization between non-criminal addicts and crimi-
nal addicts; and (3) narcotic addiction is a medical problem, and except for
addicts who do or have constituted a clear danger to society, should there-
fore be treated under medical rather than correctional aegis.
On further reflection, Task Force staff reversed its decision for the
following reasons:
1. There has been recent statutory provision which provides
that a person committed to the Civil Addict Program may
be released from the courts to the community if it is
determined by appropriate CRC-NAOP staff that the indi-
vidual does not require medical or therapeutic treatment
in the institutional setting. This substantially reduces
concern about voluntary commitments.
2. Even at the time field work was in progress, but also
since that time, amended legislation and program develop-
ments have headed the entire Civil Addict Program in a
much more flexible direction. For the addict, the issue
is now much less a matter of either/or, but rather one
of: "What are your particular needs, and how can we
best help you with respect to those needs?"
Very likely, this is an oversimplified version of cur-
rent developments. Nevertheless, according to the NAEA,
the intention is to make every effort toward increased
program flexibility and more individualized client manage-
ment.
3. Task Force staff would still maintain that not all ad-
dicted persons "need criminal or civil process for medi-
cal care to be made available to them. "22 However, the
fact that eighty percent of the Civil Addict Program's
addicted clients are also felons cannot be ignored.
Were the program to be removed from CDC jurisdiction,
frequent recourse to correctional procedures would still
be necessary. Finally, any recommendation for change
should be accompanied by a specific plan as to where the
program might be better located. Developing such a plan
was not within the purview of the Task Force, and would
require extensive time and study far beyond the scope of
the present study.
- 75 -
V. THE NARCOTIC ADDICT OUTPATIENT PROGRAM
Administrative Structure
Chart I shows the present organizational structure of the Narcotic
Addict Outpatient Program (NAOP). In brief, there are two regions in
Southern California exclusively operating civil addict outpatient programs.
In addition, there are two NAOP units in Northern California as well as
individual caseloads in other portions of the State which are directly re-
sponsible to the regular parole regional administrators in those areas.
The regional administrator of Region V has a functional responsibility of
administering the overall NAOP operation; this responsibility includes
instruction of all NAOP agents on NAEA policies and requirements, planning
training programs, incorporating policy changes in the manual, and general
coordination of the program. However, the deputy director of the Parole
and Community Services Division is the person with direct line authority
and responsibility over the entire Narcotic Addict Outpatient Program.
This organizational structure poses a dilemma. On the one hand, a
number of agents felt that there was too much autonomy and individuality
among the various units and caseloads, due partly to the lack of a single
administrator whose sole responsibility would be the overseeing of the NAOP.
The NAEA also commented on the "present fragmented situation" and suggested
that a single administrator might provide more coherence to the program.
In short, the present organization of the NAOP is presenting a problem of
coordination and uniformity of practices and procedures. On the other hand,
however, establishment of a separate administrator for NAOP would add another
bureaucratic layer in a structure that this Task Force has already questioned
in Chapter IV. It would also run counter to a major thrust of the System
Task Force Report which stresses the need to "flatten" traditional hier-
archical pyramid structures.
The feeling of the Parole Task Force is that the present organizational
structure is sound; but ongoing care must be taken to promote a teamwork at-
mosphere which will facilitate coordination and sufficient uniformity of
practice to assure uniform treatment for all outpatients. The concept of
functional responsibility, while not an ideal one in this situation, is a
common organizational phenomenon and one that can and often does work effec-
tively.
NAOP does have official provision for a research function whose poten-
tial for guiding program direction and for influencing program effectiveness
should be of sizeable magnitude. Unfortunately, although the NAOP Guide
fully endorses the importance of measuring program effectiveness, it is appar-
ently not possible at the present time to provide ongoing evaluation of the
total addict program. Along with the rapidly changing program units and
specialized problem areas, it seems likely that inadequate funds for the
research function may also be a limiting factor. Should this in fact be a
major determinant, the problem should promptly be rectified. In view of
the desperate need for the development of a precise body of knowledge con-
CHART I
NARCOTIC ADDICT OUTPATIENT PROGRAM: ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE*
PAROLE AND COMMUNITY
SERVICES DIVISION
Deputy Director
REGION V
REGION VI
NARCOTIC ADDICT
NARCOTIC ADDICT
OUTPATIENT PROGRAM
OUTPATIENT PROGRAM
Regional Administrator
Regional Administrator
-76- - 76
DISTRICT I
DISTRICT II
Central
DISTRICT III
FIELD DISTRICT
INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT
District
District
Test
District
District
District
Administrator
Administrator
Clinic
Administrator
Administrator
Administrator
Los
Parkwoy
Parkway
Burbank
Vinewood
Vinewood
Downey
Inglewood
Long
Ontario
Montebello
East
EI Monte
California
ngeles
Unit
Center
Unit
Unit
Center
Unit
Unit
Beach
Unit
Unit
L.A.
Unit
Rehabilitation
Unit
(Male)
(Female)
Unit
Unit
Center Unit
addition to Regions V and VI, which are totally NAOP, there is one NAOP unit in Son Francisco,
unit in Oakland, and individual agents with NAOP caseloads scottered throughout the rest of the
tote. The Region V Administrator has functional responsibility for the total NAOP operation.
- 77 -
cerning drug addiction and accompanying unlawful behaviors, the allocation
of ample funds for research operations seems imperative.
Another deficiency within the program is lack of administrative pro-
vision for a community relations unit. This is an unfortunate oversight
since parole agents and addicts are both extremely dependent on how the com-
munity responds to their presence in the community and on the degree of help
it is willing to extend. In a program of this sort, administrative struc-
ture should quite definitely include a community relations position.
Finally, most parole agents interviewed said that the positioning of
authority, as it now stands, leaves too little room for release decision-
making at the service level. The immediate reference was to the fact that
authorization for entry into NAOP comes from the Authority rather than from
persons most intimately familiar with individual clients.
This kind of issue is not new to the correctional field, but it is one
for which no really satisfactory solution has yet been found. In the present
instance, the Authority's counter argument was: (a) that it is legally respon-
sible for release decisions; (b) that there are monthly combined CRC, NAOP,
and NAEA staff meetings in which program needs are jointly discussed and solu-
tion sought, and (c) that the Authority's overview of the entire program places
it in good position to introduce and implement new policies and procedures,
and that its suggestions have moreover been favorably received by program staff.
There would appear to be valid concerns on both sides. The Authority
has indeed made valuable contribution to the overall Civil Addict Program.
It was, for example, at its instigation that a new law was introduced provid-
ing for the retention of "limited placements" in the community in an appropri-
ate facility for treatment (as opposed to straight institutional return). The
new law will greatly facilitate continuity of treatment for those cases where
extended institutionalization is not required. On the other hand, institu-
tional and parole agents normally do have the most intimate knowledge of in-
dividual case needs and problems.
In weighing these several factors, Task Force staff concluded that a
possible aid to all parties might be to formalize the monthly combined staff
meetings by establishing a liaison committee whereby institutional, Authority,
and parole staff could work on mutual problems and concerns.
Recommendations. 30. The State should provide funds adequate to the
development and continued operation of a meaningful and efficient research
program for the NAOP.
31. A community relations program should be incorporated in NAOP's
organizational structure.
32. A liaison committee concerned with decisions concerning clients
should be formed with representatives from both the Authority and program staff.
- 78 -
Underlying Philosophy
Any program designed to help people requires a philosophical base
for the development of treatment methods and techniques. At the time field
work was in process, philosophy as expressed by the then existing NAOP
Parole Manual was as follows:
"The basic philosophy of the Narcotic Addict Outpatient
Program is to provide the addict with help so that he
can maintain a drug-free adjustment as he moves back
into the community from the institutional setting.
II
Reinstitutionalization of addicts who are unable
to utilize their release experience and who have used
narcotics or are withdrawing from the program to the
extent where re-addiction or criminal involvement seem
imminent should be an integral part of the rehabilita-
tive process. Maximum control can be achieved by the
prompt isolation of the addict and his return to a
drug-free environment. The removal of the addict from
the community prior to his re-addiction to narcotics
or his involvement in criminal activity should be con-
sidered a prime goal in accord with the philosophy de-
signed for control, treatment and rehabilitation. "23
Task Force staff reaction to this latter statement was that the empha-
sis on institutionalization was more suggestive of punishment than treatment,
and that at least in part it went contrary to Section 3000 of the Welfare
and Institutions Code which states:
11
such treatment shall be carried out for non-
punitive purposes not only for the protection of the
addict, or persons in imminent danger of addiction,
against himself, but also for the prevention of con-
tamination of others and the protection of the public. "24
However, when the new NAOP Guide was issued in February 1971, it was
found that institutionalization had been significantly de-emphasized and that
present administrative policy much more closely reflects contemporary thought
with reference to case management of narcotic addicts. The new Guide states:
"Our objective is to keep persons committed to the Civil
Addict Program in the community in such ways that they
will be able to continue to remain in the community and
to encourage the creation of conditions which will sup-
port the addict in his efforts to accomplish this goal. "25
Further:
"Inherent in an effective treatment plan is the realiza-
tion that individual worth and human dignity must be pre-
- 79 -
served as inalienable rights of all persons. Concern for
the dignity of the individual is demonstrated by our be-
havior in assisting the client in his effort to reach those
personally valid goals which have meaning and value to him,
without imposing our own prejudices and values, unless the
matter involves clearly illegal acts. We must, therefore,
thoroughly involve the client in planning for his own future,
and avoid trying to 'run' his life for him. "26
Parole Agent's Reaction to Administrative Philosophy and Policy
In connection with this current official statement of philosophy, Task
Force staff was advised by parole staff that the NAOP Manual Revision Committee
had been working on the new Guide for several months, and that feedback from
all staff had been encouraged all along the way. There was, of course, no way
of knowing the degree to which non-committee members took advantage of this
opportunity, but there was considerable evidence that not all staff were in
accord with the Committee's product.
To begin with, parole agents declared that the philosophical shift
(from institutional to community-based treatment) widened an already existing
gap between what was designated as the "conservative" versus the "liberal"
point of view. Those of conservative bent favored the original concept of
tighter controls whereas those of liberal persuasion favored administrative
provision for greater flexibility in the management of narcotic addicted
persons.
But the most pressing complaint--primarily among conservatives--was
that the Committee had in essence issued a mandate for them to "change their
thinking". The general feeling was that this is in opposition to the laws
of learning. One agent stated: "People can't be made to learn. They have
to make up their minds for themselves".
Administrative staff acknowledged to Task Force staff that resistance
to change is causing difficulties, and advised that they had taken action to
reduce philosophical polarization by matching parole agents and supervisors
believed to share common beliefs and attitudes. At first blush, this seemed
a good idea, but it is producing unanticipated negative results. For now,
due to already mentioned unit autonomy, the door is wide open for units com-
prised of conservative-minded members to work in opposition to administrative
policy. Moreover, it gives unit supervisors every opportunity to hire new
staff whose attitudes reflect their own philosophy. This would, of course,
also apply to liberal units, but in both cases it serves only to increase the
professional distance between middle management and upper level administration.
Task Force staff fully endorses the philosophical stance enunciated by
the Manual Revision Committee. It is very much in line with other correc-
tional programs such as Work Furlough and Probation Subsidy, and it makes
clear what the client/parole agent relationship must be if treatment plans
are to carry potential for successful outcome. But it is not expected that
- 80 -
this endorsement will correct or even ameliorate the problems under dis-
cussion. Feelings and attitudes will change only when personal experience
and training make change both attractive and congruent with personal values.
As one agent put it: "If we were told what to do instead of what to think,
many of our problems would cease to exist."
In a very real sense, this comment gets to the heart of the whole
matter. Its implicit meaning is that the real issue is not whether parole
staff are or should be entirely of one accord in their thinking, but rather
that they should to the best of their ability carry out administrative policy
in daily practice. Disagreement and the ability to meet the demands of the
job need not be mutually exclusive.
Training Needs
Literature pertaining to drugs and the multiple manifestations of
their use has been increasingly in evidence during the past several years.
Today, with the advent of numerous psycho-active drugs, it is nearly impos-
sible to read even a newspaper or magazine which does not contain one or more
articles describing the adverse effect of the current "drug scene" on the
American public.
Unfortunately, there is no comparable supply of information as to how
best to cope with narcotic addicted individuals. Clinics designed to help
such persons are increasing in number, but most work done is of necessity
based on trial and error methods. For parole agents, the problem is even
more complicated since they must consider the interests of both society and
the addicted persons under their care. Also, although addiction is not it-
self a crime, most clients are both drug addicted (or in danger of becoming
so), and guilty of misdemeanors or felonies. There is no known academic
program designed to train narcotic parole personnel for their unique and
demanding work. Yet clearly there is need for a specially tailored program
whose prime objective is to produce specialists in a field of great importance.
NAOP does attempt to provide some in-service training. However,
according to questionnaire data pertaining to training, less that half of
fifty respondents believed the program was relevant to their needs. In
interview situations, a plea for continuous and more meaningful training
was voiced by NAOP staff at all levels. They cited the following as crucial
training needs:
a. basic orientation to the system and its philosophi-
cal foundations
b. sharply increased specificity as to operational
requirements
C. improved casework methods
- 81 -
There can be no question that the development of both a general and
specific body of knowledge would lend guidance and credence to what at the
very least is an extremely difficult job. Granting that this is easier said
than done, it is not necessarily an impossible endeavor. Certainly the pre-
sent state of limbo cannot be allowed to continue. As it has done in so
many other instances, California could well take the lead in constructing
a viable training model which would provide adequate preparation for coping
with addiction and its socially unacceptable counterparts.
However, no state should tackle the job all alone, for the problem
is not indigenous to any particular area of the country. Nearly all states
are struggling with the same lack of vitally needed information. It seems
logical, therefore, that the best approach is for California to join hands
with other states and proceed in concerted fashion to discover--invent if
necessary--a training model appropriate to the purpose. Only when this or
comparable action is taken can job performance be upgraded and a path for
orderly change be paved.
Recommendation. 33. It is recommended that California's top correc-
tional administrators appoint a select body of persons whose sole and specific
job, in conjunction with academicians and correctional and medical practi-
tioners 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.
The NAOP in Operation
Client Entry. The client enters CRC as an inpatient through court-
ordered civil commitment procedures. In this drug-free environment, the
process of detoxification is begun, along with efforts to reshape those be-
havioral patterns considered damaging to the client's general welfare. Orig-
inally, the required minimum length of stay at CRC was six months, but amended
law, which came into effect in November 1970, deleted this provision. The
Task Force views this as a very progressive step. Many persons require at
least six months, sometimes more, before they are ready for release. For those
who do not, the amended law now makes it possible for them to get an early
start on the important business of drug-free readjustment to community living.
California Department of Corrections administrative statistics show that the me-
dian stay before first release to parole in 1970 was 11 months for men and 9
months for women (compared with 36 months and 18 months, respectively, for
convicted felons in state prison).
At the point where correctional counselors concur in a favorable recom-
mendation for release consideration, and a subsequent Release Study Program
and related procedures are completed, NAEA makes a release decision. If the
decision is to release, the client is then eligible for outpatient supervision.
- 82 -
Supervision Goals. According to the NAOP Guide, there are five main
program goals. They are as follows:
"1. Maximize efforts toward dealing with the addict
in the community SO that periods of remission are
increased.
2. Emphasis on what to do when relapse occurs with
the goal of minimizing the incidence of re-addiction.
3. Distinguish between re-use and re-addiction. When
relapse to addiction has occurred or the person is
in imminent danger of re-addiction, some form of ex-
ternal control will be utilized for the protection
of the addict from the extreme consequences of his
uncontrolled addiction behavior.
4. The systematic production and dissemination of reli-
able and valid knowledge concerning the nature of
drug addiction, the problems of treatment and control
under current conditions and the result of our treat-
ment and control techniques.
5. The mobilization of energy in the community (relatives,
neighbors, agencies, etc.) to contain and treat the
phenomenon. A long range goal is changing socio-
cultural situations which foster the incidence of ad-
diction 27
These goals are seen as most satisfactory with the one exception that
greater specificity would be desirable. In the first and second goals listed,
for instance, some examples of methods to be used would strengthen the under-
lying intent of the stated objective. This is easily corrected and is men-
tioned only in the interest of insuring that goals can and will be realized.
The Guide also provides standards for minimum case contacts with
clients.
28 These appear to be adequate in number, particularly since parole
agents are at liberty to increase the number of their field contacts wherever
appropriate.
Treatment Methods. What is missing from the Guide, perhaps by design,
is reference to treatment methods other than those used for detecting drug
use. The original NAOP Manual does mention the importance of individual
counseling, and goes into considerable detail regarding group counseling. 29
Commonly known as "grouping", parole staff explained to Task Force
staff that this form of treatment represents an attempt to extend institu-
tional methods of treatment: