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
118564920
label
[Corrections, Board of] - Coordinated California Corrections: Field Services, July 1971 (5 of 5)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564920
contentType
document
title
[Corrections, Board of] - Coordinated California Corrections: Field Services, July 1971 (5 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
118564920
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
6ae7acd3715bf3ec
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 (5 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/
- 83 -
"The releasee's behavior is highly influenced by the
people around him, whether he is participating in groups
within the community or as a resident in the treatment
center.
"The resident's use and impression of the group experience
has been highly significant. It is appropriate, there-
fore, that this type of treatment not be suddenly cut off
when the resident returns to the community. Treatment of
the releasee is a total program encompassing the treatment
center and field experience. The group experience and the
releasee's adjustment to these new experiences while at
the treatment center play a major part in determining his
readiness for release. Therefore, the continuation of
group treatment by field personnel will be an integral part
of the releasee's program in the community. "30
The NAOP Manual indicates that three types of groups will be provided
for releasees:
Reality Centered Groups: The purpose of this group, as
stated in the Manual, is: "Initially, these groups will
be used by the releasee for identification and carry-
over of institutional culture." After a period of time,
= they will act as a problem-solving arena and sup-
portive body to assist in a positive social orientation. "31
These groups are held once a week.
Unemployed Groups: These sessions have no specific pur-
pose other than, "areas for review during these sessions
should include such things as how to look for work, how
to act, dress, speak, make proper contacts, etc. "32 These
groups are held only with unemployed clients, hopefully
to serve as a stimulus for job hunting, as the Manual
states, "If one isn't working, then one is hard at work
looking for a job. "33 Counseling for unemployed clients
is mandatory on a weekly basis.
Family Groups: "Although family groups will not be a
mandatory requirement, they are something which deserve
considerable thought. "34
"Treatment of persons to whom the releasee is frequently
exposed seems essential. "35
At first glance, these provisions for group counseling appear to be
sound. But in interview situations, both parole agents and clients were of
the opinion that the process is much less productive than it should be. One
agent, for example, made this observation:
- 84 -
= if we are grouping, it must be functional in
relation to the agency's goals. As it now stands,
grouping is not functional but diametrically opposed
to some of the other practices of the workers. Speci-
fically, it is opposed to the terms and conditions
of association between clients. Furthermore, in many
respects it provides the clients with an opportunity
to present a united front of opposition to the parole
agent and the system which he represents."
There is much to be said for this point of view. If group counseling
is to be effective, it must provide an atmosphere conducive to freedom of
expression. How this is to be achieved when today's parole agent becomes
tonight's group leader is difficult to imagine. There is also the problem
that many clients do not respond well to any of the group therapies. In-
sisting that they attend group sessions may produce temporary compliance,
but it will not alter basic patterns of behavior. Those who volunteer for
this kind of treatment stand the best chance of changed behavior.
A final comment with respect to group counseling is that this is a
specialized field requiring considerable training and experience. Many agents,
of their own accord, said they had had no such training and that the process
made them "uncomfortable". The implications for training in this area are
self-evident.
Detecting Drug Usage. Methods used by NAOP for detecting client drug
usage are: (1) nalline testing; (2) urinalysis; (3) skin check; and (4) the
client/parole agent relationship. Anti-narcotic testing is generally done
on a surprise basis, with less than forty-eight hours notice to the client.
Routine testing may be administered wherever the parole agent feels this is
in the best interest of a particular client. It is expected that urine
samples will be taken under the direct observation of the person obtaining
the sample.
Chemical anti-narcotic tests are administered by a qualified physician
and his decision regarding the results is final. The medical consultant is
responsible for developing contracts with testing laboratories, keeping
abreast of programs being carried out in other jurisdictions and other states,
and for consultation with parole agents concerning any unusual medical aspects
of a given case.
Testing objectives are as follows:
1. Deterrent of drug use
2. Early detection
3. Support of abstinence
4. Early treatment of relapse 36
- 85 -
This segment of the treatment program is the prime control factor for
outpatients, and was viewed by the majority of agents interviewed as the
surest method of control available to them at the present time. However,
Task Force staff discovered that associated psychological reactions to test-
ing tended in many cases to violate the principle of positive reinforcement
(encouragement and reward for new learning, modified behavior, etc.). Not
all, but most of the clients interviewed said that they resent the testing
programs. They feel that the surprise element is an unfair intrusion on
their time and that it implies an unwarranted lack of faith in their own
efforts against relapse. One client said: "The whole deal just makes me
mad. Sometimes I go back on the stuff just to pay them back." (If true,
this is unfortunate, but admittedly the statement may be of doubtful ver-
acity.)
Comment. It is difficult to know how client attitudes of this sort
can be counteracted. Like everyone else, addicts need to feel that they
have worth. Yet the very act of turning to drugs suggests that they do not
have a very high opinion of themselves. In addition, once addicted, many
of them see drugs as the "right" way of life and are not at all interested
in giving up the habit.
The implications for both addicts and the public at large are clear.
Addiction is not only physically harmful but it also leads to unlawful be-
havior which harms society. Accordingly, there seems to be no recourse but
to apply whatever controls appear most promising in efforts to reduce the
incidence of re-addiction and the proclivity for continued criminal activity.
The Methadone Maintenance Program. After following the progress of
New York's Methadone Program, and in anticipation of the law authorizing
methadone maintenance in California, the CDC, NAEA, and NAOP, in 1970, for-
mulated policies and criteria for addict participation in such a program.
The full policy statement will be found in Appendix A.
At present time, there are approximately 130 civil addicts on metha-
done maintenance in California. However, ninety percent of the Civil Addict
Program's population are ineligible for methadone treatment due to mixed drug
use, heavy use of alcohol, and abuse of amphetamines and barbiturates. For
those who do meet eligibility requirements, the Authority has stated that
methadone treatment will not be introduced until every effort has been made
to help them manage their lives without the aid of drugs. This same effort
will be carried over into the methadone program.
Comment. There are those who feel that methadone maintenance is un-
wise since, like other drugs, it camouflages causative factors leading to
addiction. The argument is valid, but it is also applicable to mentally
disturbed persons for whom tranquilizing drugs are prescribed daily, and
who otherwise would be unamenable to auxiliary treatment services. Another
argument against methadone, advanced both by lay persons and many profes-
sionals, is that it is foolish to substitute one addictive drug for another.
- 86 -
True, methadone is addictive. But it produces less violent physiological
reaction than do the hard drugs and for many addicts it eliminates the need
for opiate use. Add to this the likelihood of concomitant reduction in
criminal activity and the fact that methadone is applied under tightly con-
trolled conditions, and it would seem that the advantages of methadone main-
tenance outweigh the disadvantages for a carefully selected group of clients.
In California, the methadone program is just getting underway, and
almost certainly various changes and adjustments will be necessary from time
to time. Nevertheless, Task Force staff see it as a welcome and important
addition to existing treatment methods.
Program Effectiveness
The magnitude and complexity of NAOP makes it very difficult to measure
program effectiveness with any precision. In the correctional field, "effective"
is usually taken to mean that rehabilitative efforts have been completely suc-
cessful. Yet NAOP some time ago concluded that a full-fledged "cure" for ad-
diction is highly improbable and that a much more realistic goal was to strive
for the highest degree and longest period of abstinence possible.
Toward that end, several additional provisions have been added to the
original program. One of them, entitled "Suspend-Reinstatements", has been
designed to permit the client's retention in the community wherever it appears
that this arrangement will more effectively benefit the individual and society.
Another is the "Limited Placement Program" whereby an outpatient may be re-
turned to the institution for a period not to exceed sixty days for structured
inpatient treatment, detoxification, or whatever other type of specialized
treatment appears necessary.
For some time now, the main thrust of the overall Civil Addict Program
has been to release increasing numbers of persons to outpatient status. The
figures in Table X, supplied by the NAEA, reflect the results of that endeavor.
TABLE X
CIVIL ADDICT PROGRAM POPULATION MOVEMENT
ACTIVE
INACTIVE
DATE
TOTAL
INSTITUTION
OUTPATIENT STATUS
OUTPATIENT STATUS
December 31, 1968
6,235
2,856 (46%)
2,314 (37%)
1,065 (17%)
December 31, 1969
7,076
3,132 (44%)
2,867 (41%)
1,077 (15%)
December 31, 1970 8,110
2,705
(33%)
4,001 (50%)
1,404 (17%)
In comparing the 1969 and 1970 figures, it will be noted that there was a
36% increase in persons released to outpatient status in one year and an 11% in-
crease in the proportion of clients in the community.
- 87 -
Other figures pointing to program achievement are as follows:
1. Out of approximately 90,000 drug offense arrests in 1970
in California, only one percent were outpatients from CRC.
Of those who do return to inpatient status, only 3.5% come
back on a new conviction.
2. Even considering those addicts who have been in and out
of CRC several times, 59% of all outpatients have been
found to be eventually capable of remaining drug-free and
trouble-free for twelve months in the community. 37
3. The rate of outpatients returned to the institution
during 1970 dropped considerably. By the end of 1970,
1,603 men had been returned to the institution program
from outpatient status. This represents 29% of the
total men who experienced outpatient supervision during
the year, and was the lowest percentage returned since
1963, the second year of the program.
Of the men experiencing outpatient supervision, 1,411,
or 25%, were returned without a new civil narcotic
commitment and 192 men (3%) were returned with a new
civil narcotic commitment. 38
4. Figures depicting the number of male outpatients re-
turned to the institution over a three year period are
shown in Table XI.
TABLE XI
OUTPATIENTS RETURNED TO INSTITUTION
CALENDAR
TOTAL MALE CIVIL ADDICTS
TOTAL OUTPATIENTS RETURNED
YEAR
EXPERIENCING OUTPATIENT SUPERVISION
NUMBER
PERCENT
1968
3,814
1,641
43
1969
4,553
1,709
38
1970
5,610
1,603
29
The figures show that despite a yearly increase in out-
patient population, there has for each of three years
also been a decrease in the percent of persons returned
to institutional status. They also demonstrate that
the Civil Addict Program is making very good progress
in its resolve to release individuals to outpatient
- 88 -
status in increasing numbers, and, through close super-
vision to keep them in the community for the longest
possible period of time.
5. In March 1970, a report was released concerning success-
ful discharges from the Civil Addict Program. 39 Figures
contained in the report indicate that of a total of
11,995 commitments to the program, 15.8% were success-
fully discharged as of December 31, 1969. As of that
same date, 3,891 persons were considered to be discharge
"eligible"; i.e., although not eligible for discharge
as of December 31, 1969, "many of these persons doubtless
will gain discharge before expiration of the seven year
program. 40
Program Effectiveness from the Client's Point of View. Task Force
staff made contact with approximately fifty clients through both personal
interviews and the administration of questionnaires. In the process, it
was discovered that clients fell into two quite distinct groups. One group
evidenced great suspicion as to purpose of the study, saw little merit in
the parole system, and proved extremely resistant to discussion of any kind.
(Client reaction to anti-narcotic test controls will be discussed at a later
point.) The second group, on the other hand, talked quite freely about them-
selves, and about NAOP as well. Several persons in this group showed amazing
insight as to the genesis of drug addiction in their observation that life
long dependency patterns were associated with addiction. In this connection,
those with a long history of addiction, and whose early treatment was strictly
institutional, viewed the newer community treatment approach as frightening.
They said that whereas earlier they had been able to transfer dependence on
narcotics to dependence on the institution, they are now "forced" back to drug
dependence.
No attempt can be made here to judge the validity of this argument,
but from a psychological point of view, it is not without merit. Also to be
taken into account is the fact (as described by NAEA) that relapsed persons
(or those fearful of becoming so) come to CRC daily requesting re-entry.
Whether this is reflective of dependency needs or a determined effort to ward
off re-addiction would have to be assessed on a case to case basis.
In terms of the general addict population, it must be recognized that
it is largely composed of persons with whom other agencies have failed and
therefore rejected, and of individuals with widely disparate backgrounds and
abilities. The one thing they appear to share in common in the lack of moti-
vation for doing anything about their addiction. With these points in mind,
it was not surprising that client reactions to treatment were so often found
to be negative.
- 89 -
The Narcotic Addict Evaluation Authority View of Program Effective-
ness. Next to be considered is how the program looks from NAEA's point of
view. Salient findings are as follows:
1. Although the legal criterion for discharge is two drug-
free years on an outpatient basis, NAEA administrators
do not consider that this alone constitutes success.
They would add:
a. Any time the program can maintain, at one period
or another, some 4,000 persons on outpatient status,
then success has been achieved. (The NAEA antici-
pates a client population of over 7,500 in the
community by 1975.)
b. Any observable sign of improvement over the addict's
prior behavior pattern can be considered a success.
Further:
C. A person returned to the institution for additional
inpatient treatment is not a failure per se.
d. A person returned for Limited Placement is not con-
sidered a failure simply because he requires addi-
tional treatment.
e. A gate turn-in is not considered a failure when he
recognizes that he needs additional assistance.
f. A client who tells his parole agent that he has used
drugs once or twice is not considered a failure.
g. One of the most difficult aspects of rehabilitation
is trying to motivate the addict to want to abstain
from drug use. Any act on his part to seek further
help is construed to mean there has been a change in
his attitude, that there is now motivation for ab-
stinence, and that success for him can therefore be
claimed.
In sum, program effectiveness is viewed as a relative matter, with
the accent on success rather than failure but still avoiding unrealistic
expectations.
2. In the early years of the program, the commitment rate
was approximately 75% misdemeanants. At present time,
over 80% of commitments are felons. Many of these are
hard-core cases who support their addiction through
criminal involvement. The NAEA stated that California
has experienced some success with extremely hard-to-
- 90 -
reach individuals, but at the same time raised
question as to whether any authorities, correc-
tional or medical, really know how to deal with
the heroin addict who is also primarily crimin-
ally oriented.
Comment. NAEA's question is pertinent, and perhaps one to which
there may never be a completely satisfactory answer. For example, the fact
that by 1975 there will be an anticipated 7,500 persons receiving treatment
in the community is heartening in the sense that it gets addicts back into
the main stream of community living, where employment, education, and com-
munity services are available and can be utilized. But there are other
questions to be considered: Does the 7,500 figure refer only to newly ad-
dicted (or newly detected) persons not yet involved in the Civil Addict
Program, or does it also account for a given rate of relapse among those
presently in the program? Is there not some possibility that the predicted
sizeable increase in outpatient population will reduce efforts at concentrated
supervision and concomitantly increase relapse rates?
Glaser looks to research as at least a partial solution to these
troublesome issues.
"Perhaps the most basic problem still to be solved
in the evaluation of narcotic addiction treatment is
that of maintaining a continuous interaction between
research answers and research question. Obviously,
as we answer a question, such as 'What is the re-
lapse rate?' we are in a position to raise more sharply
qualified questions; e.g., 'What are the differences
in relapse rate for different types of addicts?' Per-
haps a more important question is: 'What typology of
addicts will reveal the largest differences in relapse
rate for a given type of treatment?' Always crucial
are the questions: 'What can we learn from the nega-
tive findings? What treatment would have been more
effective with those addicts who do not seem to have
been helped by the treatment studied?' For those ex-
addicts who appear to have been treated successfully:
'What aspects of the treatment were most beneficial,
or were apparent benefits actually independent of
treatment? How is the relapse affected by post-treat-
ment circumstances rather than by the treatment? What
aspects of these circumstances most crucially affect
the outcome of treatment? What are variations in re-
lapse rate according to different criteria of relapse?
Glaser's message is an important one taken to mean that although
there may not now exist any real "experts" in the field of drug addiction,
there is, or could be, a vehicle available for developing a much fuller and
more concrete body of knowledge about addiction than presently obtains.
- 91 -
Constructing such a vehicle would be hard work and certainly could not be
done overnight. But the challenge is there. All that remains is for
California to accept the challenge.
VI. SUMMARY
This chapter has dealt with California's Civil Addict Program. A
beginning groundwork was laid in which narcotic laws at the Federal level
were reviewed along with those of California's civil commitment provisions
and procedures.
Following was description of the Narcotic Addict Evaluation Authority,
the California Rehabilitation Center, and the Narcotic Addict Outpatient
Program, the three bodies responsible for the Civil Addict Program as desig-
nated by law. The foremost point here was that although these are separate
entities, operationally they are highly interdependent and interrelated.
This must constantly be kept in mind in efforts to understand their respec-
tive functions. The primary objective was to examine the structure and
function of NAOP. Major areas covered were: administrative structure; pro-
gram philosophy; training needs in connection with the program; treatment
methods; and program effectiveness.
Predominant study findings were as follows:
1. Organizational structure, though basically satisfactory,
is nevertheless fragmented, and thus tends to interfere
with smooth program operation rather than to encourage it.
2. The official philosophical stance is unusually progres-
sive and should provide the base for parole practice
throughout NAOP. However, program staff are of divided
opinion regarding the current philosophy. Some approve,
some do not. Administrative efforts to accommodate to
the situation have not thus far proved successful.
3. There is urgent need for an in-service training program
which will assist parole agents in their daily practice.
4. Treatment methods are quite well diversified, but many
outpatients are distrustful of efforts to help them.
They especially resent the anti-narcotic testing aspect
of the program.
5. Though success of the program was gauged in considerable
part by the increasing numbers of persons released to
outpatient status, this was by no means the sole criterion.
From NAEA's perspective even the smallest improved change
in an addict's attitude and behavior was considered to mean
that he had benefitted both from the program and from his
own efforts.
- 92 -
From the broad view, however, program administrators
questioned whether there exists within any professional
setting adequate knowledge as to how best to treat per-
sons who are both drug-addicted and given to criminal
behavior. The challenge for California is to set about
obtaining this information, the need for which has been
amply demonstrated.
- 93 -
FOOTNOTES
1 Colorado Legislative Council, Dangerous Drugs and Drug Abuse Con-
trol, report to the Colorado General Assembly, Research Publication No.
127. (December, 1967), p. 33.
2 General statutory notes for states applying the Uniform Narcotic
Drug Law may be found in the Colorado Legislative Council reference cited
above. California and Pennsylvania laws are generally comparable to the
Uniform Law except that California law specifically provides for treatment
of addicts. Pennsylvania law is unique in its provision for both narcotics
and dangerous drugs. Most states handle them in separate statutes.
3Ibid., p. 34 (A.R.S. Sec. 36-1022).
4Ibid., p. 34 (16 Del. C. Sections 4714, 4716).
⁵Ibid., p. 34 (Amended by L. 1935, C. 17120; L.1947, C. 23823,
Sec. 2; L. 1949, C. 25035, Sec. 11; L. 1951, C. 26484, Sec. 10; L. 1953,
C. 28233, Sec. 4, and L. 1955, C. 29615, Sec. 33, F.S.A. Sec. 398.18).
⁶State of Florida, Chapter 70-183, Committee Substitute for Senate
Bills Nos. 246, 268, and 296, June, 1970, 4 pp.
7 Ibid., P. 1.
⁸President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice, "Narcotics and Drug Abuse", The Challenge of Crime in a Free
Society. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1967), p. 215.
⁹Ibid., p. 220.
10Ibid., P. 228, (The President's Commission considered the $15
million as a bare minimum for the job to be done).
11 Ibid., p. 211
12 Ibid., P. 228.
13 Ibid., p. 225.
14 Ibid., p. 228.
15 California Penal Code, Chapter 11, Title 7, Part III.
16 Ibid.
17 Roland W. Wood, Fight Against Addiction - A Pioneering Approach,
Department of Corrections, State of California (Sacramento, 1965), p. 2.
- 94 -
Footnotes
18 Robinson V. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962).
19 California Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 3001.
20 Taken from information provided by NAEA, April 1970.
21
California Welfare and Institutions Code, Division 3, Article I,
Section 3000.
22
National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Advisory Council of
Judges, Narcotics Law Violations, (New York: NCCD, 1964), p. 13.
23 Department of Corrections, Parole and Community Services Division,
"Philosophy", Narcotic Addict Outpatient Program Manual, State of California
(Sacramento: 1965), (page number is not supplied in text).
24
California Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 3000.
25 Department of Corrections, Parole and Community Services Division,
Narcotic Addict Outpatient Program Guide, State of California (Sacramento,
1971), p. 9.
26
Ibid., p. 10.
27 Ibid., P. 29.
28 Ibid., p. 30.
29
NAOP Manual, op. cit., Chapter II, paragraph II-01.
30 Ibid., paragraph II-13.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.
33
Ibid.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid.
36NAOP Guide, op. cit., pp. 85-88.
37
Information supplied by Department of Corrections, Narcotic Programs.
38
Taken from materials provided by the NAEA.
- 95 -
Footnotes
39F. W. Forden and George Sing, "Civil Addict Program Effectiveness
as Measured by Successful Discharges: An Administrative Information Re-
port", Program Research Division, California Rehabilitation Center,
(March, 1970), 3 pp.
40Ibid., p. 2.
41 Daniel Glaser, "Problems in the Evaluation of Treatment and Rehab-
ilitation Programs", Rehabilitating the Narcotic Addict. (Washington:
Vocational Rehabilitation Administration, U.S. Department of Health, Educa-
tion and Welfare, 1966), pp. 376-377.
CHAPTER VI
COMMUNITY-BASED CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS
Traditionally, correctional decision-makers have had to choose be-
tween total confinement and release to minimal supervision in the community.
In recent years, however, a new trend has emerged. This has been the exper-
imentation with unique types of community-based programs, ranging from group
homes and halfway houses to non-residential centers which attempt to involve
the high-delinquency urban ghettoes in the solution of their own problems.
The philosophy behind this trend is that institutions are inherently un-
desirable places to commit people, that people respond more favorably to'
efforts to help them in an atmosphere of freedom rather than severe restric-
tion and confinement, and that the public is protected just as adequately
and far less expensively by the rapid release of most offenders to their
homes under close supervision and assistance. The President's Commission
on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, (already outdated in its
discussion of community-based programs), underscores their significance:
= they offer a set of alternatives between regu-
lar supervision and incarceration, providing more
guidance than probation [and parole] services commonly
offer without the various disruptive effects of total
confinement. The advent of these programs
and
their recent growth
are perhaps the most promis-
ing developments in corrections today.
As is true in many aspects of correctional planning and practice,
California has been in the avant-garde in developing these types of
programs. Both the youth and adult parole systems are committed to de-
vising and putting into operation a range of community-based programs that
are effective alternatives to institutionalization. However, the compara-
tive value of such programs is still not documented and their full poten-
tial thus remains untapped.
Because of their importance, the Parole Task Force isolated for
special study certain community-based programs that differ from tradition-
al parole activities. Most of these programs are housed in facilities oper-
ated by the State or by private groups with whom the State contracts for
services, and all tend to be located in urban ghetto centers. Those visited
by Task Force staff included: (1) all four operated by the Department of
Corrections; (2) six of the seven run by the California Youth Authority;
and (3) three private facilities. Interviews were held with all levels of
staff, including volunteers, and clients.
The following discussion is intended to point out how these programs
exemplify progressive correctional planning and practice, to suggest that
they be increasingly developed and expanded (not only by the State but also
by local correctional agencies), and to offer some recommendations as to
how they might be improved. Additional data regarding the value of community-
based correctional centers may be found in the Prison Task Force Report.
- 97 -
I.
FACILITIES OPERATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
The Department of Corrections has two Community Correctional Centers
for male felons which are essentially halfway house programs. It also op-
erates two similar facilities, one for males and one for females, as part
of its civil narcotic program which will be discussed in the following sec-
tion.
The Rupert Crittenden Center in Oakland and the new Central City
Center in Los Angeles have common goals and are operated in a similar manner.
Both were established to enable earlier release of some inmates from prison,
to provide an alternative, in place of reconfinement, for some parolees who
were "slipping" in the community, and to house a work furlough program close
to actual job locations. Both centers accomodate sixty men each, thirty
parolees and thirty men on work furlough. It should be noted that these
facilities were not established to handle only the best risks. Rather, with
the exception of work furloughees, residents tend to have a more extensive
history of incarceration than most parolees, to have a more established anti-
social pattern of behavior, and to be overly dependent and without adequate
job skills.' In brief, these two centers house men for whom the alternative
would otherwise be longer prison confinement rather than parole.
A short description of each facility is presented below, followed by
general comments and observations. More detailed information on the California
Department of Corrections Community Correctional Centers, including 3 those for
addicts, may be found in its annual report by the same title.
Crittenden Center
Located in a high-delinquency area in downtown Oakland, Crittenden
Center is a dilapidated former State office building. While close to employ-
ment, the center resembles a large rooming house in a run-down neighborhood.
Residents are crowded three to five in small size rooms. Contraband and
liaison between outsiders and residents are constant problems which center
staff have not been able to remedy. Staff apologized for the lack of main-
tenance and the general shabby appearance of rooms and furnishings, but said
there was no point in doing anything because the building will be torn down
in the next year to make room for a freeway.
This is a sensible point of view at this period of time. However,
since the center has been operational for six years, there is reason to
question why so little has been done to improve the facility. Certainly
its inadequacies are reflected in the low morale of its residents. Most work
at menial tasks on temporary jobs, so there is little they can do to improve
the situation. Nor is there much motivation for doing so since the average
stay is only four weeks. The end result is a passive acceptance of poor
living conditions which neither keeper nor kept seem inclined to do anything
about.
- 98 -
On the positive side, there is some community involvement at Crittenden.
For example, many community organizations and individual volunteers are active
at the facility. In fact, this "exposure to citizens of all strata of society"
is considered "probably the greatest program assist of the center". 4 However,
some volunteers were critical of what they considered to be the rigid and puni-
tive attitudes of professionals, particularly with regard to sending men back
to prison. Of the 133 men released to the center in 1968, 20% were returned
to prison within a year--slightly 5 higher than the rate for all felons released
for the same period.
Central City Center
This facility is located in a predominately Black area of Los Angeles,
close to light industry and transportation. The center is a former residential
hotel. Physically, it has excellent potential for becoming a first-class resi-
dential treatment center. The facility is new and not yet operating to capac-
ity. Staff, especially the center manager, are enthusiastic and pulling to-
gether to develop an outstanding operation.
Private individual rooms are available for each resident. Control is
excellent, and is achieved without revealing the usual concern about security
and contraband. An outdoor recreation space is provided, and plans are under-
way to remove presently inadequate kitchen and dining arrangements to a build-
ing next door which has been acquired.
Following the example of some juvenile facilities, Central City has
recently provided accommodations for up to ten female residents on the admin-
istrative floor. This coeducational program is reportedly working well and
is viewed by Task Force staff as a worthwhile experiment. Correctional author-
ities agree that few women need either lengthy incarceration or a high degree
of custody. Hence, this type of program is particularly appropriate for women.
General Observations
The Adult Community Center programs can and should provide an excellent
vehicle for the transition from a closed structured community to the free compet-
itive community. However, there are respects in which the Department of Correc-
tions has not assigned a high enough priority to this essential phase of con-
temporary corrections. Following are some of the reasons for this observation.
1. Centers are inadequately staffed. A ratio of one staff
to five inmates may be acceptable in an institution, but
a smaller operation, intended to provide strong support
in the transitional phase, warrants a more generous ratio.
The use of vocational rehabilitation as a resource is
commendable. However, personality defects found in some
clients justify the expense of employing a vocational
counselor with specialized training in placing and counsel-
ing clients who are emotionally immature and who have a
- 99 -
poor self-concept. Correctional officers who are
skilled in counseling should be employed at a higher
grade than those who are trained to perform merely cus-
todial duties. Also, at least two officers should be
present during evening hours and/or weekends, when the
impact of informal face-to-face contacts can be maximized.
2. There is conflict within individual programs. Despite
assurances to the contrary by employees concerned, ex-
perience has indicated that there is often an incompati-
bility between those on parole and those still in custody
under a work furlough program. It is difficult to apply
different regulations and restrictions to one group and
to expect the other group to conform to another set of
standards. Some of these problems may be minimized by
housing post-parole residents on an emergency basis only
or, if possible, by keeping parolees and work furlough
inmates in separate facilities.
3. The assessment of $3.00 per day for parolees and $4.10
per day for those working is again a factor that con-
tributes to poor work furlough morale. It would be
resolved if separate facilities were provided. It is
perhaps unrealistic to expect work furlough inmates to
pay for their custodial supervision.
4. Work furlough inmates are not furnished "dress-out"
clothing when transferred to a work furlough base, but
are required to seek employment in institution clothing,
"hand-me-downs" donated by the community, or clothing
purchased from their savings. Since part of the justi-
fication for a work furlough program is to bolster an
inmate's self-image, the practice of sending work fur-
lough residents out to seek employment or to work in
obviously inferior clothing is self-defeating and de-
grading. What happens to the money saved by the prac-
tice? No one at either the Oakland or Los Angeles center
could offer any logical explanation.
It should also be noted that although the State has approximately 1,600
work furlough participants, only 60 of them reside in community-based centers.
For lack of an adequate supply of community centers, the remainder go to work
from prisons or from local jails. This is regrettable since community facil-
ities make for greater ease in getting to and from work, greater accessibility
to vocational and educational programs, and greater efficiency in assisting
inmates make the difficult transition back to the community. The Parole Task
Force joins with numerous previous California studies and with both the Prison
and Jail Task Forces in urging the increased use of furlough programs. 6
- 100 -
II.
FACILITIES OPERATED BY THE NARCOTIC ADDICT EVALUATION AUTHORITY
As part of its outpatient program from the California Rehabilitation
Center (CRC) for narcotic addicts, the NAEA operates two halfway houses in
the Los Angeles area. Their purpose is described as:
=
one means of enabling the timely release of CRC
residents to outpatient status after a minimal period
of institutionalization and to provide close supervision
in a controlled setting for outpatients, particularly
during the critical period following release from an
institution.
The clientele are clearly "hard-core" in that they have a higher rate
of prior outpatient failures, poorer work histories, and lower base expectancy
scores than other CRC releasees. Yet, employment levels for residents of both
centers tend to be extremely high and return rates to CRC are not much differ-
ent than those of other releasees. 8
Both centers are also used as "halfway in" facilities for persons ex-
periencing adjustment difficulties in the community. Vinewood (the women's
facility) also serves as a work furlough base in preparation for parole.
Parkway Center
Located in a former two-story motel, Parkway's physical facilities are
excellent; they provide maximum control for up to 53 men with a minimum number
of personnel. The location is convenient to light industry and public trans-
portation. However, there is little in the way of planned program activities,
and recreational opportunities are limited. Most interaction is simply a matter
of informal contact between parole agents and clients.
Since this facility is used for civil commitments, the regulations are
properly less stringent than at other facilities for adult felons. Urinalysis
and other checks for drug use are administered routinely, and the claimed success
rate for a 3-year period is about 18%. While this is a rather depressing statis-
tic, it is far better than many other programs designed to cure hard drug addic-
tion.
The main needs at Parkway are more staff, an employment counselor, and
a more structured program of activities.
Vinewood Center
Vinewood is an attractive former apartment house in Hollywood for women
releasees from CRC. The operation is more permissive than the male facility,
but essentially the program is the same. One notable handicap is the lack of
employment opportunities in the neighborhood. Another is that residents who
- 101 -
are unemployed may remain at the center throughout the day, a factor which
does not encourage maximum effort at job-seeking. This is in contrast with
the men's center where residents must vacate the premises and search for
employment from 8:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. each week day.
General Comments
Morale of employees at both centers appeared to be good, although
they mentioned the frustration of working closely with an essentially passive
group of persons.
The major values of the NAEA's halfway houses are similar to those
operated for adult felons. They enable the Authority to release a number
of inmates earlier than would otherwise be the case, and they provide a sup-
portive environment under closer supervision than would be available through
straight parole. In brief, the existence of these halfway houses allows
NAEA to take greater calculated risks in getting clients back to the commun-
ity. They also make it possible to temporarily house persons who are start-
ing to fail on parole (extremely common for addicts). Since most residents
work and contribute to the cost of the centers, the State is spared not only
the more expensive costs of lengthy confinement but also a portion of the
expenses in these short-term facilities. The client's increased self-worth
and pride in being productive and self-supportive, though difficult to measure,
are perhaps of even greater value.
III. FACILITIES OPERATED BY THE YOUTH AUTHORITY
Following a pilot project in Watts, the Youth Authority established an
additional six Community Parole Centers in July, 1969. The general program
statement for all these centers is as follows:
"Through centralization and concentration of resources,
the Parole Center is designed to increase parole ef-
fectiveness by focusing on limited caseloads located
primarily in economically depressed and socially dis-
organized urban areas. Parole services and consulta-
tion are to be available to wards, their families,
community agencies, and institutional staff to enhance
the concept of 'treatment continuum'. "9
Primary program objectives are:
1. "Increased parole effectiveness by initiating relation-
ships with wards, family members, and relevant community
resources at intake. Maintaining these contacts through
ward's institutional career and assisting institutional
staff in programming and release planning.
- 102 -
2. "To modify behavior to enable wards to function delinquency-
free and help to correct the distorted perceptions and
attitudes of wards, their families and peers toward each
other and social institutions.
3. "To alter identification of residents of these depressed
areas and educate the larger community to the needs and
problems of disadvantaged people to reduce the conflicts
that reflect in attitudes and behavior of our target
area wards. TO
Since the Youth Authority itself provides an excellent description and
evaluation of these programs in its annual progress report, there is no point
in duplicating that information here. However, this Report will summarize
what Parole Task Force staff perceived as the major strengths and weaknesses
of these centers. 11
First of all, the Community Parole Centers are making a unique effort
to integrate institutional and parole services. Center parole agents are
assigned at the time youth from their area are committed to the Youth Authority
rather than at the point of parole. Further, while not always possible because
of time and distance factors, parole agents at least attempt to participate in
reception center and subsequent institutional staffing of wards, and to work
with both the ward and his family before his release. Frequently they contact
school administrators and prospective employers in an effort to develop a
program for the youth prior to his return to the community. Some of these
additional services are possible largely because caseloads for center agents
have been reduced to an average of 20 parolees and 8 wards in institutions.
Since institution-parole ties have been a traditional problem at the State
level (largely due to georgraphy alone), this program is viewed as an extremely
progressive stride.
The second noteworthy characteristic of these facilities is their aggres-
sive effort to become an integral part of the community they serve. Their
"caseload" is all of the Youth Authority wards (averaging 180), their families,
and environment in a six to ten square mile area around the centers. While
some of these facilities met with strong initial hostility (the first one was
fire-bombed), staff determination to "work with people where and as they are"
has helped to overcome much of this rejection and to build viable, community-
based programs. Staff who fought to develop programs which met client needs,
not just those of the system, and who possessed the ability to induce change
by consensus rather than by mandate are largely responsible for what now appear
to be quite successful operations in some of these centers.
Much has also been gained by involving the community in a wide variety
of activities. These have included the opening of center recreational and other
facilities to the entire local community; reciprocal participation in and shar-
ing of facilities with other local groups and organizations; hiring of indigenous
para-professionals: establishing of citizen advisory committees (in at least two
centers); and cultivating a wide range of community resources and assistance,
from baking birthday cakes to conducting sophisticated vocational classes.
- 103 -
A third impressive factor is the informal, open relationships between
staff and clients fostered by an atmosphere in which there is "give and take"
on a personal as well as professional level, i.e., where relationships are
not simply "across the desk". A rather touching example was that of a Chicano
youth who was obviously eager to discuss something with the Center Manager.
Although the manager and Task Force staff were in conference, the Task Force
member urged the manager to talk with the boy. What concerned the boy was
the fact that he had lost the manager's nail clippers. The conversation was
somewhat as follows:
Manager:
"Did you find them, Ramon?"
Ramon:
"No, Sir, but I worked this week, and
wish to replace them."
Manager:
"Forget it."
Ramon:
"No sir. I have ten dollars left from
my pay, and I wish to buy a new pair.
Tell me what kind, please."
Manager:
"I don't remember, Ramon. A cheap
pair--less than a dollar."
The youngster departed, very pleased that he was able to repay a favor.
The above discussion is not meant to imply that all Community Parole
Centers are functioning near maximum capacity, or that they are all at the
same level of achievement. On the contrary, each of them has certain handi-
caps and problems. For example, the age span of clients is from 10 to 23 years,
and makes it difficult to provide effective programs for all. The rising
average age (currently over 19 years) suggests that increasing efforts must
be made to program for a young adult population. Also, while theoretical
caseload sizes are reasonable, in practice they are often considerably larger
than the standard. Staff interviewed seemed to feel that their facilities
were on the "bottom of the barrel" with respect to budget, requiring consider-
able ingenuity on the part of center managers to obtain needed equipment (which
may, however, have indirect advantages if this results in a canvassing of the
community to provide assistance and resources). Finally, there is still a
certain amount of resistance if not bitterness toward the centers (as toward
all symbols of the "establishment") by some members of the community. One Task
Force member who talked personally with neighborhood residents near one center
was told, "It's like having 'pigs' or a prison on your doorstep." Significantly,
this assertion implies a negative attitude not only toward the "establishment",
but also toward the system's clientele, even though resident and client are from
the same neighborhood.
Because of the newness of these centers, little comparative data are
available on recidivism or other criteria of effectiveness. However, after
15 months in the project, boys from the original Watts Center had a 34% viola-
tion rate, compared to 47% for boys in regular parole units. 12 Also, of the
- 104 -
246 wards released to all parole centers between July 1, 1969 and December
31, 1969, 15% violated parole within 6 months, compared to 28% of all wards
13
statewide. Longer-range follow-up data will be available in the near future.
IV. PRIVATELY OPERATED FACILITIES
One critical need for most parolees is the provision of better living
conditions than those experienced prior to entry in the correctional system.
It is obvious that the State cannot be expected to provide such living arrange-
ments for all its charges. However, one resource that is being used with in-
creased frequency is the privately-operated halfway house or group home. Task
Force staff found several such residences, used partially or totally by the
State, in Sacramento, Los Angeles, and the San Francisco Bay Area. Dedication
of residence staff and esprit de corps among residents was generally apparent.
While adequate financial support tends to be a perennial problem, privately
operated facilities have certain advantages over those operated by correctional
agencies. They tend to be considerably less restrictive, residents often feel
they can trust the staff more than official agents who exercise legal controls
over them, and living arrangements more closely resemble normal homes. In light
of these advantages, administrators in the Department of Corrections are curren-
tly examining the feasibility of increased contractual arrangements with pri-
vate facilities, with perhaps an accompanying decrease in Department-operated
facilities.
V. ADULT PAROLE OUTPATIENT CLINICS
Both San Francisco and Los Angeles have parole outpatient clinics that
appear to be adequately staffed, well supported programs. The staff in each
consists of nine psychiatrists, eight psychologists, a psychiatric social
worker, and clerical help. Each clinic serves about 500 clients per year.
Referrals are made by paroling authorities, parole agents, and courts.
Priority is assigned to parole board cases, so that at times other, perhaps
more vital, cases must await their turn. Nevertheless, the clinics are per-
forming a needed service. They are essential to an effective community pro-
gram and should be expanded as funds are available.
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
34. The State should strengthen and expand its Community Parole Center
Program for youth with increased emphasis on developing programs that will
allow earlier institutional release and fewer returns.
35. In the event youth and adult services are consolidated, the State
should experiment with using these Community Parole Centers for adults as well
- 105 -
as for youths. Otherwise, the Department of Corrections should increase
its Community Correctional Centers but model them more after the Youth Author-
ity's centers, i.e., with increased emphasis on integrating institutions and
parole and on becoming an integral part of the community.
36. The State should expand its use of community-based work furlough
centers for inmates, particularly for women, and should use them for other
types of furloughs such as vocational training and educational programs.
37. The State should enact legislation permitting inmates on furlough
to reside in privately operated facilities via contractual arrangements.
- 106 -
FOOTNOTES
1 President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice, Task Force on Corrections, Task Force Report: Corrections,
(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1967), p. 38.
2 -Department of Corrections, Parole and Community Services Division,
Community Correctional Centers: 1970, State of California (Sacramento,
December, 1970), p. ii.
³Ibid.
4 Ibid., p. 4.
⁵Ibid., p. iii.
6
Alvin Rudoff, et. al., "Evaluating Work Furlough", (paper submitted
for publication to Federal Probation in 1971), (mimeographed); Fred Hoover,
"Work Furlough Practices in California: 1968", San Mateo County Sheriff's
Department (Redwood City, August, 1968), (mimeographed); California Tax-
payers Association, Work Furlough Programs in California Counties, 1967-68:
A Workload Study, (Sacramento, June, 1968); California Citizens Council,
Work Furlough, A Time-Tested and Tax-Saving Program For Your Community,
(Oakland: California Council of the National Council on Crime and Delin-
quency, April, 1966); James Robison, The California Prison, Parole and
Probation System: Technical Supplement No. 2, A Special Report to the
Assembly, (Sacramento, 1969), p. 112.
7 Community Correctional Centers: 1970, op. cit., p. iv.
81bid., pp. v-vi.
9 Department of the Youth Authority, Division of Rehabilitation, A
Guide to Treatment Programs, State of California (Sacramento, April, 1970),
p. 8.
10
Ibid., p. 9.
11
Department of the Youth Authority, Division of Research, Annual Progress
Report of the Community Parole Center Program, State of California (Sacramento,
December, 1970).
12
Department of the Youth Authority, The Status of Current Research in
the California Youth Authority, State of California (Sacramento, July, 1970),
p. 38.
13 Annual Progress Report of the Community Parole Center Program, op. cit.,
p. 90.
CHAPTER VII
CALIFORNIA PAROLING AUTHORITIES
Because of their critical and intertwined roles in institutional and
parole decision-making, the various paroling authorities have been mentioned
frequently in this and other Task Force Reports. However, there has been no
systematic examination of their characteristics and functions. That is the
task of this chapter. The approach of this chapter will be to discuss the
four boards generically and individually: to describe their similarities and
differences in structure, to discuss their various duties and methods of carry-
ing out their respective responsibilities, and to suggest directions for im-
provement.
I. CHARACTERISTICS
Table XII presents, in capsulized form, a gross descriptive picture
of the four paroling authorities. A number of significant differences be-
tween the boards may be seen. The Women's Board and Narcotic Addict Evalua-
tion Authority are part-time boards, do not use hearing representatives, and
are not confirmed by the Senate. Only the Adult Authority and Women's Board
set terms for inmates and both boards are restricted by statutory minimum
sentences for every commitment. Most significant are the vast differences
in median terms of offenders under jurisdiction of the various paroling author-
ities. For example, adult male felons average twice as long in confinement
as women felons and four times as long as juvenile offenders (many of whom
are committed from the same adult courts for similar offenses). Finally,
while the number of total actions taken and the parolee caseloads vary markedly
from one board to another, only the Youth Authority Board seems to have an
excessive number of cases per decision-maker. However, the Adult Authority
and Youth Authority rely very heavily on hearing representatives to make in-
dividual case decisions.
Structure
The Parole Task Force agrees with the President's Crime Commission
that the paroling function should belong to "an independent decision-making
group within a parent agency". As with the courts, the parole boards serve
both as representatives of the public and as an essential part of the "check-
and-balance" structure of criminal justice. Hence, as with the courts, they
must have the power to make decisions independent of political pressures, rec-
ommendations of professional correctional staff, and any other influences.
On the other hand, their job is SO interwoven with that of institutional and
parole staff that the need for coordination, mutual respect, and a "teamwork"
attitude is critical. This is fostered by having the boards within the same
"parent agency", viz. the Human Relations Agency, as is the balance of the
State correctional apparatus. For the most part, California already complies
with these concepts.
TABLE XII
CHARACTERISTICS OF CALIFORNIA PAROLING AUTHORITIES
NARCOTIC ADDICT EVAL-
ADULT AUTHORITY
YOUTH AUTHORITY
WOMEN'S BOARD
UATION AUTHORITY
Juvenile wards;
Civilly committed
Jurisdiction
Adult male felons
adult offenders
Adult female felons
adult narcotic
under 21
addicts.
Number of Members
5
4
Authorized by Statute
8
7
(part-time)
(part-time)
Number of Hearing
Exec. Off. may serve
Represnetatives
11
7
if no Bd. member
None
available
App'td by Governor
App'td by Governor
App'td by Governor
App'td by Governor
Selection Procedure
(confirmed by Senate)
(confirmed by Senate)
Terms of Appointment
4 years
4 years
4 years
4 years
Term setting
Parole grants
Term setting
Parole grants
Statutory Authority
Parole grants
Parole revoc.
Parole grants
Parole revoc.
Parole revoc.
Discharge
Parole revoc.
Recomm. to court for
Discharge
Discharge
discharge
Number of Actions
108 I I
Taken in 1970
40,177
48,000
4,999
11,086
Actions per Member
or Representative
2,115
3,429
2,000*
2,049*
Number of Parolees
on March 31, 1971
14,816
13,701
1,008
4,098
Minimum Term
for Inmates
Set by statute
No statutory minimum
Set by statute
No statutory minimum
Median Terms in
Confinement (1969-70)
36 months
9 months
18 months
11 months
*Workload divided by half the number of board members since they are part-time boards.
- 109 -
Selection and Appointment
Because of the importance of their decisions, in terms of public pro-
tection, effects upon the lives of individual offenders, and impact upon the
rest of the correctional machinery, proper selection of competent and qual-
ified board members is essential. Task Force staff concur with the suggested
standards of the President's Crime Commission relative to board members:
"The nature of the decisions to be made in parole requires
persons who have broad academic backgrounds, especially
in the behavioral sciences, and who are aware of how
parole operates within the context of a total correctional
process. "2
"(Members
should
be)
appointed by the Governor through
a merit system. or from a list of candidates who meet
the minimum requirements of education and experience.
None of the parole board's members should be a person
who is already a State official serving ex officio.
3
Because they represent the public, parole boards should not consist solely of
present or former correctional workers; however, members should have both know-
ledge and ability to utilize that knowledge about causes of law-violating be-
havior and methods of altering such behavior. In addition to being appointed
by the Governor, all board members should be confirmed by the Senate (as is
currently the case for two boards) so as to further assure the selection of
the most competent individuals. To provide a continuity and evenness of jus-
tice and to avoid the sudden creation of totally new and inexperienced boards,
an overlapping of terms seems appropriate. Consideration might also be given
to extending the length of terms from four to six years to allow for an easier
overlapping of terms and to provide greater continuity of parole board practices.
A violation of the above principles of independence, public representa-
tion, and elimination of ex officio memberships on parole boards occurs in the
juvenile parole system where the Director of the Department of the Youth Author-
ity is, by statute, not only a member of the Youth Authority Board, but its
chairman. The problems which arise for parole staff from this combination of
roles have been discussed in Chapter III. Quite aside from those issues is the
fact that the Directorship of the Youth Authority is, by itself, an extremely
demanding, difficult assignment, which would seem to require the undivided
attention of even the most competent of administrators.
A more desirable alternative, in the view of Task Force staff, would
be the formation of liaison committees (as was discussed in Chapter V relative
to the Narcotic Addict Evaluation Authority) and the development of other means
of coordination and cooperation. Since the youth parole board and the youth
parole supervision department are both within the Human Relations Agency, the
mechanics of such a coordinative effort should not be excessively difficult.
- 110 -
Recommendations. 38. ALL parole board members should be appointed
by the Governor, through a process of mcrit selection, and should be con-
firmed by the Senate.
39. Appointments should normally be to full-time positions and should
be for six year overlapping terms.
40. The Director of the Department of the Youth Authority should be
neither the chairman nor a member of the Youth Authority Board.
41. All of the parole boards should form liaison committees with the
appropriate institutional and parole staff to discuss and resolve problems
of mutual concern.
Number and Size of Boards
The number and size of individual parole boards should be commensurate
with their workloads and responsibilities. Some authorities argue that boards
should be primarily policy-making in nature and should leave all but highly
controversial, contested or appealed cases to hearing representatives. However,
as all of California's board chairmen stressed, those persons who make the
final decisions and who bear the ultimate responsibility for the paroling
function should have as much "face-to-face" contact with their clients as
possible. Simply reading folders and "rubber-stamping" case decisions would
be both a boring and inane type of activity for highly qualified and highly
paid individuals. More importantly, only "face-to-face" contact can provide
some of the important "cues" on which to base individual decisions. Also,
only through such "face-to-face" contact can there be developed an intimate
knowledge about and feeling for the clients and the type of decisions to be
made. Furthermore, as some board members pointed out, increasing numbers of
cases are now highly controversial; as counties skim off more and more of the
less serious offenders, this will be even more true in the future. Hence,
the Parole Task Force suggests that full-time board members should hear the
bulk of parole cases and should use hearing representatives only as necessary.
On the other hand, many hearing representatives do an excellent job and should
be available, on request, to each of the boards when workload SO justifies.
Narcotic Addict Evaluation Authority. Since its creation, the NAEA
has experienced a steady and rapid increase in its workload. With the spiral-
ling rise of drug abuse in California, it appears clear that this workload will
continue to expand, both in sheer numbers and in terms of the need for constant-
ly developing new and sophisticated approaches to the problem. These factors,
together with the above-mentioned values of having board members rather than
hearing representatives hear cases, would seem to justify making the NAEA a full-
time board, although the number of members might initially be reduced by one.
- 111 -
Women's Board of Terms and Parole. On the one hand, as will be seen
later, the Women's Board is, in many respects, one of the most progressive.
Its members are highly dedicated, were perceived by Task Force staff as being
most involved with and concerned about its clientele, and tend to be among
the most "risk-taking". Its procedural safeguards are also among the best.
On the other hand, the issue of whether or not to retain a separate parole
board for adult females has been raised repeatedly in California. Insofar
as can be determined, California is the only State which operates such a
Board, although Illinois and New York formerly had separate parole boards
for adult females, but have discontinued them. It is also to be noted that
both the Youth Authority Board and the Narcotics Addict Evaluation Authority
serve female clients without the necessity of a separate parole board struc-
ture.
Historically, the Women's Board of Terms and Parole was created in
the late 1920's as a "spin off" of a concentrated effort, led by the California
Federated Women's Clubs, to remove female offenders from San Quentin Prison.
When female felons were removed from San Quentin and housed separately at
the old Tehachapi facility, the program, as well as the parole function, was
placed under the direction of a Women's Board. In 1944, however, with the
adoption of the California Prison Reorganization Act, all adult institutions
were assigned administratively to the Director of Corrections. The Women's
Board retained its term-setting and paroling powers. However, it surrendered
its administrative responsibility, although it did assume an advisory role
in respect to the women's facility.
On at least three occasions, during the terms of three successive
Governors, question has arisen as to whether or not the Women's Parole Board
(by whatever name it was currently known) should continue. In 1959, legis-
lation abolishing the Women's Board was approved by the Legislature, but was
vetoed by the Governor. The following quotation from a 1962 publication of
the Youth and Adult Corrections Agency speaks to the issue:4
"The role of women in our society has been gradually
changing toward increasing equality with men, but
there still remains in the public attitude some tradi-
tional feeling that women offenders should be dealt
with less harshly than men. This probably rests on
the fact that women's crimes tend to be less serious
than those committed by men. Nevertheless, such atti-
tudes toward female offenders tend to be more vague and
far less strongly felt than the feelings and attitudes
toward youth.
"The majority of outside consultants concurred in the
opinion that there is no real justification for a separ-
ate Board for adult women. One stated that the only
reasons for a separate women's Board now are historical
or sentimental. Many felt that having at least one
woman member on an over-all Adult Authority should be
mandatory. We concluded that there was little, if any,
justification for retaining a separate women's Board.
- 112 -
"Recommendation
INTEGRATE THE WOMEN'S BOARD OF TRUSTEES INTO THE ADULT
AUTHORITY.
"While we agree with the concept that "women are differ-
ent", we could not find that, within offense groups,
the characteristics of the offender, whether he be man
or woman, are very different from a treatment stand-
point. When the consultants stated that there should
be separate decision-making bodies for adults and youth,
they pointed out that whatever the differing needs and
problems are between youthful male and female offenders,
one decision-making body now meets them. It seems reason-
able and logical that adults be handled in the same way,
provided that one adult body gives appropriate consider-
ation to whatever specialized needs, problems and public
attitudes toward women may exist.
"Integration could bring into the Adult Authority some
of the concepts which the Board of Trustees are now
using.
Integration would decrease Board adminis-
trative costs; provide a wider exposure to the problems
of inmates and institutions; and offer the opportunity
to exchange ideas across the State. The presence of
"women's members" on the Adult Authority would also pro-
vide the same advantages to the present members of the
Authority.
"The comparatively high cost of the trustees work and
the part-time aspect of the operation which inhibits
continuity of both administration and philosophy re-
duces the efficiency of the Board compared to the two
other authorities. The fact that there is only one
institution with a one-sex population could foster a
provincial philosophy or could create an over-protective
or hypercritical attitude on the part of members toward
their cases."
As suggested in the 1962 report, a comparison of parole board costs,
per action, also raises question as to whether or not the Women's Board should
be continued. A comparison between the budget and number of actions heard by
the Adult Authority and the budget and number of actions heard by the Women's
Board reveals the following:5
Total Actions
Approximate Cost
Budget: 1971-72
per Year (1969-70)
per Action
Adult Authority - $851,000
40,177
$21.00
Women's Board - $130,000
4,999
$26.00
- 113 -
While the difference in cost per individual action is admittedly small (only
$5), the cummulative savings would appear to be in the vicinity of $25,000
per year.
In summary, the issue of the future of a women's parole board presents
a paradox. The present Women's Board has developed highly commendable prac-
tices, some of which might well be adopted by the other boards. Furthermore,
elimination of the Women's Board might result in the loss of these progressive
practices for women. However, when analyzed in comparison with other boards
which successfully handle parolees of both sexes, and when viewed historically,
a strong argument emerges for incorporating the present Board into an Adult
Parole Board (with such a Board to include at least two female members, supple-
mented by female hearing representatives if necessary).
Recommendations. 42. Consideration should be given to integrating the
Women's Board of Terms and Parole into the Adult Authority, in which case at
least two women members should be added to the Adult Authority.
If this occurs, a Women's Advisory Committee should be created to
advise the new Department of Correctional Services and all the boards on
special concerns relative to women and girls.
43. The Adult Authority, Youth Authority Board, and Narcotic Addict
Evaluation Authority should be renamed the Adult Parole Board, Youth Parole
Board, and Narcotic Parole Board, respectively.
44. The Narcotic Parole Board should be made a full-time board.
Auxiliary Staff
The preceding section indicated the preference of having board members
hear cases to the extent possible. However, to the degree necessary, each
board should be able to hire, on a permanent or temporary basis, and through
a system of merit selection, hearing representatives. Such representatives
should be selected by and be responsible to the board and should assume what-
ever responsibilities are assigned by the board.
Additionally, each board should, through merit selection, hire an admin-
istrative officer to perform whatever duties it wishes to delegate.
Recommendation. 45. Each board should, through a process of merit
selection, appoint an administrative officer and whatever number of hearing
officers may be necessary, to perform whatever duties it wishes to delegate.
Training
The responsibility for balancing the scales of justice, the rights
and needs of the individual versus the rights and needs of society, is an
- 114 -
unenviable assignment. The tasks of assessing readiness for parole, deter-
mining the necessity for return to an institution, and deciding on readiness
for discharge are extremely difficult and complex. The need for not only
proper background and qualifications, but also for relevant and ongoing train-
ing is obvious. Such training should include up-to-date knowledge of specific
programs and resources both in the community and in each institution, a regu-
lar sharing of problems and concerns with institutional and parole staff, famil-
iarization with community attitudes, basic legal training, principles for eval-
uating and modifying human behavior, instruction in the use of statistical pre-
dictive aids such as base expectancy tables, and exchange of information with
other parole decision-makers, particularly those outside of California.
While it is true that parole board members in California have occasion-
ally had opportunity to participate in parole institutes or parole seminars,
as well as the opportunity to participate in professional conferences, both
of a statewide and national level, these chances for training are infrequent,
and, in the opinion of the Parole Task Force, do not provide adequate train-
ing in the areas previously enunciated.
Recommendation: 46. The proposed Department of Correctional Services
and the various parole boards should form a training committee to develop
specific training programs in correctional decision-making for all board mem-
bers and hearing representatives, as well as for any correctional staff for
whom it may be relevant.
Public Education
While the paroling authorities are among the most important elements
within the correctional continuum, they are, to the general public, the least
well-known. The boards should inaugurate a public education program, including
publication of informational brochures and the publication and distribution
of annual reports. This practice is presently followed by both the Department
of the Youth Authority and the Department of Corrections, as well as by numer-
ous local correctional programs; it should now be adopted by all of California's
parole boards.
Recommendation. 47. Each California parole board should regularly
publish and distribute both informational brochures and annual reports.
II. FUNCTIONS
The primary functions of parole boards are term-setting, granting parole
and establishing the conditions of parole, revoking parole, and discharging
from parole. An additional function sometimes performed by boards is institu-
tional and program assignment and transfer. As stressed in the Juvenile In-
stitution Task Force Report, this is a highly inappropriate task for the boards
and should be left to institutional staff who are in a better position to make
- 115 -
individual treatment and custody decisions.
Term-setting
As Table XII shows, only the Adult Authority and Women's Board fix
terms, i.e. set specific dates within the minimum and maximum time allowed
by law for the release of each inmate. These terms, however, are only tenta-
tive and may be decreased or increased, within statutory limits, at any time.
By statute, the minimum term for any felony is one year and for many crimes
is five, ten, or more years. In keeping with the overall thrust of the
Correctional System Study, only those persons who cannot be handled by local
communities, even in local institutions, should be committed to the State.
Hence, the minimum term of one year perhaps makes sense in that no one who
does not need to be confined for at least one year should ever be sent to
the State. On the other hand, progressive correctional thought argues that
correctional decision-makers should not have their hands tied with unnecessary
restrictions relative to the custody, supervision, and treatment of offenders.
It is a common observation that decision-makers err in some cases and that
individual offenders change more rapidly than anticipated; in short, what may
have been or appeared to be a "good" decision at the time of sentencing or
term-setting may subsequently become inappropriate. To be an effective,
efficient, and just system, corrections must be flexible, i.e. it must be able
to change earlier decisions and substitute alternative programs whenever appro-
priate. Mass processing or locking people up and in essence "throwing away
the key" can no longer be acceptable correctional practice. Hence, excessive
minimum terms are an anomaly and an undue constraint to a progressive correc-
tional system. Accordingly, Task Force staff recommends strongly that all
minimum terms be reduced to one year. It is important to realize that this
is not a recommendation to release all offenders from prison in one year, nor
is this likely to happen. Rather, it is viewed as removing unnecessary re-
strictions constraining the paroling authorities so that they can make the
best possible decisions based on the needs and concerns of each individual
case. Further support for this argument is found in the operations of the
youth and narcotics boards which function without minimum terms, have median
terms that are less than one year, and yet are at least as successful as
the adult prison systems. In fact, with the exception of certain misdemeanor
traffic violations, the prison system in the only part of the entire California
correctional continuum in which there is a mandatory minimum period of incar-
ceration which cannot, under any circumstances, be altered. In the opinion
of the Parole Task Force, this is an anomalous situation without any real
justification.
A major concern about term-fixing is that the boards may at any time
re-fix terms for periods longer than those originally set. This occurs with-
out a public hearing, without representation by counsel, and without provision
for appeal. Thus the two boards which fix and re-fix terms have a power granted
to no court and exercise it in a manner and under conditions not permitted in
any court. A number of professionals and citizens view this as excessive dis-
cretionary authority.
- 116 -
Another criticism of term-fixing is the uncertainty it leaves in the
minds of inmates (and staff), although some argue that this uncertainty or
anxiety can often be used constructively to modify inmate behavior or at
least to control their behavior within the institution.
To at least partially offset these concerns and yet adequately pro-
tect the public, it is suggested that the adult felon boards set terms as
early as proper evaluation of inmates can be achieved; that, whatever the
term initially set, regular reviews of each case be held (such as every six
months after the first year) to determine whether the term can be safely
reduced; that institutional staff be able to request such a review at any
time they believe it to be appropriate; and that, once a term is set, the
burden of proof be on the system to justify extending the term (more than
minor violations of institutional rules should be necessary to justify such
an extension).
Recommendations. 48. The California Penal Code should be amended
to set one year as the minimum term to be served prior to parole for every
person committed to state prison.
49. The Adult Authority and Women's Board of Terms and Parole or,
is they are consolidated, the Adult Parole Board should set terms as soon
as adequate evaluative materials are available. The burden of proof should
be on the system to justify any subsequent extension of those terms.
50. All of the parole boards should review each case regularly (such
as every six months) to evaluate whether individual inmates are ready for
parole.
Granting Parole
The major concern of Task Force staff relative to the granting of parole,
aside from minimizing the restrictions on the boards, is the excessively long
median terms served by adult male felons. Table XII reveals the vastly longer
median terms of inmates under jurisdiction of the Adult Authority (36 months)
when compared with those in other parts of the State institutional apparatus
(9 months for CYA wards, 11 months for CRC inmates, and 18 months for women
felons). The Prison Task Force Report commented upon these excessive terms,
pointing out that California incarcerates its adult male felons approximately
50% longer than the national average. The multiple values of reducing those
terms were also elaborated on by the Prison Task Force.
Recommendation. 51. The Adult Authority should make every possible
effort to reduce its median term for inmates to a period approaching the
national average.
- 117 -
Conditions of parole. As discussed in some detail in the Probation
Task Force Report, conditions of parole should be kept at a minimum and
should be individually tailored to the needs of the specific case. In partic-
ular, they should never be so vague as to cause the parolee to violate with-
out realizing that he is doing SO.
Traditional practice of the California boards has been to impose a
fairly long list of standard conditions and, in many instances, additional
specialized conditions. While there has been a general tendency to make
parole conditions less restrictive and to leave more discretion to individual
parole agents, some standard conditions are still impractical and unenforceable
(for example, "Do not associate with former inmates or individuals of bad
repute", "Do not move, marry, drive a car, etc. without the prior permission
of your parole agent", "Be a good citizen at all times"). Other conditions,
notably those dealing with deprivation of civil rights, are SO complicated
that most parole agents do not understand them.
Recommendation. 52. Conditions of parole should be clear, kept to a
minimum, and tailored to the individual case.
Revocation of Parole
One of the most controversial aspects of the paroling function today
is the revocation process. On the one hand, traditionalists and conservatives
frequently argue that the inmate should lose many of his legal rights and that
he is, in fact, under a prison sentence until his parole is successfully com-
pleted. This argument stems from the accurate assertion that parole is a
privilege rather than a right and that it is a trial period in the community
in lieu of completion of the maximum term--a trial period that can be revoked
by the paroling authority. On the other hand, more liberal elements contend
that parolees should have essentially the same legal rights and safeguards
as anyone else. One example of this view was the President's Crime Commission,
which observed:
"The offender threatened with revocation should
be entitled to a hearing comparable to the nature and
importance of the issue being decided. Where there is
some dispute as to whether he violated the conditions
of his release, the hearing should contain the basic
elements of due process--those elements which are de-
signed to ensure accurate factfinding. It may not be
appropriate to require the heavy burdens of proof re-
quired for criminal conviction, or to provide for jury
trials. But the hearing should include such essential
rights as reasonable notice of the charges, the right
to present evidence and witnesses, the right to repre-
sentation by counsel--including the right to appointed
counsel--and the right to confront and cross-examine
opposing witnesses. Parole Boards should have the power
- 118 -
to issue subpoenas; and subpoenas should be issued by
Boards and courts upon a satisfactory showing of need. 115
A gross descriptive picture of the revocation procedures followed by
each of the boards is presented in summary form in Tables XIII through XV.
While there are many variations in these procedures between the boards, each
has basically a two-hearing process (except the NAEA) and each has made
efforts to increase procedural safeguards that protect the parolee's rights.
Table XIII shows that each board conducts an initial hearing with
two members or hearing representatives present to consider whether or not
to suspend parole and remand the person into custody. Decisions are based
solely on a written and verbal report from parole staff; neither the parolee
nor any witnesses are present. These meetings are normally held weekly (with
the exception of the Women's Board which meets only once a month), although
the locations are very limited.
The major exception to this normal type of initial hearing occurs in
the case of the NAEA which also makes a final decision at this hearing. In
other words, the NAEA combines both hearings (suspension and revocation)
into one. However, this Authority actually returns an estimated 50% of its
violators to CRC by a phone decision which replaces a formal initial hear-
ing. Whenever it seems appropriate, a parole agent and his supervisor can
request their district or regional administrator to phone a board member
and obtain a verbal order to suspend and return an outpatient to the insti-
tution. When this occurs, there is a subsequent hearing at the institution
by two board members to confirm this decision by phone.
As seen in Table XIV, the parolee receives written notice of the
charges against him, except those in the Narcotic Addict Outpatient Program
who are informed of the charges orally. If the boards feel there is ade-
quate cause, based on the written and verbal report of parole staff, they
may suspend parole, in which case the parolee is almost always ordered into
custody (many are already in custody due to action taken by local courts
on new charges). A major concern of Task Force staff was the considerable
variation in time spent in custody between suspension of parole and the for-
mal revocation hearing. Although based on only a small number of parolees
(22), the 38 day average time confined in reception centers awaiting dis-
position by the Adult Authority seemed particularly excessive. There appears
to be no reason why the waiting period in reception centers for adults needs
to be so much longer than the 5 to 14 working days set by Youth Authority
Board policy for juvenile parolees.
An additional problem is the time spent in custody before delivery
to the reception centers. Since the boards do not normally calculate these
individual and average time delays, detailed information on time in custody
before delivery was not available. However, the NAOP estimated that it re-
quires about 18 days from the time a parole agent writes a violation report
TABLE XIII
INITIAL REVOCATION HEARING
NARCOTIC ADDICT EVAL-
ADULT AUTHORITY
YOUTH AUTHORITY
WOMEN'S BOARD
UATION AUTHORITY*
Scheduled Frequency
of Hearing
Weekly
Weekly
Monthly
Weekly
Composition of
Two Board Members
Two Board Members
Two Board Members
Two Board Members
Board
or Hearing Reps.
or Hearing Reps.
Form in which Charges
are Submitted
Written Report
Written Report
Written Report
Written Report
Is Parolee Present?
No
No
No
No
119 I I
Parole Staff Present?
Parole Supervisor
Parole Supervisor
Parole Supervisor
Parole Administrator
or Agent
or Supervisor
Witnesses Present?
No
No
No
No
Reception Centers
Location of Hearings
State Office Build-
& Youth Training
State Office Build-
State Office Build-
ings (S.F. & L.A.)
School (Chino)
ings (L.A. & S.F.)
ings (L.A. only)
*This is a one step hearing, i.e. the final disposition is made at this hearing (except in those cases
where the initial decision to suspend and return is made by phone).
TABLE XIV
PRE-REVOCATION HEARING PROCEDURES
NARCOTIC ADDICT EVAL-
ADULT AUTHORITY
YOUTH AUTHORITY
WOMEN'S BOARD
UATION AUTHORITY
Does Parolee Receive
Notice of Charges?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
How are Charges
Communicated?
Written
Written
Written
Orally
May Parole be
Suspended?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Remanded into Custody
Not necessarily
(if suspended)?
Always
Virtually always
Always
but normally
120 I I
Time in Reception
Center Prior to
est. avg.
5 to 14 working
est. avg.
est. avg.
Revocation Hearing
38 days
days (by policy)
30 days
21 days*
* Since this is a one step hearing, this represents the average time in custody from the parole agent's
writing of his report until delivery of the parolee to CRC. Twenty-one days is also the estimated
average time spent in the Reception Center for those ordered returned by phone (roughly 50%) until
a hearing to confirm the decision by phone.
- 121 -
until the matter is heard by the NAEA and an additional 3 days before the
outpatient arrives at CRC. The outpatient is virtually always in custody
during this time. The NAOP also estimated that the 18 day period could be
reduced by at least 50% if there were adequate clerical assistance (which
they have requested). In those instances when outpatients are suspended
and returned to the institution by a phone decision of one board member
(approximately 50% of the time), it takes about the same length of time
(21 days) before a formal hearing is held to confirm the earlier decision.
In the case of adult felons, there are also not infrequent instances when
a parolee, under the jurisdiction of any board, is given a sentence in a
local jail as the result of a new charge, yet parole revocation proceed-
ings are not initiated until all or a large part of the sentence is com-
pleted. While it is recognized that the boards do not have control over
all of these situations, it would appear that joint board-parole staff
efforts could reduce some of the "dead" time spent by parolees awaiting
revocation dispositions. Finally, the success of O.R. and other similar
pre-trial release programs discussed by the Jail Task Force also raises
question as to the necessity of virtually always remanding suspended pa-
rolees into custody and/or keeping them there until final disposition has
been made of their case.
The nature of the revocation hearings, in which final dispositions
or in some cases, recommendations, are made, tends to be informal, non-adver-
sary, and administrative, rather than court-like. In those hearings which
Task Force staff attended, parolees had adequate opportunity to make state-
ments and present materials, although some individuals were not particularly
adept at speaking for themselves. As Table XV reveals, all boards allow pa-
rolees to hire and confer with attorneys prior to the hearing. The attorneys
may at least submit a written statement in behalf of their clients; in all
except the Adult Authority, attorneys may also talk directly with board mem-
bers either before or, in the case of NAEA, during the hearing. However, the
boards have all avoided turning the hearings into formal, adversary proceed-
ings (although the U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering a California
case relative to the use of attorneys in parole revocation hearings6). Simi-
larly, any witnesses may at least write to the boards prior to hearings. A
strange inconsistency occurs in the case of the NAEA which is the only board
which permits attorneys and witnesses to appear at the hearing itself, yet
is the only board which does not permit the parolee himself to be present.
In those board hearings where an attorney is not permitted, one possibility
for assuring that the parolee has adequate opportunity and capability of
"stating his case" would be to provide correctional staff, at the parolee's
option, who could informally assist the parolee in presenting statements and
materials to the board.
Some problems which effect the length of time a parolee spends in cus-
tody included infrequent (monthly) hearings by the Women's Board, unspecified
time limits on continuances and postponements, and hearing of all cases in
very limited locations (normally reception centers). Efforts might also be
made, whenever appropriate, to consolidate initial and final revocation hear-
TABLE XV
REVOCATION HEARING
NARCOTIC ADDICT EVAL-
ADULT AUTHORITY
YOUTH AUTHORITY
WOMEN'S BOARD
UATION AUTHORITY
Scheduled Frequency
of Hearing
Weekly
Weekly
Monthly
Weekly
Composition of
2 Board Members or
2 Board Members or
2 Board Members
2 Board Members
Board
Hearing Reps.
Hearing Reps
Parolee:
Present
Present
Present
Not present
May write to or
May write to or
Attorney:
May write to Board
confer with Board
confer with Board
May appear in
prior to hearing
prior to hearing
person at hearing
122 I I
Parents may confer
Witnesses:
May write to Board
with Board prior
May write to Board
May appear in
to hearing
person at hearing
Location of Hearing
Reception Centers
Reception Centers
California Institu-
State Office Build-
tion for Women
ing (L. A. only)
Unspecified
How Long can Hearing be
Unspecified time
Not more than 3
but normally no more
Normally 5 - - 15
Continued?
weeks
than 30 days
days
4 Board Members or
None
None
Confirmation Required
Hearing Reps, incl. at
None
(but hearing has 2
(but hearing has 2
least 2 Bd. Members
Board Members)
Board Members
Is an Appeal Procedure
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Available?
Notification of
Parolee advised
Board's Finding
after hearing by
Parolee advised
Parolee advised
Parolee advised
and Disposition
CDC Staff
at hearing
at hearing
later by CDC Staff
- 123 -
ings as the NAEA has done. A further inadequacy is the lack of an appellate
procedure for civil narcotic addicts.
An excellent practice employed by the Youth Authority and Women's
Board is to inform the parolee of the disposition immediately at the end
of the hearing. Task Force staff urges that the other boards follow this
practice of directly, candidly, and immediately telling the parolee what
the board feels is the most appropriate disposition for him and, of perhaps
even greater importance, the reasons why (if he is to be reconfined, this
should include what is expected of him to maximize his chances of an early
parole). Even if, in the case of hearings by representatives, the
disposition is not final, but rather is a recommendation which must be con-
firmed later by two board members, inmates definitely want to know what
decision or tentative decision has been made and why. Since clients are
subject, throughout the criminal justice system, to recommendations which
must be approved by a higher level before becoming final, this would not
be a foreign procedure to them.
In summary, Task Force staff believe that current revocation hearings
and procedures are basically just and reasonable and offer only the above-
noted suggestions for improvement. It is felt that, if the best procedural
safeguards and practices used by the various boards are extended to all boards
and codified to assure their permanence, the creation of an adversary situ-
ation (with hired or appointed attorneys, cross-examination of witnesses,
etc.) is not only unnecessary to assure justice but would both cost the tax-
payer additional funds and tend to slow down and burden the entire process
with undue handicaps.
Recommendations. 53. Although many of the following procedural safe-
guards already exist in respect to revocation hearings, they should be adopted
by all of the boards and should be codified:
1. Boards should meet at least once a week to consider revocation
matters.
2. Hearings should be conducted by at least two board members or
hearing representatives; if hearing representatives are used,
their decisions should be confirmed by at least two board members.
3. Written advance notice of the charges should be given to the
parolee and, in the case of juveniles, to his parents as well.
4. The parolee should be present at least at his final revocation
hearing.
5. The parolee should be able to hire and confer with an attorney
prior to the hearing; attorneys should be able to write to and
personally confer with board members prior to the hearing.
- 124 -
6. Any witnesses should be able to write to board members; parents
of juveniles should be able to confer with board members prior
to the hearing.
7. Correctional institutional or parole staff should be available,
at the parolee's option, to assist him in "telling his story"
to the board.
8. Every effort should be made to minimize the parolee's time in
custody before disposition. The final revocation hearing should
be held no more than 14 working days after the parolee is delivered
to the reception center; hearings should not be postponed unless
necessary and should never be postponed beyond 30 days unless it
is absolutely crucial.
54. All of the boards should conduct regular hearings in more major
population centers of the State.
55. The Adult Authority, Women's Board of Terms and Parole, and Youth
Authority Board should make efforts to consolidate initial and final revoca-
tion hearings whenever appropriate.
56. The board members or hearing representatives who hear a case
should personally notify the parolee of their disposition or recommendation
at the end of the hearing.
Discharge from Parole
Section 2943 of the Penal Code specifies that any adult felon who
"has been on parole continuously for two years since release from confine-
ment" (with the exception of those serving life terms) must have a board
hearing within 30 days to determine whether or not he should be discharged.
While this is viewed as progressive legislation, there are further improve-
ments which could be made. First, suspension of parole for any reason, even
though followed by reinstatement, is interpreted as interrupting the two
years "since release from confinement"; accordingly, the two years must start
over at the time of reinstatement. This situation could and should be remedied
by specifying that the two years should run from the time of release from a
prison or county jail sentence. Second, there is no need to prohibit "lifers"
from being eligible for discharge after two years of successful parole, if it
is otherwise deemed consistent with public safety. Third, provided that all
minimum sentences are reduced to one year, there would be no reason to wait
two years to consider dismissal in many cases (this is currently done because
parole is considered part of the sentence). The great majority of parolees
who violate do so within two years, SO that two years should be the longest
time anyone should remain on parole in the community without a formal hearing
to be considered for discharge. It should be emphasized, however, that many
parolees can be evaluated as good risks well before two years and should have
the opportunity to be released at the time that is appropriate for them. For
- 125 -
example, the President's Crime Commission found that, on a nation-wide basis:
"Violations on parole tend to occur relatively soon after
release from an institution, nearly half of them within
the first 6 months after offenders are released, and over
60% within the first year.
Fourth, individual parole agents have the responsibility to inform and make
recommendations to the boards at the earliest time that they feel individual
parolees can be safely discharged. If minimum time barriers are reduced,
parole staff should assume this responsibility to a much stronger degree
than is currently the case. Fifth, in the event that a board denies discharge
at the end of two years, that parolee should be entitled to another board
review at least every six months thereafter. Finally, these conditions
should, of course, apply to all the boards.
Recommendation. 57. All of the parole boards should hold a formal
hearing to consider discharge for every parolee who has completed two years
on parole since release from a prison, juvenile institution, CRC, or county
jail sentence. In the event discharge is denied, the board should hold a
subsequent hearing on that case at least every six months. In all of these
hearings, the "burden of proof" should be on the parole system to justify
retention of the parolee under supervision any longer. These requirements
should be codified.
- 126 -
FOOTNOTES
¹President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice, Task Force Report: Corrections (Washington: U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1967), p. 66.
21bid., p. 67.
³Ibid., p. 208.
4 Youth and Adult Corrections Agency, The Paroling Boards, State
of California (Sacramento, December, 1962), pp. 142-144.
5 Op. cit., p. 88.
6 Larry D. Carnes vs. Walter Craven, Warden, Folsom Prison.
7 Op. cit., p. 68.
CHAPTER VIII
NATIONAL PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS
In the belief that systems in other parts of the country were experi-
menting with specialized parole programs of interest to California practitioners,
a questionnaire was developed and mailed to sixty-nine parole agencies throughout
the country. Forty-nine jurisdictions responded. The aim of the questionnaire
was to discover new or novel parole practices that might exist, especially with
reference to treatment techniques, and to determine parole agency relationships
with law enforcement, courts, volunteers, and community services.
As anticipated, questionnaire results showed a high degree of commonality
among agencies. For example, most of them expressed awareness of the need for
good rapport with law enforcement bodies and with vocational rehabilitation
personnel, and many of them had developed methods to strengthen these relation-
ships.
This is not to suggest that there were no differences among them. For
example, though volunteers were used in many places, sometimes in highly
organized fashion, some parole agencies did not utilize volunteers anywhere
within their program. Also not all agencies had achieved the same degree of
success in their endeavors, even where they were operating similar programs.
However, the task here is not to make comparisons, but rather to report
programs and projects which suggest a progressive or promising kind of parole
programming.
It is recognized that some of the cited programs may be similar or
identical to programs which are either in the design phase or already oper-
ational in California, and that some of the programs, for a variety of reasons,
may not be applicable to California. However, the hope is that the practices
of other states may offer some new and constructive directions for California.
Highlights selected for inclusion will be presented in accordance with the
questionnaire format. 1
I. LAW ENFORCEMENT
1. To improve coordination, cooperation, and communication between the
parole board and law enforcement agencies, parole board members in one state
suggested to sheriffs and chiefs of police the idea of holding joint, regularly
scheduled meetings. Law enforcement officials welcomed the plan and arrangements
are now underway for the two groups to meet on a continuing basis.
2. Both probation and parole staff are working together with courts and
county sheriffs' offices in connection with the above state's work-release
program. A very important aspect of this mutual endeavor is that parole agents
provide group counseling services to jail inmates in the state's larger cities.
- 128 -
3. Parole officers in one jurisdiction not only attend police training
programs, but also conduct orientation sessions at law enforcement academies,
police training institutes, colleges, and other training seminars. In turn,
law enforcement officials speak at parole training sessions and provide access
to law enforcement investigative information. In varying forms, this method
of exchanging information is being used in several states, reportedly with
good results.
4. A requirement of one parole training program is that newly employed
parole agents must spend several nights out on patrol with local police officers.
This program has been in operation for some time and is credited with providing
parole agents much keener insight into the policeman's role in the correctional
continuum.
5. Again in connection with training, one parole agency plans to establish
a seminar, provisions for which specify that there shall be sixty hours of train-
ing primarily devoted to the police function, appropriate measures of self
defense, court procedures, and related subjects. This plan is more ambitious
than most, and could well pave the way for improved communication throughout the
state's justice system.
6. In one state, there is a full-time law enforcement consultant on the
central office staff of the Department of Corrections. His job is to keep
abreast of trends and practices in the state's justice system so that he may
then pass along needed information to law enforcement agencies throughout the
state. This is another way of furthering the educational process, but perhaps
even more importantly, it is a marked departure from the customary rigid barriers
between one professional group and another.
7. One state has a group counseling program for juvenile parolees which
is jointly handled by the department of probation and parole and local sheriffs'
offices. This is an unusual blending of services which suggests excellent
potential for reducing polarization between youth and the police, and for the
development of different approaches in the group counseling process.
8. At the pre-release level in one jurisdiction, it is routine pro-
cedure for law enforcement officers to appear before inmate groups at the
institution, and discuss the ways in which police officers can be of assistance
to them in the open community. Inmates are encouraged to raise any questions
they wish. Depending, of course, upon how skillfully these sessions are handled,
this show of interest in the inmate's welfare could do much to reduce his fears
and tensions concerning parole and concerning law enforcement.
II. COURTS
1. A plan initiated by superior court judges in one area, and just
getting underway, is the formation of a Parole Board Liaison Committee to whom
the parole board may turn for mutual consideration of new parole board plans
and proposals. The first occasion for the board and the committee to meet
- 129 -
jointly concerned a board proposal that inmates be released directly on parole
after they have completed a six-week diagnostic workup. The committee viewed
the proposal favorably, a reaction which could well have gone the other way
had there been no mutually agreed upon structure for dealing with unique
suggestions of this kind.
2. Parole officer appointments in one instance are made by judges of
courts of record from a list of eligible candidates submitted by the state's
probation and parole board. This system permits a good degree of objectivity
in officer selection and makes for amicable working relationships between the
judiciary and the board.
3. There is an instance where courts, volunteers, and parole officers
all work as a team. The volunteers are called court aides. An orientation
program is provided whereby these individuals learn about general court pro-
cedures and about probation and parole functions. Following orientation, the
volunteers record pre-sentence referrals, special conditions laid down for
clients, and related types of paper work. While the program does not entirely
relieve officers of courtroom duties, it does permit closer supervision of
clients and more time for investigative assignments.
4. Another example of combined endeavor is a program involving the
juvenile courts and their staff, institutional staff, and clients. The program
is two-pronged: (1) The court provides regularly scheduled group training
sessions wherein the various group therapies are studied; (2) On the basis
of what has been learned in the training sessions, children recommended by
institutional staff are brought into group therapy sessions, along with juvenile
court probationers. Since the plan reportedly is producing highly satisfactory
results, it would seem feasible to extend it to parolees; e.g., those children
from institutions who responded well to the group treatment sessions might be
continued in the same program upon release from the institution, thereby provid-
ing a continuity of service and perhaps a higher probability of good adjustment
in the community.
5. In one state, the regional directors of the youth commission are
responsible for setting up joint staff meetings between parole and court
personnel. These meetings include line staff from both probation and parole
as well as juvenile hall personnel. Reportedly, they have so successfully
reduced communication barriers between the departments involved that plans
are now underway for establishing a joint in-service training program.
6. Put into operation by a department of corrections is a plan whereby
a parole officer is in attendance at each session of the juvenile court, whether
or not cases to be heard involve parolees. If they do, it is expected that
the parole officer will supply helpful information to the judge. If they do
not involve parolees, but the judge's decision is to commit the offender, the
officer counsels with the child and with his parents as to what commitment
means and what can be expected as a result of the commitment. This approach
serves not only to reduce client apprehension but also to relieve parental
anxiety and concern.
- 130 -
7. While not new, a method which appears to work well in many juris-
dictions is a provision for probation officers originally active on given
cases to resume supervisory responsibilities for those now on parole status.
The advantage here is that client exposure to several different caseworkers
is held to the minimum possible. More importantly, if the original client-
probation officer relationship was mutually satisfactory and (at that time)
beneficial to the client, the client's chances of success on parole may be
considerably improved.
8. The courts in one state began a year ago what will become annual
judicial sentencing seminars. These seminars will be open to staff from
the department of corrections, a shared training venture which should prove
enlightening and helpful to both the judiciary and correctional personnel.
III. COMMUNITY SERVICES
1. A program presently intended only for juvenile probationers, but
applicable to parolees as well, concerns the pooling of community resources
for the training and rehabilitation of the youthful offender. As a condition
of probation, youngsters are assigned to a local treatment center which they
attend on a daily basis for approximately six months. At the center, they
receive special vocational testing, vocational and related academic training,
intensive individual and group counseling, and job placement service. This
program is based on the theory that a primary cause of delinquency is poor
learning habits and little or no success in the school setting. The basic
aim, therefore, is to instill new learning habits and a more positive attitude
toward the learning process. The schools, of course, play a major role in
this program. Its thrust is definitely more academic than "rehabilitative"
in the usual sense of that word. Clients are called students, and they
receive academic credit for work done at the center. This program is. achiev-
ing good results, not only because it is goal-oriented, but also because its
rewards are tangible and specific.
2. Recently, one parole board began what are called on-site parole
revocation hearings. The hearings are held in or near the community where
the parolees reside, and accordingly are less disruptive of job and home
activities. An important additional benefit is that parole board members
are becoming much more knowledgeable as to what community resources are
available to the parole violator. As a result, revocation is being used less
frequently and alternative community services used in its stead. For example,
not yet producing optimum results, but nevertheless holding good promise,
are the local drug self-help rehabilitation programs whose participating
members have assisted greatly in the rehabilitation of parole violators whose
basic problem is drug addiction.
3. As stated at the beginning of the chapter, most states maintain
close ties with departments of vocational rehabilitation. However, some few
parole agencies have gone considerably beyond simple referral and consultation.
Specifically, they have requested that vocational specialists be assigned on
- 131 -
a full-time basis to departments of probation and parole. Vocational
rehabilitation agencies have met this request most willingly. Among the
several advantages of this arrangement is the fact that the vocational
specialists have an enormous opportunity to learn, at first hand, what the
parole function entails. Further, because of numerous daily contacts with
a wide variety of parolees, there is opportunity for specialists to create
and apply new forms of rehabilitative programs.
4. Most correctional systems involved in the New Careers program
have used it as a training and employment vehicle for ex-offenders and persons
from minority groups. In one state, the decision was made to restrict the
program to ex-offenders only. Within a very short period of time, the number
of ex-offenders involved in the program went from five to twenty-two. Their
performance has been most satisfactory and it is highly probable that increas-
ing numbers of individuals will be drawn into the program.
5. One state is suggesting that unemployment compensation benefits
be provided for released inmates in lieu of gate money. It is understood
that the proposed act will ultimately be introduced by executive request.
A plan of this sort, (should it offer equitable distribution of monies between
parolees and the general public), could be highly beneficial to parolees and
prison administrators alike.
6. Frustrated by its inability to work effectively with sexual
exhibitionists, one correctional department made arrangements with a medical
center whereby the center would accept referral of such cases. Exhibitionism
is a complex and difficult psychological problem, so it is not likely, even
under medical management, that all treatment outcomes will be favorable.
Nevertheless, several persons previously considered "hopeless" cases have
made exceptionally good progress at the center. As a result, the corrections
department has now begun a similar program for drug addicted persons.
7. In cooperation with a Model Cities agency, one department of correc-
tions is planning to open a community corrections center for thirty adult
clients. The facility will be located in the Model Cities area, and will
feature a variety of treatment approaches including work-release, pre-release
guidance, and general counseling. Since the underlying reason for inaugurating
the Model Cities program was to make goods and services equally available to
all citizens in all communities, this move on the part of the department seems
especially pertinent and very desirable.
IV. VOLUNTEERS
1. Two years ago, a probation and parole agency launched a comprehensive
program to recruit and train citizen volunteers in an effort to involve the
community in the correctional process. At the outset, the project involved
only a small group of citizens who worked primarily with institutional inmates.
Now, the program boasts over 600 persons who work with the clients throughout
the correctional system. Not only do they serve in a supportive role to clients,
- 132 -
but they also assist professional staff in parole planning, locating employment
sources, and providing transportation. This is an unusually large volunteer
program, and is producing an observable impact on community attitudes toward
parolees and probationers. Offenders and their problems are better understood
and the public is more receptive to their needs.
2. Another corrections department is using volunteers in a statewide
coordinated effort involving a professional/volunteer team approach to treat-
ment processes. The department is finding that the presence and help of
volunteers adds depth to their own supervisory efforts, and that their ideas
for improved relationships with clients are often extremely applicable.
3. Another approach to the use of volunteers concerns a more compre-
hensive view of volunteer services than is normally encountered. Not only
are personal services welcomed and used, but so too are those of groups and
organizations who are willing to make their own resources available to the
department, notably their physical facilities and personnel. The contention
of the department is that there is no limit to the ways in which volunteer
services can be used to good advantage.
V. SUPERVISION
1. A technique which appears to be working quite satisfactorily in one
area is the use of adult ex-offenders as regular employers of youthful offenders.
In operation for five years, the program is structured in such manner that the
employer's past history is never revealed to the youth. The item does not
indicate how many adults are available for this kind of treatment approach, but
the program is indeed in keeping with today's trend toward using offenders in
the rehabilitation process.
2. One state has developed an experimental program called Automotive
Workshop. Initiated in 1969 by the juvenile parole staff, the purpose of
the project is to provide an opportunity for parolees, probationers, and
non-delinquents, twelve to eighteen years of age, to work together in repair-
ing cars, selling used auto parts, and disposing of used auto equipment.
Implementing this program involved the cooperative efforts of law enforcement
bodies, the juvenile court, juvenile parole, local labor unions, schools, the
YMCA, and many other civic bodies. It is one of the few known instances where
community agencies working with both delinquent and non-delinquent children
have come together in a common endeavor.
3. Out of concern that correctional personnel are often ill-prepared
to deal effectively with specialized problems such as alcoholism, drug addiction,
and severe personality disorders, one corrections department is experimenting
with a program of assigning just one type of offender to a particular officer.
The rationale is that intensive exposure to one kind of problem will bring about
greater insight and understanding, and thereby enable the officer to be of more
help to the client. Further, should the plan produce favorable results, those
officers carrying specialized caseloads could subsequently serve as resource
persons for other officers.
- 133 -
4. In another instance, the department of corrections has developed
a short-term institutional program involving intensive daily group sessions
for a period of approximately ninety days. Called the Institution Community
Continuum, the program is handled by field service staff in an institution,
is for juveniles, and covers both boys and girls. At the end of the ninety
days, wards are released on parole where intensive supervision is continued
and is provided by the same field staff who manage the program in the insti-
tution.
5. Caseloads are audited in one jurisdiction to provide a systematic
recurring evaluation of each officer's performance throughout the department.
The primary objective of the audit is to insure that staff are employing
uniform and acceptable methods of supervision, and that department policy is
followed. At the same time, the audit is not viewed as a policing action but
rather as a way to help individual officers improve supervisory skills and
techniques.
6. Not frequently, but in some places, the "store front" plan of
supervision is being used. This is simply an arrangement whereby parole
agents are located in communities and localities where crime rates are high
instead of being lodged in a central office type of setting. The plan enables
officers to handle crisis situations, avoids long client trips for reporting
in, and tends to act as a crime preventive in some areas.
7. One state has taken the position that the more stringent the con-
ditions of probation or parole, the less rewarding the response from clients.
Now the prevailing notion is that probationers and parolees can quite safely
be allowed to set their own restrictions and limitations without loss of face
on either side.
VI. SUMMARY
The foregoing discussion has been based on information supplied by the
majority of parole agencies throughout the country in response to a question-
naire designed by the Parole Task Force staff. The intent of the questionnaire
was to elicit information regarding new and unusual kinds of parole programs,
especially as these pertain to parole agency relationships with law enforcement
agencies, courts, community service agencies, volunteer programs, and as they
pertain to treatment techniques. Responses selected for inclusion in this
presentation were described separately, according to respective questionnaire
categories.
It will be noted that although brief editorial comment does appear
occasionally, no attempt has been made to evaluate the programs cited. Correc-
tional systems differ quite considerably, and because they do, what works very
well in one state may have little or no applicability in another. The basic
aim here has been solely to bring together a given body of knowledge some part
of which may prove applicable and helpful to California's parole system.
- 134 -
FOOTNOTES
¹It should be noted that some of the items selected were found in only
one parole agency or state whereas others apply to more than one agency. In
the latter case, the items were usually sufficiently similar to rule out the
need for separate listing.
APPENDIX A
NAEA-NAOP-CDC POLICY STATEMENT: METHADONE MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS
(PARTICIPATION BY CIVILLY COMMITTED ADDICTS)
1.
That the Methadone Maintenance Program should have the approval of
the Research Advisory Panel.
2. That the outpatient (civilly committed addict) volunteer for such
participation.
3. That, based on the following criteria, the Narcotic Addict may allow
a civilly committed addict to participate in Methadone Maintenance:
a. The outpatient shall be at least 21 years of age.
b. The outpatient will have had a history of opiate drug
involvement for at least five years.
(Note: Criteria for length of involvement may be modi-
fied in individual cases as necessity warrants.)
C. The outpatient will have a history of at least one prior
detoxification and narcotic treatment failure.
(Note: The detoxification should have occurred under
proper medical supervision as opposed to in a
"kick-pad", to insure that the outpatient had
been substantially addicted to an opiate narcotic.
The Narcotic Authority interprets a "narcotic
treatment program failure" to mean a failure on
the Civil Addict Program.)
4. The outpatient must have the prior approval of the Narcotic Authority
before entering a Methadone Maintenance Program.
5. That the Methadone Program Administrator and staff work in cooperation
with the Parole and Community Services Division staff (NAOP) to the
effect that information of mutual interest is exchanged. Parole agents
will be responsible to maintain regular contact with the program staff
as an additional source to obtain collateral information in regard to
the participant's conduct and welfare.
6. Regular nalline testing shall be discontinued for individuals in this
program. Urinalysis testing will be done in accordance with P&CS Divi-
sion standards, and reports of narcotic use (except methadone) will be
submitted to the appropriate paroling authority.
7. That any outpatient accepted for a methadone program shall be prohibited
from driving an automobile during the stabilization phase of the program
(approximately two weeks). The local office of the Department of Motor
APPENDIX A (Continued)
Vehicles will be notified of the name of each parolee or outpatient
accepted into the program.
8. Persons accepted for a methadone program will be expected to conduct
themselves according to established parole rules, regulations and
policies.
9.
That interpretation of these standards and implementation of the pro-
gram shall be the responsibility of parole district administrators.
10. The goal of the (departmental) methadone program shall be to stabilize
the individual's life pattern in such a way that he or she will be a
contributing member of society without continuous dependency upon meth-
adone. Thus it is intended that each participant will be encouraged
to reduce and ultimately eliminate their need for methadone.
1
5.