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
118564924
label
[Corrections, Board of] - Coordinated California Corrections: Institutions, July 1971 (2 of 6)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564924
contentType
document
title
[Corrections, Board of] - Coordinated California Corrections: Institutions, July 1971 (2 of 6)
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
118564924
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
b30cfc1f99218953
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:
Institutions, July 1971 (2 of 6)
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/
- 51 -
A novel use of the idea of sentence modification is being used in 1 of
the study counties by a Superior Court Judge. In approximately 75% of the
sentences, the judge imposes a sentence and then suspends 1 day in order to
retain jurisdiction. The sentenced person is then committed to the correc-
tional facility.
This facility sponsors a number of programs including work furlough,
educational furlough, Alcoholics Anonymous, academic instruction, and
additional inspirational types of activities which consist of recorded
talks by successful businessmen, successful ex-prisoners, etc. Partici-
pation by an inmate in any one of these programs results in a certain num-
ber of days being credited to his sentence. Participation in a number of
such programs can result in a considerable reduction in the amount of time
served. The quality of an inmate's participation is monitored by the judge,
who devotes a portion of his own time to visiting the facility weekly. When
an inmate arrives at this facility, a calendar is prepared with him, repre-
senting every day of his sentence. He begins to mark off the days he has
served from 1, 2. 3, and so on and the staff mark off the days he has earned
through program participation beginning at the maximum of his sentence, e.g.
365, 364, 363, etc. As these two extremes converge, the inmate can see very
graphically that what he accomplishes has a very definite influence on how
long he remains incarcerated.
As yet, the actual effect of this particular program upon the rate of
recidivism or any other measure is not known. But it is clear that the judge
and the staff both feel that it is of benefit and that it does prevent some
of their charges from returning. What is even more important is that 1 judge
and a facility staff are willing to try something that appears promising.
In summary, there is no established organizational pattern for the
administration of sentence modification. The Jail Task Force believes that
the Institutional Services Units, discussed in Chapter V, would be the most
appropriate unit to perform this function.
County Parole
Penal Code Sections 3075 through 3084 authorize the establishment of
county parole boards composed of the sheriff, the probation officer, and a
citizen representative. Each of the 15 counties studied had established
parole boards. However, the use of county parole in 1969 varied greatly
among them. For example, according to the Bureau of Criminal Statistics,
one of the large counties in the study group granted 300 paroles. Others
did not grant any. In 1969 the 15 counties paroled a total of 488 jail
prisoners. Because it is not possible to determine the number of inmates
eligible for county parole who were released in 1969, it is not possible
to calculate the percentage of paroles granted to those eligible. Some
members of county parole boards estimated that less than 1% of the sen-
tenced prisoners were eligible for parole.
- 52 -
In interviews with the sheriffs in the 15 counties, it was determined
that there were almost as many interpretations of the reasons for parole
as there were courties. In 3 counties, the administrators indicated that
they were not there to "second guess the courts" who sentenced the inmate.
In a number of other counties, paroles were granted primarily to relieve
population pressures in the jail and secondarily to grant "hardship" leaves
to inmates. In a few counties, the purpose was restricted solely to con-
sidering hardship cases.
A rather unique use of parole was being made in 1 county, based upon
the need for hospitalized medical attention. With the advent of Medic-Aid,
hospitals in this county began charging the sheriff for the services ren-
dered to inmates, sometimes resulting in an astronomical fee when surgery
and hospitalization were necessary. The sheriff soon recognized that the
county would thus be liable for 100% of the medical costs whereas, if the
inmate was not a prisoner and unable to pay, medical costs would be sub-
sidized by Medi-Cal and Medicare. From then on, any inmate requiring such
costly medical attention was granted a parole, had his medical needs served,
and returned to the jail to finish serving his sentence. Although carried
out under the rubric of parole, the automatic return of the person to jail
nullifies this program as a parole program per se.
In most counties, the probation department provided the post-insti-
tutional supervision for county parolees; in others, there was no post-
institutional supervision. None of the 15 study counties maintained a
county parole officer, though it came to the Task Force's attention that
at least one Bay Area county has a county parole officer who reviews and
recommends cases for county parole and provides for their supervision upon
release.
Overall, inmates released on county parole represent a minute portion
of the sentenced population. At the present time, if an inmate is serving
a jail sentence as a condition of probation, or if any part of his sentence
has been suspended, he is not eligible for county parole. However, in the
11 study counties reporting jail statistics to the Bureau of Criminal Statis-
tics, fully 56% of the sentenced jail population is released as a result of
the expiration of sentence. All of these persons theoretically were eligible
for parole; yet only a small fraction were released prior to the expiration
of their sentence. Conditional release, or parole, is a correctional fact
of life in both juvenile and adult institutions. Approximately 98% of adults
sentenced to prisons are released prior to the expiration of their maximum
term. The concept of parole and early release is consistent with the goal
of reintegration, and no useful purpose is served by keeping persons incar-
cerated in county jails until the entire sentence has been served. It is
costly, and it results in overcrowding. More important, however, it pro-
motes feelings of injustice and bitterness among those serving time in jails,
and seriously undermines reintegration efforts.
County parole would provide an effective follow-through for those re-
leasees requiring after-care services. Because of the similarity and the
fact that every county already has a probation department, the Jail Task
- 53 -
Force urges that county parole be integrated with probation services. It
also believes that a group should be established, consisting of represen-
tatives from the sheriff's office and the probation department, to deter-
mine when a jail prisoner should be paroled and whether he is in need of
after-care services. This evaluative process and the provision of after-
care services would be appropriate functions to be carried out by the
Institutional Services Unit discussed in Chapter V.
Weekenders
In each of the 15 study counties, the number of prisoners sentenced
to serve weekends has been increasing at a rapid pace and causing consid-
erable consternation for the jail administrator. The logistic problems
of bed space, clothing, receipt and release of large numbers of prisoners
have not, as yet, been solved in any of the counties visited.
Some administrators have considered a number of alternatives to week-
end confinement in jails, including the rental of a hotel wherein work fur-
loughees would also be housed, to special facilities which would be operated
only on weekends. Some have considered the possibility of weekenders paying
the cost of their incarceration as do work furloughees, and still others
have asked judges to use other alternatives, such as work furlough or regular
jail sentences. The weekend sentence is preferable to a total lockup because
such sentences reduce the deleterious effect of total confinement while main-
taining family, social, and economic ties. However, in general, weekend
sentences appear to be an unnecessary and undesirable compromise.
The Jail Task Force believes that, if at all possible, the offender
should either be placed on probation, without having to serve time on week-
ends, or he should be placed in a work furlough program.
Conclusion
This section has dealt with developments on the county level that are
aimed at either diverting persons from the county jail or minimizing their
contact with them. In Chapter II of this Report, it was seen that the jail
population has been increasing during the past decade, and that the increase
has been due entirely to the growth of the unsentenced jail population. O.R.
projects and misdemeanor citation programs have demonstrated their value
beyond any reasonable doubt. Yet, these programs are not being used exten-
sively enough either to divert persons, or to minimize their contact with
the jail. In light of the tremendous success of such programs, their greatly
expanded use throughout the State would logically follow.
Although the sentenced jail population has remained relatively constant
over the past 10 years, it should now be clear that a significant portion of
that population is made up of persons incarcerated for drunkenness. Removal
of these persons from the criminal process would greatly alleviate the over-
crowded conditions currently found in many county jails, and would reduce
- 54 -
costs as well. At the same time, more effective non-criminalized methods
of handling drunkenness could be utilized.
As stated at the beginning of this section, one of the major concerns
of the Jail Task Force is to divert persons from jail to other agencies
and alternatives SO that those who must be incarcerated by the courts will
have the benefit of the limited resources available in these facilities.
Finally, the Jail Task Force believes that research needs to be greatly
expanded in the areas of sentence modification and county parole, in order
to demonstrate the feasibility of early release for greater numbers of per-
sons. As was shown in the Juvenile Institution Task Force Report, it is
possible to greatly curtail the length of sentence without significantly
affecting recidivism rates or jeopardizing the community's safety. It is
quite likely that similar results would be observed if greater numbers of
jail inmates were released after serving only a brief sentence.
V. HIGHLIGHTS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS
This section deals with the programs the Jail Task Force found to be
available to the sentenced inmates in the facilities of the 15 study counties.
It is not intended to be a county by county list of programs available, but
rather, it is a brief summary of all the programs which were available in
the 15 counties. It is intended to provide ideas for adeption by other
counties in the State. Unique applications or programs which might have
application elsewhere are summarized below.
Work Furlough
Twenty-one of the State's 58 counties have established work furlough
programs. 17 Eight of the 15 study counties had work furlough in various
stages of sophistication, ranging from a specialized work furlough facility
in 1 county to 3 counties in which the program was operating out of a max-
imum security facility, and 4 counties in which the program was operating
out of minimum security facilities. Administrators in the 7 counties which
did not have work furlough programs voiced concerns over starting such pro-
grams within existing facilities, fearing this would make them vulnerable
to the introduction of narcotics and other contraband. One sheriff in-
dicated that the board of supervisors was opposed, but he personally felt
it would be a valuable asset. The introduction of narcotics via work fur-
lough inmates is a realistic concern. However, in many counties the prisoner
with a narcotics record is excluded from participation in work furlough pro-
grams. Still, it must be pointed out that inmates with narcotics records
can pressure work furloughees to smuggle narcotics into the jail. In those
counties which cannot afford separate facilities for work furlough inmates
or complete segregation from the general population, the administrator has
to decide if the advantages are worth the risks.
- 55 -
Generally speaking, drugs seemed to be available to inmates who wanted
them. This does not mean that administrators should not be concerned about
the prevalence of narcotics. They should, however, also weigh the benefits
of new programs against the possibility of an increase in the contraband
already there. On the basis of discussions with inmates and on the basis
of experience in correctional facilities, it appears that drugs will always
be available to inmates who want them, especially in minimum security facil-
ities.
In one county which operated the work furlough program out of the min-
imum security facility, the work furloughees returned from employment and
proceeded directly to their barracks after checking in. Infrequent spot
searches were conducted whenever sufficient staff were available.
In almost every other county, work furloughees returning from employ-
ment underwent thorough "skin" searches and were issued laundered clothing
upon return to the housing unit. In a third minimum security facility, there
are no work furlough inmates, yet there are work crews dispatched daily to
outside work details. Despite the difference in search and security pro-
cedures, it was fairly evident that narcotics, in varying amounts, were avail-
able in all 3 facilities.
The literature about work furlough, and the experience of those counties
who have tried it, strongly suggest that the benefits of such a program out-
weigh the risks. 18 For most inmates, work furlough retains the control of
the sentence yet eliminates or reduces some of the negative by-products of
incarceration, such as loss of employment, and loss of self-esteem by having
a family supported by welfare. Work furlough maintains the economic ties
to the community, thus in part assuring that an ex-inmate will not become
a burden upon the community. For those who are pragmatists and concerned
with value for the dollar, it may be noted that work furlough pays for itself
and partially offsets the costs of incarceration. 19 In fact in one of the 15
counties in 1967, the inmates on work furlough contributed $45,979.60 to
family support. Otherwise, much of this would probably have been paid by
the welfare department.
An interesting variation of work furlough was discovered when the
study staff asked the jail administrator of a small county if a work fur-
lough program existed. He responded, "Yes, we consider our weekenders as
being in work furlough." He did not have a work furlough program per se
because there was only 1 jail and no capacity to segregate the work fur-
loughee. The sheriff, however, entered into an agreement with the local
court that, if the court wanted an inmate on work furlough, the inmate would
be sentenced to weekends.
Education
At the time of data collection, 6 counties were operating some kind
of educational program, 1 was in the process of instituting such a program,
and 8 did not have any kind of education program. Of the 6 counties making
- 56 -
education available to inmates, 2 had programs in both maximum and minimum
security, 1 county had it available only in the maximum unit, and 3 had
education available only to inmates in minimum security facilities.
The sophistication of such programs ranged from a single volunteer
instructor who came into the facility once a week to facilities where sub-
jects were taught in classrooms by certified elementary school, high school,
and college instructors. In 1 relatively small facility of approximately
50 minimum security inmates, a volunteer instructor tutors inmates to pass
the GED test which, in turn, entitles inmates to a high school equivalency
diploma. In the remaining 5 facilities, the instructor is full or part-time
and is paid by the local school district at no cost to the correctional
facilities. Courses are offered in the large counties on a daily basis
and in smaller counties on a weekly or semi-weekly basis, usually in high
school equivalency training, but frequently including grammar school math-
ematics, literacy training, and special subjects in which there is a demon-
strated interest by a sufficient number of inmates.
The only requirements on the part of the correctional facility are
classroom space and participation by a minimum number of inmates. Because
the turn-over of inmates involved is quite high, the instructor must be
flexible enough to teach illiterates simultaneously with other students
who are studying for high school equivalency.
Many instructors in these counties are relying on programmed text-
books which require only a minimum of monitoring, while supplying a max-
imum of course content. One of the requirements for completion of the
GED examination is that it be given at locations specified by the State,
and these are usually high schools in the area, thus requiring that the
inmate appear personally to complete the examination. Except for those
students who are in maximum security facilities, the counties make arrange-
ments for a staff member or the instructor to escort inmates to and from
the examination.
With the increasing number of college level courses open to "challenge"
(completing an examination on the subject matter and being granted the units
for the course upon passage) and the expansion of curricula available in
programmed texts, it is possible for a county jail inmate to complete at
least a part of a college education without leaving the grounds.
Educational Leaves
Educational furlough programs are operated on the same basis as is
work furlough, except that since the student does not have an income from
his education he is net expected to pay his share of the costs of adminis-
tration, as are work furloughees. Three of the 15 study counties had such
programs operating in conjunction with work furlough. All such leaves are
limited to college level endeavors, since high school and grammar school
courses are available in the jails of these 3 counties. According to the
staff involved, grade point averages improve considerably over the student's
- 57 -
averages before incarceration. In 2 of the counties, educational furloughees
are expected to perform a specified number of hours of institutional labor
each week.
Vocational Training
According to a recent study, there are 23 vocational programs being
offered in the jails and correctional facilities through the State. 20 In
theory, these vocational programs differ from inmate work assignments in
that they are intended to teach a skill which will result in the inmate
becoming more readily employable. In actuality, vocational programs offered
in local correctional facilities differ only in title. In order to qualify
as a true vocational training program, the trainee must learn the theory
as well as the practice. Only one vocational program in the 15 counties
included both of these elements (in this particular county, the vocational
program was a part of a Federal grant which terminated within a week of
the study staff's visit). All other vocational training programs offered
would more appropriately fall under the category of on-the-job training
because they did not include classroom instruction on theory and none were
certified programs. As indicated in the study cited above:
"This means that in reality, despite the classification
of these programs as vocational rehabilitation, their
primary effect is to obtain labor from inmates. Coin-
cidentally, inmates in these programs are also being
taught a skill in the correctional sense. ⑉21
In discussing educational and vocational training programs with the
administrators in the 15 study counties, it was apparent that they had
been giving a great deal of thought to establishing new programs in this
area or extending existing ones. However, it was clear to them that the
traditional, in-house vocational program was not appropriate because of
the great turnover as a result of short sentences given to county jail in-
mates. The jail administrator in one county reported that the average sen-
tence was 22 days and that he had recently surveyed his inmate population
to determine the feasibility of establishing a vocational training program
in key punch operation. After eliminating those inmates whose sentences
were too short to complete the program, and those whose educational level
was insufficient. and those who were not interested, only 9 out of a popula-
tion of almost 1,000 were qualified. Therefore, the plans were dropped.
One large Southern California county reported that 75% of all sentenced
prisoners served less than 30 days.
New Directions in Vocational Training
The fact that county jail sentences are quite short did not deter one
county from establishing a vocational program of high quality, encompassing
both the requirements of theory and practice. Using Federal Manpower Dev-
elopment Training Act funds and cooperating with the local school district,
- 58 -
this county contracted with a large local industry to train inmates for
eventual employment in the industry.
According to the facility administrator, the trainer is subsidized
on a sliding scale according to the trainee's value in terms of production.
During the first phases of training, the employer may be subsidized en-
tirely for training the employee. Midway through the training, as the em-
ployee is producing at half capacity, the employer is subsidized one-half
of the salary. At the final stages, the employer pays 100% of the employee's
salary. The inmate on this training program is considered a work furloughee
and, though he begins this training program while incarcerated, he contin-
ues employment on expiration of his sentence without a break in service.
Although this is a relatively new program and its actual effects are
unknown as yet, the concept holds great promise since it is relatively un-
affected by length of sentence. At the same time it overcomes the problem
of jail programs being isolated from the "real world". There is little
question that the trainee is being trained for jobs which exist, since em-
ployers are not likely to accept a student for training in skills which are
not in demand.
Variations of this basic idea of sending inmates out to obtain skills
are in operation in 2 other counties. There, inmates attend vocational
training courses at the local community collete on an educational leave
basis. The difference is that these students are not paid a wage while
learning.
Counseling Services
Throughout the State, those counseling services which are available
are normally performed by paid staff members, titled Rehabilitation Officers
or Correctional Counselors, and community volunteers. Although an undeter-
mined amount of counseling is carried on by custodial staff in their day-
to-day relationships with inmates, for the sake of discussion in this section,
these services will not be considered.
Statewide, there are 58 full-time rehabilitation personnel assigned
to the detention and correctional facilities throughout the State. 22 There
were approximately 25,471 prisoners in county jails and camps at the time
that the inventory of rehabilitation personnel was taken. 23 There was, there-
fore, a ratio of 1 rehabilitation staff to 439 inmates. In the 15 study
counties, there were 46 rehabilitation personnel providing services to 6, 116
prisoners. Most of these staff members, however, were devoted totally to the
administration of the county's work furlough program. Only 7 of the 15
counties had any staff in the counseling category.
In 6 of the 7 counties reporting counseling services, the staff are a
part of the sheriff's office budget and, in one county, the rehabilitation
officers are supplied by the county welfare department, but devote 100% of
their time to prisoner counseling at the jail complex. Lack of funds has
- 59 -
been one of the major obstacles to the establishment of counseling services
in jails. Counseling services in the seventh county referred to above were
supplied by a county department which was subsidized in large part by State
and Federal sources.
There are some unique counseling programs that exist in county jails.
As indicated in the section dealing with sentence modification, one of the
15 counties had assigned two social workers to counsel inmates in order
to determine the types of services that might be provided them. One of
the most important tasks of the social workers has been, as already stated,
to recommend inmates for early release. Thus far, the program has had an
exceptional degree of success. Of the 532 inmates released over a two and
one-half year period, only 17% have been returned to jail on new charges.
This counseling program has resulted in substantial savings of funds that
would otherwise have been spent by keeping these inmates locked up.
Another county has also been conducting a unique counseling program,
and is an example of how dedicated people can make a significant impact on
correctional facilities as a by-product of their efforts. In this county,
a probation officer has been assigned to the jail for the purpose of inter-
viewing inmates for possible release on their own recognizance while await-
ing trial. Through his visits to the jail, the probation officer became
aware of the needs on the part of many prisoners for counseling services.
With the support, of the sheriff and the jail staff, he began group counsel-
ing sessions with both sentenced and non-sentenced prisoners. As the word
got around to inmates, there was an increase in the demand for the probation
officer's counseling services. To meet this demand, the probation officer
contacted the state college in his vicinity. Students in criminology, social
work and psychology were assigned to him for inmate counseling services as
a part of their field-work training, for which they received college credits.
The probation officer, at the time of the Task Force survey, had a number
of external family counseling groups which had begun in the jail. The pro-
bation department recently assigned a second probation officer to the jail
in recognition of the need for such services. The jail staff indicated
that there had been a noticeable reduction in the tension levels of prison-
ers and was supportive to the idea of expanding these services.
Volunteers in Corrections
When asked if there was a place in the rehabilitation program for volun-
teers from the community, one of the county sheriffs responded "No" and 2
others questioned their value. The remaining 12 counties indicated that
there was a place in the rehabilitation program for volunteers and most of
them were already making some use of such services. In 2 of these counties,
the volunteers were organized into groups subsidized by community funds, with
some paid staff. In a few counties, the volunteers consisted of church people,
usually ministers, who offered church services weekly and some personal coun-
seling. One county's use of volunteers is so unique that it will be briefly
described below.
- 60 -
The volunteers in this particular county are not organized, and,
in fact, many do not know each other. Instead, the county has established
a board of review consisting of the facility administration and the pro-
bation officer who screen applications from citizens who want to volunteer
their services. Screening consists of a background check through CII, an
interview to determine the volunteer's motivation, and the services he
offers. Once the volunteer has been accepted, he is given a brief orien-
tation including a review of the rules of the facility, some cautionary
notes, and introduction to the staff. This process is quite similar to
that being used in the Royal Oaks, Michigan, probation volunteer program. 24
Once selected and oriented, the volunteer and the staff jointly deter-
mine a schedule for the former's services. This might range from teaching
a course in first aid to escorting inmates back and forth to community
functions (for inmates sentenced to this facility, the committing judge
issues an order providing that the inmate may be removed from custody for
specified periods of time under citizen escort). On the evening of the
on-site study at this facility, 3 volunteers had returned approximately
12 inmates. In one case, the volunteer was a member of Alcoholics Anon-
ymous and had taken 4 inmates to attend the weekly AA meeting. The second
volunteer had escorted 5 inmates to the high school where they had com-
pleted the General Educational Development test (GED), and the third volun-
teer was returning 3 inmates who had been on work furlough and were being
supplied transportation by the volunteer. It was indicated that some in-
mates attend Toastmasters, Junior Chamber of Commerce, and meetings of var-
ious other organizations.
The staff at this facility stated that the volunteer program had
worked out quite satisfactorily and there had been only a few instances
where volunteers had kept inmates beyond the agreed upon time. In only
one case had this happened twice with the same volunteer. There have
been no escapes as a result of this program. Except for the personal opin-
ions of the people involved in this program, there is no accurate measure
of its effectiveness. Certainly, the effectiveness cannot be measured in
recidivism rates alone because, as stated in the President's Crime Commis-
sion Task Force Report on Corrections:
"One major reason why voluntary efforts should be ex-
panded is that corrections has too long been isolated
from the mainstream of community activity. The direct
contact of the volunteer with the correctional system
provides a means of countering this situation. It is
not enough simply to increase public understanding of
corrections through programs of public education, rather,
intimate personal experience with the offender has the
capacity to make the volunteer an important participant
in correctional work and a supporter of correctional
effort. "25
Another interesting type of volunteer program is the volunteer service
organization. Over the years, these community organizations have carried
- 61 -
out some research and demonstration projects on jail inmates and programs,
but, unfortunately, they have been handicapped by insufficient funding and
a lack of research skills. Consequently, the products of this research have
not gained wide acceptance in professional correctional circles, even though
some excellent results have been uncovered.
An example of such excellent volunteer group research is a demonstra-
tion project sponsored by the Northern California Service League, in which
casework services were provided to county jail inmates. 26 Although the re-
sults were quite encouraging (of those "treated", 57% were re-arrested as
opposed to 73% re-arrests for the "un-treated" group), the most significant
results were the recommendations growing out of the project experience, which
parallel the recommendations of the President's Commission Task Force on Cor-
rections. The Service League's project began in 1958, 10 years before the
President's Commission findings.
For counties which are considering adoption of a volunteer program or
expanding present programs, the Manual of Correctional Standards by the American
Correctional Association27 has a chapter devoted to organizing such efforts
and the Board of Corrections, Jail Services Division, 28 can direct interested
parties to counties which are presently involving volunteers.
Comments
This section of the Jail Task Force Report is misleading if the reader
gains the impression that a major attempt at rehabilitation or treatment is
being made in the county jails of the State. Such is not the case, since the
programs described above exist in only 5 of the 15 study counties and not all
in the same county. The remaining 10 counties offer little or nothing in the
way of rehabilitation and other treatment services. As indicated in a recent
jail study:
"At this point, the role of the sheriff's department as
correctional agents comes into question. Certainly by
looking at the personnel counts, (comparing personnel
involved in security - 6,043 with rehabilitation per-
sonnel 17), one cannot escape the impression that the
sheriff's departments are geared much more toward the
custodial and management functions of detention and
corrections. This appears to be the result of conscious
decision-making and deliberate policy which is oriented
primarily toward efficient operations and management of
detention facilities (as opposed to correctional facil-
ities).
The intention of this brief discussion of programs has been to suggest
to counties that there are alternatives to the traditional trusty job assign-
ments, and that alternatives do not necessarily require additional expenditure
of funds. In fact, none of the programs discussed involved expenditures of
funds from the sheriffs' budgets.
- 62 -
VI. THE NEED FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT
There are two key influences affecting the quality of institutional
corrections in any county. One major influence is the administrator who
determines policy, assigns priorities, and reflects to his staff the import-
ance of the correction function through his interest and support for the
division. The second major influence is the Board of Supervisors, who allo-
cate the funds with which to operate, construct, and staff correctional facil-
ities.
Local Funding
Boards of Supervisors have traditionally been most unresponsive in
approving new construction to relieve overcrowding of existing facilities.
Overcrowded conditions and inadequate facilities have been known to exist
for decades before Boards of Supervisors would authorize new construction;
even then, authorization was often secured only after serious incidents had
occurred in the jail and public attention brought to the problem. It is
typically the combination of bizarre incidents occurring in the jail, a Board
of Corrections investigation, support by the County Grand Jury, and factual
reports by the sheriff, that result in augmentation of services or new con-
struction.
A number of sheriffs pointed out that in competing for the local tax
dollar, the jails have to compete with other departments which are subsidized
by the State and Federal government, whereas the tax dollars supporting jails
come exclusively from local tax sources.
Internal Budge+, Allocations
Correctional services tend to receive low priority in the budgets of
most sheriffs' offices. In one of the most affluent counties of the State,
in fiscal 1965-66, the operating budget for corrections was only 12% of the
sheriff's total operating budget. In the next fiscal year, because of the
construction of a new minimum security facility, the operating budget for
corrections in the same county rose to 34%. In fiscal 1969-70, the operating
budget had increased to 40%, a high figure when compared with almost all of
the other counties in the State. It should also be noted that the salaries
for sheriff's personnel in the corrections division of this county were pro-
portionately lower than the operations budget. Thus, in fiscal 1969-70,
while 40% of the sheriff's operating budget went to corrections, only 33% of
his budget for salaries went to corrections staff. The picture on the state-
wide level indicates that only a small portion of sheriffs' budgets throughout
California is channeled into corrections.
- 63 -
State Subsidy
When sheriffs were asked if the State should subsidize local correc-
tions, 28 out of 32 responded affirmatively. Several expressed the fear
that State subsidy would bring State controls. They also pointed out that
many counties had negative experiences with other State subsidies in which
the State had failed to adjust its funding rates to meet increases in cost
of living, thus leaving the counties to pay a disproportionate share of new
programs or projects. Examples of such occurrences were cited in the juven-
ile camp subsidy program, the probation subsidy program, and, most recently,
mental health and welfare programs. For a more extended discussion of these
concerns among local officials, the reader is referred to the Juvenile Insti-
tution Task Force Report. However, it should be made clear that, while it
is subsidizing other correctional facilities and services, the State does
not provide any subsidies to the county jails.
Other Possible Sources For Jail Funds
Administrators were asked to suggest sources of revenue for jail oper-
ation, other than property taxes. Of 26 replies, 15 suggested that a percen-
tage of court assessed fines be allocated to jails. Eight suggested a bar
tax or an increase in the alcohol tax to be used for subsidizing detoxifi-
cation centers or jail programs for alcoholics. Two respondents would like
to see work furlough funds returned to the jail rather than to the general
fund. One sheriff suggested that the State could subsidize jail operations
through the allocation of products from Correctional Industries. Since the
cost of the products (furnishings, food, clothing) consumed in jail operations
is primarily wages, and only a fraction is raw material, the State would be
passing on a whole dollar value while expending only a fraction. Generally,
however, the sheriffs were not optimistic about receiving significantly in-
creased funding to bolster their jail operations.
VII. EVALUATION OF CORRECTIONAL FACILITY PROGRAMS
Knowledge of the Corrections System
The unfortunate part of many community-based correctional programs
and facilities is that unsubstantiated claims and counterclaims are made
about what jails are doing, with no systematic effort being made to deter-
mine what is effective, what is not, what costs too much, what does not
cost, what the county has to support entirely, what the Federal government
and the State will subsidize, and what really makes the difference in re-
ducing crime. In a recent article titled "Opportunities for Action Re-
search", 30 Montil:a reviewed his experience in a 3 year project which took
place in one of the 15 counties studied by this Task Force. Referring to
the many successful demonstration projects across the nation which have
proven successes in reducing crime and delinquency, he asks:
- 64 -
"Why haven't they caught on in jurisdictions other
than where they were developed? Why were innovations
so often developed by groups not part of the formal
(criminal justice) system? Why were so many promis-
ing correctional ideas of recent years, despite sup-
portive evidence, allowed to die?"31
In regard to the lack of information and Montilla's question about
the death of SJ many promising correctional ideas, he cites an observation
by Bernard Diamond, M. D.:
"One of the biggest differences between science and
mysticism is that science utilizes the instrument of
feedback
Mystical systems, including the law, do
not do this. They, like Plato, deduce what ought to
be and now things ought to be done. They proceed, as
an act of faith, and then, in order not to shatter
their faith and create doubts and uncertainty, they
carefully avoid feeding back their results into the
process by empirical observation of output. The ad-
vantages of such a mystical system are clear. The
system is not subject to challenge or dispute
Such
a system has a high capacity to survive unchanged ir-
respective of the value of its output. But
the
output is not entirely illusory The output becomes
a self-fulfilling prophecy to a certain degree.
"For example
the law has always been quite clear as
to the single purpose of punishment; it is to deter crime
As an article of faith, the law has accepted for thou-
sands of years that punishment is an effective deterrent
of crime. Most people in and out of the law firmly believe
this to be true. And because they believe it, to some ex-
tent it is true Sociology and psychology can easily
demonstrate that the functions of punishment are manifold
(that certain types of punishment have certain positive and
negative effects on certain people under certain conditions).
The mystical nature of (the legal application of punish-
ment) is apparent when it is realized how carefully the
law has avoided subjecting its punishment output to empirical
test. When faced with the empirical observation that punish-
ment may not deter crime, the law simply refuses to feed back
that observation into the legal process, thereby refusing to
modify the basic belief that punishment does deter and ob-
structing the possibility of the development of new methods
of influencing criminal behavior.
But the law, when it
does acknowledge that its punishment output does not deter
crime, has only one remedy: increase the severity of punish-
ment. 132
- 65 -
Clarity of Goals and Costs
Although the goals of corrections have been the subject of much dis-
cussion, few would argue with the fact that corrections has something to
do with reducing criminal behavior. It also exists to apply some sort of
punishment to satisfy society's demand for vengeance. Punishment today is
thought of as incarceration and incarceration frequently results in: (1)
the learning ty non-delinquents from delinquents, (2) a handicap to becoming
re-employed, (3) loss of a job, (4) pressures upon an already strained family
relationship, (5) loss of self-respect.
Before society can attain the lofty goals described in the establish-
ment of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice, society will need to temper its need for punishing people. Punish-
ing offenders by incarcerating them has not substantially reduced the prob-
ability of their committing further crimes.
Montilla offers an example where the costs of scciety's need to punish
obviously outweigh whatever the advantages. And, this example speaks only
to the tangible dollar costs, not to the costs in terms of human life and
dignity.
"A middle-aged divorcee with three minor children was
convicted of issuing a $20 NSF check (against an account
that had a $17 balance). She was jailed pending trial,
was given a six-month jail sentence (which was suspended)
and was ordered to pay restitution. She paid the restitu-
tion, probably out of her welfare check of $258 per month.
The judge, in an unusual action, however, also ordered her
to pay the county $75 for public defender services. When
she later told the court that she could not pay the charge,
she was jailed. This action set in motion referral of the
children to juvenile court and their detention in the county
childrens shelter at a county cost of $1,050 per month for
the three children plus the jail costs for the mother.
"Newspaper accounts of this case and a vigorous protest by
the public defender finally brought about the release of
the woman. "33
How much is society willing to pay to punish people? As it is now,
costs are hidden because so many different county departments are involved.
If the "corrections system" were truly a system, not only would the results
be plain, but the costs to the taxpayer would also be apparent.
Present Research Lfforts
Probably the most sophisticated and comprehensive research now being
conducted on a jail program in California is a work furlough study taking
place in Santa Clara County. Under a research grant by the Federal Department
- 66 -
of Health, Education and Welfare, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation,
the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies at San Jose State College, in
cooperation with the County Sheriff, is trying to answer, via empirical
data, the question: Just how effective is work furlough? 34 Data gather-
ing concluded in early 1971 and a final report should be published shortly.
Although the major foci of the study are the economic and rehabilitative
values of jail and an assessment of behavior change, a preliminary report 35
indicates that many factors in jail programming will be spoken to, includ-
ing some interesting observations about the major role sheriffs will be
playing in corrections.
A requirement of all demonstration projects funded by L.E.A.A. is
that the project must build in a research and feedback element. As of this
writing, very few projects have been funded which have jail programs as
their focus, and of those which have been so funded, results are not yet
available.
Although there are some isolated research projects being conducted
in county correctional facilities, as yet there is no systematic evaluation
and feedback system operating in any of the State's 58 counties. The Jail
Task Force urges that such research systems be established at the State and
local levels.
- 67 -
FOOTNOTES
1 Board of Corrections, A Study of California County Jails, State
of California (Sacramento, April 1970), pp. 102-105.
²Further discussion of volunteers in corrections is contained in
the Juvenile Institution and System Task Force Reports, Correctional System
Study (Sacramento 1971).
3Charles E. Ares, Anne Rankin and Herbert Sturz, "The Manhattan Bail
Project: An Interim Report on the Use of Pre-Trial Parole", New York
University Law Review, 38 (January, 1963), pp. 67-95.
4The San Francisco Committee on Crime, A Report on the Criminal
Court of San Francisco, Part II: Bail and O.R. Release, San Francisco,
February, 1971.
51bid., p. 21.
6 Ibid., p. 22.
7 Ibid., pp. 23-25.
⁸President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (Washington: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1967), p. 233.
9The San Francisco Committee on Crime, A Report on Non-Victim Crime
in San Francisco, Part I: Basic Principles, Public Drunkenness, San Fran-
cisco, April 25, 1971, p. 17.
10president's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice, op. cit., p. 236.
11 The San Francisco Committee on Crime, A Report on Non-Victim Crime
in San Francisco, Part I: Basic Principles, Public Drunkenness, op. cit.,
p. 15.
12 Ibid., p. 23.
3Jacqueline F. Wiseman, Stations of the Lost, (Englewood Cliffs,
N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970), p. 113.
14 Ibid., p. 113.
15 Bay Area Social Planning Council, The Chronic Drunkenness Offender
in Alameda County, (Oakiand, December, 1969).
- 68 -
Footnotes
16 Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Adult Criminal Detention Reference
Tables: 1969, State of California (Sacramento, 1970).
17 Board of Corrections, op. cit., p. 53.
18Fred T. Hoover, Work Furlough Practices in California 1968, San
Mateo County Sheriff's Department, August, 1968, Redwood City, California.;
California Taxpayers Association, June, 1968, Work Furlough Programs in
California Counties 1967-68: A Workload Study, State of California (Sacra-
mento). California Citizens Council, National Council on Crime and Delin-
quency, Work Purlough, A Time-Tested and Tax-Saving Program For Your
Community, (Oakland, California, April, 1966).
19 California Taxpayers Association, op. cit.
20 Board of Corrections, op. cit., pp. 51-60.
21 Ibid., p. 51.
22California Council on Criminal Justice, The California Criminal
Justice System, State of California (Sacramento, 1970), p. 110.
23 Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Crime and Delinquency in California
1969, State of California (Sacramento, 1970), p. 137.
24 Royal Oak Municipal Court, Concerned Citizens and a City Criminal
Court, Project Miscemeanant Foundation, (Royal Oak, 1969).
25 President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Criminal Justice, Task Force Report: Corrections, (Washington: U. S.
Government Printing Office, 1967), p. 104.
26 Northern California Service League, The County Jail Inmate As a
Subject for Rehabilitation, (San Francisco, August, 1964).
27 American Correctional Association, Manual of Correctional Standards,
(Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967).
28 Board of Corrections, Jail Services Division, State of California
(Sacramento).
29 Ibid., p. 73.
30M. Robert Montilla, "Opportunities for Action Research in Community
Correction", Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. VI (2),
July, 1969.
- 69 -
Footnotes
3¹ Ibid., F. 134.
32 Ibid., p. 128.
33Ibid., p. 133.
34 Alvin Rudoff, et al., "Jail Inmates On Work Furlough", (paper
presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting,) (Dallas,
December 28, 1968).
35 Alvin Rudoff, et al., "Evaluating Work Furlough" (paper submitted
for publication to Federal Probation in 1971). (Mimeographed.).
CHAPTER IV
THE MODEL COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
This chapter presents a summary of the major elements of a model
community correctional facility, including the county jail, as gleaned
from the staff and inmates of correctional facilities in the study counties.
It offers a statement of the goal of the model jail system and suggests
specific methods to achieve the goal. Finally, this chapter presents the
basic principles upon which progressive correctional facilities should be
founded.
I.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MODEL FACILITY
FROM ADMINISTRATORS AND STAFF
Administrators and staff agreed on most of the elements proposed
for inclusion in the model facility. Where there was significant disagree-
ment, it is noted.
Adequate Funding
In order to accomplish a reasonably effective corrections task,
there must be adequate facilities, sufficient staff, and programs which
are effective. Adequate funds are mandatory to support all three of these
ingredients. Because counties are already overburdened with increasing
needs for funds, the State and Federal governments will need to subsidize
local corrections facilities.
Effective Programs
Given adequate staff and facilities, efforts must be made to deter-
mine what programs will be most effective in reducing the recidivism for
given types of inmates. As yet, however, there is little in the way of
systematic empirical evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of alter-
native programs that exist in the county jail systems throughout the State.
Most program decisions are made on the basis of untested rules of thumb,
or on the basis of tradition. Both staff and inmates of county jails
strongly recommended the development of on-going, systematic research aimed
at determining the relative effectiveness of different programs that were
being implemented in the county jails throughout the State.
Unified Efforts
Law enforcement, the courts, the county jails, and probation depart-
ments sometimes appear to be at odds with each other. The courts seem to
be asking the jail to rehabilitate the offender, but with sentences of less
than 30 days "rehabilitation" is difficult, if not impossible. There is
- 71 -
a need to unify the efforts of these various agencies so that each knows
what is expected and what it can expect from others.
Training for Corrections
Adequate provisions should be made to provide staff with appropriate
and relevant training in jail procedures, human behavior, and techniques
of rehabilitation. If administrators expect law enforcement personnel to
undertake the job of rehabilitation, then they must make clear how correc-
tions relates to law enforcement.
Law Enforcement and Corrections
Although there were notable exceptions, the majority of first line
deputies manning the jails and some of the jail administrators suggested
that corrections was not an appropriate function for a law enforcement
agency. Sheriffs, however, were generally opposed to relinquishing the
corrections responsibility.
Inmates Inappropriate for Jail
With some consistency throughout the 15 study counties, the Task
Force heard both staff and administrators saying that jails were inappropri-
ate places of confinement for the increasing number of younger, more trouble-
some inmates who , a few years ago, were sent to state prison. Many also
observed that jails were inappropriate settings for the "revolving door"
alcoholic. With highly aggressive offenders and alcoholics (and possibly
other inappropriate persons) diverted from the jail, community facilities
could begin to concentrate their efforts on the more responsive inmate.
Observations by the Jail Task Force
The recommendations of the Jail Task Force are based in large part
upon the comments and concerns expressed by staff and administrators in
Chapter III. However, the Task Force questions the appropriateness of a
recommendation to divert the "younger, troublesome inmate" to state prison.
Commitment to state prison should be a last resort for all but those who
pose a serious threat to the safety of the community. Thus far, state
prison programs have not proven to be more effective than local efforts
and there are indications that the reverse is true. Probably a more sat-
isfactory resolution to the question of commitment to state prison for
troublesome youth is to provide greater State support to enable local offi-
cials to develop more effective programs for this type of inmate.
- 72 -
II. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MODEL FACILITY
FROM INMATES
The reader will note that many of the inmates' concerns and recommen-
dations correspond to those made by jail administrators and staff. This is
not surprising, since both groups are intimately involved in jail processes.
Their points of view differ, however. Inmates, for example, complained of
staff being unwilling to listen to their troubles. On the other hand, the
staff complained that there was insufficient personnel to provide the time
necessary to give inmates adequate attention.
Humane Physical Conditions
The most frequently expressed concern or recommendation by inmates
had to do with their physical surroundings. They stated that, in order to
reduce the brutalizing effect of jails on people, jails should not be crowded
and should be hygienically clean and sanitary. Inmates should be removed
from cells when they become sick, and they should not be placed in tanks
when they come into jail while obviously ill (inmates were apparently re-
ferring to drunks and addicts who were suffering from DT's and withdrawal
pains). To expedite such changes, a number of inmates suggested that the
general public should be allowed to tour jails unannounced.
Selection at Intake
With reference to the negative effects of locking people up in jail,
inmates recommended that only the people who need to be in jail should be
placed there. They would eliminate jail sentences for all first-termers
unless they were "dangerous". They would further eliminate jail for users
of marijuana and alcohol unless they requested some time in jail (contrary
to what one might expect, there were a number of inmates who felt that jail
had been their salvation because they had been caught up in a "madness" as
they described it, which necessitated drastic measures).
Individual Attention
A universal complaint by inmates was that there was no one in the
facility who had time to listen to them. Many stated that deputies or
correctional officers were not there to listen to them, but rather to main-
tain security. Even if they would listen to them, there were not enough
to go around. They would like to see deputies and correctional officers
trained in human relations SO that inmates would be treated more as individ-
uals.
Secondly, they would like to see counselors or probation officers
included on the staff, to help them unravel their complicated lives before
release and to help them define some goals towards which to work.
- 73 -
Given case workers and custodial staff trained in human relations,
they would add group counseling, or, as they termed it, "rap sessions"
which would be designed to change the attitude of staff.
Segregation
Although there were some objections to the next recommendation, it
appeared that there was some agreement to the need for segregation of in-
mates according to age and crime. Prisoners generally made distinctions
between (a) inmates under 30 years of age, (b) inmates over 30 years old,
(c) those who commit violent crimes and "hurt other people", (d) thieves,
and (e) mentally disturbed offenders. According to the inmate model, the
marijuana user, the alcoholic, and the heroin user would not be in jails.
The Opportunity to Earn Funds
Reasoning that most inmates are poor, do not have ready employment
upon release, and do not have families to support them, one consistent re-
commendation throughout the Task Force survey was that they be allowed to
work at jobs which pay them so that they could save for the day of their
release.
Motivation
Many observed that jail inmates, by and large, are a very pessimistic
group and have failed so many times that they leave jail knowing they will
fail again. This seemed to apply particularly to the alcoholic. Inmates
asked for programs which would change negative orientations to life. Examples
they gave were Dale Carnegie courses, Alcoholics Anonymous, and Toastmasters.
Community Resource Information
A recurring request was for knowledge about resources in the community
and how to apply for them. Many inmates had heard that they could qualify
for vocational training but had no idea how to obtain such assistance. In-
mates requested that representatives of various community agencies be allowed
to come into the jail so they could obtain answers to their questions.
All Programs Voluntary
They recommended that no one should be forced to participate in any
kind of program because (1) it ruins the program for those who do want to
participate, (2) inmates do not gain anything unless they want to, and (3)
it will eliminate programs which no one needs (presumably because no one
will be attending them). In some cases, programs were available only to
"honor dormitories" and inmates felt that these "honor inmates" were those
least in need of programs.
- 74 -
Individual Responsibility
If this were a listing of recommendations according to priority,
the need to have more responsibility would be one of the top priority
items. This recommendation was made very frequently by the inmates. Gen-
erally, inmates believed that their lives were managed to such an extent
that they were forced to respond in a child-like fashion. They perceived
staff attitudes as suspecting the worst rather than expecting the best.
In their opinion. expecting the "best" would be a greater inducement to
responsible behavior. The problem is that no one is responsible (inmates
have no role in the decisions effecting them) and everyone is responsible
(if one inmate in a dormitory breaks a serious rule, the whole dormitory
is sometimes punished).
Training in Use of Leisure Time
Inmates recommended the establishment of programs which would train
them to use their leisure time constructively.
Academic and Vocational Training
They identified three areas in which the inmate population needed
academic instruction. For those who could not read or write, there is need
for some very basic instruction; for those who had been to school but had
not graduated, they identified a need for instruction in order to obtain a
high school diploma. A great number also requested various vocational train-
ing courses.
Increased Family Contact
Contact with family members was considered to be far more important
to inmates than were any new programs that might be established in the jail.
Inmates recommended a revision of visiting privileges to allow for more fre-
quent visits and personal contact. This is consistent with the goal of re-
integration. For the females, restrictions against visiting with their
minor sons and daughters would be eliminated. There would be no limitation
on the number of letters to and from families.
Release Based on Readiness
There was a high degree of consensus among inmates that lengthy jail
terms embitter people, and that there is a time in most inmates' sentences
when they are better prepared for release than at any other time. Because
of this, they recommended that prisoners be released "when they are ready"
rather than wait until the expiration of their maximum term. However, there
was disagreement among the inmates on just how such a decision might be
reached.
- 75 - -
Mark Debt "Paid"
An overwhelming number of inmates spoke to the problem of the stigma
of a person who has been in jail. Many employment opportunities are closed
to them. When a crime occurs, they are the first suspects to be questioned.
Furthermore, society never again fully trusts them. They wanted some pro-
cess by which their crime could be erased from the records SO they could
compete in the labor market on the basis of ability rather than past history.
As one inmate put it:
"Once you've committed a crime you're never finished
paying for it. After you've paid your debt to society
you should be judged on your ability."
Summary
Generally, the recommendations made by the inmates interviewed are those
which have been recommended by experts in the field, and virtually every
recommendation made can be found in the President's Commission Report
The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society.² Perhaps the only serious ob-
jection to implementing them is based on economics. If the State were to
assure humane conditions in all county jails, the costs could be astronom-
ical if examined in terms of large, steel and concrete maximum and minimum
security jails. If, however, inmates' recommendations for selecting those
who would go to jail were implemented (only those who need "control"), the
present number of jails might very well be able to handle the inmates re-
maining. The funds presently allocated for new construction could be di-
verted to improved conditions and support for people-changing programs.
III. THE GOAL OF THE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
In further development of the discussion of functions, goals, and
philosophies begun in Chapter II, the Jail Task Force proposes that the
primary goal of corrections and particularly correctional facilities, is:
The protection of society through reduction of the probability that
an offender will commit another crime.
Secondary goals include rehabilitation, reintegration, deterrence,
and incapacitation by confinement. Some would argue that retribution is
a fifth goal. However, retribution bears no relationship to the primary
goal of corrections, i.e. the protection of society. Retribution may
motivate those who sentence offenders to a period of incarceration, so
this function may be subsumed under the heading of "deterrence".
- 76 -
IV. PRINCIPLES OF THE MODEL COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
The basic principles of the entire correctional system are summar-
ized in the System Task Force Report. The statements which follow attempt
to apply these principles to community correctional facilities.
The Appropriateness of Incarceration
Jails and correctional facilities should be based upon the goals
described above and should always be primarily geared at protecting society
by reducing the probability that the offender will commit another crime.
It is the position of the Jail Task Force that this primary goal is almost
always compatible with and best achieved by rehabilitation and reintegra-
tion of the offender into society. This means that the jail must not be
used as a "dumping ground" for society's misfits, such as the alcoholic
and the mentally handicapped offender. The community has the responsibil-
ity for providing alternatives to confinement in jail for people who come to
the attention of law enforcement for reasons other than the commission of
a crime.
Coordination
The community correctional facility is only one component of the
criminal justice system that is affected by and in turn affects all other
components. This principle leads to the need for coordination among the
criminal justice system components in order to achieve the overall goal as
efficiently and economically as possible. This principle also speaks to
the need for coordination between the local corrections component sub-units,
correctional facilities, probation, and law enforcement.
Safe and Humane Conditions
The facilities which serve the criminal justice system (corrections
and detention) must be able to provide safe and humane living conditions
through appropriate housing and sufficient staff. If the community decides
that a person must be locked up for his or the community's safety, the
community has a moral and legal obligation to guarantee the individual's
safety, and to provide him with living conditions which allow him to main-
tain mental and physical well-being.
Responsibility for Community Corrections
As the mobility of California's population increases, both the counties
and the State must share in the responsibility for the reintegration of offen-
ders. The State has the overall enabling responsibility for the corrections
system. It must assume the responsibility for equalizing the financial burden
- 77 -
among the counties through a subsidy and must substantially assist the
counties in achieving their goals through consultation, standard setting
and enforcement, training, and research. The counties have a responsibil-
ity to establish the facilities and provide the services that will meet
the offender's needs. Community correctional services must meet or exceed
the standards that have been set by the State.
Accountability
Jails (as well as all components of the correctional and criminal
justice systems) must be accountable to the community in which they operate.
This principle requires that a comprehensive fund of knowledge be developed
in the following areas: (a) follow-up research to assess the outcome of
decisions made by the principals in the criminal justice and correction sys-
tems; (b) the costs of the decisions made in terms of both immediate and
long range costs based upon follow-up; (c) the existing and possible alter-
natives available to each decision maker at critical points in the correc-
tion system; (ii) the inter-faces between the components of the correctional
and criminal justice systems and other services in the community.
Range of Services
Treatment of offenders should be individualized to the greatest ex-
tent possible. This principle has implications for both the nature of cor-
rectional facilities and the variety of correctional programming available.
The extent of external control upon an inmate should bear a direct relation-
ship to the actual danger he poses to himself and the community.
Jails typically tend to over-control, probably because the maximum
security facility can be used to house all offenders, whereas minimum secur-
ity facilities can house only those who have a higher degree of self-control.
In maximum security, the inmate has little opportunity to develop internal
controls when they are lacking. He may find whatever ability for self-
reliance he had diminishes as time in custody continues.
The range of services, therefore, must include maximum security facil-
ities for those wno pose an inordinate danger to the community, and minimum
security facilities to house the work and educational furloughee and the
"week-ender". A range of correctional programs must be available in each
of these facilities, so that correctional efforts are directed toward the
reintegration of the offender into the community. The range of programs
should include the traditional work experience, vocational training, educa-
tion, and community-based activities which can be carried on when the inmate
leaves the facility. Ideally, offenders should be released back to the
community out of a program such as work furlough, where there is a minimum
of external control and a maximum of self-controlled, community-based activ-
ities.
- 78 -
Reintegration
In line with the principle stated immediately above, but of suffi-
cient importar.ce to re-state and develop, is the need to direct correc-
tional efforts towards returning the offender to the community. Institu-
tions have only a temporary role in dealing with the offender and there-
fore must make every effort, consistent with public protection, to assist
the offender in making a successful return to the community. Staff of the
correctional facility should be committed to the reality that the offen-
ders whom they are supervising, in the next hour or in the next day, will
be free in the community.
Visibility and Public Involvement
The facilities, processes, and programs in correctional facilities
belong to the community and the community has a right to be informed on all
aspects of corrections, particularly the goals of corrections and the ex-
tent to which corrections is meeting these goals. This principle means not
only that the public should be made aware of research results, but also that
it should be involved in correctional programming. The efforts of correc-
tions in public education and community involvement will result in greater
public support and greater ease in attaining the goal of corrections.
The model community correctional facility is based upon the foregoing
principles and the recommended modifications which follow.
- 79 -
FOOTNOTES
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice, Task Force Report: Corrections (Washington: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1967), p. 162.
²President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (Washington: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1967).
CHAPTER V
PREVAILING ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Undoubtedly, the present correctional system and the system of
criminal justice are in need of fundamental change. Clearly, changing
the jail operation without also changing the entire system is at best
a stop-gap measure. However, the present corrections "non-system" may
not be capable of withstanding the immediate future pressures without
being imundated. This section of the Jail Task Force Report proposes
some modifications to the existing "non-system" which are in keeping
with a more fundamental reorganization and which are immediately applic-
able.
I. THE DILEMMA OF JAILS: CHANGE, TRANSFER, OR CLOSE?
A basic issue which increasingly confronts California's system
of criminal justice is whether or not sheriff's departments, or any
other law enforcement agency, should continue to operate jails, parti-
cularly jails for sentenced offenders. Data collected in this study
revealed strorg feelings on both sides of the issue.
A number of nationally respected authorities in criminal justice
have urged that jails no longer be administered by law enforcement agencies.
For example, the International City Managers Association stated:
"The responsibility of jail management is separate from
law enforcement and ideally should be administered by
professional corrections personnel rather than by police
officers.'
The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice
has also argued:
"As long as jails are operated by law enforcement officials,
no matter how enlightened, it will be more difficult to
transform them into correctional centers. As a major step
toward reform, jails should be placed under the control of
correctional authorities who are able to develop the needed
program services.
Following this trought, an increasing number of municipalities have deleted
the operation of jails from the responsibilities of their police departments.
Also in accord with this philosophy, the California Penal Code allows for
the creation of a separate county department of corrections to operate facil-
ities for sentenced offenders.
In general, arguments advanced in favor of removing the jails from
law enforcement administration are as follows:
- 81 -
1. The basic philosophy and approach of law enforcement and cor-
rections are often in sharp contrast, in respect to offenders,
viz. many see the role of law enforcement as "locking them up"
and that of corrections as "getting them out" and reintegrating
them into the community.
2. Effective correctional activities require a substantially diff-
erent type of training than that normally provided for law en-
forcement personnel.
3. Freeing deputies from jail duty would make them available to
perform critically needed police duties for which they are
uniquely trained.
4. Placing of the jails under correctional personnel, such as the
probation officer or a county department of corrections, would
provide for more effective integration of correctional efforts,
i.e. a "continuum of treatment" between pre-institutional, in-
st.tutional, and post-institutional efforts.
5. Philosophically, rehabilitation ranks near the bottom of law
enforcement's primary concerns while correctional personnel
clearly see it as the primary and most effective means of pro-
tecting society. Rehabilitation tends to receive the lowest
priority of law enforcement administration in terms of staffing
and other resources.
6. County jails remain the only segment of the entire correctional
system. that is not administered and staffed by trained correc-
ticnal personnel.
Those persons who favor retention of jails by law enforcement agencies
offer the following observations:
1. Under the auspice of law enforcement, some jurisdictions have
demonstrated an interest in corrections, and have developed
sophisticated corrections programs.
2. There is a basic similarity in function, viz. providing a ser-
vice to people.
3. Assignment to correctional facilities provides good initial train-
ing for the newly-hired deputy.
4. Some counties which had previously removed the jail function from
law enforcement have since reassigned that responsibility to the
sheriff.
Data collected in this study reinforce the dichotomy of opinion. As
indicated in Chapter III, persons who staff California's jails feel that
law enforcement, the courts, and corrections are working toward opposing
- 82 -
goals, and that jail staff gets "caught in the middle". The data also re-
flect a sense of futility on the part of these persons in respect to the
correctional goals of jails. Also apparent is the feeling expressed by
jail staff that they trained to be law enforcement officers, joined a
sheriff's department in order to perform police duties, and that they "want
to get out" of their custodial assignments.
Data reveal that one-third of 36 sheriffs who responded to the ques-
tion, "Do you believe that the operation of facilities for sentenced prison-
ers is an appropriate task for a law enforcement agency?", answered negative-
ly, while two-thirds of the respondents felt that the task was appropriate.
As indicated in Chapter IV, the majority view of the sheriffs is not sup-
ported by most of the first-line deputies who staff the jails, but it is
supported by a majority of jail administrators. Sixteen of the sheriffs
also thought that the staff assigned to corrections should be specialists
in the field and 11 were opposed to specialization, preferring that their
deputies be as capable in patrol, investigation and other duties as they
were in corrections.
When the issue was discussed with presiding judges of Superior Courts,
Chairmen of Bcards of Supervisors, and Chief Administrative Officers in the
15 counties included in this study, 76% of the 38 interviewees favored re-
moval of responsibility for sentenced prisoners from the sheriff. Sixty-
three percent of the respondents urged creation of a local or regional de-
partment of corrections, and 16% favored transferring the jail function to
the probation officer. They noted that the probation officer is a correc-
tional specialist, and that, in many cases, he already operates correctional
institutions.
It is the strong view of the Jail Task Force that California's jail
system must decide upon one of two courses of action. The first such course
is to remove responsibility for sentenced inmates from the sheriff or from
any other depa -tment which is basically law-enforcement in nature. In this
instance, it becomes necessary for the system to develop alternative pro-
grams, either under a local or regional department of corrections, or under
the probation officer.
The second alternative is to retain the jailing responsibility within
sheriff's departments, and to develop within those departments sophisticated
correctional programs, staffed by persons trained in correctional philosophy
and procedures, and making effective use of community-based resources. In
short, if the latter alternative is to be chosen, the sheriffs of California
must recognize the importance of corrections (as has been done in some
California counties) and, in effect, develop a corrections-oriented "mind-set".
In either event, it is imperative that both local jurisdictions and
the State (aided, as possible, by LEAA funds) make a substantially greater
financial commitment to provide the necessary staff and other resources in
order to develop genuine "correctional" facilities. If they do not, the
results are clear: (1) jails will continue to represent the nadir of correc-
tions and (2) the courts will continue to order them changed or closed.
- 83 -
II. INADEQUATE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
In a recent study of California county jails published by the
California Board of Corrections, the inadequacies of information in the
corrections component of the county criminal justice system were high-
lighted:
"The findings in this area (program evaluation through
data analysis) were quite discouraging. The ability
of most counties to evaluate their own correctional
efforts in any sense beyond intuition is non-existent
There cannot be effective programs, much less the eval-
uarion of them, without sound, reliable records. "3
Scarcity of information is not a recent development in local cor-
rections. Adams and Burdman, in their study of California county jails
14 years ago, observed:
"The jail administrator is operating, and he will con-
to operate, under a severe handicap until he developes
a broadly useful inmate record system. This will permit
them - or cooperating research agencies -- to make
certain kinds of evaluations of his operation. He will
become able to plan his program with much more confidence
than formerly. But more important, he will be able to
make evaluations of a fundamental kind. He will be able
to determine the contributions of specific administrative
policies of programs for all inmates or for particular
classes of inmates.
At the present time, the major
deficiency in county jail data is the lack of a system for
maintaining accurate and meaningful statistics on popula-
tion breakdowns. In order to obtain basic information
as to size, composition, and movement of jail population
at the particular time, jail officials were obliged to
resurt to estimates or to make laborous counts on the
bound register. The absence of elementary statistical
information is a serious obstruction to planning research. ⑉4
The 1970 study was encouraged to find that the Bureau of Criminal
Statistics had slowly been increasing the coverage of its ongoing adult
criminal detention study which began on a pilot basis in 1964 with five
counties, and in 1968 had expanded to include 43 counties. 5 Unfortunately,
because of economic considerations, the Bureau of Criminal Statistics is
reducing its adult. detention study to 15 counties and reducing its efforts
to control the quality of the data input from the counties. 6 Development
of the local agencies' ability to provide the Bureau with accurate data
on the movement of offenders through the jails and camps was a slow and
laborious process, as indicated by the four years required to expand the
initial three county study to 43 jurisdictions. To return to the level
of sophistication existing in 1965 appears to be an unfortunate step back-
- 84 -
ward for the criminal justice information SO badly needed.
In the 1959-70 fiscal year, the Department of Justice launched a
five year plan to computerize the Criminal Justice Information System
(CJIS). The extent of information CJIS will be able to provide correc-
tional decision-makers, through the compilation of statistical reports
reflecting the population movement through jail and probation, is not
yet clear; the target date for the ayailability of such information is
sometime in the 1973-74 fiscal year. 7
In addition to its publication Crime and Delinquency in California,
each year the Bureau of Criminal Statistics has provided the counties with
adult criminal detention data which include statistics on the sentencing
court, type of conviction, offense for which convicted, sentence, length
of sentence imposed, actual time served, and individual inmate character-
istics such as age, race, sex, and the type of release. 8 It would appear
that these types of data would be indispensable to local administrators
for purposes of budgeting, facility planning, and staffing. However, while
all studied agencies were familiar with the yearly publication, Crime and
Delinquency in California, few were familiar with the extent of data avail-
able in the companion volume, Adult Criminal Detention, and with the impli-
cations of these data. As one administrator said, "All they do is tell me
that I have a problem, and I already know that."
The problem, therefore, is not solely one of insufficient data, but
it is also one of interpreting the data and applying it to decisions.
Montilla suggests that decision-makers in corrections do not want statis-
tics and prefer to continue making decisions on the basis of faith and other
considerations. He quotes a judge as having said, "I don't believe in
statistics". 9 This attitude, which is probably held by many decision-makers
in the criminal justice system, is perhaps the reason why administrators
have been unaware of such data, and why administrators have been reluctant
to cooperate in keeping systematic records on their respective agency oper-
ations.
Another, and extremely important, kind of information necessary to
the development of an efficient corrections system are data which indicate
what programs are most effective with what types of offenders. These types
of data are developed through follow-up studies, which cover a period of
time and which involve comparing offenders who remain arrest-free with those
who are rearrested, in an effort to determine what factors distinguish the
two groups. A pre-requisite to such follow-up studies is the development
of base-expectancy tables, SO that factors other than those being studied
(programs, sentences, etc.) can be consistent.
The picture is quite different at the level of State correctional
efforts. The Department of Corrections and the Department of the Youth
Authority have a combined budget exceeding one million dollars per year for
research and administrative statistics. Both departments know the character-
istics of their wards/inmates, and are able to plot their populations on the
basis of a multitude of variables. They can, with some accuracy, project
- 85 -
their anticipated needs for facilities and programs, or the elimination
of such facilities and programs for years into the future. The Department
of Corrections has developed predictive base expectancy tables and has
applied them to research program effectiveness. In view of the fact that
State level corrections has only a minority of California's offenders under
its control, while the majority of offenders are under local control and
supervision, the expenditure of funds and efforts in research appears to
be disproportionate. However, this situation can be gradually remedied by
the State assisting local communities in research.
The problem of insufficient information can be divided into three
sub-problems:
1. Insufficient data are fed back to the correctional decision-
makers at the level of the community.
2. Correctional decision-makers at the community level are sus-
picious of criminal statistics so that the simple increase in
the availability of such data alone would not suffice.
3. Sophistication in the use of correctional data is at an undevel-
oped level because skills in this area have not been called upon.
Therefore, if data were available, and an attempt were to be made
encouraging decision-makers to use these data, then it would be
necessary to inaugurate an educational program regarding data
use and create a system of demands for decisions which reflect
understanding of probable outcomes.
Recommendations
1. The State of California should expand its major responsibility
for the accumulation, dissemination, and the interpretation of data re-
flecting the movement of the offender through each sub-unit of the criminal
justice system and should provide follow-up data which would describe the
outcome of critical decisions made by each component of the criminal justice
system.
2. The State should provide interpretative services and training
for the correctional decision-makers in the use of the data collected.
This effort should be directed at generating greater confidence in the use
of data on crime and developing the skills necessary to apply data to decisions.
III. THE ISOLATION OF SUB-UNITS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
In the State of California there are 58 separate criminal justice
systems, corresponding to its 58 counties. Within the system in each county,
there are three relatively distinct sub-units composed of law enforcement,
the courts (including the district attorney and public defender), and correc-
- 86 -
tions (including detention and correctional facilities and probation). In
the 15 counties studied by the Jail Task Force, 60 such sub-units were
functioning. Though focus was on the detention and correctional facilities
in these counties, staff gathered impressions from the remaining three sub-
units in each county from the Correctional System Study staff.
Although ostensibly working toward the same ultimate goal, i.e., the
reduction of crime, each sub-unit in these systems performed its function
in relative isolation from the other sub-units. Further, sub-units in one
county were also relatively isolated from corresponding components in the
other counties. Within the county justice system, the relative isolation
of one sub-unit from another expressed itself in a number of ways. Admin-
istrators of detention and correctional facilities felt that they were ex-
pected to be passive respondents to court decisions and sentencing which
had a significant impact upon their operations. As the time between arraign-
ment and sentence grows, so does the pre-sentenced population in the jail,
thus overburdening the staff and resources available. With regard to the
results of sentencing upon correctional facilities, the sheriffs indicated
that they were expected to handle an increased number of sentenced prisoners
for a shorter time, thus precluding the possibility of continuing or develop-
ing rehabilitation programs.
As an indicator of the isolation of correctional facilities from pro-
bation, the study results indicate that more than 61% of the inmates serving
jail sentences as a condition of probation stated that they had not seen
their probation officers, even though over 41% were within four weeks of
release. According to one sheriff, his most important supporter was the
probation department. However, in the remaining 14 counties, no mention
was made of the contributions of probation to institution and correctional
programs.
Though any single decision by a sub-unit of the criminal justice
system may not have a significant impact upon the remaining sub-units, when
a decision is considered in the context of the hundreds of thousands of per-
sons processed through the jail each year, it is easy to see how decisions
made in one unit cause reverberations throughout the entire criminal justice
system.
With regard specifically to jail operations, there appears to be some
duplication of effort as a result of the lack of coordination. The most
apparent duplication existed in booking and records-keeping in those few
counties which had both city jails and county jails. When an offender is
apprehended by the city police department and booked into the city jail, he
is fingerprinted, photographed, and his criminal record is researched through
the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation. When he is turned
over to the sheriff, the procedure is often repeated. The staff time in-
volved in the duplication of the process and the costs of duplicate records-
keeping is incalculable but significant when one looks at the other sub-
units in the justice system. Expensive criminal laboratories and technical
staff sometimes exist within blocks of each other, one in the police depart-
ment and one in the sheriff's department. Amalgamation of such services
- 87 -
is taking place throughout the State but at a slow pace. If there is to be
a substantial reduction of crime, and the costs of controlling it, there
must be unification of effort.
Recommendation
3. Counties (or, if several counties wish to group themselves,
regions) should establish Criminal Justice Commissions composed of repre-
sentatives from the sub-units of the criminal justice system in the area,
members of the community, and members of local governing bodies.
The local Criminal Justice Commission, as envisioned in this recom-
mendation, is composed of an executive officer and members who represent
local law enforcement, the courts, corrections, local governing bodies, and
the community. The prime functions would be the "monitoring" and co-ordin-
ation of the criminal justice system, possible allocation of Federal funds
to the sub-units of the justice system, and interpretation of the activities
of the criminal justice system to the community. The Commission would have
no functional authority over the sub-units.
IV. MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR LOCAL DETENTION FACILITIES
Revision of Standards Recommended
In December 1969, the State Board of Corrections published a report
based on 18 months of extensive research by the Committee to Study the
Inspection of Local Detention Facilities. 10 In regard to the adequacy of
the present minimum jail standards, the Committee observed that only 9 out
of the 108 pages included in the Minimum Jail Standardsil, published by
the Board of Corrections, are mandatory. All other provisions are recommen-
ded. In regard to inspection, 14 separate bodies are charged with partial
or overall responsibility of inspection, yet many of these bodies may not
know what they are inspecting. In summary, the Committee stated: "The
present system of inspection and its efficiency can be seen as one long
series of 'even if's'.
1. Even if many inspections are legally authorized, some are not
made for a number of reasons: The present provision for the
inspection is permissive; the provision for formation of the
inspecting agency is permissive; the inspecting agency lacks
the manpower or time.
2. Even if the inspection is made, the subsequent report is gener-
ally advisory in nature and lacks any legal enforcement powers.
3. Even if the report contains advice, its value may vary with
whether the inspector is a lay group or a professional.
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM STUDY
Final Report
Human Relations Agency
Board of Corrections
James M. Hall, Chairman
Secretary, Human Relations Agency
Karl Holton, Vice-Chairman
Allen Breed
Probation Officer
Director of the Youth Authority
Los Angele County (Ret.)
(Citizen Mcmber)
Julio Gonzales
Vice Chairman
Michael N. Canlis
Youth Authority Board
Sheriff, San Joaquin County
Henry Kerr
Mrs. Eleanor W. Hiller
Chairman, Adult Authority
Chairman, Women's Board of
Terms and Parole
Edward Walker
Chairman, Narcotic Addict
R. K. Procunier
Evaluation Authority
Director of Corrections
State of California
Ronald Reagan, Governor
Sacramento
JULY, 1971
STUDY STAFF
Robert E. Keldgord, Program Director
Robert O. Norris, D. Crim., Associate Program Director
Miss Patricia A. Hagen, Secretary-Office Manager
Probation Task Force
Richard P. Gist, Director
Jack Allbright, Consultant
Ernest S. Bachelor, Consultant
Mrs. Joyce M. DeVore, Consultant
Wes DeWeert, Consultant
Harry A. D dley, Consultant
Jack Gifford, Consultant
Sam Glane, Consultant
Russell D. Kokx, Consultant
David R. M tsler, Consultant
Francis E. Miller, Consultant
Miss Gwen M, Monroe, Consultant
Gilbert J. Negrette, Consultant
Arthur D. Nettles, Jr., Consultant
Miss Sylvia Newberry, Consultant
Leo M. Owen, Consultant
Joseph W. Phelan, Consultant
Rito Rosa, Jr., Consultant
Harley L. Ross, Consultant
Mrs. Gloria Steen, Consultant
Miss Marilyn Stewart, Consultant
Joseph J. Tavares, Consultant
Miss Lucille Toscano, Consultant
William A. Underwood, Consultant
Joel A. Ungar, Consultant
Juvenile Institutions Task Force
Eugene O. Sahs, Director
Mrs. Edith Elkins, Consultant
Leonard Moncure, Consultant
William Pagle, Consultant
Willie Richardson, Consultant
Lawrence Stump, Consultant
County Jails and Camps Task Force
Edward A. Veit, Director
Mrs. Willa J. Dawson, Consultant
Edgar A. Smith, Consultant
Prisons Task Force
Gus Harrison, Director
William L. Kime, Consultant
Perry M. Johnson, Consultant
Parole Task Force *
Tully, McCrea,
Co-Director
Mrs. Helen Sumner,
Co-Director
R. Barry Follensen, Consultant
Edward F. Tripp, Consultant
Jeffrey Glen, Consultant
Lee F. Cumpston, Consultant
Frederick Howlett, Consultant
Don Gottfredson, Ph.D., Consultant
Walter Luster, Consultant
Dean R. Lantz, Consultant
Arnold Pontesso, Consultant
K. W. Ostrom, Consultant
Systems Task Force
Robert M. Brown, Jr.,
Co-Director
Donald L. Garrity, Ph.D.,
Co-Director
Special Consultants
Neeley Gardner
Daniel Glaser, Ph.D.
Richard A. McGee
Spencer Williams
Editor
Peter G. Garabedian, Ph.D.
Artist
Mrs. Lily Wong
Clerical Staff
Mrs. Lorraine Cook
Mrs. Shirley Houser
Miss Kathy Mackey
Miss Beverly Campbell
*The Parole Task Force Report was prepared, under contract, by the
National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Honorable W. Craig Biddle, Co-chairman
Honorable James M. Hall, Co-chairman
California State Assembly
Secretary, Human Relations Agency
Chairman, Board of Corrections
Honorable Arthur Alarcon
Wesley Barrett
Judge of the Superior Court
Chief of Police
Los Angeles County
City of Oroville
Herbert L. P. shby
Honorable Bernard J. Clark
Chief Asst. Attorney General--Criminal
Sheriff
Department of Justice
Riverside County
Sacramento
Honorable Marie Bertillion Collins
Honorable Gordon Cologne
Judge of the Municipal Court
California State Senator
Oakland
Honorable John T. Conlan, Chairman
Robert Eckhoff
Board of Sup ervisors
Public Defender
Ventura Courty
Santa Barbara County
Herbert E. E.lingwood
Tony Garcia
Legal Affairs Secretary
Secretary-Business Agent-ILWU
Governor's Office
Port Hueneme
Allen Grant, President
Honorable Bertram Janes
California Farm Bureau Federation
Justice of the Third District
Berkeley
Court of Appeal
Sacramento
Kenneth Kirknatrick
Chief Probat on Officer
Elmer Kim Nelson, Jr., D.P.A.
Los Angeles County
School of Public Administration
University of Southern California
Charles J. Patterson, Ph.D.
Vice President
Mrs. Dorothy L. Schechter
World Airways, Inc.
Assistant County Counsel
Oakland
Ventura County
Honorable Ray Reynolds
Ted L. Smith
Judge of the Municipal Court
Chief Probation Officer
San Francisco
Placer County
Honorable Keith Sorenson
District Attorney
San Mateo County
INTRODUCTION: INSTITUTIONS TASK FORCE REPORTS
It is the view of this study that the most effective service which
can be rendered to an offender, consequently resulting in the best protec-
tion of society, and probably also offering society the greatest economy,
is community-based service provided by the local level of government.
Further, it is held that, when institutionalization is considered
for an individual, the burden for placement of an individual in an appro-
priate facility, and demonstrating the need for such placement, rests with
the system. Concurrently, there exists a burden upon the system to return
the offender to the community at the earliest time possible, consistent
with public safety. In order to accomplish this mission, it is deemed
imperative that institutional programs be community-oriented, and that they
be equipped to effect smooth transition into the community-at-large.
Despite this commitment to the value of community-based programs, the
study recognizes that, for some offenders such programs are not adequate,
and that, accordingly, there remains a need for institutional care of some
persons.
Data provided by the California State Bureau of Criminal Statistics
reveal that for every 100 Superior Court convictions, approximately 9
defendants are committed to prison, that approximately 4 persons are
committed to the California Youth Authority for institutionalization, that
approximately 4 persons are, by means of a civil commitment procedure, sent
to the California Rehabilitation Center (for narcotics rehabilitation), and
that some 41 persons are sent to local jails, either as a condition of
probation or as the result of a straight jail sentence.
Additional data reveal that, for every 100 referrals to a probation
department by California's Municipal Courts, some 23 defendants are sentenced
to local jail and approximately one person is committed to the California
Youth Authority for institutionalization.4
In respect TO juveniles, data reveal that for every 100 youth who
appear before California's Juvenile Courts, approximately 12 youth are
committed to locally-operated camps, ranches, and schools, and approximately
one youth is committed to the California Youth Authority. 3
While it is true, as will be reflected later in this Task Force Report,
that commitments to State-operated youth and adult institutions have decreased
dramatically il the past few years, the operation of these institutions
remains a costly burden to the taxpayer. For example, the yearly cost of
maintaining a word in a CYA facility is $6,754, and, should it become neces-
sary for the State to build additional youth institutions, the construction
costs, at present levels, will be $20,000 per bed.4 In State-operated adult
institutions, the yearly cost of maintaining a prisoner in custody is $3,012;
should it become necessary for the State to build additional adult penal
facilities, the construction costs, at present levels, are estimated to range
between $20,000 and $25,000 per bed. In contrast, field supervision can be
provided at a fraction of institutional cost; for example, CYA can supervise
a juvenile parolee for $648 per year.
When viewed nationally, correctional institutions are seen as large,
antiquated, i 1-equipped and poorly-staffed facilities, which are deprived
of interaction with the community, and the effectiveness of which is more
likely to be hindered than helped.⁸ The institutions exist in an information
vacuum, and are ha dicapped by a lack of public support. The horizon is
dotted by large multi-purpose custodial facilities which are wasteful of both
offenders and staff.
Although California's correctional facilities have had a national
reputation for providing superior services to inmates, it is still true that
many of its institutions are large, fortress-like concrete structures,
generally iso ated from the community, and frequently operated within an
information vacuum. California's correctional institutions receive public
support only poradically. At times the public is willing to support
institutions that are antiquated as demonstrated in its willingness to
tolerate a jail that is a century old.
It must also be noted that, more often than not, correctional insti-
tutions have been built without much prior consideration of the programs
they were to house, and in some instances, institutions have been built but
never opened.
Authorities have developed a series of purposes for correctional
institutions, as follows:9
"1 To seek to limit confinement to persons actually
requiring it, for only as long as they require
it, and under conditions that are lawful and
humane.
2. To afford both the community and the offender
temporary and partial respite from each other
in order to facilitate resolution of the
crisis which led to commitment.
3. To make the confinement experience constructive
and relevant to the ultimate goal of reintegrat-
ing the offender into the community and of
preventing recidivism.
4. To educate the community and its agencies about
the problems of reintegrating offenders in
order to elicit their collaboration in carry-
ing out specific rehabilitative efforts and in
improving conditions which militate against
such efforts.
5. To seek continual improvement in the system's
capacity to achieve these ends."
It is the view of this study that neither the State of California,
nor any of its political subdivisions, should erect correctional facilities
without adhering to these purposes. Further, it is suggested that consider-
VI
ation be given to the closure of some existing institutions which, for one
reason or another, cannot operate within the confines of these purposes;
it is submitted that savings resulting from such closures could best be
applied to loca¹, community-oriented programs, subsidized by the State and
operated by local jurisdictions under conditions and standards determined
by the State.
VII
FOOTNOTES
¹Burecu of Criminal Statistics, Crime and Delinquency in California:
1969, State of California (Sacramento, 1969), p. 121; Bureau of Criminal
Statistics, Adult Probation: 1969, State of California (Sacramento, 1969),
p. 27.
²Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Adult Probation: 1969, op. cit., p. 30.
3Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Juvenile Probation and Detention: 1969,
State of California (Sacramento, 1969), p. 1; Bureau of Criminal Statistics,
Crime and Delinquency in California: 1969, op. cit., p. 179.
41970 71 cost data, provided by the Department of Youth Authority,
State of Cal fornia.
5Department of Finance, California State Budget: 1971, State of Calif-
ornia (Sacramento 1971).
⁶Data provided by Department of Corrections, based on construction of
medium security facility.
71970-71 cost data, provided by the Department of Youth Authority,
State of California.
8Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, Manpower and
Training in Correctional Institutions: 1969 (Washington, 1969). (Should be
ordered from che American Correctional Association.)
⁹Ibid., p. 36.
VIII
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM STUDY
JUVENILE INSTITUTION TASK FORCE REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
ix
CHAPTER
I.
INTRODUCTION
1
Study Objectives
1
Scope of the Study
2
The county level
2
The State level
2
Limitations
2
Study population
3
Methodology
3
Phase I. Review of the literature
3
Phase II. Institutional survey
3
Staff questionnaires
4
Client questionnaires
4
Phase III. Model-building interviews and panels
5
Phase IV. Data assessment
5
Summary
5
II. AN OVERVIEW OF JUVENILE INSTITUTIONS IN CALIFORNIA
7
The County System
7
Historically
7
Today
8
The State System
10
Historically
10
Today
13
Summary
14
CHAPTER
PAGE
III.
JUVENI'E INSTITUTIONS MODEL
18
Goals
18
Realistic expectations
18
Principles
19
Responsibility
19
Reintegration
19
Coordination
19
Community-based
20
Visibility and accountability
20
Burden of proof
20
Public involvement
20
Change-orientation
20
Differentiation and range of services
21
Financial support
21
Standards
21
Facilities
21
Type
21
Size
21
P anning
22
General
22
Staff
22
Ratios
22
Qualifications
22
Training
23
Working conditions
23
[iii]
CHAPTER
PAGE
IV.
THE CURRENT SYSTEM: SURVEY FINDINGS
25
Goals and Expectations
25
Staff \iews
25
Client views
26
Functions
26
Intake
26
County process
26
State process
26
Clientele
27
Reception, classification, assignment
31
Time delays
31
Quality of information
32
Use of classification materials
33
Summary
33
Care, custody, and control
35
Program
38
Treatment
41
ducation
41
lork and vocational training
41
Summary
42
Release and aftercare
43
Length of stay and readiness for release
43
Links between institution and aftercare
47
Resour es
48
Geogt aphic location
48
[iv]
CHAPTER
PAGE
Institutional design
51
Institutional size
51
Living unit size
52
Staffing Ratios
54
Staff characteristics and qualifications
55
Pa ra-professionals
56
Volunteers
58
Training
59
Working conditions and morale
59
Public relations
63
Fiscal support
63
Research and Evaluation
64
Role of research and evaluation
64
Impact of correctional programs
66
At the county level
66
At the State level
67
Promising directions
69
linimizing penetration into the institutional system
69
Differential programming
71
Creating normal social settings in institutions
72
Continuity between institution and community
72
Summary
72
V.
PREVAILING ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
79
Credibility Gap Between State and Counties
80
Recommendation 1
80
[v]
CHAPTER
PAGE
Subsidy
80
Recommendations 2 - 4
82
Classification and Diagnosis
82
Recommendations 5 - 8
83
Program Gaps
83
Emotionally disturbed youth and drug users
83
Young adults
84
Girls
84
Educational and vocational programs
84
Recommendations 9 - 14
85
Release and Aftercare
86
Recommendations 15 - 20
87
Facilities
88
Recommendations 21 - 22
89
Staff
89
Recommendations 23 - 26
90
Public Involvement
90
Recommendation 27
90
Research and Evaluation
91
Recommendations 28 - 31
91
APPENDIX A
94
[vi]
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
I.
Growth of County Camps
9
II.
Comparison of Juveniles Committed to CYA and County Camps,
Ranches, Homes, and Schools, 1969
11
III.
Characteristics of Youth Authority Boys in Institutions
June 30 Each Year, 1961 - 1970
29
IV.
Characte. istics of Youth Authority Girls in Institutions
June 30 Each Year, 1961 - 1970
30
V.
Use of Classification Materials (Staff Responses)
34
VI.
Evaluation of Care, Custody, and Control (Staff Responses)
36
VII.
Mean length of Stay of Wards in CYA and CDC Institutions
Prior to Release on Parole, 1961 - 1970
44
VIII.
Readiness for Release (Staff Views)
46
IX.
Percentage of Wards in Youth Authority Institutions
by Area of Commitment
50
X.
Staff Characteristics
57
XI.
Training Needed and Received: Administrators
60
XII.
Training Needed and Received: Supervisors
61
XIII.
Training Needed and Received: Line Workers
62
XIV.
Time on Parole Prior to Violation for Wards Released
to CYA Parole in 1964 & 1965
68
XV.
Expected and Actual Violation Rates of Youth Authority
1968 Parolees, by Institution
70
[vii]
LIST OF CHARTS
CHART
PAGE
I.
Attempted Suicides
39
II.
Attacks on Staff or Wards
39
III.
Self Inflicted Injuries
39
IV.
Restraints Needed
40
V.
Fights - Involving Injuries
40
VI.
Escapes
40
VII.
Institution Size - Youth Authority Facilities
53
[viii]
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
The State of California should enact legislation clearly spelling out
its role ana binding commitment to acceptance of the primary overall
and enabling responsibility for corrections throughout the State, with
the counties having the primary responsibility for the delivery of
correctional services.
2.
The St te of California should subsidize county camps, ranches, schools,
and homes in accord with the overall subsidy program specified in the
System Task Force Report. Essentially, that Report recommends subsi-
dization for actual costs of maintenance and operation according to
the following ratios:
a. 75,'25--Probation field services, including day care programs.
This means that the State would pay 75% of the costs and the
counties 25%.
b. 60/40--"Open" institutions (facilities where youths reside
but from which they have regular access to the community,
e.g. group homes or facilities which send youths to school
in the community).
C. 40/60--"Closed", but community-based and short-term institutions
(i.e. youths normally reside in them 24 hours a day, but they
are located in the community, have a high degree of interaction
with the community, and limit length of stay to 6 months or
less).
d. 25/75--Other "closed" institutions (i.e. those which commit
youths for more than 6 months, or which are not located reason-
ably close to the communities from which the youths are drawn).
This subvention presumes an obligation on the part of the counties of
adherer. :e to State standards.
3.
On the other hand, assuming that the above recommendation is implemented,
the counties should pay 75% of the actual cost for any youths committed
to the State.
4.
The California Council on Criminal Justice should provide whatever funds
are available to help the counties develop those juvenile institutional
programs that are most critically needed and which are consistent with
the principles and standards set forth in Chapter III.
5.
No youths should be sent to the Youth Authority reception centers unless
it is absolutely necessary to resolve a specific problem of classifi-
cation or diagnosis that can not be handled in any other way. All normal
classificavion and diagnostic responsibilities should be delegated to the
individual State institutions or should be performed it the county level
via contracts before delivery of a youth to the CYA.
Summary of Reccmmendations
6.
The Youth Authority Board should be relieved of the responsibility
for making institutional assignments or transfers. These duties
should be as signed to the CYA Intake Unit or other Youth Authority
staff.
7.
The Youth Authority should consider modifying its reception centers
to provide one or more of the following:
a
"back-up" facilities of a medical-psychiatric nature for
short-term treatment of emotionally disturbed youths,
b. model Youth Correctional Centers,
C. smell specialized units for the diagnosis and study of those
youths for whom these services cannot be adequately performed
elsewhere,
d. travelling clinical teams to provide classification and
diagnostic services for the other Youth Authority institutions
and, on a contractual basis, for the counties.
8.
The Youth Authority should more aggressively reject cases, or at least
notify the committing court, when commitment does not seem necessary
or where the CYA does not have appropriate programs (e.g. youths who
belong in a mental health facility or program).
9.
Each county should make available (either directly or by contract):
a. A range of alternatives to institutionalization for every
type of youth that can be satisfactorily supervised outside
of institutions.
b. A range of community-based, short-term facilities for those
youth who need some type of confinement, with particular
emphasis on proper facilities and programs for:
i. emotionally disturbed youth
ii. drug users
iii. girls
iv. young adults
10.
The Youtn Authority should place greater emphasis on developing, within
their present institutions, small specialized units for different types
of youths. particularly those mentioned in the preceding recommendation.
11.
Whenever possible, State and county facilities should be co-educational.
[x]
Summary of Re commendations
12.
Both the State and counties should develop more educational and
vocational programs in which youths are sent into the community for
training in existing programs.
13.
No new facility should be constructed without a State-approved plan
for a specific, detailed program based on clearly stated objectives.
The State should play a more active role in assisting the counties
to elop such plans.
14.
Permissive legislation should be enacted allowing both the State and
counties to contract with one another or with non-correctional agencies
or individuals to provide any type of assistance in operating insti-
tutional programs.
15.
All youth should be released from any non-voluntary institutional
program within six months, unless the institutional staff can demon-
strate that society will receive substantially better protection in
the long-run by retaining the youth. Any extension beyond six months
must be carefully reviewed at least every two months by the paroling
authority or the court.
16.
At both the State and county levels, greater use should be made of
short-term (1 to 3 months) intensive institutional programs, followed
by intensive aftercare supervision as required.
17.
Unless the protection of society is substantially threatened, every
institution (including the program for each youth) should be "open".
Appropriate family members and other persons from the community
should be encouraged to come into the institution and the youths
should be allowed to go into the community for appropriate activities.
Youths should never completely leave the community except when it is
absoluiely necessary.
18.
Parole or probation officers should be assigned when a youth is committed,
rather than when he is released. From the time of commitment, these
officers should work with the youth and his family with the aim of
preparing them for the youth's release.
19.
Aftercare officers (probation and parole) should be assigned to a
community-based unit rather than to an institution and should carry
"in-and-out" caseloads of no more than 25 youths.
20.
If CYA end CDC are consolidated into a new State Department of Correc-
tional Services, all State institutional and parole services, juvenile
and adul;, should be in one division, so as to provide for a continuity
of services (see System Task Force Report for more details).
[xi]
Summary of Recommendations
21.
No new facility (or modifications of existing ones) should be built,
at eit. er the State or county level, unless:
a. The total capacity does not exceed 100 and the living unit
capacities do not exceed 20.
b. The facility is close enough to a major community (whenever
possible, the community from which the youth are committed)
to allow reasonably convenient two-way access.
There should be no construction of new State institutions for at least
the next decade, although modification of existing State facilities
might be in order.
22.
Legislation should be enacted authorizing the State to establish
mandati minimum standards for all juvenile institutions. Failure
to adhere to these standards, at either the State or county level,
should result in the closure of such institutions.
23.
The numbers, qualifications, and training of staff should be brought
up to the standards outlined in Chapter II.
24.
Correctional staff should actively recruit, train, and supervise
volunteers and para-professionals, including ex-offenders, for
institutional programs.
25.
The State should develop a training network of State and county
trainer; similar to the CO-ACT model, to provide or coordinate
necessary training for all institutional staff. This should be
done without cost to the counties. Any extensive training provided
by the State could be made available on a contractual basis.
26.
Correctional personnel should be allowed to transfer between field
and institutional assignments, and between various State and county
correctional agencies, without loss of rank and other benefits,
provided they meet the appropriate requirements. A statewide
certification procedure, that would assure minimum staff standards,
should be explored.
27.
Active efforts should be made by institutional staff to involve the
public on at least three levels:
a. General public education and public relations.
b. As a source of direct aid, e.g. financially and as volunteers.
C. In an advisory capacity.
[xii]
Summary of Recommendations
28.
Every institutional program should be evaluated continuously in order
to determine whether or not each is achieving its stated objectives.
Failure to accomplish these objectives, provided reasonably adequate
resour ces are available, should result in modification or elimination
of the program.
29.
County agencies, as well as the State, should substantially increase
their commitment to evaluation and research both philosophically and
by allocating significantly greater resources for this function.
30.
Research activities should be team efforts (involving administrators,
line workers, and research staff) and should concentrate on determin-
ing and disseminating information about what does and does not assist
in accomplishing the goals of corrections.
31.
The Siate and counties should enter into a collaborative effort of
program research and evaluation. The State should play the primary
role in planning, carrying out, and disseminating the results of
correctional research, with active participation and cooperation from
the councies. Research assistance and information should be provided
for the counties without charge, but counties should be able to
contract with the State or outside sources for extensive, individual
projects.
[xiii]