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
118564928
label
[Corrections, Board of] - Coordinated California Corrections: Institutions, July 1971 (4 of 6)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564928
contentType
document
title
[Corrections, Board of] - Coordinated California Corrections: Institutions, July 1971 (4 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
118564928
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
9afe76fd47d6bc72
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 (4 of 6)
Box: P34
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 -
located in Stockton, currently consists of the Karl Holton School, 0. H.
Close School, and the newly constructed, but as yet unoccupied, DeWitt
Nelson School. This complex has a population potential of 1,200 youths.
Yet it is located in a geographic area that at best could support only one
of the three institutions.
Results of the client questionnaire substantiate the geographic
problems currently being faced by the California Youth Authority. Only 10%
of CYA wards and 42% of county wards were in institutions located within
25 miles of their homes. Seventy-five percent of Youth Authority wards
were confined in facilities more than 50 miles from where they lived.
Furthermore, when asked to report the number of visits they had received
while in the institution, 90% of county wards had been visited by their
families at least once, but almost one-third of the sampled Youth Authority
wards had never received a visit.
Institutional Design
The majority of California's juvenile institutions, at both the county
and State level, were designed and built prior to the development of any
specific correctional program. In the majority of instances correctional
administrators and staff have had to tailor their programs to fit existing
physical structures. During the survey, institutional administrators
repeatedly complained about the poor design of their buildings, noting that
there were few architects who exhibited an awareness of correctional problems
and programs. They expressed the need for more assistance from the State
in developing appropriate physical designs. Some asserted that the Youth
Authority, which traditionally has had the responsibility of approving plans,
has concerned itself principally with determining whether or not a structure
would meet minimum physical standards, such as square footage, number of
wash basins, etc. Of Youth Authority institutions, only the three most
recent were designed and constructed on the basis of a detailed program plan.
However, the Youth Authority is now insisting on a detailed program statement
before it will authorize the construction of any new State institutions. But
this new practice is not likely to have any appreciable effect, since the
Department is more likely to close State institutions than to authorize the
construction of new ones. The Youth Authority is also beginning to play a
more active role in advising county authorities with program and building
design. Because most new construction is anticipated to take place at the
local level, the emerging advisory role of the State is likely to prove
extremely valuable. This trend is entirely consistent with the principle
outlined in the previous chapter of establishing a close partnership between
State and counties.
Institutional Size
Just as with location and design, the physical size or capacity of an
institution is not a neutral factor. Size can either impede or facilitate
the functioning of the institution. The President's Commission on Law
Enforcement and Administration of Justice, which established a maximum
- 52 -
standard of 150 youths per institution, stressed that this standard "is based
on experience which shows that the smaller the facility the more likely it
is to enhance the impact of program". 29 It further quotes the American
Psychiatric Association as asserting that "The treatment atmosphere tends
to breakdown in institutions where the population rises above (150)" because
of "such therapeutic dangers as rigidity and formality necessary to help
a large organization function". 30
The State legislature took a strong position on the issue of size for
county camps, ranches, and schools in Article 13 of the Juvenile Court Act
by limiting all such facilities to a maximum of 100. Even this, however, is
double the 40 to 50 capacity standards recommended for local facilities by
the President's Commission. 31
California counties have, of necessity, adhered to the State standard
of 100. The average capacity of county facilities was 67 in 1970.
The State of California on the other hand, has not only failed to adhere
to the standards imposed upon the counties, but has also flagrantly violated
even the national standards. Chart VII dramatically illustrates the gigantic
size of the Youth Authority institutions and compares them with the national
standard and average county size. Only the four conservation camps (with
80 bed capacities) fall within any reasonable standard. The remaining super-
structures, resembling giant concrete fortresses, range in size from 270
for Los Guilucos to 1,200 for the massive Youth Training School. The average
for all Youth Authority institutions is 380, more than two and a half times
the national standard and nearly four times the standard imposed upon Calif-
ornia counties.
Living Unit Size
The professional correctional literature stressing the importance of
small living units or cottages as an essential pre-requisite for developing
a therapeutic environment is voluminous. 32 The most recent and perhaps most
extensive collection of literature supporting the idea of small units is by
Knight. 33 After reviewing numerous studies on the importance of size in
correctional and medical-psychiatric institutions, Knight concludes:
"In general, the evidence indicates that in such
institutions small living-unit size is crucial to
the implementation of effective and humanitarian
treatment. Size alone creates organizational
pressures toward custodial rather than treatment
operations. The net effect of these pressures
tends to alienate inmates from treatment involve-
ment. "34
- 53 -
0
CHART VII
INSTITUTION SIZE
YOUTH AUTHORITY FACILITIES
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
CAPACITY
700
600
500
STATE
400
AVERAGE
380
300
200
NATIONAL
STANDARD
150
COUNTY
100
AVERAGE
67
0
NACC
SRCC
FRICOT
NELL'S
CLOSE
PASO
HOLTON
PRESTON
Y.T.S.
CAMPS
LOS
VENTURA
ROBLES
(4) GUILUCOS
FACILITY
- 54 -
He adds, furtner, that:
"There are, indeed, compelling indications that large
living units give rise to pressures that reinforce
the worst in young people. To the extent that is
true, our clients are the victims of the system
itself. "35
Several of the classic studies of training schools, reflecting the
fact that much delinquency is a group phenomenon, stress the importance of
constructively using small group interaction within institutions as the
primary tool for modifying attitudes and behavior. 36 As cottage size
increases, not only does it become more difficult to individualize treatment,
but problems of coping with youth behavior greatly increase.
Recidivism rates are at best crude measures of the success or failure
of an institution's program because there are many other intervening variables
that operate in the community to determine the type of adjustment made by the
youth. However, there is some evidence to suggest that smaller living units
(combined with better staffing ratios) result in more law-abiding post-release
behavior than the larger units. In a recent report of a long-range evaluation
of the Youth Authority Fricot Study, which compared a small 20-boy unit with
a traditional 50-youth cottage, Jesness showed that there was substantially
lower parole violations among members of the experimental group as compared
with the boys who had been placed in the larger units. 37
While living unit size of all county facilities was not obtained, it
appears that most, if not all, local institutions operate with living units
of 30 or less youths. New facilities often have substantially smaller units.
On the other hand, during post-war years of rapid growth the Youth
Authority constructed almost all of its units to a standard 50 bed capacity.
This is two and one-half times the recommended national standard for homo-
geneous youth groups. 38 Compared both to county facilities and to new
training schools throughout the nation, the Youth Authority has not progressed
in this respect. In fact, some of its earliest institutions had substantially
smaller units than is now the case. By way of contrast, over 90% of all new
or planned training school living units in the United States in 1967 had
capacities of 30 or less. Fifty-four percent of these units had capacities
of 20 beds or less. 39 Increasingly, however, the Youth Authority adminis-
tration has become concerned about cottage size and has built some of its
newest living units in a way that they can be divided in half, should addi-
tional funds become available.
Staffing Ratios
The strength of any correctional program is its staff. Whatever other
resources are available, insufficient numbers of qualified staff dooms the
program to failure before it starts. One of the most fundamental casework
principles is that change occurs through close interpersonal relationships,
especially through contact with "significant others". If staff do not have
- 55 -
the time and opportunity to "get close" to youth, they are not likely to
effect any positive change. Two key personnel issues center around the
number and type of staff needed. This section will focus on the former,
i.e. staffing ratios, while the following sections will discuss staff char-
acteristics and qualifications, supportive types of staff, and training needs.
Chapter III listed various standards that should apply to staff members
in all juvenile facilities. The most crucial staffing ratios are those that
relate to line staff directly supervising youth around the clock, and to
specialized treatment staff.
Although the staff ratio varies from institution to institution, the
15 study counties had an overall staffing ratio of approximately one employee
for every 2.5 youths. This is well beyond the minimum standard recommended
by the Juvenile Institution Task Force (substantially more than 1 employee
for every 2 youths). Many administrators of local institutions expressed
concern over :he lack of treatment personnel. They indicated that it was
difficult to convince their Boards of Supervisors of the need for additional
professionally trained staff, since the Youth Authority standards do not
specify a ratio for this type of personnel.
The Youth Authority has a somewhat better overall ratio of 1 staff
person for every 2.1 wards. However, this is nearly double the staffing
ratio of New York and Pennsylvania40 and reflects very little improvement
over the past 20 years. 41 Institutions are relatively well staffed with
teachers (one for every 15 wards), minimally well-staffed with clinicians
and caseworkers, but very thinly staffed with youth counselors or group
supervisors. In other words, the staffing pattern is weakest at the point
where staff have the most contact with the youths. Until very recently,
each line worker had to supervise 50 wards--a ratio that has seriously
aggravated the Youth Authority's problems of coping with large living units.
The Youth Authority is now authorized to use "5-post" coverage, a ratio that
allows doubling of line staff during the most important day and early even-
ing hours. This plan is being implemented in most of the State's institutions.
However, this still leaves a staff ratio of only 1 to 25 during key hours
--at least two and one-half times the standard recommended for county insti-
tutions. 42
In view 01 the greater proportion of difficult and disturbed youth
being committed to the State institutions, additional problems can be
anticipated unless considerable improvement is made in reducing living unit
size and bolstering line and treatment staff ratios.
Staff Characteristics and Qualifications
Staff qualifications are an endless topic of discussion. The reader
who wishes to review some of the more significant statements and positions
on this issue, relevant to juvenile institutions, is referred to the following
documents: Task Force Report: Corrections, by the President's Commission on
Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice; 43 Manpower and Training in
Correctional Institutions, by the Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower
- 56 -
and Training; 44 Standards for Juvenile Homes, Ranches, and Camps, by the
California Youth Authority; 45 and The Practioner in Corrections, by the
California Probation, Parole, and Correctional Association. 46
The licerature and expressed opinions of professionals in the field
highlight two polarized views. First, correctional workers should be
"super-qualified", i.e. they should be "all things to all men", and second,
specific qualifications make no difference. The Juvenile Institution Task
Force takes a middle, somewhat less extreme position on this issue. The
Task Force suggests that the most crucial qualification for an institutional
line worker (as well as for supervisory personnel and other specialists) is
the ability to relate to and effect behavioral changes in those youth placed
in correctional institutions. College training and graduation in the
behavioral sciences, while desired, is not necessary. Professional treat-
ment staff (including probation officers and caseworkers) should possess
the above-mentioned ability plus a college degree in the behavioral sciences.
Administrators, in addition to both of the above qualifications, should have
training in managerial techniques. An extremely important factor is that
"New Careerists" and other para-professionals, including ex-offenders, should
not be eliminated from the possibility of entering and advancing in the
institutional system.
The Task Force survey of the 15 study counties enumerated local staff
members according to formal position held, race, age, education, and college
major. Table X presents the findings. The data clearly suggest that Negro
and Mexican-American staff, employees who are under 30 years of age, and
college graduates are seriously underrepresented in California juvenile
institutions. For example, according to the Bureau of Criminal Statistics,
almost half (48%) of the Youth Authority wards throughout the State are Negro
or Mexican-American. 47 However, Table X reveals that only 14% of the staff
in the study sample are drawn from these same groups. It should be noted
that the Youth Authority administration reports that the statewide proportion
of minority group employees is 22%. Considering only these variables, county
institutions appear to have the ability to attract a somewhat better qualified
staff. As Table X shows, staff in these facilities are younger, better
educated, and have more relevant educational backgrounds. No doubt the
ability of county institutions to attract these types of persons is in large
measure related to their more favorable geographic locations. County facili-
ties are more likely, than State juvenile institutions, to be located closer
to urban areas, colleges and universities. At the same time, however, the
Youth Authority has a significantly higher percentage of supervisors, admin-
istrators and functional specialists48 holding at least a Master's degree
(33% compared to 19% for county institutions).
Para-professionals
It is now a well-established fact that indigenous workers, including
ex-offenders, who do not have traditional educational or other formal
qualifications can be a valuable correctional resource. 49 The advantages
of "New Careerists" and other similar programs are not only mentioned in
the literature, 50 but were also pointed out by many practitioners in the
TABLE X
STAFF CHARACTERISTICS
(Percentage Distribution)
All Staff
Administrators
Supervisors
Line Workers
(N-1167)
(N-111)
(N-179)
(N-400)
VARIABLE
CYA COUNTY
CYA COUNTY
CYA COUNTY
CYA COUNTY
RACE
White
82
77
91
87
84
77
76
73
Black
8
12
6
6
6
11
9
15
Brown
6
7
0
3
7
6
10
8
AGE
Under 30
16
37
1
9
5
21
29
53
57 a I
Over 50
21
12
30
25
18
10
12
5
EDUCATION
High School
24
10
9
10
20
4
35
8
2 yrs. College
32
18
25
7
47
23
45
33
BA Degree
13
40
12
30
13
47
13
50
1 yr. Grad. Work
11
17
8
30
5
15
4
9
MA Degree
18
12
45
23
14
8
1
1
MAJOR
Behavioral Sci.
44
57
51
50
71
59
52
59
Public Admin./Bus.
7
5
13
3
8
2
9
2
Education
19
14
15
20
9
19
9
12
Other
29
24
20
27
23
20
31
27
- 58 - -
survey sample. Like volunteers, para-professionals enrich correctional
services, not as replacements but as supplements and extended hands for
regular line workers. They also possess certain unique advantages. As
the President's Commission states:
"Contact with a person who has overcome handicaps and
is living successfully in the community could mean
a great deal more to an offender than conventional
advice and guidance. "51
However, verbal support tends to be substantially stronger than actual
hiring and use of para-professionals. Approximately two-thirds of all levels
of both State and county staff indicated that they could both use and would
want to make use of "New Careerists". Over 90% felt such persons should
"be allowed and encouraged to work their way to regular line and supervisory
positions". However, only about one-half of all staff reported that their
respective agencies actually employed para-professionals. But in no insti-
tution, with the exception of one (a small county boys' camp), did the staff
completely agree that their agency either had or had not employed a "New
Careerist". Thus, as with classification systems, it is apparent that
institutional workers lack considerable information with respect to the whole
area of para-nrofessional staff in juvenile corrections. In fact, Youth
Authority insTitutions do not have a "New Careerist" program at the present
time, but they have employed a number of inmates and parolees as aides.
As with any innovation in the field of corrections, there have been
a number of problems with para-professional programs. However, the experi-
ence accumulated thus far suggests that these programs can be successful
if they utilize careful screening procedures, receive the full support of
regular staff, assign meaningful tasks to the para-professionals, and provide
them with relevant training, incentives and opportunities to work their way
up the "correctional ladder". 52
Volunteers
Volunteers are now a widely accepted and used resource for all areas
of corrections. The literature advocating the use of volunteers is growing
rapidly. 53 While correctional agencies have traditionally been wary about
letting "outsiders" into their program, the involvement of volunteers in
a wide range of institutional and non-institutional activities has become
commonplace throughout the State. Discussion of their advantages and possible
disadvantages is contained in the System Task Force Report and in the above-
mentioned literalure.
The Task Force survey found that every institution in the sample, with
the possible exception of one Youth Authority conservation camp, had a volun-
teer program. More than one-third of the staff reported that their facilities
had made "regular/consistent" use of volunteer workers. Slightly more than
half felt volunteer programs should be expanded within their institutions,
while only 5% felt that they should be eliminated.
- 59 -
Training
A comprehensive study of training and manpower needs for California
corrections WAS conducted in two phases during 1968 and 1969-70.54 The
resulting reports asserted that budgetary resources for training, particularly
for institutional staff, are grossly inadequate; training is too often viewed
as a luxury rather than necessity; sophisticated planning for and evaluation
of training activities is a rarity; primary training targets (trainers and
first line supervisors) are frequently missed; and there is little coordin-
ation of training efforts, knowledge, and resources within and between Calif-
ornia's correctional agencies.
Tables XI through XIII rank training needs as perceived by administrators,
supervisors, and line workers. Thus, in Table XI, administrators felt that they
most needed training in the "management", "planning techniques", and "program
budgeting" areas; supervisors (Table XII) most wanted training in "planning
techniques", "human relations", and "management" areas; and line workers (Table
XIII) selected "individual/group counseling", "human relations", and "racial/
cultural differences" as their primary training need areas. The gaps between
training believed to be required and training received are also indicated in
these tables. For the administrators in both the State and county institutions,
the greatest gap is felt to be in the area of "research and evaluation". For
the supervisors, the biggest gap appears to be in the area of "planning",
while for the line personnel the largest gap is perceived to be in the area
of "racial and cultural differences".
Probation subsidy funds have clearly resulted in an oasis of training
for many counties, although the beneficiaries of this training generally have
been the field supervision staff. The Youth Authority allocates $15,000
annually for the training of county personnel. However, considerably more
than this will be required if training programs are to reach staff members
employed in local institutions. At the State level, less than 1% of the total
Youth Authority institutions budget is allocated for staff training in those
facilities.
Working Conditions and Morale
As a group, juvenile institutions workers at both the State and county
levels reported satisfactory working conditions. The major dissatisfaction
expressed related to insufficient clerical and stenographic help. Adminis-
trators as a group rated working conditions best, suggesting either that they
themselves have better conditions or that they are not fully in touch with
the problems of their staff. Thirty-seven percent of county staff and 51% of
Youth Authority staff reported dissatisfaction with the promotional opportun-
ities in their agencies. There was very strong support (between 80% and 90%),
particularly at the line worker level, for the idea of allowing employees to
transfer between correctional agencies throughout the State. There was a
similar degree of support expressed for the idea of creating rank and pay
increases for line workers that paralleled those of the first line supervisory
level.
- 60 -
TABLE XI
TRAINING NEEDED AND RECEIVED:
ADMINISTRATORS
(Percentage Distribution)
CYA
COUNTY
TRAINING CATEGORY
NEEDED
RECEIVED
NEEDED
RECEIVED
Management Training
93
68
70
68
Planning Techniques
85
37
74
54
Program Budgeting
79
58
77
41
Research & Evaluation Techniques
80
20
69
24
Human Relations
75
74
70
59
Confrontation/Arbitratior Techniques
72
28
66
34
Racial/Cultural Differences
68
56
63
29
Individual/Group Counseling
56
33
69
46
Law-Pre-Legal
57
17
46
14
- 61 -
TABLE XII
TRAINING NEEDED AND RECEIVED:
SUPERVISORS
(Percentage Distribution)
CYA
COUNTY
TRAINING CATEGORY
NEEDED
RECEIVED
NEEDED
RECEIVED
Planning Techniques
88
35
79
34
Human Relations
84
65
82
62
Management Training
90
50
66
43
Racial/Cultural Differences
87
55
74
23
Individual/Group Counseling
81
48
82
68
Confrontation/Arbitration Techniques
78
33
71
38
Research & Evaluation Techniques
72
23
58
21
Law-Pre-Legal
58
14
59
23
Program Budgeting
53
22
47
19
- 62 -
TABLE XIII
TRAINING NEEDED AND RECEIVED:
LINE WORKERS
(Percentage Distribution)
CYA
COUNTY
TRAINING CATECORY
NEEDED
RECEIVED
NEEDED
RECEIVED
Individual/Group Counseling
91
61
92
69
Human Relations
85
44
87
51
Racial/Cultural Differences
86
36
85
22
Confrontation/Arbitration Techniques
82
30
74
32
Research & Evaluation Techniques
63
22
60
27
Planning Techniques
64
22
49
16
Law-Pre-Legal
60
10
49
10
Management Training
58
16
27
4
Program Budgeting
28
A
13
2
- 63 -
In spite of generally satisfactory working conditions reported by the
great majority of staff, many employees felt that the morale in their agencies
was not particularly high. Twenty-two percent of Youth Authority staff and
56% of county personnel reported agency morale as being high, while 34% and
11% respectively, indicated morale in their department was low. When asked:
"Would you recommend corrections as a career to a young person?" 63% of Youth
Authority and 76% of county workers answered in the affirmative.
Public Relations
Lack of knowledge generally means lack of support. Without community
support, corrections cannot hope to operate effectively. Yet, corrections
has traditionally done a poor job of "telling its story" particularly with
regard to what happens in its institutions. Much of the news reaching the
public about institutions has to do with escapes, knifings, riots, and so
on. This is unfortunate since field work during the present study discovered
considerably more constructive interest in the community about corrections,
including institutions, than is apparent to correctional personnel.
The Juvenile Institution Task Force found that sophisticated public
relations programs are a rarity at either the State or local levels. But
it is evident that some efforts are being made to inform the public. One
out of four staff members, mostly supervisors and administrators, reported
that they had spoken before a community group about their institution in the
past year. About 8% had made four or more presentations during the same
period.
Fiscal Support
One of the most obvious factors about institutions is that they are
expensive. However, the State of California, in partnership with counties,
has developed a network of institutions for delinquent children for the
purpose of protecting society and rehabilitating those children. Hence, the
State and the counties, i.e. the people of California, as long as they place
youth in these institutions, have a commitment to provide them with the
capability of achieving their objectives. The core of this commitment is
adequate financial support.
In 1945, and particularly, 1957 legislation, the State strongly
encouraged the counties to build and operate their own juvenile institutions
by pledging to share the cost of these facilities. The intent of the 1957
law55 appears clearly to have been to provide roughly matching funds for the
construction and maintenance of these facilities. However, as almost all
local administrators complained, the limits on the State's matching funds
that were set in 1957 have never been revised to reflect increases in con-
struction and maintenance costs. County institutions now cost approximately
$12,000 per bed to build, and from $199 to $1,310 per month per ward, with
an average monthly cost of $550.56 Yet, the State continues to subsidize
at the rate of only $3,000 per bed for construction and only $95 per month
per ward for maintenance. In other words, the State is actually subsidizing
- 64 -
only 25% of the construction cost and 17% of the maintenance cost. All county
personnel interviewed reported that their counties were encountering serious
financial difficulty. All stated emphatically that they would not be able
to improve existing programs or develop new ones unless there was a sub-
stantial increase in State or Federal subsidies to local institutions. In
brief, there is a widespread feeling among county officials that, while the
State never promised them a "rose garden", they were led to believe that
the State would honor its commitment to match or at least substantially assist
with the funding of local juvenile facilities. The resulting anger and
distrust toward the State is considerable.
The cost of maintaining the State's juvenile institutions is approx-
imately $36,400,000 per year. Whereas these institutions provide services
for approximately 28% of the Youth Authority wards at any given time, they
consume 71% of the Youth Authority Support Budget ($51,600,000 for 1970-71).
For fiscal year 1970-71, the institutional per capita cost per year ranged
from a low of $4,648 for the youth conservation camps to $9,030 for Los
Guilucos School for Girls, with an overall average of $6,754.57 The average
monthly cost was thus $563, compared to roughly $550 per month for wards in
county institutions.
Like the counties, the Youth Authority has been hard pressed to obtain
adequate financial resources. However, the Youth Authority administration
feels that, compared to other State agencies, they have fared rather well in
budget allocations. The relatively satisfied view of some administrative and
budget personnel is in sharp contrast to that of many institutional workers
who feel greatly handicapped with large units and poor staffing ratios.
However, Youth Authority administrators are aware that, if the counties continue
to commit fewer youths, a greater proportion of whom are "hard-core" delinquents,
the smaller numbers and harder-to-manage types of wards will raise the average
cost at an increasingly rapid rate. 58
IV. RESEARCH AND EVALUATION
Up to this point the network of juvenile institutions in California
has been described in terms of its goals, functions, and resources. Before
outlining the Task Force's recommendations, it is important to assess the
effectiveness of the system. The balance of this chapter deals with three
issues relevant to research and evaluation. First, it deals with the general
role of research and evaluation in California's juvenile institutions; second,
it examines the relevant evidence regarding the impact of these institutions;
third, it projects what are the most promising directions for juvenile insti-
tutions to follow.
Role of Research and Evaluation
A basic principle of good correctional practice is that research and
evaluation must be an integral part of every program. Programs must be held
accountable for producing reasonably acceptable results. The field of
- 65 -
corrections needs constantly to evaluate what it has done, how it is doing,
and what new strategies are needed to improve overall performance. In spite
of the importance of research, the President's Commission on Law Enforcement
and Administration of Justice has stated that:
"The most conspicuous problems in corrections today
are lack of knowledge and unsystematic approach to
the development of programs and techniques. Changes
in correctional treatment have been guided primarily
by what Wright calls "intuitive opportunism", a kind
of goal-oriented guessing. "59
The Commission's report continues:
"Failure to attempt really systematic research and
evaluation of various operational programs has led
t., repetitive error. Even more, it has made it
impossible to pinpoint the reasons for success when
success did occur. "60
The Final Report of the Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and
Training points to the heart of the problem:
"Correctional agencies in the main are not committed
to research and are reluctant to obligate funds and
personnel to assessment of correctional efforts. "61
Basically, there are two types of research that are particularly relevant
to corrections. The first is essentially a descriptive compilation of data,
e.g. on population movement and client characteristics. This kind of information
is necessary for budgetary considerations, population projections, and general
planning. The secord type of research, sometimes called "action-research",
pertains to involvement in program planning and evaluation. The researcher
should not be an "ivory tower" isolate but should be part of a team, along
with administrators and line staff, in deciding program goals, helping to develop
specific strategies and criteria for measuring success or failure, observing the
program as it is carried out, evaluating and interpreting the results, and
disseminating the findings or conclusions to other correctional practitioners.
At the CO inty level, some effort has been made in recent years to gather
descriptive population data. As yet, however, these efforts have not resulted
in a well-developed records-keeping system. Whatever available data exist are
received and published by the Bureau of Criminal Statistics. The second type
of research, however, .S still a novelty. Many administrators of county facili-
ties believed that sophisticated research was too complicated or expensive for
their departments, and that its findings were of questionable value. They also
felt that "action-research" is more properly the responsibility of the State.
In short, there is not much local understanding of or commitment to "action-
research".
- 66 -
The Youth Authority, on the other hand, has been a national leader in
both types of research for a number of years. Annually it publishes volumes
of data on population movement, rates, trends, ward characteristics, and so
on. In addition, it has a sizeable research staff that is deeply involved in
evaluating current programs and disseminating this information. However, on
the basis of comments made by a number of Youth Authority research staff and
institutional personnel, a considerably greater financial investment in
research will be required (at the present time approximately $500,000 or 1%
of the Youth Authority Support Budget is being allocated to research). This
suggests that I number of problems concerning the importance and relevance
of research continue to be unrecognized. Some field personnel felt that
researchers were not of sufficient assistance in helping them to evaluate
their operations, particularly at the key decision-making points in the system.
They also asserted that, even when their programs were evaluated, the results
were frequently not used as the basis for further action. A number of research
staff agreed wich the point that at times there was sufficient administrative
follow-through on their research findings. On the other hand, administrative
officials reported that action was in fact taken whenever the results of
research were specific enough to warrant it. However, they claimed that
research results were frequently not that "clear-cut". Whatever the actual
situation, direction for improvement would appear to lie in the recommendation
made by the President's Crime Commission for a closely intertwined team effort
by administration, research personnel, and field staff. 62
Impact of Correctional Programs
Perhaps the least comfortable question for correctional personnel to
ask themselves is "What are we accomplishing?". The discomfort centers
around accountability and the need to justify one's professional existence
and efforts. Perhaps this is one of the major reasons why the State of
California has made a relatively small commitment to careful evaluation of
its correctional programs. Inadequate resources for proper evaluation are
further compounded by traditional problems of determining what criteria to
use for determ ning success or failure and of assessing how well these
criteria are met.
At the county level. The only follow-up study of local juvenile
facilities on a broad-scale is one conducted by the Bureau of Criminal
Statistics. 63 This study followed the delinquent or ciminal history for
18 months of the 4,765 juveniles released from all county institutions in
1966. The Bureau found that two-thirds of both the boys and girls were not
convicted of a serious law violation within the 18 month period. Twenty-
eight percent of the total group, however, were committed to the Youth
Authority within that time. Considering only those youth who successfully
completed their camp program, 77% were not convicted of serious law violations.
In addition, it was found that for youths serving more than 3 months in a
camp, there was no relationship between time spent in the institution and
success or failure upon release. In other words, "those youths released after
four or five months did substantially as well as those youths released after
nine or ten months". 64
- 67 -
This study suggests two important conclusions. First, a rather high
percentage of county camp graduates succeed when "success" is defined by
serious law violation committed over a reasonably lengthy period after
release. Second, beyond a certain point (three months) further incarceration
does not appear to achieve any better results.
At the State level. In contrast to the network of local institutions,
the Youth Authority maintains detailed records of post-institutional adjust-
ment. Unfortunately, the results are not encouraging.
Table XIV shows the violation rates for all Youth Authority wards
paroled in 1954 and 1965 during a follow-up period of at least 4 years.
Sixty-five percent of the boys and 47% of the girls violated parole within
that time. Three-quarters of the violations occurred during the first 15
months, and nearly 90% within 2 years. Violation rates, for either boys or
girls, have varied very little over at least the past decade. 65
A study of all wards committed to the Youth Authority between 1954
and 1961 showed that, of those discharged by January 1969 (over 90%), only
29% of the boys and 39% of the girls never had their parole suspended. 66
Thirty-nine percent of the boys and 30% of the girls were returned to Youth
Authority institutions at least once. An additional 19% of the boys and 11%
of the girls had their parole suspended at the time of discharge from the
Youth Authority (generally meaning they were committed to prison or were
under the jurisdiction of the adult courts).
There are two important limitations on the study reported above. First,
the study did not indicate what percent of parole violations was due to new
crimes and what percent was due to technical violations. Second, the study
did not follow delinquent or ciminal history after discharge from parole. A
5 year follow-up study by Jamison et al. revealed that only 37% of all Youth
Authority male wards discharged in 1953 and 30% of those discharged in 1958
were not known to have received a sentence for further criminal activity
within 5 years after their discharge. 67 On the other hand, it was found that
43% of both groups of boys had been committed to prison within that time. In
marked contrast, only 1 out of 5 girls in both groups were known to have been
convicted of any offense during the 5 year follow-up period.
The above statistics are discouraging. It is apparent that a very
high percentage of Youth Authority wards, particularly boys, continue to
violate the law, often seriously, after the last resort of the system--incar-
ceration in the Youth Authority--is imposed. In spite of several years spent
trying to modify their behavior as juveniles, many youths graduate to the adult
criminal system, including the prison population. Perhaps the most optimistic
finding, supported by the study of Jamison et al. 68 is that the great major-
ity of girls eventually seem to become law-abiding once leaving the parole
system.
In considering these results, two important factors must be kept in
mind. First, the population to be treated is a very "high-risk" one. Many,
if not most, can be reasonably expected to fail, at least when "failure" is
- 68 -
TABLE XIV
TIME ON PAROLE PRIOR TO VIOLATION FOR WARDS
RELEASED TO CYA PAROLE IN 1964 & 1965
(Cumulative Percentages)
TIME ON PAROLE
PRIOR TO
TOTAL
BOYS
GIRLS
VIOLATION
(N-16,499)
(N-14,188)
(N-2,311)
3 months or less
14
14
13
6 months
26
26
23
9 months
35
36
29
12 months
41
42
33
15 months
46
48
36
18 months
50
52
38
21 months
53
55
40
24 months
55
57
42
30 months
58
61
44
36 months
60
63
46
42 months
61
64
47
48 months
62
64
47
49 months or more
62
65
47
Source: Department of Youth Authority, Annual Statistical Report: 1969,
State of California (Sacramento, 1970), p. 30.
- 69 -
defined in terms of further law violations. The Youth Authority population
represents those with whom local correctional systems feel they are unable
to cope. Youth Authority wards tend to be the more sophisticated, "harder-
core" delinquents. Local programs have not succeeded in bringing about a
change in attitudes and behavior. Often the ward who is committed to the
Youth Authority has succeeded in only one area - he is a "successful" failure.
Analogously, if a staff of physicians is given the task of treating a group
of patients with advanced pneumonia, the success rate cannot be expected to
match that of a group of patients having only common colds. Second, the
failure of youths on parole or after parole cannot be blamed entirely on the
failure of rectional institutions. The impact of an institution is hardly
the only factor that influences a youth's behavior once he is released.
Failure on parole essentially represents a breakdown in efforts to reintegrate
youths back into the community.
In an attempt to evaluate the impact of Youth Authority institutions
on recidivism, Table XV lists the actual and expected (determined by base
expectancy ratings) violation rates for 1968 parolees from each of the regular
institutions. Based on the chi square test of statistical probability,
graduates of Paso Robles, Nelles, and Los Guilucos had significantly higher
violation rates than expected, while Ventura parolees had significantly lower
violation rates. Graduates of the remaining 9 institutions had neither
significantly higher nor lower rates of violation than were anticipated.
Based on this admittedly crude criterion, it is diff cult to demonstrate that
the Youth Authority institutions are doing significantly worse than could
reasonably be expected.
Earlier this Report pointed out that the major task of juvenile insti-
tutions is to prepare youths for release. Even though institutions performed
this job reasonably well, a youth normally returns to his old environment,
which may well continue to influence him, perhaps more strongly than ever,
to resume his illegal behavior. Blaming recidivism on an institutional
program (or the lack of one) is like blaming a fifth grade teacher for a
former student's failure of a college entrance examination. Perhaps there
is some connection, but it is scarcely an all-determing one.
Promising Directions
This section will highlight some of the most promising programs that
are currently in existence in the State. It is not meant to imply that
these are the only, or necessarily the best, institutional programs. Rather,
they are mentioned because they appear to be based on the fundamental correc-
tional principles that were stressed in Chapter III. While they are grouped
under specific headings, it is readily apparent that several programs illus-
trate more than one principle.
Minimizing penetration into the institutional system. Some of the
negative aspects 01 institutionalization have already been discussed. A
number of programs have recently developed with the aim of countering negative
influences. Several short-term institutional programs have already been
(
(
TABLE XV
EXPECTED AND ACTUAL VIOLATION RATES OF YOUTH AUTHORITY
1968 PAROLEES, BY INSTITUTIONS
(Within 15 months on parole)
PERCENT
PERCENT
STATISTICAL
EXPECTED
ACTUAL
SIGNIFICANCE
INSTITUTION
VIOLATORS
VIOLATORS
DIFFERENCE
LEVEL
Paso Robles
55
62
+7
.01
Nelles
57
62
+5
.05
Fricot
61
55
-6
Not Significant
0. H. Close
57
56
-1
Not Significant
70 I 8
Karl Holton
46
43
-3
Not Significant
Preston
46
46
0
Not Significant
Y.T.S.
38
36
-2
Not Significant
Ben Lomond
38
30
-8
Not Significant
Mt. Bullion
37
32
-5
Not Significant
Pine Grove
38
30
-8
Not Significant
Washington Ridge
37
34
-3
Not Significant
Los Guilucos
37
48
+11
.01
Ventura
36
30
-6
.02
Source: Department of Youth Authority, Institutional Experience Summary: 1968 Parole Releases,
State of California (Sacramento, January 1971), pp. 22-25.
- 71 -
discussed. These were the Fremont, Marshall, and Ventura experiments. In
addition, the Community Treatment Program was described which eliminates any
confinement after the reception center process.
Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties have created short-term intensive
treatment units which retain youths from a few weeks to 3 or 4 months. The
objective is to work intensively with each youth and his family on a crisis
intervention basis. Youths are returned home as soon as sufficient stress has
been alleviated. For example, Los Angeles County uses Conjoint Family therapy
techniques in special crisis intervention units even at the intake point. This
strategy makes it possible for many youths to return home instead of remaining
in custody until court.
One of the most progressive trends, from the standpoint of eliminating
around-the-clock confinement and allowing for unlimited creative potential, is
the day care center concept developing at the county level. While such facili-
ties are long overdue, support for them is rapidly gaining momentum. Currently,
there are 3 in the San Francisco Bay Area (in Contra Costa and San Mateo Counties)
and 7 in Southern California (3 in San Diego County and 4 in Los Angeles County).
Several more are being planned in other jurisdictions. San Mateo County recently
completed a five year study of its day care center, demonstrating impressive
results in terms of both cost and effectiveness. The per capita cost is report-
ed to be less than one-half of the cost for regular institutional care. It was
also reported that 89% of the girls who had been in the program had not been in
trouble serious enough to remove them from their homes in the period following
release from the program. A major advantage of the day care type of program
is its flexibility to adapt both to the specialized needs of clients and to the
resources available in the community. For example, the GUIDE program in Concord
teaches some basic courses in the "field" (e.g. girls are taken on trips to learn
science or history); Los Angeles has some of its day care centers located at
regular schools in the community while other centers operate their own structured
classroom setting.
Differential programming. One of the most sophisticated and carefully
developed classification systems in California is I-Level. Based on a theory of
personality and interpersonal development, I-Level "provides a classification
of offenders which can be reliably used and which has relevance to treatment
planning, goal-setting and program organization" 69 Though it has some serious
limitations, 70 including extensive demands on time and training, it is being
widely used in the Youth Authority and a number of counties.
A major effort at differential programming is underway at the Youth
Authority's Northern Youth Center in Stockton. Two adjacent institutions are
employing two distinct strategies based on explicit treatment approaches. One,
0. H. Close, is centering its entire treatment efforts around the psychodynamic
principles of transactional analysis. The other, Karl Holton, has based its
strategy on the principles of behavior modification or operant conditioning. 71
A detailed report on the first 4 years of operation, comparing the programs
with each other and with the other Youth Authority programs, is due in March,
1972.
- 72 -
Creating normal social settings in institutions. One of the inherent
handicaps of institutions is their creation of an atypical, if not unnatural,
social setting, viz. a uni-sexual environment. While many residents need the
controls of a structured institutional setting it is unrealistic to expect
that resocialization can be achieved within an unnatural setting. Orange
County has made important strides in providing a more realistic and natural
environment in several of its facilities by making them co-educational. Staff
feel that mixing boys and girls in a total living situation (excluding only
"showering and sleeping") not only affords them a realistic perspective for
problem resolution, but also provides a normal level of social control. Hence,
contrived controls may be kept at a minimum.
Continuity between institution and community. While a number of insti-
tutions bring outside community resource people into the facility, the reverse
procedure creates a more constructive tie with the community and makes better
use of available resources. A noteworthy program is the Fricot college plan,
in which selected youth are bussed daily to a local college campus for classes.
This approach not only places the youth in a more normal situation, but also
tends to promote greater acceptance of wards by the community through "rubbing
shoulders with them".
The Santa Clara County Board of Education has initiated a unique program
to provide a continuum of education services for those students removed from
the community tc county or State institutions. The program "actively involves
the local school community in planning for the educational programs of these
youths and to insure their acceptability back into the local school upon release
from the institution". 72 A Liaison Coordinator works with the schools, the
institutional staff, the youth himself, and other interested parties in an
effort to continually update the youth's educational program wherever he is.
The philosophy of the project is expressed by its coordinator:
"These CYA kids don't belong to the State. They are
ours. They belong to our community. If we can't
help them, who can?"73
The Las Palmas school for girls, in Los Angeles, has effectively short-
ened the treatment phases which take place in the institution and extended
them into an appropriate community setting. Rather than waiting until the
girls have gone rhrough the total regimen, the staff releases each girl "as
soon as it is reasonably possible to risk her leaving the institution". 74
The program includes intensive aftercare service, which diminishes as the
girls develop strength of their own. While the overall period of supervision
is not necessarily shortened, the time spent in the institution is reduced by
an estimated 35%.
V. SUMMARY
This chapter has discussed the current system of local and State insti-
tutions in California. As a result of the survey conducted by the Task Force
- 73 -
on Juvenile Institutions, as well as its review of relevant literature, a
number of generalizations can be made about juvenile institutions in Calif-
ornia. First, the large number of local institutions that have developed
over the last fifteen years are in large measure the result of legislation
authorizing the State to establish a partnership with counties. A major
link in this partnership has been in the form of State subsidies for the
construction and maintenance of local institutions. The chapter has shown
that local institutions have a distinct advantage over State institutions
in terms of size, geographic location, quality of staff, and per capita costs.
However, State subsidies have not kept abreast of rising construction and
maintenance costs and as a result many local officials believe that the State
has broken its agreement in the partnership.
Second, juvenile institutional populations have decliend in numbers
especially since 1965. At the same time they have become increasingly
"concentrated", receiving older, more sophisticated and "hard-core" youths.
The changing composition of the institution population is the source of
considerable anxiety among staff members, particularly at the State level.
The keenly felt need for advancing existing programs and establishing new
ones is frustrated by the knowledge of shrinking State funds. This problem
is exacerbated by the fact that classification systems are virtually unknown
and non-existent in the local institutions. On the State level, classifica-
tion is not of any great value because of an unfortunate lack of coordination
between the Youth Authority's reception centers and its institutions.
Third, while the recidivism rate is generally high among youth released
from juvenile institutions, it does not necessarily mean that institutions are
completely failing in their efforts. Indeed, in light of the changes in the
types of youth currently placed in institutions, the recidivism rates are not
unreasonably righ.
Finally, promising trends have emerged in the form of shortening the
length of stay without significantly affecting recidivism, and in the estab-
lishment of innovative community-based treatment programs. However, Gibbons'
recent comments about traditional training schools should be kept in mind by
correctional decision-makers:
"Available data point to the benign impact of the
institution, rather than to any directly harmful
conrequences upon delinquents. In short, the
training school appears to be a satisfactory ware-
house for the temporary storage of delinquents if
the community demands that they be isolated for
some time period, but it ought not be supposed
that the institution is a positive influence. "75
(emphasis added).
- 74 -
FOOTNOTES
lCalifornia Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 1700.
2Ibid., Section 881.
3Ibid., Section 1730.
4David Fogel, "Institutional Strategies in Dealing with Youthful
Offenders", Federal Probation, Vol. 31 (June, 1967), p. 41.
⁵Department of Youth Authority, Annual Statistical Report: 1969,
State of California (Sacramento, 1970), p. 5.
⁶Report of the Governor's Special Study Commission on Juvenile
Justice, Part II (Sacramento, November 30, 1960), p. 41.
7David Fogel, "The Fate of the Rehabilitative Ideal in California
Youth Authority Dispositions", Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 15, No. 4
(October, 1969), p. 484.
⁸Ibid.
⁹State of California (Sacramento, September 1969), p. 7. (Note:
this is an internal, unpublished document that is not available for
distribution).
10Don Gibbons, Society, Crime, and Criminal Careers (Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall, 1968), p. 479.
llIbid., p. 482.
12California Welfare and Institutions Code, Sections 889-890.
¹³president's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice, Task Force Report: Corrections (Washington: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1967), p. 212.
14 Ibid.
15 Department of Youth Authority, Characteristics of California Youth
Authority Wards: December 31, 1970, State of California (Sacramento, 1971),
p. 17.
¹⁶Relevant legislation is contained in Sections 1850-61 of the Welfare
and Institutions Code. A detailed description of this facility may be found
in: Institute for the Study of Crime and Delinquency, Youth Correctional
Centers (Sacramento, February 1969).
¹⁷President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice, op. cit., p 68.
- 75 -
Footnotes
18Division of Community Services, "Average Length of Stay, Cost, and
Bed Capacity of County Operated Juvenile Homes, Ranches, and Camps",
Department of Youth Authority, State of California (Sacramento, March 1971).
(Mimeographed.)
19 Joachim Seckel, The Fremont Experiment, Research Report No. 50,
Department of Youth Authority, State of California (Sacramento, January
1967), p. i.
20Doug \night, The Marshall Program, Part 1, Research Report No. 56,
Department of Youth Authority, State of California (Sacramento, March 1969),
p. X.
21Ibid.
²²Doug Knignt, The Marshall Program, Part II, Research Report No. 59,
Department of Youth Authority, State of California (Sacramento, August 1970),
p. 49.
23Ibid. p. 52.
24 Chester Roberts, "An Interim Review of the Ventura Intensive Treat-
ment Program for Girls", Department of Youth Authority, State of California
(Sacramento, December 1970), p. 5. (Mimeographed.)
25 Ibid., p. 6.
26Marguerite Warren, The Case for Differential Treatment of Delinquents,
Department of Youth Authority, State of California (Sacramento, January
1969), p. 5.
27 Department of Youth Authority, The Status of Current Research in the
CYA: July, 1970, State of California (Sacramento, 1970), p. 4.
28For example see: Fritz Redl and David Wineman, Children Who Hate
(New York: Collier Books, 1951); Howard Polsky, Cottage Six (New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1962); H. Ashley Weeks, Youthful Offenders at Highfields
(Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1958); Lamar Empey and Jerome
Rabow, "The Provo Experiment in Delinquency Rehabilitation", American
Sociological Review, XXVI (October 1961), pp. 679-695.
29president's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice, op. cit., p. 147.
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid.
- 76 -
Footnotes
32See, for example, all the references in Footnote 28. Also see:
Carl Jesness, The Fricot Ranch Study, Department of Youth Authority, State
of California (Sacramento, October 1965); Rudolf Moos, "The Assessment of
the Social Climates of Correctional Institutions", Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 5, pp. 174-188; William and Joan McCord, "Two
Approaches to the Cure of Delinquents", in The Problem of Delinquency,
Sheldon Glueck (ed.) (Boston: Houghton Miffline, 1959), pp. 721-737; David
Street, Robert Vinter, and Charles Perrow, Organization for Treatment: A
Comparative Study of Institutions for Delinquents (New York: The Free Press,
1966).
33Doug Knight, The Impact of Living-unit Size in Youth Training Schools,
Department of Youth Authority, State of California (Sacramento, April 1971).
34Ibid., p. V.
35Ibid., p. 37.
36See, for example: Polsky, op. cit., pp. 16-20; Empey and Rabow, op.
cit.; H. Ashley Weeks, "The Highfields Project and Its Success", in The
Sociology of Punishment and Correction, Norman Johnston, Leonard Savitz,
and Marvin Wo? fgang (eds.) (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962), pp. 203-
204.
37 Carl Jesness, "Comparative Effectiveness of Two Institutional Programs
for Delinquents", Child Care Quarterly (in press. 1971).
38president's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice, op. cit., p. 147.
39 Ibid., p. 148.
40 Department of Youth Authority, The Disturbed and Intractable Wards,
op. cit., p. 6.
41 Department of Youth Authority, Some Statistical Facts on the Calif-
ornia Youth Authority, State of California (Sacramento, January 1970), p. 27.
42 Department OF Youth Authority, Standards for Juvenile Homes, Ranches,
and Camps, State of California (Sacramento, 1965), p. 12.
43 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967), pp. 145-147, 212.
44 (Washington, December 1969), pp. 62-66.
45 State of California (Sacramento, September 1965), pp. 16-17.
46 (Arcadia, 1965), pp. 9-14.
- 77 -
Footnotes
47 Department of Youth Authority, Characteristics of CYA Wards:
December 31, 1970, op. cit., p. 17.
48 Functional specialists consisted almost entirely of teachers,
caseworkers, and psychologists.
See: Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training,
Offenders as a Correctional Manpower Resource (College Park: American
Correctional Association, reprinted October T970), esp. Appendix A.
50Ibid.; President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration
of Justice, op. cit., pp. 102-104.
51president's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (Washington: U.S.
Government Printing Office, February 1967), p. 168.
52 Task Force Report: Corrections, loc. cit.
53 For example: Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training,
Volunteers Look at Corrections (Washington, February 1969); President's
Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report:
Corrections, op. cit., p. 104; Paul Zelhart and Jack Plummer (eds.), Institute
on Research with Volunteers in Juvenile Delinquency (University of Arkansas,
May 1970); U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Using Volunteers
in Court Settings (Washington, 1969); U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Volurteer Programs in Courts (Washington, 1969); June Morrison, The
Use of Volunteers in Juvenile Courts in the United States: A Survey (University
of Arizona, February 1970).
54California Task Force on Correctional Manpower and Training, Mobilizing
Correctional Manpower (Sacramento, September 1968); Department of Youth Authority,
Training for Tomorrow, State of California (Sacramento, July 1970).
⁵⁵California Welfare and Institutions Code, Sections 887 and 891.
56 Community Services Division, loc. cit.
57 CYA Budget Analysis, 1970-71.
⁸Research Division, "Estimating Career Costs of Youth Authority Wards"
Department of Youth Authority, State of California (Sacramento, February 1970).
(Mimeographed).
59president's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice, Task Force Report: Corrections, op. cit., p. 13.
⁶⁰Ibid.
- 78 - -
Footnotes
61Final Report of the Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and
Training, A Time to Act (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office,
October 1969), p. 38.
⁶²president's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice, Task Force Report: Corrections, op. cit., pp. 13-14.
63Burea of Criminal Statistics, California Juvenile Camps and
Recidivism, State of California (Sacramento, May 1969).
641bid., p. 22.
⁶⁵Department of Youth Authority, Annual Statistical Report: 1969,
op. cit., p. 30.
'Follow-up of Youth Authority Wards from Admission to Discharge",
Department of Youth Authority, State of California (Sacramento, January
1970). (Mimeo jraphed.)
67 Carolyn Jamison, Bertram Johnson, and Evelyn Guttmann, An Analysis
of Post-Discharge Criminal Behavior, Research Report No. 49, Department
of Youth Authority, State of California (Sacramento, November 1966), p. 12.
68 Ibid.
69Marguerite Warren, op. cit., p. 16.
70Don C. Gibbons, "Differential Treatment of Delinquents and Inter-
Personal Maturity Levels Theory: A Critque", The Social Service Review,
Vol. 44 (March, 1970), pp. 22-33.
71See: Carl Jesness, "The Youth Center Research Project", (American
Justice Institute, December 1970). (Mimeographed.)
72Richard Bowers, Memorandum to Dr. Glen Hoffman, Santa Clara County
Superintendent of Schools, December 16, 1969.
73Sam Hanson, "Locked-up Students Receive Credit for a School Diploma",
news articles in The Mercury, San Jose, March 30, 1970.
74Los Angeles County Probation Department, "Las Palmas Treatment Program",
Los Angeles, June 25, 1965). (Mimeographed.)
75Don C. Gibbons, Delinquent Behavior (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1970), pp. 260-261.
CHAPTER V
PREVAILING ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
With the current state of the juvenile institutions system having
been examined, this chapter will underscore the major issues affecting the
system and will offer specific recommendations for its improvement. The
primary guidelines for this discussion and recommendations are the juvenile
institutions "model" discussed in Chapter III and the survey findings discus-
sed in Chapter IV. While many additional recommendations or implications
for action should be apparent from simply reading those two chapters, this
chapter will highlight only those issues and recommendations that would
appear to have the greatest impact on changing systems. All of the recom-
mendations are predicated on the principal philosophy and thrust of the
entire Correctional System Study, viz. the critical partnership of State
and counties, with the counties having the primary responsibility for the
delivery of services, and the State having the primary overall and enabling
responsibility for the correctional system.
In reviewing the recommendations, two factors should be kept in mind.
First, it should not be assumed that they have not as yet been implemented
anywhere in the system. In fact, some jurisdictions or institutions have
already made considerable progress in resolving some of the critical issues
discussed. The efforts of these jurisdictions could well be the source for
some of the recommendations made here. Secondly, any references to "the
Youth Authority" or simply "the State" (but not "the State of California")
should be interpreted as applying to the Youth Authority now, but to the
new State Department of Correctional Services recommended in the System Task
Force Report, if such Department is created.
Finally, the first recommendation, not listed below because it is
outside the scope of the present study, is that a careful study be made of
the entire intake process with special emphasis on redefining what constitutes
delinquency and suggesting mechanisms for diverting youths from the correc-
tional apparatus at all points in the system but particularly from institutions.
I. CREDIBILITY GAP BETWEEN STATE AND COUNTIES
One of the clearest and stongest "messages" received by the Juvenile
Institution Task Force throughout its study was the credibility gap that
currently exists between the State of California and the individual counties.
While elements of this gap have existed for many years, the level of distrust
and antagonism that currently exists far exceeds that which is normally found
in State-county relationships. Essentially, county authorities allege that
the State does not keep its word. They cite the original camp subsidy (of
$95 per month and $3,000 per bed for construction) as evidence of situations
where the counties developed programs at the urging of the State, only to
end up paying for an increasingly larger share of the costs. Local authorities
also cite the welfare programs, the amendments to mental health statutes, and
the probation subsidy as further evidence that the State cannot be trusted.
- 80 -
It is apparent that the expression of distrust is more than simply the voices
of a few malcontents. It is now the strong, hostile view of most, if not all,
counties.
Although numerous county officials attack, with considerable vehemence
and bitterness, what they perceive as the State's leading them into financial
quicksand and then deserting them, many of these same individuals also stress
their need for and receptivity to a wide range of special services or guidance
from the State. For example, they would like the State to play an even strong-
er role in carrying out or coordinating training, research, standard-setting,
inspections, general consultation, and other similar activities. This feeling
is common not only among correctional administrators but also among other key
officials. For example, 95% of all presiding superior court judges, chairmen
of boards of supervisors, and county administrative officers who were inter-
viewed felt that the State should actively "augment local or regional correc-
tional facilities/programs". This suggests that, while the counties do not
trust the State's financial pledges or promises, they have experienced many
beneficial services, notably from the Youth Authority, and continue to look
to the State for additional specialized assistance and leadership.
The first and most important formal recommendation of the Juvenile
Institution Task Force is based on the problems mentioned above, the virtually
unanimous senriment of interviewed correctional experts, and the first two
general standards of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Admin-
istration of Justice which are:
1. "Though parts of the correctional system may be
operated by local jurisdictions, the State
government should be responsible for the quality
of all correctional systems and programs within
the State.
2. "If local jurisdictions operate parts of the correc-
tional program, the State should clearly designate
a parent agency responsible for consultation,
standard setting, research, training, and financing
of or subsidy to local programs.'
Recommendation
1. The State of California should enact legislation clearly spelling
out its role and binding commitment to acceptance of the primary overall and
enabling respons bility for corrections throughout the State, with the counties
having the primary responsibility for the delivery of correctional services.
II. SUBSIDY
Flowing directly from the above discussion, it is obvious that the
State of California must make a vital decision. Either it can continue with
- 81 -
the unsatisfactory status quo, thus engendering increased hostility and
distrust at the local level, and seriously jeopardizing the overall effec-
tiveness of the county juvenile facilities, or it can renew its financial
commitment to the counties, as clearly implied in Sections 887 and 891 of
the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The State still pays only $95 per month per institutionalized ward
and $3,000 per bed for new construction, representing approximately 17% and
25%, respectively, of actual costs. This obviously falls far behind the
legislative intent in 1957, when these amounts were set, of paying up to
50% of actual costs. Additionally, as the System Task Force Report discusses
in greater detail, the State will have saved an estimated $126,000,000 between
fiscal years 1966 and 19712 by a reduction in the number of institutional
commitments. This reduction must in large measure be attributed to the camp
and particularly probation subsidy programs. By contrast, the State will pay
the counties upproximately $3,000,000 in maintenance subsidies and $600,000
in construction costs for local juvenile facilities during fiscal 1971-723,
(plus $15,900,000 in probation subsidies).
Because of the large amount of Federal L.E.A.A. funds available for
California corrections through the California Council on Criminal Justice,
it is imperative that these funds be channelled into the correctional system
in a manner that will best assist local communities in the delivery of
correctional services. Forty-one million dollars in Federal funding is
earmarked for California criminal justice agencies in 1971-72. Any portion
of this sum can be allocated to corrections plus an additional $4,000,000
that is totally committed to the field. Furthermore, it is expected that
these amounts will be substantially increased in the future. Hence, the
third recommendation below is made in relation to the issue of subsidy.
Recommendations
2. The State 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 octual 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
(z.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).
- 82 -
d. 25/75--Other "closed" institutions (i.e. those which commit
youths for more than 6 months, or which are not located
reasonably close to the communities from which the youths
cre drawn).
This subvention presumes an obligation on the part of the counties of adher-
ence 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.
III. CLASSIFICATION AND DIAGNOSIS
As the counties continue to handle a greater proportion of youths
requiring institutionalization, they will have increasing need for sophis-
ticated classification and diagnostic devices. At the State level, the
major porblems are time delays in receiving materials from the counties,
the limited and/or slanted nature of the reports that are received, the
questionable value of the reception centers, and the unnecessary role of
the Youth Authority Board in case assignments and transfers. As counties
assume the central role in the corrections process, the problems relating
to time delays and the content of reports should be largely resolved.
The majority of Youth Authority staff interviewed seriously questioned
the need for the existing reception centers, at least for most youths. Prob-
lems cited were (1) the lack of first hand knowledge by reception center staff
about the programs in specific institutions for which they were recommending
youth, (2) reports that primarily described youths rather than outlining
treatment programs, (3) the necessity of duplicating some of the classification-
diagnosis process in the regular institutions, and (4) the fact that reception
center reports were rarely, if ever, read by many of the institutional staff.
In defense of the reception centers, it might be pointed out that they have
the ability of diagnosing particularly difficult cases.
The involvement of the Youth Authority Board in the assignment and
transfer of wards to specific institutions was the subject of great concern
and frequent staff criticism. Probably the most frequent complaint was that
the Board made its placement decisions on gross factors, such as age and sex,
rather than on individual treatment and program needs. It would appear that
high-salaried individuals are not needed to make decisions that clinical
treatment staff are in a better position to make.
- 83 -
Recommendations
5. No youths should be sent to the Youth Authority reception centers
unless it is absolutely necessary to resolve a specific problem of classi-
fication or diagnosis that can not be handled in any other way. All normal
classification and diagnostic responsibilities should be delegated to the
individual State institutions or should be performed at the county level via
contracts before delivery of a youth to the CYA.
6. The Youth Authority Board should be relieved of the responsibility
for making institutional assignments or transfers. These duties should be
assigned 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, 4
C. small specialized units for the diagnosis and study of those
youths for whom these services cannot be adequately performed
elsewhere,
d. travelling clincial 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).
IV. PROGRAM GAPS
Emotionally Disturbed Youth and Drug Users
Probably the most serious gaps in programs and facilities, at both
the State and county levels, are those required for emotionally disturbed
youths or for chronic drug users. Since recent amendments to the State's
mental health statutes, mental hygiene facilities in California have been
greatly reduced. However, for reasons not entirely clear, local communities
have been unable to develop programs to fill the void. As mentioned in
Chapter III, both State and county officials reported that they were receiv-
ing increasing numbers of mentally and/or emotionally disturbed youths and
were totally unprepared to deal with this growing problem within the correc-
tional system. Many drug users closely resemble the above types of youths
and pose the same types of problems. One could argue whether it was emotional
- 84 -
disturbance or drug use that came first, i.e. whether one was more likely
to lead to the other. However, the simple fact is that many youths exhibit
both types of behavior and adequate programs for both are grossly lacking
throughout the State.
Young Adults
A group for which there are extremely few programs, particularly at
the county level, is the group which traditionally has the highest crime
rate, viz. young adults (roughly ages 18-25). The most commonly used
facilities for young adults deemed to require confinement have been the
county jails, which have traditionally been considered to be at the bottom
of the "correctional barrel". Although there is existing legislation
pledging State subsidization of Youth Correctional Centers,5 no county has
yet established one. Some local officials reported that this situation was
in large measure due to the fact that citizens objected to the establishment
of such facilities in their neighborhoods. Ironically, the youths that
would be placed in these centers are already residents of the same neighbor-
hoods. An additional problem, however, is that no State funds have actually
been appropriated for these centers as yet.
Girls
Historically, there has always been a dearth of adequate facilities
for girls, although one could argue that extremely few girls should be
confined anyway. However, the lack of any type of local institution for
delinquent girls in many small and medium-sized counties has too often led
to their commitment to the Youth Authority. Here they have been confined
with much more sophisticated delinquents from the large metropolitan areas.
The Youth Authority is aware of this fact and has committed itself to the
goal of diverting girls from its institutions whenever possible.
While very few jurisdictions have experimented with co-educational
facilities, administrators of such facilities speak very highly of their
value as a behavioral control program, as a means for counteracting homo-
sexual tendencies, and as an effective means for establishing a more normal
type of environment. It is generally suggested that staff, as well as wards,
be "co-ed".
Educational and Vocational Programs
Institutions by their very nature tend to be conservative, cautious,
slow to change, isolated, and committed to "running a smooth ship". Programs
are usually developed around the needs and limitations of the institution.
This situation occurs partly because of the control-orientation of these
facilities and in large part because such programs generally evolve after
the institution is constructed, rather than forming the basis upon which the
institution is built. In brief, programs are forced to fit institutions,
instead of institutions being constructed to fit programs.
- 85 -
The more progressive facilities have traditionally attempted to develop
their own educational and/or vocational programs within the institution. While
there are some noteworthy exceptions, even these facilities frequently have
"watered-down" school programs and vocational training to the point where they
are of little value to youths after they are released. Furthermore, even the
best of these programs tend to be duplications--often poor ones--of programs
already existing in the community.
Some local administrators complained of problems with outside school
personnel and would prefer to hire their own educators in order to better
integrate educational services into their overall program.
The direction of the future appears to be exemplified by the Fricot
College Program, in which youths are taken to outside college courses, as
well as by some county day care centers which operate at regular schools.
Such innovations offer a far more normal and better quality of program,
reduce the isolation characteristic of institutions, and suggest a far more
effective use of community resources.
Recommendations
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. Crug users
iii. girls
iv. young adults
10. The Youth 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.
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.
- 86 -
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
develop 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 institutional
programs.
V. RELEASE AND AFTERCARE
Two important factors stand out with regard to the relationship of
institutions and aftercare services. First, institutions are undesirable
places to commit anyone, particularly youth. Their inherently negative
characteristics and handicaps are seldom offset, let alone surpassed, by
even the best programs or the most dedicated staffs. In brief, there is
little evidence which demonstrates that institutions accomplish anything
beyond greater protection of the community for the period of time that youths
are confined. There certainly is no evidence to support the long-range value
of lengthy incarceration. However, there is a growing accumulation of data
which suggests that many, if not most, youths do just as well in the community
if they are released within a short period of time than if they are retained
for many months. Noteworthy examples of this are the Youth Authority's
Marshall and Ventura programs and Los Angeles County's short-term treatment
centers. Hence, the burden of proof should always be on the system to justify
both initial and continued confinement.
Secondly, the most vulnerable point in the correctional continuum is
the transition between institution and aftercare. The President's Commission
on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice puts it well:
"The test of success of institutional corrections
programs comes when offenders are released to the
community. Whatever rehabilitation they have
received, whatever deterrent effect their exper-
ience with incarceration has had, must upon
release withstand the difficulties of readjust-
ment to life in society and reintegration into
employment, family, school, and the rest of
community life. This is the time when most of
the problems from which offenders were temporarily
removed must be faced again and new problems aris-
ing from their status as ex-offenders must be
confronted."
It is no coincidence that, on a national basis, "Violations on parole tend to
occur relatively soon after release from an institution, nearly half of them
in the first 6 months after offenders are released, and over 60% within the
first year". 7 Hence, the importance of maintaining constructive ties with
- 87 -
the community during confinement and of maximizing correctional resources
at the crucial transition point is obvious.
A related issue is how to best integrate institutional and aftercare
services. The Youth Authority has a very serious problem in this regard
due to the almost insurmountable geographic barriers between most of its
facilities and the communities of its clientele. The counties are better
able to maintain physical ties between youths, their homes, institutional
workers, and aftercare officers. The most fruitful plan would appear to
be the creation of community-based, intensive supervision units with staff
assigned to "in-and-out" caseloads, i.e. probation officers would begin
working with youths and their families from the time they were committed.
By having these officers under field services administration, they would be
more familiar with community resources, in a better position to work with
families, and would be able to assist youths on a full-time basis at the
critical point of release. In addition these officers would be less likely
to have an "institutional mentality" (e.g. "We could accomplish much more
with this youth if we can only keep him here longer" or "If you mess up out
there, you're coming right back in here"). There should also be sufficient
flexibility for a worker who supervised a youth before commitment to continue
working with him in the institution, as well as after release, if his relation-
ship with the youth makes this appropriate.
Finally, due to the extra travel time that is often involved and the
need for intensive services for most of these youths, aftercare staff must
have greatly reduced caseloads to be effective.
Recommendations
15. All youth should be released from any non-voluntary institutional
program within six months, unless the institutional staff can demonstrate 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. Youth should never
completely leave the community except when it is absolutely 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.
- 88 -
19. Aftercare officers (probation and parole) should be assigned to
a community-bused unit rather than to an institution and should carry "in-
and-out" caseloads of no more than 25 youths.
20. If CYA and CDC are consolidated into a new State Department of
Correctional Services, all State institutional and parole services, juvenile
and adult, should be in one division, SO as to provide for a continuity of
services (see System Task Force Report for more details).
VI. FACILITIES
The future direction for construction of new juvenile facilities is
clearly toward building or modifying institutions at the local level while
at the same time closing Youth Authority institutions. Of course, this trend
depends on the State's willingness to substantially increase its subsidization
of local correctional programs and facilities, so that local communities can
continue to carry a greater share of the responsibility for delivering services
to young offenders. Obviously, the State should first close those institutions
that most seriously violate acceptable correctional standards. Thus, the
largest institutions, those having living units that cannot easily be converted
to accommodate a reduced population, those that are geographically most isolated,
and those that are least conducive to effective programs should be the first
institutions to be closed. While it may be difficult to determine which insti-
tutions best fit the above criteria, one facility which seems to suffer from
a plethora of handicaps is Paso Robles School for Boys. It is geographically
isolated; it is one of the most expensive to operate; and is one of the least
effective of the Youth Authority institutions (see Table XV).
Two other factors should be taken into account when considering the
closure of State institutions. First, institutions, or parts of institutions,
can be closed much more rapidly if the length of stay is reduced in accord
with the evidence supplied by the Marshall and Ventura projects. As pointed
out earlier, these projects show that most youths do at least as well on parole
after 3 months in the institution as after longer periods of confinement.
Secondly, as commitments decline further, it might be better to reduce the
total population and living unit populations to reasonable standards rather
than immediately closing those facilities that are otherwise well-suited to the
correctional task. In fact, this may be the optimum time for the Youth Authority
to improve its staffing ratios and living unit size as a "trade-off" cost to
fewer commitments and/or shortened stays.
At the county level, the development in the past few years of short-term,
community-based Tacilities such as day care centers, crisis intervention units,
group homes, etc. is seen as a positive direction to pursue. A concept worth
further exploration is the flexible complex (provided it does not exceed 100
beds) with "modules" or small specialized treatment units that may be altered
as needs change.
- 89 -
Recommendations
21. No new facility (or modifications of existing ones) should be
built, at either 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 youths 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
mandatory 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.
VII. STAFF
The major staffing problems center around inadequate ratios of line
workers and treatment staff to wards. Although this is primarily a budget
issue, corrections has failed to demonstrate adequately the long-range value
of better staffing patterns. Evidence based on sound research might be
necessary before an already overwhelmed tax-payer will authorize more funds.
Volunteers and para-professionals are being used increasingly, but are
still being resisted by many professional staff. Failure or mediocrity among
such individuals often occurs when they are treated as "second class" staff,
who are "tacked on" to show how "progressive" an agency is or to bolster its
minority group representation. The unique qualifications and utility of these
persons as supplements to, rather than supplanters of, regular staff should be
stressed. Like any other staff, volunteers and para-professionals must feel
that they are part of a team effort, and that they are making a worthwhile
contribution. Furthermore, if correctional agencies are unwilling to hire
and accept ex-offenders as employees, how can corrections expect other agencies
to do so?
Relevant, individualized, ongoing training is a resource that is
chronically inadequate for institutional staff. When training is available,
institution staft tend to receive the least amount of it. Considerably
larger budget allocations need to be set aside for institutional training
costs. Of particular importance is the proper training of first line super-
visors, so that they can better fulfill their responsibility of providing the
bulk of on-the-job training. To maximize use of available training resources,
the State needs to play a much more aggressive role in assuring that adequate
training is provided both within its own institutions and local facilities
as well.
- 90 -
Finally, correctional systems need to regularly re-evaluate their
procedures for hiring, assigning, promoting, and allowing inter-agency
transfer of staff. All of these issues are sources of frequent complaints
and at times result in the breakdown of staff morale.
Recommendations
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
trainers, similar to the CO-ACT model,8 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 state-wide certification procedure,
that would assure minimum staff standards, should be explored.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The value and need for the fullest possible public support and involve-
ment is so obvious that it is not necessary to discuss it here. However, some
specific areas in which the public is traditionally not sufficiently involved
are mentioned in the following recommendation.
Recommendation
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.
- 91 -
IX. RESEARCH AND EVALUATION
The ma,jor issues related to the above are the lack of commitment to
research and evaluation, the isolation of most existing research and evalu-
ative activities, and the inadequate reporting and coordination of such
activities on a statewide basis.
As mentioned in the last chapter, counties are struggling to maintain
even adequate statistical records and only rarely experiment with "action-
research". Even the Youth Authority, which no doubt is the most progressive
correctional agency in the nation in the field of research, allocates only
1% of its budget to this area. However, the lack of full commitment is often
not only at the budgetary level, but also in following through on the research
results. Sometimes programs of questionable value are perpetuated indefinitely
under the guise that "research results are not clear enough" or that "statistics
can be manipulated to show anything". For example, youths are frequently kept
in institutions much longer than necessary, in spite of considerable evidence
that shows no better long-range results.
Secondly, to the extent research and evaluation are used, they tend to
occur in isolation, i.e. the staff being "researched" are not normally involved
in the research process itself. To maximize commitment to findings, adminis-
trators, research staff, and line personnel should all participate in the
planning and evaluation process.
Thirdly, for the State as a whole to move forward progressively, it
is essential that some group coordinate and report all significant research
results, wherever they occur, so that all agencies and all parts of the system
can operate with the same up-to-date information.
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 resources
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 allocatin; significantly greater resources for this function.
30. Research activities should be team efforts (invoiving adminis-
trators, line workers, and research staff) and should concentrate on determining
and disseminating information about what does and does not assist in accom-
plishing the goals of corrections.
- 92 -
31. The State and counties should enter into a collaborative effort
of program research and evaluation. The State should play the primary role
in planning, earrying out, and disseminating the results of correctional
research, with active participation and cooperation from the counties.
Research assistance and information should be provided for the counties with-
out charge, but counties should be able to contract with the State or outside
sources for extensive, individual projects.
- 93 -
FOOTNOTES
1Task Force Report: Corrections (Washington: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1967), p. 206.
2Deparament of Youth Authority, "Fiscal Impact", State of California
(Sacramento, approximately March 1971). (Mimeographed.)
³Department of Finance, CYA Budget Analysis, 1971-72, State of California.
4See: Institute for the Study of Crime and Delinquency, Youth Correctional
Centers (Sacramento, February 1969).
5Califcrnia Welfare and Institutions Code, Sections 1850 to 1861.
6Task Force Report: Corrections, op. cit., p. 60.
7Ibid., p. 68.
⁸Department of Youth Authority, Training for Tomorrow, State of California
(Sacramento, July 1970).
⁹See discussion in section "Research and Evaluation" in Chapter IV.
APPENDIX A
AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY, COSTS, AND BED CAPACITY
OF COUNTY OPERATED JUVENILE HOMES, RANCHES, AND CAMPS
(based on most recent inspection report)
AVG.
AVG.MONTHLY
BED
LENGTH
COST
CAPAC-
OF STA
COUNTY
INSTITUTION
PER MINOR
ITY
(mos)
ALAMEDA
Chabot Boys' Camp
$ 366
90
7.1
Kings Daughter Group Home
575
8
7.7
Las Vista Girls' Home
832
48
3.2
Los Cerros Senior Boys' Camp
359
100
4.6
CONTRA COSTA
Contra Costa Byron Boys' Ranch
661
65
6.1
Boys' Protected Workshop (new)
20
Girls' Day Treatment Center, Western
396
10
14.0
Bollinger Canyon Youth Village
1120
24
10.0
Girls' Center Martinez
1310
21
5.4
Walnut Creek Group Home (new)
6
DEL NORTE
Bar-0 Ranch
287
34
7.4
FRESNO
Fresno Youth Center
481
60
3.3
KERN
Camp Erwin W. Owen
306
90
4.5
LOS ANGELES
Camp Afflerbaugh
457
94
6.4
Camp Gonzales
614
95
3.9
Camp Holton**
497
94
6.0
Camp Kilpatrick
782
95
7.2
Camp Mendenhall
614
94
5.8
Camp Miller
426
97
5.8
Camp Munz
500
94
7.1
Camp Paige
496
94
6.2
Camp Rockey
657
94
5.8
Camp Scott
457
94
3.9
Camp Scudder***
539
94
6.1
Central Juvenile Hall-Boys' Rec. Center
653
42
.3
Central Juvenile Hall-Boys' Res. Trt. Center
634
20*
1.3
Central Juvenile Hall-Girls' Res. Trt. Center
638
20
1.2
Community Day Center-Garden Gate School
366
20
8.1
East LA Day Center-Ramona High
199
20
11.7
Las Palmas School for Girls
1032
100
6.5
Los Padrinos J.H.-Girls' Reception Center
607
22
1.5
Los Padrinos J.H.-Residential Family
Treatment (Boys and Girls)
657
40
1.3
Sin Fernando Valley J.H.-Boys' Rec. Center
707
40
2.9
San Fernando Valley J.H.-Boys' Residential
reatment Center
675
20
1.
* capacity increased to 40 as of 3/71
** closed due to earthquake
*** temporarily used as a juvenile hall due to earthquake
APPENDIX A (Continued)
AVG.
AVG.MONTHLY
BED
LENGTH
COST
CAPAC-
OF STAY
COUNTY
INSTITUTION
PER MINOR
ITY
(mos)
L.A. (Cont)
San Fernando Valley J.H.-Girls' Residential
Treatment Center
$ 682
20
6.0
San Fernando Valley Day Care Center (Boys)
329
20
9.0
San Gabriel Valley Day Care Center (Boys)
330
20
8.8
Camp Fenner Canyon (new)
100
Community Day Care Center-Betsy Ross School (new)
20
MONTEREY
Natividad Boy's Ranch
601
40
6.5
ORANGE
Joplin Boys' Ranch
291
60
3.3
David R. McMillan School (Coed)
772
60
6.1
(Boys-40)
(Girls-20)
Family Guidance Program (Boys)
403
20
2.7
Family Guidance Program (Girls)
403
20
3.0
Youth Guidance Center (Boys-40) (Girls-60)
810
100
5.6
Rancho Potrero
553
30
4.7
Los Pinos Boys' Ranch (new)
370(4mo)
96
RIVERSIDE
Twin Pines Ranch
462
70
7.5
SACRAMENTO
Carson Creek Boys' Ranch
345
82
5.1
SAN BENITO
San Benito School for Boys
325
19
5.9
S. BERNARDINO
Boys' Treatment Unit (Lightning Unit)
555
20
4.0
Verdemont Ranch
546
65
5.8
Girls' Treatment Center, J.H. (6 months)
586
20
1.8
SAN DIEGO
Las Colinas Girls' School
715
60
4.2
Rancho Del Campo
445
100
3.6
SAN FRANCISCO
Hidden Valley
527
100
6.7
Log Cabin Ranch
556
86
9.0
SAN MATEO
Glenwood Boys' Ranch
489
60
5.5
Girls' Day Care Center
476
24
5.9
SANTA BARBARA-
VENTURA
Los Prietos Boys' Camp
326
100
4.1
SANTA BARBARA
La Morada Girls' Home
598
21
9.
SANTA CLARA
William F. James Boys' Ranch
474
80
7.
Santa Clara Boys' Ranch No. 2
484
80
7.
Muriel M. Wright Ranch for Girls
954
32
10.
APPENDIX A (Continued)
AVG.
AVG. MONTHLY
BED
LENGTH
COST
CAPAC- OF STAY
COUNTY
INSTITUTION
PER MINOR
ITY
(mos)
SONOMA
Sonoma Mobile Camp
$ 362
17
5.0
TULARE
Robert K. Meyers Boys' Ranch
246
60
4.5
VENTURA
Frank A. Colston Girls' Home (new)
674
33
9.0
YOLO-SOLANO-
COLUSA
Fouts Springs Boys' Ranch
449
43
4.0
STATEWIDE AVERAGE
54
5.6
TOTAL NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS:
68
TOTAL CAPACITY:
3737
(Boys - 47; Girls - 18; Coed - 3)
7
APPENDIX A (Continued)
STATEWIDE MONTHLY COSTS PER MINOR
All
Girls'
Boys'
Coeducational
Institutions
Institutions
Institutions
Institutions
Maximum
$ 1310
$ 1310
$ 1120
$ 810
Minimum
199
199
246
657
Average
547
649
495
746
Median
527
607
484
772
Average length of stay, all institutions
5.6 months
Average length of stay excluding length
of stay under three months
6.3 months
Median Length of stay excluding length
of stay under three months
6.0 months
Source: Division of Community Services, Department of Youth Authority,
State of California, March 18, 1971.
- 88 -
4. Ever if a citizens group inspects, it may not know what it is
inspecting.
5. Even if a professional inspects, local pressures may limit his
effectiveness.
6. Even if a facility is inspected, the security and programs as-
pects of detention may not be.
7. Even if either or both reports contain critical advice, their
reports may not reach the responsible public body.
8. Ever, if a critical report reaches a public body, it may not be
acted upon.
9. Even if the public body wishes to act upon it, public support
may not be present.
10. Even if public support is present, adequate local funds may be
lacking. "12
Expressing its concern with this situation, the California State
Sheriffs Association, at its annual State meeting on April 6, 1971, unan-
imously endorsed the concept that the State of California should enact and
enforce mandatory jail standards.
Interviews with County Jail Administrators
The local administrator finds his requests for augmentation of jail
services or expansion of facilities competing with other county departments'
requests, many of which are subsidized by State and Federal funds wherein
one local dollar generates two or more dollars from other sources. This
situation results in a very low priority for the local corrections budget.
In efforts to raise priorities, the sheriffs cite Minimum Jail Standards,
grand jury reports, and reports by the Jail Services Division of the Board
of Corrections. All too frequently, they still fail to obtain urgently
needed funding.
Another major concern is that, even where the corrections budget is
granted a high priority, many counties are financially unable to respond.
The same concern was expressed in the 1969 study:
"As was made clear by many respondents in this study,
local jurisdictions operating detention facilities are
not always capable of implementing the recommendations
of inspectors because of their financial situations.
For this reason, many local administrators suggested
to the Committee that the state initiate a subvention
program to upgrade substandard facilities. This, too,
was beyonn the mandate and the capability of the
Committee to study, but again certain observations were
made.
- 89 -
"It is clear that local funding is indeed inadequate
in some cities and counties in this state to furnish
humane, secure detention facilities. Obviously, an
outside source of revenue might accomplish much in
this regard. Possible areas of application include
personnel training and hiring, program development
and operation, and structural renovation and con-
struction.
"We therefore suggest to the Board of Corrections that
a committee be established to study the feasibility
and development of a state subvention program for
adult detention facilities. "13
Recommendations
4. The State should subsidize operational costs of local correc-
tional facilities 2s specified in the System Task Force Report. Basically,
this plan prescribes subsidization at the following ratios:
60/40--"Open" institutions. The State would pay 60% of
actual costs of those facilities that provide for
regular access of inmates to the community, e.g.
work furlough units or Youth Correctional Centers.
40,'60--"Closed" institutions which are community-based
(i.e. they are within or adjacent to community they
serve and provide a high degree of interaction with
the community) and short-term (i.e. no inmate can
be committed for more than 6 months).
25/75--Other "closed" institutions (this would apply to
most current jails).
Any subsidization by the State, however, depends on adherance to State
standards.
5. The primary proposal of the Committee to Study Inspection of
Local Detention Facilities should be immediately implemented by the Board
of Corrections. 14
6. This Task Force joins with the 1969 Committee in recommending:
"That an appropriately constituted committee be established
to explore and recommend changes to the present "Minimum
Jail Standards", including specific attention to the follow-
ing:
a, Training of line personnel.
- 90 -
b. Numbers of personnel.
C. Security of facilities.
d. Inclusion of all pertinent health and
fire regulations.
e. Creation of more mandatory standards.
f. Provision for meaningful enforcement. 1115
V. THE FEMALE IN CUSTODY
According to the Bureau of Criminal Statistics, there were a total
of 27,918 county jail inmates on September 25, 1969. Of that figure, 1,839
or less than 1% of the total population were females. 16 These figures in-
clude sentenced and unsentenced inmates.
Disregarding the camps, city jails and city camps, county jails alone
held 18, 148 inmates, of which 1,674 were females and 16,347 were males.
Approximately one out of every ten county jail inmates, both sentenced and
unsentenced, is female. All females are held in maximum security units and
over 70% of all women are held in four of the State's largest counties.
In December 1958, the California Committee on the Older Girl and the
Law published a volume of resource material focusing on the problem of young
women in conflict with the law. Significantly, this 12-year old study is
still the most recent resource material available on the subject. At that
time, the authors estimated that approximately 5% of the total jail popula-
tion in California were females. This reveals approximately a 2% increase
in the female jail population over the 12 years from 1957 to 1969.
The Committee on the Older Girl and the Law stated: "Because there
are so few women placed in custody, many parts of California have never
established a suitable jail facility for women
This means that good
planning for their custody must be done on a regional basis. "17
In determining the present scope of the problem of females in deten-
tion, a review of the literature offered little. In Crime and Delinquency
Abstracts, Volume 6, 1969, there were a total of 1,839 articles dealing
with crime, delinquency, and corrections. Only 20 of these articles dealt
with females and a number of these were reports of research from other
countries. One article spoke to the same need that this Task Force has
cited for relevant information on the female in jail, so that effective
programs may be developed. The Task Force was unable to determine with
any accuracy what the trends in female jail populations are.
According to 3 1966 study by the Department of Corrections, it was
anticipated that the female State prison population would increase from
- 91 -
980 in 1966 to 375 in 1970. 18 This anticipated increase did not material-
ize; in fact, there has been a decrease in the number of females committed
to the Department of Corrections and some Departmental authorities credit
the probation subsidy program with the reduction. The 15 counties studied
had experienced neither an increase nor decrease in the female prison popu-
lation over the past two or three years.
The Task Force discovered that, except in a few counties which have
specialized female facilities, all of which are maximum security, the female
in jail has fewer opportunities for participation in any meaningful programs
or activities. She is housed in facilities that are in worse condition than
are those provided for her male counterpart. The per capita cost of her in-
carceration is almost 50% higher. The reasons for these conditions are un-
doubtedly related to the small number of females scattered throughout the
county jails of California. At the time of data collection, there were a
total of 25 sentenced female prisoners in the 12 Northern California counties.
Developing appropriate programs for this number scattered over so large an
area is not likely to be feasible for any single county. Therefore, the
State must assume responsibility to assist through the coordination of efforts
and through subsidy.
In summary, adequate facilities and services do not presently exist
for female inmates. The most commonly utilized approach is to incarcerate
them in maximum security facilities at both the State and local levels.
This is costly both to the community and to the offender.
Recommendation
7. Local communities should begin immediately to develop alternatives
to incarceration for females. Such alternatives should include supervised
group homes and special probation supervision programs.
In addition, local communities should begin immediately to expand
programs for incarcerated females. Among such programs which might be con-
sidered are community centered education, work furlough, and contractual
agreements with other counties.
VI. THE APPROPRIATE ALLOCATION OF CORRECTIONAL RESOURCES
Resources Limited
There are very clear indications that California is close to reaching
the limit of its capacity of taxing local properties of citizens for support
of the services expected. Corrections has only a limited amount of resources
(staff, programs, facilities) which it can apply to correcting the offender.
Local detention and correctional facilities throughout the State are spread-
ing their resources rather thinly and equally throughout the population, with
little knowledge of who needs the resources. The result is that correctional
programs are delivered to some inmates who do not need them while other in-
- 92 -
mates are passing through the system without full benefit of the programs
available.
Serious Offenders Pass Through Unidentified
In a study of admissions to State prison for a first felony, it was
discovered that over 73% had a history of previous misdemeanor offenses. 19
Assuming many had been sentenced to jail, serious offenders (as efined by
commitment to State prison) had been through the county jail system without
apparent effect. In the present study, 75% of the sentenced inmates in
county jails had served at least one prior jail term. Forty-four percent
had served three or more prior terms and 20% had served 6 or more sentences.
Yet, the State's community correctional apparatus continues to operate,
sparsely spreading its limited resources, without establishing adequate
screening and classification programs. The President's Crime Commission
has observed:
::
identifying dangerous offenders who require rigor-
ous
control and ... appropriate methods of rehabilitation
would also lead to economies, since offenders who
need minimal supervision could be handled expeditiously. "20
The Maximum of Effect
People change over a period of time, depending upon a number of vari-
ables, the effects of which on any one individual cannot be predicted with
any degree of accuracy. Unless an inmate's sentence is based upon the need
to punish, society cannot expect judges to determine the length of term
solely on the basis of what little is known about the offender at the time
of sentencing. The phenomenon of increasing use of a jail sentence with
one day suspended is no doubt a recognition on the part of judges that it
might be necessary to modify the sentence as time passes. The suspension
of one day retains the judge's jurisdiction.
Information is Readily Available
Much of the data necessary to development of an effective classifi-
cation program already exists within the justice system, although the appro-
priate decision-makers do not have access to it. For example, in a county
O.R. unit, certain facts about the arrestee's life in the community must be
obtained. Once the information has served its purpose, it is destroyed, and
the next decision-maker must again gather the same basic information plus
additional information appropriate to his level of decision.
In the development of base expectancy tables21 and in the Vera
Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project, 22 it has been established that a sur-
prisingly small amount of information about a person allows for predictions
to be made with a high degree of confidence. In the case of base expectancy
- 93 -
tables, a few readily available factors allow administrators to make parole
decisions with a higher degree of accuracy than if the decision-makers had
all the facts possible on an offender. 23 In the Vera Foundation project,
7 factors allowed prediction with acceptable accuracy of whether or not a
person could De released from jail without posting bail. As stated in Chap-
ter III, these factors were: (a) employment, (b) family, (c) residence,
(d) references, (e) current offense charged, (f) previous record, and (g)
other factors, sucn as medical care, unemployment insurance and previous
experience with bail. The point is that, with very little effort, gross
screening devices requiring a minimum of information, will allow for more
reliable decisions than are now being made in the areas of O.R., sentencing,
placement in programs, and post-jail supervision. These gross screening
devices can identify offenders in need of more sophisticated assessment such
as may be available through instruments applied by a psychologist or sociolo-
gist.
The Bureau of Criminal Statistics could offer significant assistance
to the counties in the development of O.R. prediction tables and base ex-
pectancy rates. The Bureau already has much of the data and access to com-
puters which would simplify the development of these tools for local agencies.
In summary, correctional resources are limited, potentially serious
offenders escape detection, and resources are expended on many who do not
require them. Although much information for classification and allocation
of correctional resources is readily available, it is not used. Sentences
are pronounced and, though the desired effects may result prior to expir-
ation of sentence, little use is made of sentence modification based on
the offender's response to incarceration. In general, efforts to release
inmates who do not need to be confined are minimal and efforts to rehabil-
itate and reintegrate jail inmates back into the community are almost a
rarity.
The Institutional Services Unit
The problems described above can be solved by developing an appropri-
ate organizational mechanism. The Institutional Services Unit is such a
mechanism that can provide the necessary services not traditionally found
in county jails. The Unit might be a co-operative venture jointly under-
taken by the County's Probation Officer and Sheriff, or it might be estab-
lished in whatever manner is deemed appropriate by the local Criminal Justice
Commission. It would assume the responsibilities of screening and arranging
for the release of inmates as soon as possible and of providing or coordin-
ating efforts at rehabilitation and reintegration.
It is noted that the genesis for such a program presently exists in
some counties, wherein probation officers (or, in one county, a social
worker) are assigned to jail staff and thus become an integral part of the
jail program.
- 94 -
Functions. The Institutional Services Unit would perform the follow-
ing functions:
1. Own recognizance (O.R.) or other similar release evaluations for
unsentenced inmates.
2. Counseling services (individual, group, and family) for inmates,
including "crisis intervention" counseling at the point of initial
confinement (as is being done by some juvenile probation depart-
ments) to enable more releases before court.
3. Coordination of volunteer services in the facility. This might
mean supervising law school students who are conducting O.R.
evaluations or volunteers who are involved in writing progress
reports. If college students majoring in the behavioral sciences
are assigned to this Unit to obtain field work experience in case-
work, quality control and supervision is provided by the staff in
this assignment.
4. Program development and coordination. This could be a program
of field work experience for senior or graduate college students
or it might be the coordination of an MDTA vocational training
program, or the development of any program which meets needs in
the facility.
5. Preparation of progress reports on inmates sentenced to county
jail for more than 60 days. Reports favorable to release are
submitted either to the judge or to the county parole board,
whichever is appropriate.
6. Contract services. This includes seeking out and contracting
for the use of appropriate services from the community and other
agencies.
7. To assist both in preparing inmates for release and in helping
them make a successful transition back into the community. This
coula include provision of county parole.
Staff. Staff might consist of professional correctional personnel,
volunteers, and students in field work placements. As far as possible,
direct services would be provided by volunteers and/or students to be super-
vised by professional personnel in the same manner as the Royal Oak, Michigan,
Municipal Court Probation Project. 24
Recommendation
8. Counties should establish Institutional Services Units either as
a joint responsibility of the Sheriff and Probation Officer or in a manner
prescribed by the local Criminal Justice Commission. The responsibilities
of these Units would be essentially to screen and arrange for the release
- 95 -
of inmates as soon as possible and to provide or coordinate efforts at re-
habilitation and reintegration.
VII. THE ALCOHOLIC IN THE JAIL
"Concerning the alcoholic, opinion was unanimous that
he was a medical and psychiatric problem and not a
criminal. "25
This statement was made by a California Legislative Committee study-
ing jails over 25 years ago, yet, for the most part, the alcoholic is still
in jail. In one medium-sized study county, over 10,000 drunks are arrested
and jailed each year. In a large Bay Area study county, over 15,000 are
jailed each year for public drunkenness, almost 12,000 of which are arrested
in one city. What is more startling is that approximately 2,000 persons
accounted for over 7,700 of the 12,000 arrests. A study of a San Joaquin
Valley county resulted in an estimate of $1,000,000 as the cost of the al-
coholic to the criminal justice system. 26
Is there no way to divert the alcoholic from the criminal justice
system? A number of lawyers, sheriffs, and criminologists expect that the
United States Supreme Court will eventually declare alcoholism to be a health
problem and jailing to be an inappropriate response to this illness.
Very few of the counties studied were planning alternatives, primarily
because they were not aware of any more economical system for the drunk than
jail. But, because costs are hidden by present methods of monitoring the
justice system (the yearly law enforcement budget), some costs are not con-
sidered. For example, the recidivist or "revolving dour" alcoholic returns
to the jail repeatedly, but the St. Louis, Missouri, Detoxification Center
Report cites a 60% reduction in recidivism. 27 Another example of hidden
costs is the financial burden upon the hospitals which treat the alcoholic
for everything from broken bones to cirrhosis of the liver.
The St. Louis Detoxification and Diagnostic Evaluation Center
Under the St. Louis Detoxification Center program, when a law enforce-
ment officer encounters a drunk, rather than jailing him, he transports the
inebriate to the Detoxification Center where the officer fills out an ad-
mittance form and, by telephone, determines if the inebriate is wanted by
any law enforcement agency. The process saves 50% of the arresting officer's
time when compared to the traditional booking procedures, thus freeing the
officer for more appropriate law enforcement functions. Those admitted to
the Center are of fered seven days of service on a voluntary basis. Surpris-
ingly, 90% elect to stay the seven days. 28
Those admitted are bedded, bathed and rested, given medical examin-
ations and services needed, and are contacted by various social service and
- 96 -
alcoholic treatment groups and agencies who help them formulate post-release
plans. Of the 1967 dischargees, 46% had one or more arrests in the three
months prior CO admission, but only 13% had an arrest in the three months
following their release from the Detoxification Center. 29
Support From Law Enforcement
In February of 1968, the California State Sheriffs' Association
passed a resolution supporting the establishment of detoxification centers
throughout California, not only because of humanitarian interests, but be-
cause such a method would free the patrolman for law enforcement duties.
Funds
Although Law Enforcement Assistance Act funds are available to assist
counties in establishing demonstration projects such as detoxification centers,
the need is statewide and therefore requires State efforts and funding.
Decommendation
9. The State should establish additional taxes on alcoholic beverages
which would be used solely for research into alcoholism and for the establish-
ment of detoxitication centers where needed with treatment services provided
by the appropriate mental health or health departments.
VIII. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN CORRECTIONS
The Citizen Volunteer
Citizen involvement in corrections is at least as old as the field of
corrections itself. It is an historical fact that citizen involvement was
responsible for the movement from corporal punishment to incarceration in the
18th century and that Quakers influenced the planning of our earliest peniten-
tiary. Except for very recent efforts, such as the Royal Oak Probation De-
partment, 30 the use of volunteers has not kept pace with the growth of the
field of corrections; in fact, there has been a trend to replace volunteers
with skilled specialists. 31
There are four important problems existing today in the nation which
should force even the most reluctant person to re-assess the importance of
involvement of volunteers in corrections. They are: (1) the vast numbers
of people passing through the justice system versus the very limited number
of paid staff to deliver services; (2) funds necessary for the support of
corrections programs will be withheld if community support is also withheld;
(3) the product of corrections, the client, must return and be accepted by
a community of citizens; and (4) there is a quality about volunteer correc-
- 97 -
tional efforts as opposed to paid staff efforts, which often make them more
acceptable to offenders.
According to the President's Crime Commission, a successful volunteer
program can be assured in a community if:
1. There is a serious commitment on the part of the agency to use
volunteers.
2. There is careful screening of those who offer their services, to
assure selection of persons who have good capacity for the work
that needs to be done (this should not exclude the ex-offender).
3. There is an organized indoctrination and training program to
interpret the offenders and their needs to volunteers and to
give them a realistic perspective of the problems they will meet.
Training should continue at intervals and focus on problems en-
countered by the volunteers.
4. There is careful supervision that will ensure the optimum use
of the volunteer.
5. There are systematic procedures for giving recognition to the
efforts of volunteers. 32
Recommendation
10. Staff and resources at the community level should be allocated
to the recruitment, training, and employment of community volunteers in
local correctional institution programs.
Since the value of, and the need for, volunteers cut across each of
the components of the community criminal justice system, one possibility
that should be seriously considered for the administration of such a volun-
teer program is the establishment of a volunteer coordinating unit as a sub-
unit of the local Criminal Justice Committee proposed in Recommendation No. 3.
IX. THE CORRECTIONAL STIGMA AS A CORRECTIONAL HANDICAP
The fact of having committed a crime and served a sentence results
in decreased opportunities for employment, thus establishing conditions
which may increase the probability of the commission of another crime. Al-
though there are provisions for the expungement or sealing of criminal re-
cords for some misdemeanants under 21, the procedures are not well known
even to those offenders who are eligible, and frequently do not operate as
intended. For example, one administrator in the criminal records division
of a county informed the Task Force staff that he had to retrain his staff
when he overheard one of the records clerks informing a potential employer
of a youth that "his record has been sealed", thus leaving the recipient
- 98 -
of this information wondering if the youth's "sealed record" was for speed-
ing or rape.
While no specific recommendation is offered in this Report, the Jail
Task Force urges that all possible efforts be made to effectively remove or
minimize the stigma of corrections once "the debt is paid".
X. A COMMUNITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
As discussed in Chapter III, there is some disagreement regarding
the need to combine under one administrator the local corrections function,
i.e. a county's correctional facilities and probation services. Support
for this plan was apparent in this Task Force's interviews with the deputy
sheriffs who were staffing the jails. There are obvious benefits from such
an amalgamation such as the unification of effort that would provide a con-
tinuum of treatment before, during, and after incarceration.
There is, however, great controversy over this proposition from polit-
ically powerful elements on both sides of the question. Because it is such
an important issue, the Jail Task Force observes the following:
1. Insofar as the mission of corrections is concerned, the activities
taking place at the time of arrest and detention prior to senten-
cing have as much influence on the offender as do post-sentencing
activities. Proponents of a local Department of Corrections are
only proposing a shift in the continuum at which time the offender
is turned over to another agency.
2. The distinction between status "in jail" and "on probation" may
well diminish, and, since it is human to "err on the side of
caution", such an amalgamation may result in greater use of jail-
ing and for longer terms. Because of the distinction present in
operations today, the placing of a probationer in jail should
have to be justified.
3. There are examples of counties in which the sheriff and the pro-
bation officer are working together effectively. The key to this
relationship and to the effectiveness of either program is the
support and concern it receives from the top administrator on
down to line staff.
Recommendation
11. Those counties expressing an interest in establishing a County
Department of Corrections should be encouraged to do SO through Law Enforce-
ment Assistance Act funds and consultation from the State.
- 99 -
XI. INTER-COUNTY PLACEMENT
The Jail Task Force determined that approximately 2 out of every 10
inmates serving county jail sentences reside in counties other than those
in which they are incarcerated. In keeping with the principles that rein-
tegration of an offender is an important goal of the correctional facility
and that reintegration is easier to accomplish when an inmate is in proximity
to his family and community, the serious handicap of confinement in a dis-
tant area is obvious. Attention is called to the Juvenile Court process
where youths are routinely transferred to their home counties for treatment.
Similarly, adult probation and parole have developed transfer procedures for
quite some time without undue hardship on any participating county.
Recommendation
12. Counties should embark upon cooperative arrangements to provide
for the reciprocal transfer of inmates from counties of commitment to counties
of residence.
XII. HASTENING THE DEMISE OF THE CITY JAIL
As indicated in the 1970 Jail Study, the trend in the last 15 years
has been to move away from city level jails in favor of county operated
detention facilities. 33 In 1960, city jails held 22% of all incarcerated
adults and, in 1969, this percentage had dropped to 9%.
The reasons for the gradual demise of the city jail, include, but are
not limited to, the fact that the city jail has represented a costly dupli-
cation of services especially where a county and city jail are located within
miles of each other. In some instances, the city jail operation has been
turned over to the sheriff and, in other cities, the jail has been remodeled
into other kinds of facilities and prisoners are booked into county jails.
In those counties where the sheriff has a well developed rehabilitation
program and a city jail retains sentenced prisoners, a goal of corrections
is subverted for no good reason. In the case of the large county where a
number of county jails and correctional facilities are under the sheriff's
administration, it is frequently possible to place an inmate close to family
and social ties whereas in the city jail this is frequently impossible.
An example of the possible costly duplication of services can be seen
in a large Southern California county which has presently budgeted approxi-
mately $25,000,000 for the construction of a 2,200 bed security jail addition.
In this county, there are 56 city jails and there is no central authority
which knows at what level of capacity the 56 jails are operating. Quite
possibly, there may be 200 or more unoccupied beds which could be used by
the county sheriff for sentenced prisoners, thus reducing the need for a
- 100 -
comparable number of beds in the projected jail. Management of all jails
within a county by the sheriff may provide better usage of available facil-
ities.
The county operation of city jails is not the only solution. Sheriffs
may wish to contract with city police for housing of sentenced prisoners.
With the steady increase in the number of civil disturbances and demon-
strations which often require the processing of large numbers of people, there
is a very definite need for a central authority to have knowledge of the bed
space available in detention facilities in the county and within a reasonable
distance.
XIII. YOUTH CORRECTIONAL CENTERS
In the estimation of the Jail Task Force, probably the most promising
and innovative facility-based correctional program proposed thus far is the
Youth Correctional Center. 34 This concept, developed by Bradley, Smith,
Salstrom, and others, 35 incorporates:
1. Location in high delinquency areas.
2. Extersive community involvement.
3. Emphasis on behavioral change.
4. Use of flexible degrees of control.
5. Continuity of relationships - same staff inside and outside.
6. Employment of ex-offenders and non-professionals as change agents.
7. Decision-making power shared among all participants.
8. Built-in evaluation of effectiveness.
In 1969, the California Legislature provided for a construction and
staffing subsidy to any county which would establish such a facility. To
date, however, there have been no funds appropriated for this program; as a
result, although several counties have expressed considerable interest in
this concept, there have been no applicants for this subsidy.
The Juvenile Institution Task Force has identified the lack of proper
correctional facilities or programs for the young adult as one of the more
serious "gaps" in correctional services for youth. The Jail Task Force
strongly concurs in this observation.
Forty-four percent of county jail inmates in the study were between
the ages of 18 and 25. Establishment of Youth Correctional Facilities could