WordPress.com



California Prison Reform:Overcrowded, Overcapacity, and Out of ControlElizabeth SemeraroBucknell University18 December 2014Executive SummaryIn 2006, California prisons were operating at approximately 200% of their designed capacity. The United States Supreme Court found that the conditions in the state’s prisons were unconstitutional. California failed to provide adequate and necessary and adequate mental and physical health care to inmates in a timely manner. As a result, in 2007, a prisoner was needlessly dying every five to six days. Since 2006, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has been working to mitigate the adverse effects of their overpopulated prisons. The Supreme Court mandated that California must get their prison population to a designed capacity of 137.5% by December of 2013. California was granted a two-year extension on this mandate, with much stricter guidelines, to be met by February 2016. The state’s leading politicians have clashed in political prison reformation attempts. Governor Brown, among others, favors a strategy that maintains California’s current population of 130,000 prisoners by creating more prisons to house them in a manner that complies with the Supreme Court’s mandate for humane living conditions. However, others have suggested legislation that favors rehabilitation strategies to reduce crime through programming within the prison and upon release. While these two contrasting views of the prison system have led to a slow reformation process, several policies have been enacted since 2006. and Oon the heels of the Supreme Court mandate to slow the growth of the prison population, policies have reduced the population such that it will fit within California’s designed capacity, as well as expanded current prisons to accommodate larger numbers. Table of ContentsTable of ContentsTitle Page – 1Executive Summary – 2Introduction – 4The Problem: Overcrowded, Overcapacity, and Out of Control – 45Policy Solutions – 67Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act – 67Plata/Coleman v Schwarzenegger - 79Brown v Plata – 911Proposition 36: Three Strikes Reform – 1012Governor Brown’s Proposal to the Supreme Court – 112Darrell Steinberg’s Counter Proposal – 134Three-Judge Court Grants 2-Year Extension – 135Proposition 47: Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act - 156Future Policy Implications - 157Purpose of Prison: Normalization versus Less Eligibility – 157Change the Scoring System – 178European Prison Models – 189Conclusion - 1920The Problem: Overcrowded, Overcapacity, and Out of ControlGlobally, the United States holds the largest percentage of its population in prison. The prison population has steadily increased over the years; from just 307,276 prisoners nationally in 1978, it grew to a record high 1,615,487 United States citizens imprisoned in 2009 (Carson & Golinelli, 2013). The population has since been on a slow three year decline to 1,571,013 in 2012, however despite shrinking numbers, many states continue to operate prisons well above capacity. ?Of the 17 states currently imprisoning above capacity, Illinois and North Dakota both operate at about 150% percent capacity, and California is not far behind at 142% capacity (Wilson, 2014). ?Despite Illinois and North Dakota sharing similar problems, the Supreme Court has turned special attention to the state of California. About 50% of the decline in national prison population can be attributed to recent reformation efforts by the state (Carson & Golinelli, 2013). ?In 2009, a three-judge court was convened to address overpopulation issues in California, which sparked the recent changes in prison population trends. While not disagreeing that prisons are overpopulated, the court differed on the causes and outcomes of overcapacity (Reinhardt, Karlton, & Henderson, 2009). Since reaching an all-time high in 2006 of 162,792 prisoners enrolled in the prison system, which was 200.2% of the designed capacity of all California prisonsover 160,000 prisoners, outcry from advocates as well as litigation from prisoners victims have increased scrutiny from the courts and media (Reinhardt et al., 2009, p. 42).?At the highest recorded prisoner population, there were 162,792 prisoners enrolled in the prison system, which was 200.2% of the designed capacity of all California prisons (Reinhardt et al., 2009, p. 42). During the prison boom of the eighties and nineties, standard prison construction planned for an increase in prisoner population that would allow prisons to operate at up to 200% capacity of the initial planned space. While utilities and basic food preparation were taken into account, the expansion of medical facilities to meet the needs of a 200% overcapacity prison population was not considered (Reinhardt, 2009, p. 40). Maximum capacity was planned into the initial construction, in design capacity, operable capacity, and maximum safe and reasonable capacity. The maximum capacity limit fails to provide for humane living conditions or adequate health and mental health care. ?Eventually, conditions worsened such that the Supreme Court took on the case. In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy cited two images depicting grossly overcrowded conditions such as the use of triple bunks in gymnasiums to house prisoners (See Figure 1), overpopulating rooms designed for one or two people, and combining prisoners of mixed security levels in the same living quarters (Reinhardt et al., 2009, p. 70). The Justices found that overcrowded prisons led to “unconstitutional conditions” that overstretched the clinical facilities and resources available to accommodate inmates with medical or mental health needs at the necessary level of care across the entire state (Reinhardt et al. 2009, p. 10). According to the former acting Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), it is impossible to provide inmates with the necessary physical and mental health examination and care when operating in overcrowded settings (Reinhardt et al., 2009, p. 3). Inmates have been forced to wait months to years for medically necessary treatment. Seriously mentally ill inmates “languish in horrific conditions” which has lead to increasing risk of inmate suicide (Reinhardt et al., 2009, p. 7). However, thanks to attention from the judicial system, awareness has grown about mental illness in the prison system. Often in overcrowded prisons, “inmate-on-inmate violence is almost impossible to prevent, infectious diseases spread more easily, and lockdowns are sometimes the only means by which to maintain control” (Reinhardt et al., 2009, p. 7). California has a traceable history of legislation reform, which has included “tough-on-crime politics” that have led to increased levels of incarceration that makes “necessary reforms impossible”necessary reformation almost impossible (Reinhardt et al., 2009, p. 6). As a result of these conditions, California inmates were dying due to mistreatment once every five to six days (Kennedy, 2011, p. 7). ?Overall, the three-judge court found “68 preventable or possibly preventable deaths” inin 2007 (Kennedy, 2011, p. 7). ?These conditions have proved unmanageable for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation that is chiefly responsible for prison oversight. Policy SolutionsOver the years, several legislative attempts have been made to correct the prison system. ?The first of these policy changes occurred in 2007, however the problems are by no means “fixed” and new reform tactics are proposed every day. From their peak prison population in 2006, California still struggles today to bring its population to manageable levels. The following is an account of the major policy actions taken by the state of California to ease overpopulated conditions, as well as the outcomes of these policies. Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007 This act passed as the first attempt to mitigate consequences from overcrowding the prison system. At that time, the CDCR was operating at 200.2% of intended capacity, suggesting that the maximum prison population in 2006 should have been closer to 81,315 prisoners rather than the 162,792 enrolled at the time. In this first round of legislation, the goal of the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act was to increase prison capacity, not reduce population. The plan asked for money to increase the number of beds available to the prison population at large, as well as beds specifically allocated for medical facilities. The plan called for specific numbers of beds needed for expansion and the funds to meet these goals such as:“Design, construct, or renovate prison housing units, prison support buildings, and programming space in order to add up to 7,484 beds, to acquire land, design, construct, and renovate reentry program facilities, and to construct and establish new buildings at facilities under the jurisdiction of the department to provide medical, dental, and mental health treatment” (Machado 2007, para. 2)Another key component of this bill, though less emphasized in the media, was the charge given to the CDCR to “determine and implement a system of incentives to increase inmate participation in, and completion of, academic and vocational education” (Machado 2007, Sect 6, 2054.2). ?In order to oversee the implementation of this charge, the act created the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB). ?The board’s mandate is to “examine the various mental health, substance abuse, educational, and employment programs for inmates and parolees operated by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation” (“About C-ROB”, 2013). While not directly affecting the number of prisoners admitted into the system, this act succeeded in identifying the places in the prison system that needed the most help: reentry programs and health care. By detecting exactly where the gaps and problem areas lie in the prison system, the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act laid the foundation for future reformation. ??Plata/Coleman v Schwarzenegger (August 2009)Plata v Schwarzenegger and Coleman v Schwarzenegger were both individual class action lawsuits against the state of California because of prisoner mistreatment grounded in mental health and medical malpractice due to overpopulated prisons; “both claim that care for inmates violates the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment of the incarcerated” (CDCR, 2011, p. 2). These two cases were merged and the combined case was brought to a three-judge court composed of Judge Stephen Reinhardt from the ninth circuit court of appeals, Eastern California district judge Lawrence Carlton, and Northern California district judge Thelton E Henderson. The combined case was brought to court because the outcomes of the individual cases failed to remedy the conditions that precipitated the lawsuits in the first place. The case concluded with an order to the state of California: “Within 45 days, defendants shall provide the court with a population reduction plan that will in no more than two years reduce the population of the CDCR’s adult institutions to 137.5% of their combined design capacity” (Reinhardt et al., 2009, p. 183). The court justified the ruling by stating, “there is no relief other than a prisoner release order that can remedy the constitutionally inadequate medical and mental health care in California’s prisons” (Reinhardt et al., 2009, p. 6). It is important to note, however, that the order did not call for the immediate release of prisoners to reduce population. ?Rather, the reduction in prison population of over 40,000 inmates could be done in a controlled manner over two years through “release” or “non-admission” of new prisoners (Reinhardt et al., 2009, p. 50). ?The release needed to be done in a way that did not threaten public safety by putting dangerous and un-rehabilitated criminals back into the public arena. One counter argument raised was that the prison system lacks adequate funding to release such high quantities of prisoners back into the community without appropriate rehabilitation programming. ?The court rejected this argument by citing the budget deficit as a pre-existing condition, “regardless of whether the prisoners are released under the current regime or pursuant to the reform measures” (Reinhardt et al., 2009, p. 8). ?The court further suggested that by adopting the guidelines outlined by the court, such as educational credits and parole reform, the state could save $803 to $906 million annually (Reinhardt et al., 2009, p. 8). Six months prior to the official order, the same three-judge panel issued a tentative order reflecting many of the final demands of the court. Because of the six-month grace period, and urgency of the situation, the judges stated that any delays to the process would not be tolerated, short of taking the case to the Supreme Court. California did two things simultaneously. ?Given the judges wishes for strict compliance with their order, the CDCR submitted a two-year prison population reduction plan. Within days of submitting the plan, the State also appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court. The three-judge panel rejected California’s initial plan, however was quickly revised and resubmitted. The new plan was conditionally granted; some parts of the revised plan that went against the initial order were still included in the plan, subsequently the court rejected those parts. The Supreme Court took the case in June 2010. ?Brown v. Plata (May 2011)The Supreme Court voted in May 2011 to uphold the directives laid out by the three-judge court to cap the prison population. Ultimately, the three-judge court presiding over the initial case would oversee the completion of the mandate they initially established, now with power backed by the Supreme Court. Before voting, the Supreme Court changed a few of the stipulations from the initial mandate. They gave California more flexibility in determining who should be released, as well as the ability to petition the three-judge court to modify the terms of their enactment, as long as the ultimate goal of reduction in prison population to 137.5% capacity was met in the two-year deadline, the end of December 2013 (Kennedy, 2011, p. 4). Even Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion for the case, noted that the population reduction is “of unprecedented sweep and extent” and allowed the state some leniency in carrying out the court order (Kennedy, 2011, p. 3). The courts saw overpopulation as a violation of the eighth amendment, recognizing the need to slow the prison’s current growth and reduce overall size in order to provide basic humane living conditions. ?However, the majority opinion looked to mismanagement and poor oversight for primary causes for the dismal conditions, rather than simply too many people. Measures suggested by the court to reduce population included earning “good-time credits” and diverting “low-risk offenders and technical parole violators to community-based programs” (Kennedy, J., 2011, p. 3). Overcrowding limited the resources of the prison staff to perform their duties and obligations to the full extent, often leading to unsatisfactory and unsafe conditions. This is especially true for the demands imposed on the medical and mental health facilities, which made providing care exceptionally challenging (Kennedy, J., 2011, p. 3). Therefore, the Justice suggested enacting new programming that would fix the problem of crime, rather than punishment. Proposition 36: Three Strikes Reform (November 2012)In the wake of Brown v Plata, in the 2012 election cycle, Proposition 36 was put on the California ballot in order to weaken the strict Three-Strike law, which allowed for a criminal’s third offense to make them eligible for a life sentence. This law was based on the assumption that criminals that continue to repeat offend should be imprisoned before their crimes escalated to dangerous levels of violence. The three-strike law prior to Prop 36 stipulated that third time offenders could be put away for life for even the simplest of infractions, such as stealing a pair of socks (“California Prop 36”, 2012, n.p). Proposition 36 called for the third offense to be “of a serious or violent nature”, and allowed for nearly 3,000 inmates currently serving life sentences under the previous version of the law to petition for a reduced term. When the three-strike law was enacted 1994, it was intended to dissuade criminals from continuing to commit crimes because the stakes were higher (“California Prop 36”, 2012). ?However, repeat offenders require greater rehabilitation and programming efforts to help transition from crime and prison to a crime-free lifestyle. ?The 3-strikes law was ineffective in de-incentivizing criminals from continuing to commit crimes; the prison population has only increased since its imposition. Moving forward, the changes to the law will help clear the system of petty crimes with extremely long sentences. Governor Brown’s Proposal to the Supreme Court (August 2013)In August 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown announced a plan of action to meet the stipulations of the Supreme Court ruling. ?Brown’s plan emphasized expansion, not release, as the way to mitigate the effects of overcapacity. ?The plan asked for $315 million plan to expand the state’s prison capacity by thousands of beds (Bernstein, 2013). In order to do this, part of the plan was to shift responsibility for certain nonviolent offenders, numbering approximately 12,000, from the state to the county prison system (Knafo, “California Governor Proposes”, 2013). Prion capacity would expand by private contracting, shifting to county jails, and expanding out of state prisons. Part of Brown’s budget went to a $28.5 million dollar a year contract with the Corrections Corporation of America to temporarily house 2,000 overflow inmates for three years (Knafo, “For Profit Prisons”, 2013). Following the May 2011 court order, Brown had until the end of 2013 to reduce the prison population by another 10,000 beds in order to meet the capacity requirements (Knafo, “New California Prison Plan”). ?The California governor’s focus on expanding physical capacity stemmed partly from the quick turnaround deadline, as well as conveniently timed support and funding from the Corrections Corporation of America and GEO Group.Between 2008 and 2013, the Corrections Corporation of America’s revenues nearly doubled thanks to the governor, and California is the prison company’s second biggest consumer. ?California holds approximately 12,300 prisoners in privately held facilities that reach as far and wide as Arizona, Mississippi, and Oklahoman. ?However, privatization as a solution to overpopulation does not work. ?While there may be financial gains to outsourcing the care of prisoners, Knafo believes that using private, for-profit companies to mitigate overflow “could hamper efforts to change California's tough sentencing laws so that fewer people go to prison in the first place” (“For Profit Prisons”, 2013). ?The CCA and GEO Group, among other for profit prison companies, profit from high recidivism rates and stricter laws and enforcement, and have donated funds to Brown’s office in order to see these high standards upheld. ?The prison industry’s goals of maximizing profit do not align with the goals traditionally associated with the criminal justice system, influencing a goal of expansion rather than reformation. Perhaps guided by the financial incentives from private prison donations, Brown’s proposal refused to release inmates who hadn’t served the full sentence of their time. Darrell Steinberg’s Counter Proposal (August 2013)A Democratic lawmaker for the state offered a counter proposal just a few days following Brown’s announcement. ?Rather than expanding current capacity by leasing to private and out of state facilities, Darrell Steinberg asked for changes in criminal penalties which would curtail long term sentences for low level drug offenders, and change laws to admit less criminals into the prison system. He called for changing the point system for classifying criminals, (which was suggested by the three-judge court in their final mandate in 2009) to raise the points requires for various levels of imprisonment. ?Steinberg wanted to increase funding for rehabilitation programs such as substance-abuse treatment centers, mental health programs, and reentry programs (Knafo “New California Prison” 2013). ?A complement to the Prop 36 reformation legislation, Steinberg’s counter proposal attempted to reduce recidivism for repeat criminals from it’s current rate of 61% relapse in three years (Office of Research, 2013; see Figure 2). ?Three-Judge Court Grants 2-Year Extension (February 2014)At the end of December 2013, when California was supposed to have successfully reached its goal of 137.5% of capacity, the state was still well over at 144% (Lovett 2013). ?While above the court’s mandated capacity, California has contributed to a national decrease in prison population by 1.7% of which California accounted for 51% (Carson & Golinelli, 2013, p.1; see Figure 3). As of February 2014, the three-judge panel granted Brown and the state of California an additional two years to increase spending on programing. ?However, this extension came with strict stipulations that if the state did not meet smaller, short-term goals, a compliance officer was authorized to release prisoners. ?The Supreme Court continues to criticize the delay of prisoner release to compensate for the overcrowded prisons (Lovett) 2013. The extension came with new, rigid stipulations that the CDCR must follow in order to meet the 137.4% design capacity by the new deadline: February 28, 2016 (Reinhardt et al, 2014, p. 2). The court refused to allow any more out of state prisoners beyond their current level of 8,900 prisoners, and encouraged the CDCR to reduce this number within the two-year deadline (Reinhardt et al., 2014, p. 2). Conditionally allowing the CDCR’s request, the court stipulated several measures that required immediate implementation to allow the extension. These measures included increasing available credits for non-violent second-strike offenders, as well as modifying the parole criteria to allow more prisoners to be released early, thus potentially shortening non-violent criminals’ time in prison. The court also called for expansion and implementation of parole programs for “medically incapacitated inmates” and prisoners over the age of sixty who have “served a minimum of twenty five years of their sentence” (Reinhardt et al., 2014, p. 3). A Compliance Officer was appointed to this case: if California does not meet their interim bencharkbenchmark design capacity requirements, the officer is authorized to release the necessary amount of prisoners to meet the goal. The new mandate favors the type of reformation put forward by Steinberg rather than Brown:?more reformation and efforts to increase criminal rehabilitation rather than simply creating more space for prisoners to be safely entered into the prison system. ?The Supreme Court and three-judge panel clearly have communicated that the size of California’s prison population is unacceptable, finding a prison population over 100,000 prisoners to be excessive for the state. ?Finding ways to lighten “tough-on-crime” laws, decrease criminal activity, and reduce recidivism are the only steps forward the courts will accept. ?Proposition 47: Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (November 2014)The “Findings and Declarations” for Prop 47 state the proposition’s goal: “focuses on violent and serious offenses, to maximize alternatives for non-serious, nonviolent crime, and to invest the savings generated from this act into prevention and support programs in K–12 schools, victim services, and mental health and drug treatment. This Act ensures that sentences for people convicted of dangerous crimes like rape, murder, and child molestation are not changed” (“Text of Proposed Laws”, 2014, p. 70). Approved by a 60-40 margin, Emily Harris, organizer for California United for a Responsible Budget, believes, “the passage of Prop 47 is yet another clear signal that the majority of Californians want an end to mass incarceration and an increase in spending on social programs” (Kilgore, 2014). Prop 47 serves as an example of the first round of major legislation precipitated by the 2-year extension. It will be interesting to observe how this law, heavily emphasized on reformation rather than punishment, will be enacted within the prison system. Depending on the effectiveness of this proposition, it may be a cue for future legislation to come forward with ideas for slowing the population by rehabilitation programs, rather than basic expansion tactics to safely house more prisoners. Future Policy ImplicationsPurpose of Prison: Normalization versus Less EligibilityPrison is one part of the larger legal system that oversees the investigation, conviction, imprisonment, and possible release of convicted criminals. The prison system exists to serve four main goals: 1) to deter potential criminals from committing crimes, 2) to punish criminals that have committed crimes, 3) to help imprisoned criminals reform their behavior in order to be allowed back into society and, 4) protect the public from dangerous individuals (Coyle, 2014). While deterrence and protection are important aspects of the prison system, punishment and reformation are the foundations for prison structure, management, and programing. In the US criminal justice system, while punishment is the vehicle, reformation is the goal. The California prison reform debate has centered around two differing approaches on what to do with convicts after they have been sentenced: normalization or less eligibility (Feest, 1999). If normalization can be read as rehabilitation (the ability to re-enter society as a fully functioning member) than less eligibility can be been seen as punishment (making conditions within prisons harsher than any standard of living outside).?In this system, punishment is seen as ‘deserved’ because the criminal ought to have known the consequences of her actions prior to committing the crime. ?Punishment serves no purpose other than to brutalize a criminal for their prior actions. The theory predominant in California prior to 2007 was based strongly in less eligibility. The CDCR’s focus was on placing convicts into secure prisons and devoted their resources to keeping them there. When the prison population began to expand, following the predominant strategy, the first attempt at policy-based reform focused on expanding capacity to meet the current population needs. However recently, political dialogue has seen a shift from control to reformation. This shift most visibly began when Steinberg challenged Governor Brown’s prison capacity proposal. Calling for reformation that focused on funding low security housing, halfway houses, and transitional programs for reentrance into society, Steinberg’s idea of the purpose of prison is strongly based in rehabilitation rather than control. While the focus has begun to shift away from policies that favor expansion over reformation, the CDCR is still not entirely in favor of normalization-based policy. ?Should they chose to move in this direction, there are a number of options available that would reduce imprisonment rates by focusing on legislation that is lenient on minor infractions, as well as support programming that reduce crime and recidivism. ?Change the Scoring SystemTough-on-crime legislation has led to strict enforcement of laws, which leads to high rates of imprisonment. When a convict is first imprisoned, he or she will be sent to a Reception Center, where a Corrections Counselor will evaluate and assign a placement score which, along with mental and physical health considerations, behavioral problems, room availability, last address, gang affiliation and nature of crimes, will determine the type of detainment facility the prisoner will attend for the duration of their sentence (Farabee, Grattet, McCleary, Raphael, & Turner, 2011, p.19).Housing ranges from Level 1, which is has the least amount of security and open dormitory living quarters to Level 4, which has maximum security inside and outside, and locked cells (Whitley, 2007, n.p). A report was recently done by the CDCR to evaluate the inmate classification score system. The report investigated the possibility of adjusting the scores such that convicts need more points in order to qualify for greater security levels. The study found that “classification score ranges could modestly be adjusted upward to include more inmates in the lower levels without serious compromise to institutional safety or public safety” (Farabee et al., 2011, p. 10). By having fewer inmates in higher-level security prisons, resources unnecessarily devoted to high security prisons could be spread more efficiently across the four levels of imprisonment. European Prison ModelsThe debate around the function of prison is not exclusive to America. In Europe, three prison models have evolved as dominant strategies. Minimum Wage Model (Austria): The goal of this system is reformation. By providing prisoners with jobs equal to those in the public sphere, the prison empowers workers to find jobs with transferable skills that, upon release, help bring stability through employment. All prisoners in this system are “entitled to 60-90 percent of the legally guaranteed gross income of an unskilled metal worker” (Feest, 1999, p. 104). Deregulation Model (France): Under this model, the prisoner is not required to work or participate in prison programing. Those who do not want to work are left alone. While this saves the government money, it creates unfair social hierarchies within the prison (Feest, 1999, p. 104-105). Bifurcation Model (Germany): This model, as the name suggests, divides the prison population into two categories: prisoners eligible to work outside the prison, and prisoners eligible to work inside only. The division is unequal, however; “About 12 percent of all workers are allowed to work outside prison with a normal contract, for normal wages, including all fringe benefits, like social security” (Feest 1999, p. 105). Despite the unequal divide, this model provides transferable skills to prisoners upon release and a deeper connection to the community to prevent recidivism, while also providing a source of incentive to the remaining prisoners. In a system based on less-eligibility, prison employment functions as economic support for the institution, rather than the prisoner’s social and economic rehabilitation (Feest, 1999, p. 61). This is true of the system in California and across the nation. However, opportunity for financial gains is a strong incentive that captive audiences, such as California prisoners, will respond to. ConclusionIn a climate where so much emphasis has been placed on managing the prison population, whether by normalization or less-eligibility, often, prisoner education and training is brushed aside because it is expensive., and Tthose in charge of funding doubt the success of the programs being worth their investment. However, at California’s Prison for Men located in Chino, a training program offers a different vision for the future of California’s prisons:“The California Prison Industry Authority (CALPIA) established the Career Technical Education (CTE) program in 2007 to provide offenders with an opportunity to gain hands-on experience in real world training... The California Prison Industry Authority (CALPIA) operates the Marine Technology Training Center (MTTC), an 11-month training program, providing training in diverse curriculum including diving physics, navigation, report writing, air systems, welding, seamanship, blueprint reading, diesel engines, and marine construction. The training not only focuses on technical skills, but also instills a professional attitude of determination, perseverance, and courage” (CALPIA, 2011). CALIPA is proving to the rest of the state that investing in prisoner’s leads to positive outcomes. Gould (2014) states that “some 7,000 inmates work in factories on prison grounds to produce clothing, office furniture, license plates, juice, shoes, signs, gloves, eyewear and other goods …Participants in these programs are 26 percent less likely to reoffend.” In Chino, male prisoners are taking advantage of the opportunities that CALPIA provides with the MTTC. Rather than providing job opportunities without real financial gains, this program offers inmates a chance at a stable career with a comfortable yearly salary upon release. While the program is physically demanding, the outcomes of the program outweigh most security, safety, or budgeting concerns. CALIPA embraces normalization tactics that the CDCR should adopt and prioritize statewide. This program differs from others because of the soft skills it provides: determination, perseverance, and courage. These traits are more valuable to the prison population than any minimum wage job. By teaching responsibility and ownership for their actions, these prisoners are learning new skills to accomplish the same goals that previously only crime could achieve. With a staggeringly low recidivism rate of just 26%, the CDCR needs to expand on programs like this one. Prisons in California are overcrowded because aggressive laws have lead to the imprisonment of too many individuals without serious intent to harm the public. By continuing to put more criminals into an overcrowded system that fails to meet basic standards of living such as access to mental and physical health care, prisoners are receiving the message that their lives are not worth anything. Steinberg nudged California away from less-eligibility tactics through expanding capacity, but until the CDCR embraces programs such as the MTTC sponsored by CALPIA as a primary goal of prisons, the system can only change so much. References“About C-ROB”. 2013 Available from HYPERLINK "" \t "_blank" . “California prop 36, measure reforming state's three strikes law, approved by wide majority of voters”. 2012. Huffington Post San Francisco, 11/07/2012, 2012. “Career technology training (CTE)”. 2011Available from HYPERLINK "" \t "_blank" . Austin, James, & Coventry, Garry. 2001. Emerging issues on privatized prisons. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Beard, Jeffrey; Toche, Diana; & Beyer, Bryan. 2014. Fall 2014 population projections. Sacramento, Ca: California Department of Corrections And Rehabilitation Office of Research. Bernstein, S. 2013. California prison crowding plan neglects rehabilitation: Lawmaker. Reuters, 08/29/2013, 2013. Text of Proposed Laws, (2014): Proposition 47, HYPERLINK "" \l "prop47" \t "_blank" . California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). 2011. Three-judge panel and California inmate population reduction fact sheet. Carson, E., & D. Golinelli. 2013. Prisoners in 2012 - advance counts. Bureau Of Justice Statistics. Coyle, Andrew. “Prison”. 2014. Available from HYPERLINK "" \t "_blank" . Craig, Susan Clark. 2004. Rehabilitation versus control: An organizational theory of prison management. The Prison Journal 84 (4): 92s-114s. Farabee, D.; Grattet, R; McCleary, S; Raphael; Turner, S. 2011. Expert panel study of the inmate classification score system. Sacramento, CA: State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Office of Research Research and Evaluation Branch. Federal Bureau of Prisons. FCI Danbury. 2014. Available from HYPERLINK "" \t "_blank" . Feest, Johannes. 1999. Imprisonment and prisoners' work: Normalization or less eligibility? Punishment & Society 1 (1): 99-107. Gilna, D. 2013. BOP compromises on plan to transfer prisoners from FCI Danbury. Prison Legal News, Dec 15, 2013. Gould, Jens Erik. 2014. California's best answer to prison overcrowding. Huffington Post, 07/21/2014, 2014. Appeal from the united states district courts for the eastern and northern districts of California to the supreme court, No. 09–1233 (BROWN, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. v. PLATA ET AL. 2011), HYPERLINK "" \t "_blank" . Kilgore, J. 2014. Prop 47, immigration reform and more: The contradictory road of "reforming" mass incarceration. Truth-, 10/12/14, 2014. Knafo, S. 2013. California governor proposes massive prison expansion to avoid freeing inmates. Huffington Post, 08/27/2013, 2013. For-profit prisons are big winners of california's overcrowding crisis. 2013. Huffington Post, 10/25/2013, 2013. New california prison plan would reform, not expand, state's overcrowded system. 2013. Huffington Post, 08/28/2013, 2013. Lovett, I. 2013. Court gives california more time to ease prison crowding. New York Times2013. Legislative Counsel's Digest. AB 900(, 2007). Office of Research. 2014. 2013 outcome evaluation report. Sacramento, California: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plata/Coleman v Schwarzenegger, Plata/Coleman v Schwarzenegger, (California Eastern District Courts 2009), HYPERLINK "" \t "_blank" . Sergeant Whitley, Ken. Points and inmate classification. 2007. Available from HYPERLINK "" \t "_blank" . Wilson, R. 2014. Prisons in these 17 states are over capacity. The Washington Post, Sept 20, 2014. AppendixFigure 1: Justice Kennedy cites triple-bunked beds in a gymnasium when stating the majority opinion in the Supreme Court case that California prison conditions are unconstitutional. FIGURE 2a: ?California RecidivismWhat is recidivism and how is it calculated?(2013 Outcome Evaluation Report, p. 4) ?Figure 2b: Three-Year Recidivism Rates for Returns to Prison for Adults, 2002-2009(2013 Outcome Evaluation Report, p. iv) Figure 2c: California Recividim Rate for Three Year PeriodFrom the 2013 Outcome Evaluation Report examining recidivism: “The total three-year recidivism rate for the FY 2008-09 cohort is 61.0 percent. The recidivism rate for rereleases is 21.6 percentage points higher than the rate for first releases. When examining the recidivism rates as time progresses, most inmates who return to prison do so in the first year after release” (p. 11). Figure 2d: Dilbert’s Take on Recidivism(Whitley, 2007)Figure 3- State of California Prison Population Trends and Projection of Future Growth, June 30, 2005 – 2016(Fall 2014 Population Predictions, p. 10) ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download