BIANNUAL REPORT
JANUARY 15, 2008

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

PREFACE
Pursuant to Penal Code section 6141, the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB or the
Board) is mandated to regularly examine and report biannually to the Governor and the Legislature
regarding rehabilitative programming provided by the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR or the Department) to the inmates and parolees under its supervision.
C-ROB held its first meeting on June 19, 2007. The Board has held five public meetings since then.
According to statute, C-ROB is required to biannually report on January 15 and July 15 and its
reports must minimally include findings on:
Effectiveness of treatment efforts
Rehabilitation needs of offenders
Gaps in rehabilitation services
Levels of offender participation and success
The first biannual report was presented to the Governor and the Legislature on July 15, 2007. This
document is the second biannual report. As required by statute, this report utilizes the findings and
recommendations published by the Expert Panel on Adult Offender and Recidivism Reduction
Programs. In addition, this report reflects information provided by CDCR during public hearings as
well as supplemental materials provided to C-ROB by the Department.

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary....................................................................................................... i
Part I:

Background ................................................................................................... 1

Part II:

Methodology................................................................................................. 3

Part III: Establishing an Effective Treatment Model............................................. 5
Part IV: Capacity for Rehabilitative Efforts............................................................. 10
Part V:

Conclusions................................................................................................... 13

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Identifying the Rehabilitative Needs of Offenders........................... 17
Appendix B: Determining Gaps in Rehabilitative Services..................................... 18
Appendix C: Determining Levels of Offender Participation and Success............ 19
Appendix D: Determining the Effectiveness of Rehabilitative Programming..... 20
Appendix E: Determining Adherence to Evidence-Based Principles ................... 21
Appendix F: Status of Expert Panel Recommendations........................................ 22
Appendix G: Members of the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board ........... 32

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB or the Board) was established pursuant to
Assembly Bill 900 (AB 900), the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007.
Pursuant to Penal Code section 6141, the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board is mandated to
regularly examine and report biannually to the Governor and the Legislature regarding rehabilitative
programming provided by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR or
the Department) to the inmates and parolees under its supervision. C-ROB held its first meeting on
June 19, 2007. The Board has held five public meetings since then.
According to statute, C-ROB is required to biannually report on January 15 and July 15 and its
reports must minimally include findings on the effectiveness of treatment efforts, the rehabilitation
needs of offenders, gaps in rehabilitation services, and levels of offender participation and success.
In performing its duties, C-ROB is required by statute to utilize the Expert Panel on Adult Offender
and Recidivism Reduction Programming’s report titled “A Roadmap for Effective Offender
Programming in California” (the Expert Panel report).1
CDCR created the Expert Panel in response to authorization language in the Budget Act of 2006–
07. The Legislature directed CDCR to contract with correctional program experts to assess the
state’s adult prison and parole programs designed to reduce recidivism. In addition, CDCR tasked
the Expert Panel to provide it with recommendations for improving programming in California’s
prison and parole system. The Expert Panel submitted its report to the Legislature in June 2007.2
The Expert Panel’s report included 11 main recommendations and 35 sub-recommendations. The
Board reviewed the Expert Panel report and concurs with its recommendations.
In preparing this biannual report, C-ROB recognizes that its mandate is long-term. As the Expert
Panel noted in its report, “correctional change takes time.” More specifically, the Expert Panel
noted the following:
Because correctional change involves often competing (or at least differing) stakeholders—
citizens, administrators, offenders, corrections officers, parole officers, families, legislators,
etc.—it often takes a long time, at least two to five years, for agencies to achieve consistent
and sustainable results.3

Thus far, the Board has been impressed by the Department’s level of cooperation. Representatives
from throughout CDCR have made themselves available, as needed, to present regular updates to
C-ROB. However, the Department has been unable to share some information with C-ROB,
particularly related to internal planning efforts. In certain cases, the Department may be awaiting
final internal decisions and/or approval, while in other cases, the uncertainty associated with the
budget process may prohibit CDCR from disclosing details before the budget is released on
1

Specifically, Penal Code section 6141 requires: “In performing its duties, the board shall use the work products
developed for the department as a result of the provisions of the 2006 Budget Act, including Provision 18 of Item
5225-001-0001.”
2
“California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Expert Panel on Adult Offender and Recidivism
Reduction Programming Report to the California State Legislature: A Roadmap for Effective Offender
Programming in California,” submitted to the Legislature on June 29, 2007, p. vii.
3
Expert Panel report, p. 15.
CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE i

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

January 10, 2008. Regardless of the reasoning, however, many of the planning documents, which
C-ROB needs to review to determine whether the Department has appropriately considered all
relevant factors and weighed priorities accordingly, have not been available to the Board. In order
to carry out its mandate, C-ROB must be provided with more details, including information related
to the Department’s planning efforts.
That said, the Board notes that, in most areas in which the Department has been able to report,
CDCR is working toward implementing an effective rehabilitative model, as recommended by the
Expert Panel. These implementation efforts include the following:
C-ROB commends the Department for its willingness to commit to an evidence-based
treatment model.
The Department has already begun the first steps toward implementing a rehabilitative
model. For example, CDCR has begun conducting inmate assessments using the
Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) at
reception and prior to release on parole.
C-ROB is not taking a position regarding whether or not the COMPAS tool was the right
selection for California. However, the Board is impressed that the Department appears to
have relied upon expert recommendations and carefully examined various alternatives. At
this time, the Board is satisfied that the Department is making every effort to adapt this tool
as necessary while committing to working within the guidelines and principles of evidencebased programming.
C-ROB agrees with the Department’s decision to phase in the new treatment model using
what it calls “proof projects” (demonstration projects at designated locations) instead of
trying to attempt statewide implementation. This approach should enable the Department
to evaluate and modify the model, as needed, before attempting statewide implementation.
The Department has developed a spending plan for approximately $90 million in funds it
received as part of the Budget Act of 2007-08 for reducing recidivism strategies.
The Department has appropriately recognized the critical role of its Office of Research and
is involving research staff and outside experts in most, if not all, of the key areas—not just in
evaluation, but in planning and development, as well.
The Department has acknowledged the importance of alternative sanctions for parole
violators and agreed in an April 2007 stipulation in the Valdivia lawsuit (regarding due
process procedures at parole revocation hearings) to establish a certain level of remedial
sanctions. A recent review by the special master in the Valdivia lawsuit commended the
Department for its efforts in this area. Specifically, the special master reported that the
“defendants [CDCR] have made excellent progress on remedial sanctions during this
reporting period [May 2007 through September 2007].”4

4

“Third Report of the Special Master on the Status of Conditions of the Remedial Order.” (Valdivia v.
Schwarzenegger, Case No. CIV S-94-0671 LKK/GGH (E.D. Cal.).)

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE ii

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

The Department has worked hard to actively engage community partners in its reentryrelated efforts. As a result of these efforts, as of December 2007, the Department had
received “agreements to cooperate” from 16 counties who expressed an interest in
establishing a secure reentry facility in their community, including agreements from three
counties whose interest was not contingent upon receiving jail bond funding.
Despite these significant accomplishments, based on information available to the Board, C-ROB has
a number of concerns regarding the status of CDCR’s rehabilitative programming efforts. It should
be noted that the Board’s concerns are not based on an assumption that the Department should
have already resolved or completed all of the issues identified below. Rather, C-ROB raises these
concerns as red flags, which if not addressed in the near future, will ultimately threaten the
Department’s chances for success.
The Board has not seen evidence of a comprehensive and integrated plan dedicated
specifically to improving rehabilitative programming. Instead, the Department’s efforts
appear fragmented with multiple plans that are related in some ways, but unrelated in other
ways. For example, the efforts to conduct COMPAS assessments at intake are entirely
separate from the efforts to conduct COMPAS assessments prior to release. In either case,
it is not clear how effectively, if at all, the staff members who work directly with inmates and
parolees are using these assessments.
Despite the Department’s laudable effort to begin conducting assessments upon intake and
prior to release on parole, significant numbers of inmates are still not being assessed. Even
more importantly, the assessments’ value is questionable because the Department has not yet
developed a case management plan that will serve to connect inmates and parolees to the
programs they need.
While the COMPAS tool will serve as the basis for the risk and criminogenic needs
assessment, the Department has acknowledged that other secondary assessments will be
needed to effectively assess inmates and parolees and assign them to appropriate
programming. These assessments have yet to be identified. To the extent that additional
resources must be secured, this may delay CDCR’s ability to implement an effective
treatment model.
C-ROB agrees with the Department that a multidisciplinary team is crucial to an effective
case plan for each offender. However, the Board has not been informed as to which staff
members will comprise this multidisciplinary team, how their roles will be defined, or who
will serve as the case planner. Successful implementation will require that these staff
members are adequately trained and assigned reasonable caseloads to effectively complete
their jobs.
It is the Board’s belief that during the “proof projects” the case management plans will be
documented in writing. C-ROB understands that this may be necessary until an automated
case management system is developed; however, C-ROB ultimately believes that a system
that automates the case management plans must be a priority. In an organization the size of
CDCR, effective case management, multidisciplinary treatment, and continuity between
treatment in prison and parole settings will be virtually impossible without an effective
information technology (IT) system. Therefore, efforts to improve CDCR’s IT system must
be expedited.
CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE iii

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CDCR must be provided with sufficient resources to ensure effective rehabilitative
programming for the inmates and parolees under its supervision. In addition, the
Department must ensure that appropriate space is constructed and/or made available for
effective rehabilitative programming.
Without a complete inventory of existing rehabilitative programs and a statewide assessment
of rehabilitative needs, C-ROB cannot determine the gap between available and needed
services. Eventually, a range of rehabilitative programming, as determined necessary by the
risk-needs assessments, will need to be available statewide. At a minimum, at least one
program in each major offending area must be available as part of the “proof projects.”
Until CDCR has adequate and appropriate rehabilitative programming, C-ROB is concerned
about how the Department will allocate its limited programs among various inmates and
parolees.
The Board notes that there is a potential for significant overlap between the Department’s
efforts to improve rehabilitation programming and the health care receiver’s efforts.
Effective coordination will be required to address this overlap.
CDCR received $50 million in fiscal year 2007-08 to begin implementing the rehabilitative
components of AB 900. To date, C-ROB has not received a spending plan for these funds.
The Department appears to be working hard to coordinate reentry efforts, yet the stigma
and resistance to siting some of these facilities continues to be problematic. (This is a
problem that cannot be blamed on the Department, but it must be resolved nevertheless.)
The Department would benefit from expanding its collaborative efforts with law
enforcement to include key leaders of community service systems, e.g., county directors of
behavioral health, mental health, and human services, among others, to maximize support
for reentry efforts.

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE iv

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

I. BACKGROUND
C-ROB AND ASSEMBLY BILL 900
Assembly Bill 900 (AB 900), the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007,
established the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board. By legislative design, C-ROB is a
multidisciplinary public board with representatives from various state and local entities. C-ROB
actively engages leaders from the fields of law enforcement, education, mental health, substance
abuse, and criminal justice research in working to ensure effective and sustainable rehabilitative
programming throughout California’s prison and parole systems. A list of C-ROB members is
included as Appendix G.
AB 900 was enacted to address the serious problem of overcrowding in California’s prisons and to
improve rehabilitative outcomes among California’s inmates and parolees. Specifically, to reduce
overcrowding and to help address the many problems associated with overcrowding, AB 900
provided CDCR with the authority to construct or renovate up to 16,000 beds at existing prisons to
replace the use of “temporary” beds (i.e., beds currently placed in gymnasiums, classrooms, hallways,
or other public spaces that were not originally constructed to house inmates). AB 900 also gave
CDCR the authority to create 16,000 beds in secure reentry facilities and to construct up to 8,000
medical, dental, and mental health beds. AB 900 further provided funding to increase county jail
beds by approximately 13,000 and authorized the transfer of up to 8,000 prisoners out of state.5 AB
900 also made it clear, however, that the Department must prioritize the improvement of
rehabilitative programming. For example, AB 900 requires that any new beds constructed must be
associated with full programming.6 Moreover, AB 900 provides its funding in two phases and
requires the Department to meet certain benchmarks, including some of which are related to
rehabilitative programming, before it can obtain the second phase of funding.7
Given this interrelation between AB 900 and C-ROB, some have assumed that C-ROB’s mandate is
to provide oversight of AB 900. However, this is not the case.8 In some regards, C-ROB’s mandate
is narrower than AB 900, and in other ways, it is broader. For instance, C-ROB’s purview is not
limited to the rehabilitation programming required by AB 900 (i.e., programming associated with the
new beds or the 10 percent increase required as one of the AB 900 benchmarks). Instead, C-ROB is
mandated to examine and report on rehabilitative programming and the implementation of an
effective treatment model throughout CDCR, including programming provided to all inmates and
parolees.

5

Assembly Bill 900 (Solorio), Chapter 7, Statutes 2007.
Government Code section 15819.40 (AB 900) mandates that “any new beds constructed pursuant to this section
shall be supported by rehabilitative programming for inmates, including, but not limited to, education, vocational
programs, substance abuse treatment programs, employment programs, and pre-release planning.”
7
Penal Code section 7021 (AB 900), paragraphs 1 to 13.
8
Technically, the oversight of AB 900 is described in Penal Code section 7021 (AB 900), which states that phase
II of the construction funding (as outlined in section 15819.41 of the Government Code) may not be released until a
three-member panel, composed of the State Auditor, the Inspector General, and an appointee of the Judicial Council
of California, verifies that all 13 benchmarks, which are outlined in paragraphs 1 to 13 of Penal Code section 7021,
have been met.
6

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 1

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

EXPERT PANEL REPORT
In performing its duties, C-ROB is required by statute to utilize the Expert Panel on Adult Offender
and Recidivism Reduction Programming’s report titled “A Roadmap for Effective Offender
Programming in California” (the Expert Panel report).9
CDCR created the Expert Panel in response to authorization language in the Budget Act of 2006–
07. The Legislature directed CDCR to contract with correctional program experts to assess
California’s adult prison and parole programs designed to reduce recidivism. In addition, CDCR
tasked the Expert Panel to provide it with recommendations for improving programming in
California’s prison and parole system. The Expert Panel submitted its report to the Legislature in
June 2007.10 The Expert Panel’s report included 11 main recommendations and 35 subrecommendations. The Board reviewed the Expert Panel report and concurs with its
recommendations. A complete table of these recommendations is included as part of Appendix F.
In recommending that CDCR adopt a comprehensive and effective rehabilitative treatment model,
the Expert Panel dubbed its proposed model the “California Logic Model.” The Department has
made it clear both in verbal testimony to C-ROB as well as in written responses to the Legislature
that it has accepted and intends to implement the core principles of the California Logic Model.
Therefore, as C-ROB examines the Department’s progress in developing an effective treatment
model in this and future reports, C-ROB will do so using the eight basic components of the
California Logic Model, as recommended by the Expert Panel report.
The basic components of the California Logic Model include:
Assess high risk. Target offenders who pose the highest risk for re-offending.
Assess needs. Identify offender’s criminogenic needs/dynamic risk factors.
Develop behavior management plans. Utilize assessment results to develop an
individualized case plan.
Deliver programs. Deliver cognitive behavioral programs, offering varying levels of
duration and intensity.
Measure progress. Periodically evaluate progress, update treatment plans, measure
treatment gains, and determine appropriateness for program completion.
Prep for reentry. Develop a formal re-entry plan prior to program completion to ensure a
continuum of care.
Reintegrate. Provide aftercare through collaboration with community providers.
Follow up. Track offenders and collect outcome data.

9

Specifically, Penal Code section 6141 requires: “In performing its duties, the board shall use the work products
developed for the department as a result of the provisions of the 2006 Budget Act, including Provision 18 of Item
5225-001-0001.”
10
Expert Panel Report, p. vii.
CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

II. METHODOLOGY
In preparing this biannual report, C-ROB held public meetings on September 25, 2007;
November 7, 2007; and December 3, 2007, each in Sacramento.11 At these meetings, the Board
received testimony and information from a variety of departmental representatives, including
members of the Rehabilitation Strike Team, which the Governor established shortly after the
passage of AB 900 to “fundamentally reform California’s prison rehabilitation programs.” (C-ROB
considered work products and testimony from the Governor’s Rehabilitation Strike Team as
representative of the Department’s perspective.)
While CDCR provided some planning documents to it, the Board mainly relied upon verbal
testimony at the public meetings for updates on CDCR’s status. As a result, the findings and scope
of this report are based primarily on information received up to and including the meeting on
December 3, 2007.
As C-ROB examines the Department’s efforts related to implementing an effective treatment model,
the following questions will be explored in this and future C-ROB reports:
Planning and Development
o Does CDCR have an implementation plan that includes appropriate timelines?
o Does this plan seem comprehensive and reasonable?
o Does CDCR have an appropriate staffing plan for these programs?
o Is external approval (i.e., Legislature, control agencies) necessary? If so, what is the
status?
o Have the appropriate tools (i.e., assessments, program curricula, training standards,
policies, evaluation criteria) been developed?
o Have the appropriate partners and stakeholders been involved in planning and
development activities?
Implementation
o What is the status of implementation at the institution or parole region level?
o What is the status of statewide implementation?
o What barriers or challenges are impeding progress?
o What strategies have been identified to address those barriers or challenges? (C-ROB
may recommend alternative strategies.)
Quality Assurance and Evaluation
o Is CDCR adequately and appropriately monitoring quality assurance?
o What progress has CDCR made with respect to process measures?
o What progress has CDCR made with respect to outcome measures?
Program Improvement
o Are programs and/or processes being modified based upon quality assurance and
evaluation findings?
Part I of this biannual report provides a background to C-ROB’s mission and scope. Part II
describes the report’s methodology. Part III reports on the Department’s efforts to implement an
effective treatment model. This section includes four subsections that cover the following phases:
11

In calendar year 2008, C-ROB plans to conduct several of its meetings in southern California to ensure that
public participation is not limited to those who live in the Sacramento area.
CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 3

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

1) planning and development; 2) implementation; 3) quality assurance and evaluation; and
4) program improvement. Part IV of the report discusses the Department’s efforts related to
building capacity for rehabilitative programming. This section includes a brief discussion of efforts
related to reducing overcrowding, implementing parole reforms, improving information technology,
improving staff development and training, and improving management capacity and stability. Part V
contains the Board’s conclusions.
A significant portion of this report is included as appendices. These appendices present the types of
information that C-ROB will be tracking and reporting upon in future reports. Given the limited
amount of time and information available for this report, C-ROB did not attempt to complete these
sections for this January 2008 report. The Board anticipates reporting on many of these areas, at
least with baseline data, by the next report in July 2008.
There are many instances noted throughout this report in which C-ROB does not have sufficient
information to answer the questions listed above. In some cases, this lack of information may be
because the question was premature. In many cases, however, the Department was still in the
decision-making process or was otherwise unable to share information publicly.
Because of the limited information available to the Board, particularly details related to planning
efforts, this biannual report is rather narrow in its conclusions.
It is important to note that C-ROB has not validated the information contained in this report. For
future reports, C-ROB may request the Office of the Inspector General to verify or follow up on
information submitted to the Board.

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 4

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

III. ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE TREATMENT MODEL
This part of the report examines the Department’s progress toward establishing an effective
treatment model. The Board recognizes and supports the Department’s decision to implement the
California Logic Model, as described in the Expert Panel report.
Specifically, this section examines the Department’s effort to establish an effective treatment model
using the following four phases: 1) planning and development; 2) implementation; 3) quality
assurance and evaluation; and 4) program improvement. Given the early stages of the Department’s
planning efforts, most of the information available at this time relates to the planning and
development phase.
Each section follows the framework of the California Logic Model, which includes the following
basic components: assess high risk, assess needs, develop behavior management plans, deliver
programs, measure progress, prep for reentry, reintegrate, and follow up.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Thus far, CDCR has not provided C-ROB with a comprehensive plan outlining its proposal to
improve rehabilitative programming. The Department has engaged in multiple planning efforts
related to AB 900 (e.g., out-of-state transfers, infill bed construction, and secure reentry facilities),
but there does not appear to be a comparable plan dedicated specifically to rehabilitative
programming. Absent such a comprehensive plan, the information in this section is necessarily
based on testimony and reports from a variety of departmental sources, including the Rehabilitation
Strike Team.
CDCR has accepted the Expert Panel’s recommendation that a validated risk-needs assessment is
key to an effective treatment model. Furthermore, CDCR has reported to C-ROB that it will use
the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) tool, which
it began using in the Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) in January 2006, as the basis for
this risk-needs assessment. After exploring other options, the Rehabilitation Strike Team concluded
that, based on the Department’s plan to modify and validate the COMPAS tool, moving forward
with COMPAS as the basis for the risk-needs assessment was the best option for California.
According to testimony provided to C-ROB in November and December 2007, CDCR is currently
modifying the COMPAS tool to improve its ability to identify criminogenic needs and ultimately to
serve as the basis for individualized case plans. CDCR’s Office of Research, along with outside
research experts is helping with the modifications, and the Department anticipates the modifications
to be completed by mid to late January 2008.
Based on CDCR testimony at the December 2007 C-ROB meeting, Rehabilitation Strike Team
members are in the process of developing a report that will lay out a roadmap to link the COMPAS
risk-needs assessments with case planning and program delivery. CDCR indicated that this process,
which will include a case planner (staffing classification yet to be specified), will begin in July 2008.
This proposal was not available in time for C-ROB to review in time for this report.
In the meantime, a report from the Rehabilitation Strike Team in October 2007 titled “Governor’s
Rehabilitation Strike Team: A Status Report and Roadmap” described some of the proposed
components of a case management plan. This Status Report refers to the case management plan as
CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 5

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

the Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Plan (OARP). According to this report, the OARP
(which was cited in the Expert Panel report as a behavior management plan) is currently in
development and slated to be demonstrated in a reception center, prison, and parole region in 2008.
These demonstration projects are being called “proof projects.”
As indicated by the Rehabilitation Strike Team’s October 2007 Status Report, the key components
of an effective case management system will include establishing and training a multidisciplinary
team, developing and deploying an OARP, providing and using modern information technology,
providing rehabilitation services, and utilizing the ongoing evaluation of the OARP.
As noted in the October 2007 Rehabilitation Strike Team Status Report, at least one core program
will need to be available as part of the “proof projects” in each of the six major offender
programming areas. These programming areas, which were defined in the Expert Panel report, are
as follows:
Academic, vocational, and financial
Alcohol and other drugs
Aggression, hostility, anger, and violence
Criminal thinking, behaviors, and associations
Family, marital, and relationships
Sex offending
CDCR has reported that it is creating an inventory of existing programs, which may include an
analysis of as many as several hundred program varieties. The Board, however, has yet to receive a
copy of this document and therefore cannot comment on its content.
CDCR received approximately $140 million in fiscal year 2007-08 to increase or improve
rehabilitative programming, including $50 million as part of Assembly Bill 900 and $90 million as
part of its reducing recidivism strategies. While C-ROB has not been provided yet with a spending
plan for the $50 million, the Department has developed a spending plan for the $90 million for
strategies to reduce recidivism.
With respect to academic and vocational programming, the Rehabilitation Strike Team reported in
its October 2007 Status Report that this was a priority for the team. This Status Report included a
number of recommendations intended to promote an interdisciplinary effort geared toward a
thorough integration of parolees into the workforce. At this time, however, these are only
recommendations and not an approved plan. A status on this plan has not been provided to
C-ROB but is due to the Legislature by January 15, 2008.
C-ROB has received very little information to date regarding the Department’s plans to measure an
offender’s progress, i.e., reducing the offender’s risk to reoffend. The Expert Panel recommended
that CDCR provide inmates and parolees with incentives for positive behavior. While some of the
Expert Panel’s recommendations require legislative change, there are several that do not. As of
December 2007, the Department had not provided the Board with specific information regarding
modifications to the current incentive structure for inmates or parolees.
Based on testimony provided to C-ROB, the Department is engaging in several distinct efforts to
improve reentry services. The first effort is the use of the COMPAS assessment prior to release.
The second effort, which was authorized by AB 900, is the creation of secure reentry facilities.
CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 6

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

While many parameters of the secure reentry facilities were outlined in AB 900, many details remain
to be resolved. The Department conducted a series of ten regional workshops across the state in
collaboration with local associations. As of December 2007, the Department received signed
“agreements to cooperate” from 16 counties. While these agreements are not binding, they express
an interest on the part of local governments to establish reentry facilities in their counties. Of the 16
agreements, however, most counties have agreed to site reentry facilities dependent upon their
receiving jail bond funding. Only three counties have agreed to site reentry facilities regardless of
receiving jail bond funds, which means that the Department may have more trouble than anticipated
in establishing the secure reentry facilities.12 To date, the only reentry facility that has been sited is
one that will be developed at the former Northern California Women’s Facility in Stockton.
According to CDCR testimony at the December 2007 C-ROB meeting, CDCR is implementing two
grant programs related to improving parolee reintegration to the communities—one for communitybased organizations and the other for local governments. In total, CDCR has awarded 20 grants,
including six planning grants for intergovernmental agencies to develop strategic plans around
reentry for their local areas. The remaining grants are designed to develop or improve service
delivery, including eight for community-based organizations. With the exception of the planning
grants, which are for six months, these grants are for 30 months and will begin in February 2008.
CDCR also received a two-year federal prisoner reentry initiative grant from the U.S. Department of
Justice in 2006. This grant was designed to improve the ability of community-based organizations to
come into the institutions and provide services to inmates before their release. This initiative is
being implemented at seven institutions and includes liaisons with the cities of Sacramento, San
Diego, Fresno, and Oakland.
With respect to overall evaluation efforts or “follow-up” as it is termed in the California Logic
Model, CDCR testified that it is currently developing plans for a comprehensive evaluation system
for the Department. While this plan will be phased in as resources become available, the
Department states that its greatest challenge at this time is collecting the actual data. Currently,
C-ROB does not have sufficient detail regarding the Department’s evaluation plan.
IMPLEMENTATION
C-ROB is aware that the Department does not currently have the ability to implement full
programming for all inmates and parolees. Indeed, CDCR is not currently funded for full
programming. As such, C-ROB understands the Department’s decision to phase in a new
comprehensive treatment model, beginning at demonstration sites, called “proof projects.”
However, there are certain components, such as risk-needs assessments, which the Department has
begun to implement statewide. C-ROB will attempt to track CDCR’s implementation progress,
taking into consideration the full context of CDCR’s capacity, funding, and planning schedule (to
the extent that this information is made available to the Board).

12

With respect to jail bond funding, the Corrections Standards Authority agreed in its December 2007 meeting to
increase the preference in its grant formula for the distribution of jail bond funds to reward counties that site secure
reentry facilities. (See the Department’s press release: “Board Significantly Increases Preference for Jail Bond
Funds to Reward Counties Siting Secure Community Reentry Facilities,” December 13, 2007, California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.)
CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 7

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CDCR began implementation of the COMPAS assessment within the Division of Adult Parole
Operations (DAPO) in January 2006. Since that time, DAPO has completed approximately 85,000
pre-parole assessments. The DAPO assessment is administered by parole services associates to
eligible inmates who are within 240 days of release.13 While it is C-ROB’s understanding that the
Department is attempting to use these assessments to help develop reentry plans, the effectiveness
of this process is still uncertain. (Refer to the following section on Quality Assurance and
Evaluation for information about CDCR’s efforts to evaluate this process.)
In June 2007, CDCR began implementing the COMPAS tool in four of its reception centers. By
November 2007, the Department was using COMPAS in all 12 reception centers. Teachers at the
reception centers administer the COMPAS tool to newly arrived inmates who have 240 days or
longer to serve. As of December 3, 2007, CDCR had conducted approximately 2,800 assessments at
its reception centers. While CDCR was unable to calculate the exact percentage of inmates it was
reaching with the intake assessment, given that there was an average of 4,139 new admissions every
month in fiscal year 2006–07, the Board can estimate that the percentage of new admissions
currently being assessed is extremely low.14 At this point, given the small percentage of assessments
being conducted and the lack of a case management process, the Department is focusing more on
testing the assessment process at reception rather than using the assessments for case planning
purposes. Utlitmately, however, the goal should be to use the assessments to inform individual case
plans and determine placement into rehabilitative programs.
In the meantime, while the COMPAS tool is being administered at reception and prior to release on
parole, CDCR is in the process of validating its effectiveness for California inmates and adapting it
to incorporate a screening for criminogenic needs. C-ROB has requested that the Department keep
the Board apprised of any changes to the assessment process as a result of this validation.
Additionally, C-ROB will continue to question the extent to which the various assessment processes
are integrated with each other and, ultimately tied to case management and rehabilitative programs
for inmates and parolees.
As mentioned earlier, CDCR has indicated its intention to phase in the new treatment model as
“proof projects” at designated sites, including one prison, one reception center, and one parole
region. At a minimum, it is C-ROB’s belief that the Department intends to implement programs in
each of six major offending areas (i.e., academic, vocational, and financial; alcohol and other drugs;
aggression, hostility, anger, and violence; criminal thinking, behaviors, and associations; family,
marital, and relationships; and sex offending) as part of the “proof projects.” As of the drafting of
this report, the Board had not received any information regarding the specific numbers or types of
programs that would be provided.

13

According to DAPO, as of December 2007, the following groups of inmates are excluded from the full
assessment process because they receive similar services through other programs: inmates pending deportation with
an active United States immigration hold; civil narcotic addicts (non-felon commitments); and inmates receiving
pre-release services through the Mental Health Services Continuum Program’s Enhanced Outpatient Clinic. In
addition, the following groups are not receiving the COMPAS assessment prior to parole because of staffing
limitations: CDCR inmates released from fire camps; CDCR inmates released from county jail facilities; inmates
released from community correctional facilities; and parole violators returned to custody serving less than six
months ineligible (for good time credit) or less than 12 months eligible (for good time credit).
14
The average monthly count for new admissions was provided by CDCR’s Population Projections Unit. The
figure of 4,139 reflects new admissions only and does not include parole violators who return with a new term or
parole violators who are returned to custody. If these numbers were included in the intake figure, the monthly
average intake for fiscal year 2006–07 was 11,859 inmates.
CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 8

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

The Board was informed at its December 2007 meeting that the Department plans to conduct
training for staff on cognitive behavioral methods, which the Expert Panel identified as a critical
component of evidence-based programming, but no further information has been provided.
C-ROB does not have implementation schedules for the secure reentry facilities or the reintegration
grants other than to note that the reintegration grants begin in February 2008.
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND EVALUATION
Based on testimony provided by CDCR at the November and December C-ROB meetings, CDCR
has entered into a contract with the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) to evaluate the
COMPAS tool in three different phases. The first phase examined the effectiveness of COMPAS in
predicting risk to reoffend based on selected risk elements. Although this phase was initially
completed, because of the small sample size, the Department decided to conduct further analysis
with a larger sample size. This further evaluation is still in progress. The second phase, which is
currently underway, will review the usability of COMPAS in the field—in other words, whether it is
being used appropriately, whether it is useful in terms of real world application, and other factors.
The third phase will assess how well COMPAS works as a criminogenic screening tool (i.e., a tool to
identify each offender’s risk and need factors so they can be placed in the appropriate rehabilitative
programs). This final phase will begin in early 2008.
In addition to evaluating the usability and effectiveness of the COMPAS tool, the Department must
assess the effectiveness of its various treatment programs. As part of the Expert Panel report,
CDCR selected 34 of its programs for assessment. The Expert Panel assessed 11 of these 34
programs for their adherence to evidence-based principles and recommended that the remaining 23
be assessed. In conducting this assessment, the Expert Panel used the Correctional Program
Assessment Protocol (CPAP), which was developed by a team from CDCR and the Center for
Evidence-Based Corrections at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). Based on testimony at the
December 2007 C-ROB meeting, CDCR has contracted with UCI to conduct the remaining 23
assessments. The target date for completion is mid-February 2008. However, CDCR’s assistant
secretary of research indicated there are hundreds of programs that will eventually need to be
assessed for their effectiveness and adherence to evidence-based principles.
The Expert Panel report made it clear that quality assurance and evaluation are critical to successful
implementation of evidence-based programming. At this time, C-ROB has not been provided with
sufficient information regarding the Department’s intent to monitor and evaluate ongoing programs.
The Board was informed, however, that the Department is in the process of developing a
comprehensive evaluation plan, which it will share with the Board as soon as it is completed.
PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT
Other than the processes described earlier with respect to modifying the COMPAS assessment to
improve its ability to screen criminogenic needs, it is too early to anticipate significant reporting on
program improvement.

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 9

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IV. CAPACITY FOR REHABILITATIVE EFFORTS
While the primary focus of C-ROB’s mission and its biannual reports is to examine the availability
and effectiveness of rehabilitative programming throughout CDCR, the Department has recognized
that several basic capacity issues must be addressed in order to achieve sustainable change. Toward
that end, C-ROB has requested information and will continue to report on those areas considered
essential to establishing the necessary capacity for rehabilitative programming, including reducing
overcrowding, improving information technology systems and infrastructure, improving staff
development and training, and improving management capacity and stability, among others.
REDUCING OVERCROWDING
To date, the Board has received testimony from the Department regarding its efforts to reduce
overcrowding through its infill bed plan and out-of-state transfers. As noted earlier, AB 900
specifically authorized the Department to engage in these two processes.
It should be noted that this biannual report does not address the recent media articles about
CDCR’s alleged proposal for the early release of over 20,000 inmates.15 These articles were
published while this report was being drafted. As a result, the Board did not have an opportunity to
receive testimony or clarification from the Department in time for this report.
With respect to the Department’s infill bed plan, this plan represents CDCR’s proposal as to where
prison beds will be constructed or renovated. The plan does not currently include a summary of
where the temporary beds, as defined by AB 900, would be removed. At the December 2007
C-ROB meeting, the Board was presented with an overview of CDCR’s proposed changes to the
original infill bed plan, as outlined in AB 900. According to the Department, the original infill bed
plan was inadequate for a number of reasons, such as a lack of input from the health care receiver
on medical-related construction plans; an assumption about the comingling of inmates with different
security levels that the Department no longer feels is safe; an inadequate assessment of the
construction or operational challenges posed by the original sites; and the failure to assume full
rehabilitative programming in the original plan.
The revised infill bed plan assumes construction at four facilities: Kern Valley State Prison, Wasco
State Prison, North Kern State Prison, and the California Correctional Institution.
To the extent that the revised plan will result in additional rehabilitative programming space as
suggested by CDCR, C-ROB will continue to request information regarding the design and
construction proposals for this space. C-ROB will also be tracking the extent to which the
Department’s infill bed plan makes existing program space available.
With respect to more immediate efforts to reduce overcrowding, the Department continues to
transfer certain inmates out of state. According to CDCR’s testimony at the December 2007
C-ROB meeting, the Department has transferred over 2,000 inmates to facilities in Tennessee,
Mississippi, and Arizona. CDCR asserted that it had recently negotiated for the transfer of 7,752
total inmates to five facilities, including a facility in Oklahoma that will be activated in January 2008,
15

Articles included “Early prison release plan draws bipartisan opposition” by Andy Furillo, Sacramento Bee,
12/21/07; Governor considers early release of 22,000 from state’s prisons” by Kevin Fagan, San Francisco
Chronicle, 12/21/07; and “Prison releases ‘DOA,’ foe says” by Andy Furillo, Sacramento Bee, 12/22/07.
CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 10

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

and a facility in Midway, Arizona, that is currently under construction. According to CDCR, the
Department’s goal is to transfer approximately 400 inmates per month out of state and, to date, the
Department has been accomplishing that goal. The inmates who have been transferred include
approximately 400 who volunteered and the remainder who were transferred involuntarily.
Currently, the Department is evaluating Level III inmates16 for transfer, beginning with those who
do not receive visits or have work assignments.
In the future, C-ROB will likely request information from the Department regarding the types,
amount, and effectiveness of rehabilitative programming received by out-of-state inmates.
PAROLE REFORMS
The Expert Panel report included several recommendations related to parole reforms. Specifically,
the Expert Panel recommended that CDCR “develop structured guidelines to respond to technical
parole violations based on risk to reoffend, level of the offender, and the seriousness of the
violation.”17 CDCR has contracted with the Center for Effective Public Policy to develop a
decision-making matrix for parole violators. A draft of this tool is expected in mid-January 2008.
However, this matrix will only be useful if there are sufficient and effective alternative sanctions
available. Acknowledging the importance of alternative or remedial sanctions, the Department
agreed in an April 2007 stipulation in the Valdivia lawsuit (regarding due process procedures at
parole revocation hearings) to establish a certain level of remedial sanctions. A recent review by the
special master in the Valdivia lawsuit commended the Department for its efforts in this area.
Specifically, the special master reported that the “defendants [CDCR] have made excellent progress
on remedial sanctions during this reporting period [May 2007 through September 2007].”18
The Expert Panel also recommended that CDCR “implement an earned discharge parole
supervision strategy for all parolees released from prison after serving a period of incarceration for
an offense other than those listed as serious and violent under California Penal Code Section 1192.7
(c) and 667.5(c) criteria.”19 According to the Department’s testimony at the December 2007
C-ROB meeting, a draft version of the earned discharge matrix is expected by the end of January
2008. The phase I rollout should include approximately 4,800 parolees in Orange and San
Bernardino counties. C-ROB does not have sufficient information at this time to report on the
Department’s plans or implementation status with respect to earned discharge, but the Board is
encouraged that the Department is proceeding with the Expert Panel’s recommendations.
The Expert Panel also recommended that CDCR release certain non-violent inmates without placing
them on parole supervision. Specifically, the Expert Panel recommended that “based on a normed
and validated instrument assessing risk to reoffend, the Department should release low-risk, nonviolent, non-sex registrants from prison without placing them on parole.”20 To date, C-ROB has not
received any testimony or information from the Department regarding this recommendation.

16

California’s inmates are assigned to a security classification level ranging from 1-IV, with level I representing a
relatively lower security risk and IV representing a higher security risk.
17
Expert Panel report, p. 47.
18
“Third Report of the Special Master on the Status of Conditions of the Remedial Order.” (Valdivia v.
Schwarzenegger, Case No. CIV S-94-0671 LKK/GGH (E.D. Cal.).)
19
Expert Panel report, p. 13.
20
Expert Panel report, p. 41.
CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 11

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IMPROVING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
As noted in the Expert Panel report, an automated case management system is critical to a
successful rehabilitative treatment model. If CDCR intends to establish a multidisciplinary model
that regularly measures progress and bases treatment on assessed risks and needs, its current
information technology capacity will have to be greatly improved.
At the December 2007 C-ROB meeting, the Board was assured that CDCR is working to
incorporate the case management components of the new treatment model into its current
information technology projects.
IMPROVING STAFF DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING
The Expert Panel was clear in its recommendations that “only qualified and appropriately trained
staff members should deliver programs.”21 As a result, C-ROB will regularly request information
from the Department regarding its staff development and training efforts. To date, C-ROB has
received limited updates in this area. Therefore, C-ROB does not have enough information to
provide comment.
IMPROVING MANAGEMENT CAPACITY AND STABILITY
Penal Code section 2061 (pursuant to AB 900) requires the Department to develop and implement
by January 15, 2008, a plan to address management deficiencies within the Department. The Board
will review CDCR’s management capacity and stability in the July 2008 biannual report after
reviewing the January 2008 report.

21

Expert Panel report, p. 14.

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 12

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

V. CONCLUSIONS
C-ROB recognizes that it is not easy to plan, implement, and report at the same time. Consequently,
the Board wishes to thank the Department for its willingness to cooperate with C-ROB’s process.
Thus far, the Board has been impressed by the Department’s level of cooperation. Representatives
from throughout CDCR have made themselves available, as needed, to present regular updates to
C-ROB.
However, the Department has been unable to share some information with C-ROB, particularly
related to internal planning efforts. In certain cases, the Department may be awaiting final internal
decisions and/or approval, while in other cases, the uncertainty associated with the budget process
may prohibit CDCR from disclosing details before the budget is released on January 10, 2008.
Regardless of the reasoning, however, many of the planning documents, which C-ROB needs to
review to determine whether the Department has appropriately considered all relevant factors and
weighed priorities accordingly, have not been available to the Board. In order to carry out its
mandate, C-ROB must be provided with more details, including information related to the
Department’s planning efforts.
That said, the Board notes that, in most areas in which the Department has been able to report,
CDCR is working toward implementing an effective rehabilitative treatment model, as
recommended by the Expert Panel. These implementation efforts include the following:
C-ROB commends the Department for its willingness to commit to an evidence-based
treatment model.
The Department has already begun the first steps toward implementing a rehabilitative
model. For example, CDCR has begun conducting inmate assessments at reception and
prior to release on parole.
C-ROB is not taking a position on whether or not the COMPAS tool was the right selection
for California. However, the Board is impressed that the Department appears to have relied
upon expert recommendations and carefully examined various alternatives. At this time, the
Board is satisfied that the Department is making every effort to adapt this tool as necessary
while committing to working within the guidelines and principles of evidence-based
programming.
C-ROB agrees with the Department’s decision to phase in the new treatment model using
what it calls “proof projects” (demonstration projects at designated locations) instead of
trying to attempt statewide implementation. This approach should enable the Department
to evaluate and modify the model before attempting statewide implementation.
The Department has developed a spending plan for approximately $90 million in funds it
received as part of the Budget Act of 2007-08 for reducing recidivism strategies.
The Department has appropriately recognized the critical role of its Office of Research and
is involving research staff and outside experts in most, if not all, of the key areas—not just in
evaluation, but in planning and development, as well.

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 13

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

The Department has acknowledged the importance of alternative sanctions for parole
violators and agreed in an April 2007 stipulation in the Valdivia lawsuit (regarding due
process procedures at parole revocation hearings) to establish a certain level of remedial
sanctions. A recent review by the special master in the Valdivia lawsuit commended the
Department for its efforts in this area. Specifically, the special master reported that the
“defendants [CDCR] have made excellent progress on remedial sanctions during this
reporting period [May 2007 through September 2007].”22
The Department has worked hard to actively engage community partners in its reentryrelated efforts. As a result of these efforts, as of December 2007, the Department had
received “agreements to cooperate” from 16 counties who expressed an interest in
establishing a secure reentry facility in their community, including agreements from three
counties whose interest was not contingent upon receiving jail bond funding.
Despite these significant accomplishments, based on the information available to the Board, C-ROB
has a number of concerns regarding the status of CDCR’s rehabilitative programming efforts. It
should be noted that the Board’s concerns are not based on an assumption that the Department
should have already resolved or completed all of the issues identified below. Rather, C-ROB raises
these concerns as red flags, which if not addressed in the near future, will ultimately threaten the
Department’s chances for success.
The Board has not seen evidence of a comprehensive and integrated planning document
describing CDCR’s plan to improve rehabilitative programming. Instead, the Department’s
efforts appear fragmented with multiple plans that are related in some ways, but unrelated in
other ways. For example, the efforts to conduct COMPAS assessments at intake are entirely
separate from the efforts to conduct COMPAS assessments prior to release. In either case,
it is not clear how effectively the staff members who work directly with inmates and parolees
are using these assessments.
Despite the Department’s laudable effort to begin conducting assessments at reception and
prior to release on parole, significant percentages of inmates are still not being assessed.
Perhaps more importantly, the assessments’ value is questionable because the Department
has not yet developed a case management plan that will serve to connect inmates and
parolees to the programs they need.
C-ROB is not convinced that the Department has carefully analyzed the appropriate staffing
classifications or numbers of staff members necessary to administer the assessments. The
Board has heard multiple testimonies that there is not currently sufficient staff administering
these assessments. As a result, a seemingly high percentage of inmates, particularly at the
front end, are not being assessed.
Moreover, while the COMPAS tool will serve as a basis for the risk and criminogenic needs
assessment, the Department has acknowledged that other secondary assessments will be
needed to effectively assess inmates and parolees and assign them to appropriate
programming. These assessments have yet to be identified. To the extent that additional
resources must be secured, this may delay CDCR’s ability to implement an effective model.
22

“Third Report of the Special Master on the Status of Conditions of the Remedial Order.” (Valdivia v.
Schwarzenegger, Case No. CIV S-94-0671 LKK/GGH (E.D. Cal.).)

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 14

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

C-ROB agrees with the Department that a multidisciplinary team is crucial to an effective
case plan for each offender. However, the Board has not been informed as to which staff
members will comprise this multidisciplinary team, how their roles will be defined, or who
will serve as the case planner. Successful implementation will require that these staff
members are adequately trained and assigned reasonable caseloads to effectively complete
their jobs.
It is the Board’s belief that during the “proof projects” the case management plans will be
documented in writing. C-ROB understands that this may be necessary until an automated
case management system is developed; however, C-ROB ultimately believes that a system
that automates the case management plans must be a priority. In an organization the size of
CDCR, effective case management, multidisciplinary treatment, and continuity between
treatment in prison and parole settings will be virtually impossible without an effective
information technology system. Therefore, efforts to improve CDCR’s IT system must be
expedited.
CDCR must be provided with sufficient resources to ensure effective rehabilitative
programming for the inmates and parolees under its supervision. In addition, the
Department must ensure that appropriate space is constructed and/or made available for
effective rehabilitative programming.
Without a complete inventory of existing rehabilitative programs and a statewide assessment
of rehabilitative needs, C-ROB has no way to determine the current gap between available
and needed services. Eventually, a range of rehabilitative programming will need to be
available statewide, as determined necessary based on the risk-needs assessments. At a
minimum, at least one program in each major offending area must be available as part of the
“proof projects.”
Until CDCR has adequate and appropriate rehabilitative programming, C-ROB is concerned
about how the Department will allocate its limited programs among various inmates and
parolees.
The Board notes that there is a potential for significant overlap between the Department’s
efforts to improve rehabilitation programming and the health care receiver’s efforts.
Effective coordination will be required to address this overlap.
CDCR received $50 million in fiscal year 2007-08 to begin implementing the rehabilitative
components of AB 900. To date, C-ROB has not received a spending plan for these funds.
The Department appears to be working hard to coordinate reentry efforts, yet the stigma
and resistance to siting some of these facilities continues to be problematic. (This is a
problem that cannot be blamed on the Department, but it must be resolved nevertheless.)
The Department would benefit from expanding its collaborative efforts with law
enforcement to include key leaders of community service systems, e.g., county directors of
behavioral health, mental health, and human services, among others, to maximize support
for reentry efforts.

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 15

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In preparing this report, C-ROB recognizes that its mandate is long-term. As the Expert Panel
noted in its report, “correctional change takes time.”
However, while C-ROB recognizes that correctional change will take time, the Board is also aware
that there have been multiple attempts over the years to improve California’s correctional system.
Unfortunately, many of these efforts did not survive the passage of time. The state cannot afford to
fail in its current reforms. C-ROB is determined to vigilantly monitor and support these efforts until
California has successfully implemented a sustainable and effective rehabilitative treatment model.

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 16

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

APPENDIX A. IDENTIFYING THE REHABILITATIVE NEEDS OF OFFENDERS
Future C-ROB biannual reports will include an analysis of the rehabilitative needs of offenders
under CDCR’s supervision.
Specifically, C-ROB will request and analyze updated reports from the Department that include the
following:
A. Total estimated types of rehabilitative treatment needs among prisoners and parolees at each
institution and parole region. At a minimum, the Department will be expected to report on
offenders’ needs in the following major program areas:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

Academic, vocational, and financial
Alcohol and other drugs
Aggression, anger, and violence
Criminal thinking, behaviors, and associations
Family, marital, and relationships
Sex offending

Note for the July 15, 2008, report: To the extent that this information is not fully available in time
for the next biannual report, C-ROB will report on the Department’s plans, efforts, and capacity to
collect the necessary data.

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 17

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

APPENDIX B. DETERMINING GAPS IN REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
Future C-ROB biannual reports will report on the existing gaps in rehabilitative services at CDCR.
These gaps will be defined as the need for rehabilitative programming (as identified in Appendix A)
minus the current program capacity.
Specifically, C-ROB will report:
A. Number of program slots needed (by institution and parole region)
B. Number of existing program slots available (by institution and parole region)
C. Existing gap in rehabilitative services
At a minimum, the Department will be expected to report on the need, availability, and gap in
services in the following areas:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

Academic, vocational, and financial
Alcohol and other drugs
Aggression, hostility, anger, and violence
Criminal thinking, behaviors, and associations
Family, marital, and relationships
Sex offending

Note for the July 15, 2008, report: To the extent that this information is not fully available in time
for the next biannual report, C-ROB will report on the Department’s plans, efforts, and capacity to
collect the necessary data.

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 18

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

APPENDIX C. DETERMINING LEVELS OF OFFENDER PARTICIPATION AND
SUCCESS
Future C-ROB biannual reports will measure offender participation and performance in
rehabilitative programs at each institution and parole region.
Specifically, C-ROB will report:23
Capacity:
A. Number of slots per program at the beginning of the reporting period
B. Number of program hours per reporting period
Assignment:
C. Number of participants assigned at the beginning of the reporting period
Actual Participation:
D. Number of participant hours per reporting period (i.e., hours participant actually attended)
Program Completion:
E. Number and percentage of participants to successfully complete program during the
reporting period
F. Number and percentage of participants who left the program without completion during the
reporting period
G. Number and percentage of participants who are still in the program at the end of the
reporting period
At a minimum, the Department will be expected to report on program participation in the following
areas:
a. Academic, vocational, and financial
b. Alcohol and other drugs
c. Aggression, hostility, anger, and violence
d. Criminal thinking, behaviors, and associations
e. Family, marital, and relationships
f. Sex offending
Note for the July 15, 2008, report: To the extent that this information is not fully available in time
for the next biannual report, C-ROB will report on the Department’s plans, efforts, and capacity to
collect the necessary data.

23

These measures represent areas the Board intends to monitor. As necessary, however, C-ROB will work with
CDCR to modify these measures to better capture available data.

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 19

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

APPENDIX D. DETERMINING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF REHABILITATIVE
PROGRAMMING
Future C-ROB biannual reports will include information related to specific outcome measures (e.g.,
reduction in risk to reoffend, reduction in recidivism rates, and increase in protective factors). These
outcome measures will be developed by CDCR and C-ROB.
Note for the July 15, 2008, report: To the extent that this information is not fully available in time
for the next biannual report, C-ROB will report on the Department’s plans, efforts, and capacity to
collect the necessary data.

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 20

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

APPENDIX E. DETERMINING ADHERENCE TO EVIDENCE-BASED PRINCIPLES
Future C-ROB biannual reports will report on the extent to which CDCR’s rehabilitative programs
are based on evidence-based principles.
Specifically, C-ROB will report (based on information provided by the Department) on how well
CDCR’s rehabilitative programs incorporate the following evidence-based principles:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.

Assesses risk and targets high risk
Assesses criminogenic needs and delivers services accordingly
Clearly articulates a theoretical model
Has a program manual or curriculum
Uses cognitive behavioral or social learning methods
Enhances intrinsic motivation
Has continuities with other programs and community support networks
Varies program dosage by risk level
Responds to offender learning style, motivation, and culture
Uses positive reinforcement
Employs qualified staff members
Has a staff recruitment and retention strategy
Trains new staff
Employs qualified program directors
Collects and analyzes program data
Bases program on research

Note for the July 15, 2008, report: To the extent that this information is not fully available in time
for the next biannual report, C-ROB will report on the Department’s plans, efforts, and capacity to
collect the necessary data.

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 21

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

APPENDIX F. STATUS OF EXPERT PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
Future C-ROB biannual reports will track CDCR’s progress in responding to the Expert Panel recommendations. The columns represent
the four phases C-ROB will analyze.
Expert Panel Recommendation

Status of Planning &
Development

Status of
Implementation

Status of Quality
Assurance & Evaluation

Status of Program
Improvements

Recommendation 1: Reduce
overcrowding in CDCR prison
facilities and parole offices.24
Recommendation 2: Enact
legislation to expand the system of
positive reinforcements for
offenders who successfully
complete their rehabilitation
program requirements, comply with
institutional rules in prison, and
fulfill their parole obligations in the
community.
Recommendation 2a: Award earned
credits to offenders who complete
any rehabilitation program in prison
and on parole.
Recommendation 2b: Replace Work
Incentive Program (WIP) credits
with statutorily-based good time
incentive credits.

24

Given the broad scope of certain recommendations, C-ROB’s reports will note planning and development efforts for certain recommendations but will focus
primarily on outcomes and less on details.
CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 22

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Expert Panel Recommendation

Status of Planning &
Development

Status of
Implementation

Status of Quality
Assurance & Evaluation

Recommendation 2c: Implement an
earned discharge parole supervision
strategy for all parolees released
from prison after serving a period of
incarceration for an offense other
than those listed as serious and
violent under California Penal Code
section 1192.7(c) and 667.5(c)
criteria.
Recommendation 3: Select and
utilize a risk-assessment tool to
assess offender risk to reoffend.
Recommendation 3a: Adopt a riskassessment instrument for the
prison population.
Recommendation 3b: Utilize
COMPAS or a similar assessment
tool for the parolee population.
Recommendation 3c: Develop a
risk-assessment tool normed for
female prisoner and parole
populations.
Recommendation 3d: Develop a
risk-assessment tool normed for
young adult prisoner and parolee
populations.

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 23

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Status of Program
Improvements

Expert Panel Recommendation

Status of Planning &
Development

Status of
Implementation

Status of Quality
Assurance & Evaluation

Recommendation 3e: Norm and
validate all the selected riskassessment instruments for CDCR’s
adult offender population and
validate these tools at lease once
every five years.
Recommendation 3f: When
assigning rehabilitation treatment
programming slots, give highest
priority to those offenders with high
and moderate risk-to-reoffend
scores.
Recommendation 3g: Provide lowrisk offenders with rehabilitation
programs that focus on work, life
skills, and personal growth rather
than rehabilitation treatment
programs.
Recommendation 3h: Provide
short-term prisoners with reentry
services and reintegration skills
training rather than rehabilitation
treatment programs.
Recommendation 4: Determine
offender rehabilitation treatment
programming based on the results
of assessment tools that identify
and measure criminogenic and
other needs.
CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 24

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Status of Program
Improvements

Expert Panel Recommendation

Status of Planning &
Development

Status of
Implementation

Status of Quality
Assurance & Evaluation

Recommendation 4a: Do not assess
the criminogenic needs of offenders
at low risk to reoffend (identified in
the tools in recommendation #3).
Recommendation 4b: Utilize
additional evidence-based tools to
supplement criminogenic needs
assessments.
Recommendation 5: Create and
monitor a behavior management
plan for each offender.
Recommendation 6: Select and
deliver in prison and in the
community a core set of programs
that covers the six offender
programming areas: (a) academic,
vocational, and financial; (b)
alcohol and other drugs; (c)
aggression, hostility, anger, and
violence; (d) criminal thinking,
behaviors, and associations; (e)
family, marital, and relationships;
and (f) sex offending.
Recommendation 6a: Develop and
offer rehabilitation treatment
programs to those offenders with
high and moderate risk-to-reoffend
scores and lengths of stay of six
months or more.
CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 25

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Status of Program
Improvements

Expert Panel Recommendation

Status of Planning &
Development

Status of
Implementation

Status of Quality
Assurance & Evaluation

Recommendation 6b: Develop and
offer rehabilitation programs
focused on work, life skills, and
personal growth for all prisoners
and parolees at low risk to reoffend
who have lengths of stay of six
months or more.
Recommendation 6c: Develop and
offer reentry programming for all
offenders who have lengths of stay
less than six months.
Recommendation 6d: Develop and
offer “booster” programs before
reentry and within the community
to maintain treatment gains.
Recommendation 6e: Assign
offenders to programs based on
responsivity factors relating to their
motivation and readiness,
personality and psychological
factors, cognitive-intellectual levels,
and demographics.
Recommendation 6f: Develop and
offer a core set of programs that is
responsive to the specific needs of
female offenders.

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 26

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Status of Program
Improvements

Expert Panel Recommendation

Status of Planning &
Development

Status of
Implementation

Status of Quality
Assurance & Evaluation

Recommendation 6g: Develop and
offer a core set of programs that is
responsive to the specific needs of
youthful offenders.
Recommendation 7: Develop
systems and procedures to collect
and utilize programming process
and outcome measures.
Recommendation 7a: CDCR should
develop a system to measure and
improve quality in its adult offender
programming.
Recommendation 7b: CDCR should
develop the capability to conduct
internal research and evaluation
that measures and makes
recommendations to improve the
quality of its programming.
Recommendation 7c: The
Legislature should create an
independent capability to assist
with developing and monitoring
CDCR’s quality assurance system.
Recommendation 8: Continue to
develop and strengthen CDCR’s
formal partnerships with
community stakeholders.

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 27

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Status of Program
Improvements

Expert Panel Recommendation

Status of Planning &
Development

Status of
Implementation

Status of Quality
Assurance & Evaluation

Recommendation 8a: Develop
formal reentry plans for those
offenders with high and moderate
risk-to-reoffend scores.
Recommendation 8b: Provide
offenders who have high risk to
reoffend with intensive treatment
services for at least their first 90
days on parole.
Recommendation 8c: Ensure that
transition and reentry programming
includes family member
participation and addresses family
unit integration skills development.
Recommendation 8d: Ensure that
parole programming and transition
services respond to the specific
needs of female offenders.

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 28

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Status of Program
Improvements

Expert Panel Recommendation

Status of Planning &
Development

Status of
Implementation

Status of Quality
Assurance & Evaluation

Recommendation 9: Modify
programs and services delivered in
the community (parole supervision
and community based programs
and services) to ensure that those
services: (a) target the criminogenic
needs areas of high- and moderaterisk offenders; (b) assist all
returning offenders to maintain
their sobriety, locate housing, and
obtain employment; and (c) identify
and reduce the risk factors within
specific neighborhoods and
communities.
Recommendation 9a: Based on a
normed and validated instrument
assessing risk to reoffend, release
low-risk, non-violent, non-sex
registrants from prison without
placing them on parole supervision.
Recommendation 9b: Focus
programs and services on the
highest criminogenic needs.
Recommendation 9c: Ensure that
community-based providers
develop and deliver programming
that addresses criminal thinking for
male offenders.

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 29

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Status of Program
Improvements

Expert Panel Recommendation

Status of Planning &
Development

Status of
Implementation

Status of Quality
Assurance & Evaluation

Recommendation 9d: Train parole
agents how to deal with
unmotivated and resistant
offenders.
Recommendation 9e: Train parole
agents how to mitigate the
community risk factors.
Recommendation 10: Develop the
community as a protective factor
against continuing involvement in
the criminal justice system for
offenders reentering the community
on parole and/or in other
correctional statuses (probation,
diversion, etc.).
Recommendation 10a: Develop a
strategy for ensuring that the
community is able to provide the
necessary health and social services
to prisoners and parolees after they
are discharged from the criminal
justice system.
Recommendation 11: Develop
structured guidelines to respond to
technical parole violations based on
the risk-to-reoffend level of the
offender and the seriousness of the
violation.

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 30

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Status of Program
Improvements

Expert Panel Recommendation

Status of Planning &
Development

Status of
Implementation

Status of Quality
Assurance & Evaluation

Recommendation 11a: Restrict the
use of total confinement for parole
violators to only certain violations.
Recommendation 11b: Develop a
parole sanctions matrix that will
provide parole agents with
guidelines for determining
sanctions for parole violations.

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 31

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Status of Program
Improvements

APPENDIX G. MEMBERS OF THE CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT
BOARD

Matthew Cate, Inspector General
James Tilton, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Debra Jones, Administrator, Adult Education Programs (Designee for Jack O’Connell, State
Superintendent of Public Instruction)
José Millan, Vice Chancellor (Designee for Diane Woodruff, Interim Chancellor, California
Community Colleges)
Renée Zito, Director, State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs
Stephen Mayberg, Director of Mental Health
Bruce Bikle, Professor, California State University, Sacramento (appointee by Chancellor of
California State University)
Susan Turner, Professor, University of California, Irvine (appointee by President of the University of
California)
Michael Carona, Sheriff, Orange County (appointee by Governor)
Loren Buddress, Chief Probation Officer (appointee by Senate Committee on Rules)
William Arroyo, Regional Medical Director, Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health
(appointee by Speaker of the Assembly)

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION OVERSIGHT BOARD
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

JANUARY 15, 2008 BIANNUAL REPORT

PAGE 32

STATE OF CALIFORNIA