Task Force on California
Prison Crowding
Christopher Baird
Executive Vice President
Children’s Research Center
Barbara Bloom
Professor
Sonoma State University
Allen Breed
Criminal Justice Consultant
Loren Buddress
Chief Probation Officer
San Mateo County
James P. Fox
District Attorney
San Mateo County
Joe Gunn
Former Executive Director
Corrections Independent Review Panel
Craig Haney
Professor
Univeristy of California, Santa Cruz
Vincent Iaria
Regional Representative
American Probation and Parole
Association
Barry Krisberg
President
National Council on Crime and
Delinquency
Mary Lou Leary
Former U.S. Attorney
Executive Director
National Center for Victims of Crime
Calvin Remington
Chief Probation Officer
Ventura County
Laurie Robinson
Former U.S. Assistant
Attorney General
Rick Roney
Roney Family Foundation
Don Specter
Prison Law Office
Robert Weisberg
Professor
Stanford University
Carl Wicklund
Executive Director
American Probation and Parole
Association
John Van de Kamp
Former California Attorney General
Frank Zimring
Professor of Law
University of California, Berkeley

August, 2006

Responding to California’s Prison Crisis
The purpose of this report is to offer some policy and program options to be considered in the Special Session of the Legislature on the severe problems in California
prisons. Although the challenges confronting the state’s corrections system cannot
be solved simply, cheaply, or immediately, there is no alternative but for all of our
top elected officials to engage this crisis with honesty, a spirit of cooperation, and a
genuine commitment to advancing public safety.
For three decades, most California elected officials and the voters have radically
transformed the penal system by enacting tough new sentencing laws, building 22
new prisons, and, until recently, making punishment the sole purpose of the penal
system. For almost 30 years there has been scant attention paid to adequate funding
for rehabilitation services or successful programming to permit inmates to successfully return home. The fiscal and social costs of these policies were neither examined
nor sufficiently shared with the electorate. And so, we are close to a boiling point
which most observers believe could lead to a prison catastrophe.
The National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) has been part of the
debate over correctional and sentencing policy in California for years. The NCCD
is the nation’s oldest criminal justice research and policy group, often called upon
by policy makers, practitioners, the media, and private foundations for objective,
evidence-based responses to crime and justice issues. The following recommendations represent the Council’s views on needed next steps to alleviate the prison crisis.
We have drawn extensively on analysis and suggestions put forth by the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), the Office of Inspector
General, key legislators and their staff members, and prestigious independent groups
such the Little Hoover Commission, the Legislative Analyst, and the Independent
Review Panel, which was appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger and led by former
Governor George Deukmejian.
We also wanted to include the views of nationally renowned experts in criminal
justice. To that end, the NCCD recruited an impressive group to serve on a special
Task Force on Prison Crowding (listed in the sidebar at left). Some members of that
group provided drafts of the recommendations, and these were reviewed by every
member of the Task Force. Editorial and substantive changes to the draft proposals

Contents
Reducing Women’s Imprisonment in California
The California Parole System
Creating A New State-Local Partnership
The Need for A California Sentencing Commission
The National Council on Crime and Delinquency

3
7
10
12

were made, and each member of the Task Force was
asked to endorse these proposals. The members of
the Task Force were asked to reflect their own
views, and we did not require them to achieve
the endorsement of the organizations that they
represent. Ultimately, NCCD takes full responsibility for these proposals and any errors or omissions.
The NCCD stands ready to work with concerned
Californians to commence meaningful and needed
reforms in the penal system.

It is important to keep in mind that the prison
population is only part of the story. Besides nearly
170,000 state prisoners, more than 115,000 offenders are supervised in the community on parole. At
the county level, there are nearly 80,000 jail inmates
and more than 350,000 adult offenders under probation supervision. Local correctional resources are
also strained to the breaking point. Many jails have
been ordered by the court to expedite the release of
inmates, and probation departments are handling
thousands of offenders on “banked caseloads”—
meaning that these probationers are rarely seen by
their probation officers. The crowding and budget
problems faced by county sheriffs and chief probation officers sometimes requires them to implement
local policies to ship more offenders to state facilities. High rates of recidivism of both local and state
inmates further fuels the inmate population crisis
confronting California.

“We Face an Insurmountable Opportunity”
Beloved humorist Al Capp reminded us via his cartoon character Pogo that enormous challenges also
present great possibilities for positive change. The
depth of the crisis in our prisons may well pose such
an “insurmountable opportunity.”
There is an undeniable consensus among elected
officials, the courts, advocates, prison administrators, criminologists, and service providers that severe
crowding has led to an untenable state of danger
and inhumane conditions within the prisons. Dayrooms, gyms, outside yards, and TV rooms have
been converted into makeshift dormitories to house
over twice as many prisoners as these facilities were
intended to hold. The CDCR is under receivership for medical care of its inmates and for internal
investigations. Many other aspects of the operations of the CDCR are governed by consent decrees
based on federal and state court litigation. Current
projections of the inmate population into the future
indicate this situation will only get worse. According
to a recent statement by Secretary Tilton, the CDCR
will be completely out of bed space by June of 2007.

Over the past 30 years, the state and the counties
have attempted to increase the number of prison
and jail beds, but the expansion of incarceration
capacity has been overwhelmed by the growth in inmates. Indeed, as the CDCR tripled its bed capacity,
the number of inmates grew by over 800 percent.
Jails experienced a more modest increase in bed
capacity, but inmate populations exceeded this increase in jail space. In large measure, the corrections
population increases were a function of sentencing
and parole policies.
All of this came at an enormous cost to the taxpayers. The CDCR budget is over $8.9 billion dollars
for 2005-2006. California taxpayers may even be
willing to spend this much on corrections, but it is
doubtful that they realize or accept the current high
level of recidivism or the budget-driven policies that
compromise public safety.

We know that adverse prison conditions can have a
negative effect on prisoners, an effect that can carry
over to their post-prison adjustment, increasing the
chances that they will reoffend and, in the long run,
contribute to prison crowding. Conversely, improved
prison conditions, ones that are well managed, safe,
and provide prisoners with badly needed services
can enhance their chances of making a successful
adjustment to free society (Haney, 2006, Liebling
and Maruna, 2005).

Clearly, this crisis did not develop overnight; Californians have a now long history of choosing a punitive
versus rehabilitative approach, although that view
is changing (NCCD, 2004). Continued media and
political focus on crime, despite decreased violent
crime over the past decade, have inflamed and
distorted the public discourse about crime and its
2

warrants a consideration of all the options, not just
those that seem politically safe. A creative, collaborative, and intelligent process is needed now more than
ever before.

rational consequences. Ironically, the policies that led
to prison crowding have not increased public safety.
The recommendations put forward in this paper are
designed to achieve exactly that goal. Although this
problem will not be solved in just a few weeks or
months, there are short- and medium-term measures
that are consistent with protecting the public that
could well relieve some of the pressures on correctional infrastructure, staff, inmates, and the courts.
We also know that evidence-based corrections policies help crime victims and prevent future victimization from occurring.

One of our main proposals that speaks to reforming how the state deals with women offenders is
essentially in agreement with the Governor’s plan.
Other proposals about revamping parole and creating a new state-county correctional partnership, built
on realistic cost sharing, represent immediate steps
that would reduce prison crowding in the near term.
The final recommendation is much longer term, but
the NCCD firmly believes that a comprehensive and
thoughtful review of sentencing laws and policies
must begin if we are ever to resolve the crisis in our
penal system.

There is also consensus that the problem must be
dealt with as a genuine emergency, not as “business as usual.” The Governor and his opponent in
the upcoming election have put forth their plans.
The Legislature is considering a number of policies
directed at improving the situation. In response to
the crisis, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency reached out to a national panel of experts
representing a variety of views and expertise. In its
role as convener, NCCD holds to the conviction
that the prison crisis is of such a magnitude that it

References
Haney, C. (2006). Reforming punishment: Psychological limits to the pains of
imprisonment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
Books.
Liebling, A., & Maruna, S. (Eds.) (2005). The effects of imprisonment.
Cullompton:Willan Publishing.

Reducing Women’s
Imprisonment in California:
A Blueprint for Reform

egies to specifically address the issues pertaining
to women offenders. This endeavor includes the
creation of a Strategic Plan for Female Offender
Reform, the establishment of gender-responsive
policies and operational practices that are designed
to promote safe and productive institutional and
community environments, a review and development
of gender-appropriate classification and risk/needs/
case management tools, as well as the establishment
of community rehabilitative correctional centers
and programs for non-serious, nonviolent women
offenders.

In July, 2005, the former California Department of
Corrections changed its name and mission to address the rehabilitative and reentry needs of incarcerated men and women. As part of this reorganization, the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (CDCR) established a new unit,
Female Offender Programs and Services, to implement standards for the management, rehabilitation,
and community reintegration of more than 11,000
women incarcerated in California state prisons
(CDCR, 2006).

There are currently four state prisons housing approximately 11,600 women offenders. Of those,
only seven percent (867) are housed in communitybased facilities. As of February 28, 2006, nearly
5,900 women that are also eligible for community
placement were incarcerated in existing state prisons
for nonviolent property and drug offenses and are

The CDCR has embarked on an unprecedented
women offender reform effort that recognizes the
importance of developing gender-responsive strat3

classified as Level I or Level II. According to the
CDCR Spring 2006 Population Projections, the female prison population will increase by an additional
1,550 by June 30, 2009.

As described in the 2004 Little Hoover Commission
(LHC) report, a significant number of California
women inmates do not represent a serious threat
to public safety. The LHC recommended a greater
reliance on community corrections rather than
large remote prisons for women. It proposed that
the State should use evidence-based practices and
develop “a robust system of community correctional
facilities focused on preparing women offenders for
success on parole.” It urged the CDCR to develop
a continuum of facilities for female inmates to cost
effectively match inmates with the facility that best
achieves the goals of public protection and successful reentry. The continuum should include community correctional facilities to house women offenders
closer to their communities and to support their
reintegration process.

To facilitate the women offender reform efforts, the
CDCR created a strategic plan for improving outcomes for female offenders. As a part of this plan,
CDCR is proposing to move approximately 4,500
Level I and Level II female offenders from “megaprisons” located far from urban centers to smaller
community facilities located in the areas from which
women are committed and to which they will return
upon parole. The NCCD strongly endorses this
plan. We believe this should be a key component of
any reform package.
The Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 33 Commission on Female and Parolee Issues was established to study issues that affect female inmates and
parolees. During its study, the Commission assessed
such issues as work, education, sentencing, classification, substance abuse, alternative treatment
programs, and parental status and reviewed programs and services available to female inmates and
parolees. The Commission’s final report as published
in 1994 presents an analysis of these issues and the
Commission’s findings and recommendations, which
revolve around three central concepts:
•

The LHC further proposed that the CDCR should
use a competitive process to develop contracts for
community correctional facilities to deliver an array
of services shown to reduce recidivism of women
offenders. Private companies, public agencies, or
partnerships among them should be encouraged
to bid on the contracts. Moreover, measuring and
reporting performance is essential. Other recommendations from the LHC included revising classifications procedures, developing community partnerships, establishing an Inter-agency Council on
Reentry, providing technical assistance, and shifting
parole supervision to the county level.

Female inmates differ significantly from male inmates in terms of their needs while incarcerated
and upon their release to the community.

•

Female inmates and parolees generally have a
lower rate of commitment to prison for violent
offenses and exhibit significantly less violent
behavior in prison than males.

•

Upon release to parole, over 95 percent of all
female inmates are returned to the communities
from which they were sentenced. The successful reintegration of these women into their
communities is, to a large degree, dependent on
those communities sharing responsibility with
the CDCR and its Parole & Community Services
Division for supervision, care, and treatment.

In 2003, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
published the report, Gender-Responsive Strategies:
Research, Practice and Guiding Principles (Bloom, Owen,
and Covington, 2003). This report has been incorporated into strategic plans and state and national
standards in multiple jurisdictions. NIC has also
made these strategies and their supporting principles
the foundation of their national training efforts.
Bloom, Owen, and Covington describe the differences in male and female pathways into criminality
and their differential response to custody and supervision and provide a theoretical foundation that
could lead to better outcomes for women offenders
in both institutional and community settings.
4

Bloom, Owen, and Covington define gender-responsiveness as:
Gender-responsive means creating an environment through site selection, staff selection,
program development, content, and material
that reflects an understanding of the realities of
women’s lives and addresses the issues of the
participants. Gender-responsive approaches are
multidimensional and are based on theoretical
perspectives that acknowledge women’s pathways into the criminal justice system. These approaches address social (e.g., poverty, race, class,
and gender inequality) and cultural factors, as
well as therapeutic interventions. These interventions address issues such as abuse, violence,
family relationships, substance abuse, and co-occurring disorders. They provide a strength-based
approach to treatment and skill building. The
emphasis is on self-efficacy.

•

Levels of violence and threats to community
safety in their offense patterns.

•

Responsibilities for children and other family
members.

•

Relationships with staff and other offenders.

•

Vulnerability to staff misconduct and revictimization.

•

Needs for programming and services while
under supervision and in custody, especially
in health and mental health, substance abuse,
recovery from trauma, and economic/vocational
skills.

•

Challenges in reentry and community integration.

Incarceration affects more than just the individual,
especially in the case of women. Although difficult to measure, the impact on children of having a mother in prison is pervasive and disruptive.
The majority of women in California prisons are
the primary caretakers of dependent children. Our
estimates indicate that around 19,000 children have
mothers who are incarcerated in state facilities. In
California, incarcerated women are more likely to be
parents, to have multiple children, and to have been
living with their children before arrest than incarcerated men (Powell & Nolan, 2003). Furthermore,
their incarceration has very immediate consequences
for their children. While the vast majority of children of incarcerated men continue to live with their
mothers, children of incarcerated women are more
likely to end up living with other relatives, particularly grandparents, and more likely to end up in foster
care (Powell & Nolan, 2003).

The guiding principles are:
1. Gender: Acknowledge that gender makes a difference.
2. Environment: Create an environment based on
safety, respect, and dignity.
3. Relationships: Develop policies, practices and
programs that are relational and promote healthy
connections to children, family, significant others, and the community.
4. Services and Supervision: Address substance
abuse, trauma, and mental health issues through
comprehensive, integrated, culturally-relevant
services, and appropriate supervision.
5. Socioeconomic Status: Provide women with
opportunities to improve their socioeconomic
conditions.

Because many incarcerated mothers return home
with an expectation that they will reunite with their
children, it is important to prepare them for that
reunion. There is also a need to provide support to
their children. To the extent that the State of California fails to do so, it is a missed opportunity for
intervention.

6. Community: Establish a system of community
supervision and reentry with comprehensive,
collaborative services.
There is significant evidence that the response of
women to incarceration, treatment, and rehabilitation differs from that of men in the following areas:
5

Given the nonviolent nature of most women’s
crimes and their low level of risk to public safety,
increasing the availability of community-based placements is the primary objective of needed reform.
Community-based placements offer a number of
advantages for a system that has a stated goal of
“reforming” and reintegrating women from prison
into society to contribute positively to their families
and communities. Women in community-based,
family-focused settings face fewer obstacles to visitation and maintaining family connections. Community-based settings can emphasize treatment, service
provision, and community reentry.
There is a critical need to develop a system of supervision and support in communities to better assist
women in reuniting with their families and communities. Assistance is needed in the areas of housing,
education, job training, employment, family counseling, child care, drug and alcohol treatment, health
and mental health care, peer support, and aftercare.
Wraparound services and other integrated approaches can also be very effective because they address
multiple goals and needs in a coordinated way and
facilitate access to services.

•

Community-based alternatives to incarceration
and reentry programs that are gender-responsive
are more likely to be successful than prison.

•

Community-based programs should focus on
reducing recidivism and breaking the intergenerational cycle of incarceration though familyfocused programming.

•

The community-based service delivery model
should include a gender-responsive risk and
needs assessment.

•

Community-based settings should offer an array
of services including housing, job training and
placement, parenting, education, health care,
drug treatment, mental health services, and basic
life skills.

•

Programs should be flexible and include individualized treatment plans and coordinated case
management.

•

A process and outcome evaluation component
should be included in program planning.

•

A public awareness campaign should be conducted to encourage community ownership of
programming for female offenders.

A Blueprint for Reform
References

In an historic move, the CDCR has identified 4,500
non-serious, nonviolent women offenders currently
confined in prison that could be eligible for community placement. The CDCR recently released a
Request for Proposal for community beds and plans
to phase in over 4,000 Female Rehabilitative Community Correctional Center (FRCCC) beds over two
years beginning in 2007. The CDCR anticipates that
the first FRCCCs could open in April, 2008.

Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S. (2003). Gender-responsive strategies:
Research, practice and guiding principles for women offenders. Washington, DC:
National Institute of Corrections.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2006). Strategic plan: Population placement and programming for female offenders sentenced to
state prison, July 17, 2006. Sacramento, CA: Author.
California Senate Concurrent Resolution 33 Commission on Female
Inmate and Parolee Issues (1994, June). Final report. Sacramento, CA.
Little Hoover Commission (2004, December). Breaking barriers for
women on parole. Sacramento, CA: Author.

The following recommendations are based on a recent survey of community-based programs conducted by NCCD. They suggest a blueprint for a genderresponsive, community-based system of programs
and services for women offenders.

Powell, M.A. & Nolan, C. (2003). California state prisoners with children:
Findings from the 1997 survey of inmates in state and federal correctional facilities. California Research Bureau.

6

The California Parole System:
Improving Supervision and
Public Safety
Every year, approximately 115,000 prisoners are
released. Once returned to the community, ex-prisoners fail at an alarming rate. Recent data show
that over two-thirds of California’s parolees are
returned to prison within two years. This recidivism
rate is twice as high as the national average (Petersilia, 2006).

•

Institute a program of intermediate sanctions to
deal with parole violations.

•

Implement a structured decision making process
that ensures department policy is reflected in
individual decisions.

•

Reallocate resources to fund programs needed to
assist offender’s success in the community.

Commit to a Focus on Successful
Community Reentry

High rates of return to prison not only compromise
public safety, but add significantly to the prison
crowding problem. Due to their high failure rate,
parolees account for the bulk of prison admissions.
Between January 1 and May 31, 2006, parolees constituted 64 percent of the 57,000 people who were
admitted to California prisons (CDCR, 2006b). At
the end of 2005, one-third of the prison beds were
filled by revoked parolees. Some of these parolees had been convicted of a new offense while on
parole, but many—in fact 8 percent of the prison
population—were there for technical violations of
parole1 (CDCR, 2006a).

Spurred by the U. S. Department of Justice’s Serious
and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, scores of
jurisdictions across the country are shifting their correctional mission and philosophy from pure incapacitation to one that focuses on enhancing offenders’
chances for successful reentry.

Because the parole system contributes so heavily to
prison crowding, improved parole practices could
have an immediate and lasting impact on the need
for prison beds in California. The following fivepoint program would reduce the parole recidivism
rate, ease pressure on correctional institutions, reduce the overall cost of the correctional system, and
most significantly, enhance public safety:

The reentry model consists of multiple phases
(prison, transition, parole) that are treated as a continuum of preparation and support for reintegration.
The model emphasizes: 1) linking offenders with
the types of programs and services that will address
their criminogenic needs during all three phases, 2)
the assessment tools to target the use of limited resources where they can have the greatest impact, 3)
the use of transition facilities as a “step-down” process that serves as a bridge between the institution
and the community2, and 4) the use of a collaborative approach between the correctional system and
community agencies, organizations, and individuals
in developing and implementing the reentry model.

•

Commit the State of California to a focus on
successful community reentry.

•

Adopt evidence-based assessment and supervision practices.

The rationale is clear: the better prepared offenders
are for reentry, the greater their likelihood of success. Success translates into lower recidivism rates
and therefore greater public safety. In addition,
lower recidivism means fewer returns to prison and,
therefore, less crowding.

1 In some counties, these technical parole violations may be based on new criminal conduct.
2 Unfortunately, the newly proposed CDCR “Reentry Facilities have only a few characteristics of most transitional facilities. Although the proposed facilities will offer a wide range of
important transition-related services, and will be located in the offender’s home community, the proposed size and character of the facilities is likely to undermine their effectiveness.
CDCR wants these facilities to be 500 bed maximum security institutions. They would be “community-based” only in the most narrow definition of that term and would negate any
opportunity for the offenders to be tested in a less restrictive environment and the type of offender-community interaction typically associated with step down facilities. States such as
Illinois, Georgia, and Texas all operate transitional facilities that are 200 beds or less.

7

California should adopt the central components of
the reentry model, and commit to implementing it
through necessary legislation, policy development,
procedural changes, and engagement of California’s
communities.

•

Currently all parolees receive parole terms that
are fairly similar in duration. This results in needlessly high caseloads, which prevent parole officers from paying sufficient attention to higherrisk parolees. It would be a far more efficient use
of resources to tie the length of stay on parole
to an offender’s risk level or accomplishment of
individual benchmarks. Low-risk offenders who
adjust well could be released after three to six
months of supervision. Moderate-risk offenders might be expected to serve a year on parole,
while high-risk offenders would serve two years
or more.

Empirically-based risk instruments have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to sort the offender
population into sub-groups that have very different
probabilities of recidivism. It is possible to identify a group of high-risk offenders who are four
to five times more likely to recidivate than low-risk
offenders. This knowledge can be used to allocate
resources to offenders who present the greatest risk
to public safety.

•

Further risk assessment, used in conjunction
with needs assessment, can be used to “match”
offenders to the type of programs and services
most appropriate for them. Very intensive (and
expensive) programs should be reserved for the
high-risk offenders they were designed to serve.
Specific program assignments for high-risk
offenders should be driven by assessed needs
and/or a process such as CMC.

Ideally, these assessments would be augmented by
systems that assist parole officers with supervision
strategies. For example, the widely used Client Management Classification system (CMC) has proven
very successful in reducing revocations. A massive
five-year study of CMC in Florida found that, “all
else being equal, CMC offenders are 44 percent less
likely to fail than non-CMC offenders,” (Leininger,
1998). If California cut its recidivism rate even by
half this amount using a strong case management
model, it would reduce the need for prison beds
significantly.

Implement a Comprehensive
Intermediate Sanctions Program

Adopt Evidence-Based Assessment
and Supervision Practices
At a minimum, this must include the use of standardized risk and need assessment tools to drive the
development of case plans.

Offenders will violate the conditions of their parole.
Long standing patterns of behavior are not changed
overnight, especially without strong, consistent intervention. The question is, how can parole respond in
such a way that violators are held accountable and
concerns for public safety upheld, without consistently resorting to revocation?
Many jurisdictions have developed a range of intermediate sanctions for parole that can provide a
meaningful, graduated, and proportionate response
to violations. Such sanctions can include community
service orders, electronic monitoring, increased drug
testing, mandated participation in out-patient or
in-patient drug treatment, short-term stays in local
jails, attending a structured day-reported program,

Supervision requirements can be tailored to each offender as follows:
•

Parole officer time can be focused on those at
the highest level of risk by seeing them more
frequently (e.g., once per week), while seeing
low-risk offenders less frequently (e.g., once
every other month).

8

and a host of other measures. Graduated sanctions,
if used appropriately, can be more effective than
revocation, because it is the certainty and the swiftness of a sanction—rather than its severity—that
determine its impact.

Reallocate Resources to Fund
Necessary Programs and Services for
Parolees
Offenders returning to their communities bring with
them a host of problems including physical and
mental health and substance abuse issues, illiteracy,
few job skills, and minimal work history. These
deficits contribute directly to continuing patterns of
crime. And unless they are addressed in a comprehensive and consistent fashion—both in the institutions and in the community—parolees will continue
to fail.

CDCR’s previous, limited experience with intermediate sanctions should not deter the Department
from vigorously pursuing this strategy.3 There has
been considerable success in states that have made
concentrated efforts to implement intermediate
sanctions programs. For example, Georgia saw its
revocation rate drop by 11 percent during the first
year after it began using intermediate sanctions. New
Jersey’s revocations dropped by 27 percent in the
two-year period following implementation (Burke,
2004).

There is now a strong body of evidence that welldesigned programs that target the right offenders
for participation can have a substantial impact on
recidivism rates. Several rigorous reviews of the
research have shown that educational and vocational
programs, substance abuse treatment, cognitive
behavioral therapies, and reentry programming can
reduce recidivism by 5-30 percent (Burke and Tonry,
2006).

Implement a Structured Decision
Making Process
The best graduated sanction programs are guided
by a formal, structured decision making process
(e.g., a violation/sanctions matrix) that takes into
account the severity of the violation—as well as the
offender’s risk level—when determining the severity
of the sanction. The system’s response to a lowrisk offender who violates parole can and should be
very different from its response to a high-risk parole
violator who represents a greater threat to the community.

Program selection and development should be based
on prior evidence of success in helping offenders
succeed in the community.

Potential Impact
Improving the system of parole in California could
have a substantial impact on prison crowding. There
is strong evidence available from other states with
large correctional populations that improved case
management and expanded use of intermediate
sanctions can reduce the need for prison beds. And,
in no state is the potential as great as it is in California. This year, approximately 67,000 parolees will be
administratively returned to prison, in other words,
without a conviction for a new offense. About

The use of a structured decision making model will
enhance consistency throughout California. It represents the most direct method for ensuring that state
policy is reflected in practice. It ensures that equity
in decision making is maintained and protects the
State against egregious error.

3 CDCR implemented three alternative sanctions programs in 2004. All the programs were plagued with implementation problems and, amid fears that they weren’t working, the CDCR
terminated the programs after less than a year of operation.

9

44,000 of these will be for drug usage, drug possession and minor traffic violations, or for parole violations not based on new criminal conduct. If parole
violations were reduced by 20 percent through the
use of CMC, and the State were to use intermediate
sanctions for even half of the remaining minor violations, it could find alternatives to prison for more
than 30,000 offenders. Returnees serve an average
of 4.5 months in prison after revocation. This translates to a savings of more than 11,000 beds annually.

References
Burke, P. (2004). Parole violations revisited. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.
Burke, P., and M. Tonry (2006). Successful transition and reentry for safer
communities: A call to action for parole. Silver Spring, MD: Center for Effective Public Policy.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Data Analysis Unit (2006a). Monthly programs: Table 1. Prison census data, total institution population, offenders by admission/return status and gender as of December
31, 2005. Sacramento CA: CDCR. (February).

It must be emphasized that an intermediate sanctions program would not jeopardize public safety
and, in fact, would bring California’s parole revocation rate in line with rates experienced in other
states. Furthermore, the savings in bed space could
provide the dollars needed to fund sorely needed
programs.

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2006b).
Inmate population, rehabilitation and housing management plan. Sacramento,
CA: CDCR (July).

Creating A New State-Local
Corrections Partnership

gets, and state facilities receive appropriations from
the Legislature and the Governor’s budget. These
two correctional systems exert significant influence
on one another. For example, excellent local county
programs such as drug courts can avert later state
prison commitments. Funding for better care of
mentally ill offenders in jail can relieve pressure on
prison admissions. Parole revocation rates have major implications for county jail space if parolees are
awaiting their parole revocation hearings in county
jails. If the CDCR added community corrections
beds or reentry facilities in urban areas, it would
require the support and assistance of local elected
officials and law enforcement leadership. Also, there
are sections of the penal code that give discretion
to local prosecutors and judges to handle cases as
either misdemeanors or felonies (so-called wobblers).
This means that district attorneys can greatly impact
prison admissions based on their legitimate prosecutorial discretion. Furthermore, working at the local
level would give victims their best chance at having a
voice in appropriate sanctions and reentry planning.

Leininger, K. (1998, December). Effectiveness of client management classification. Tampa, FL: Florida Department of Corrections, Research
and Data Analysis.
Petersilia, J. (2006). Understanding California corrections, University of
California, Irvine: Center for Evidence-Based Corrections. Report at:
http://www.seweb.uci.edu/users/joan/Images/CPRC.pdf

California must create joint state-local planning and
programming that expands the quality and quantity
of community corrections sentencing options and
enhances reentry services for released inmates. Such
a program could be modeled after the highly successful Juvenile Challenge Grant Program, which
expanded proven community alternatives for serious
juvenile offenders and helped reduce the crowding
crisis in state juvenile facilities (California Board of
Corrections, 2004). The critical components of that
program are described below.
In most instances, prisoners return to the same communities they came from. State prison inmates often
have done time in local county jails or have been
supervised on probation. The state and local correctional enterprises are inextricably linked despite a
bifurcated funding system. Local corrections departments are primarily supported through county bud-

10

There has been funding in the recent past through
the Corrections Standards Authority (formerly the
Board of Corrections) to support training of local
corrections personnel and to defray some costs for
local correctional facility construction. Unfortunately, these legislative subsidies of local corrections
have diminished due to large state budget deficits.

An Adult Corrections Challenge Grant
Program
The Division of Community Partnerships (DCP)
of the CDCR should begin the process of alliance
building by making available modest planning grants
to counties that wish to participate. These grants
would support local consultation and planning
activities. Funding of planning grants would take
into account the prisoner commitment rates of each
county. The participating counties could form multiagency task forces chaired by the Sheriff or Chief
Probation Officer. These planning bodies would include all pertinent county justice agencies, representatives from agencies covering housing, employment,
adult education, mental and physical health care, and
substance abuse treatment. There should also be
participation from the faith community, ex-offender
self-help groups, and other voluntary community
agencies.

Ultimately, California needs to find a structure and
method of maximizing the appropriate investment
in local and state correctional resources. Some states
such as Minnesota, Kansas, and Oregon have established Community Corrections Acts that permit
state funds to support programs that keep minor offenders in local correctional programs. Research on
the effectiveness of these Community Corrections
Acts has been positive (Shilton, 1992).
It is abundantly clear that communities are key to
the successful reentry of state prisoners. The CDCR
Parole Division by itself cannot ensure the success
of released inmates. To paraphrase former Speaker
of the U.S. House of Representatives, Tip O’Neill,
“All reentry is local.” As Petersilia (2003) and Travis
(2005) have noted, the key ingredients to successful
reentry include 1) finding safe housing, 2) obtaining
employment, 3) reestablishing positive family and
community ties, 4) having access to needed mental
health, substance abuse, and other medical care services, 5) having a mentor or sponsor, or 6) completing a cognitive skills training program. All of these
key areas of support must be obtained at the community level, with funding support from municipal
and county budgets.

The DCP should provide a planning protocol and
offer technical assistance to counties that need this
help. Within six months, the participating counties
would be required to submit a data-driven analysis
of local correctional needs for offenders returning home from prisons, people released from local
jails, and enhanced local correctional programming.
Based on these plans, each participating county
would propose its top priorities for additional funding from the DCP. These proposed programs must
be evidence-based and be justified by the local plan.
There would need to be strict evaluation standards,
and each county would have to demonstrate how
the potential new projects would reduce crowding
in CDCR facilities by averting initial prison commitments or reducing parole revocation rates.

Growing recognition of the important community
role in reentry has led a number of California counties, including San Diego, Santa Barbara, San Mateo,
and San Francisco, to establish county-wide reentry
planning groups to work with CDCR officials to enhance and, in some cases, redesign reentry support
systems. The current CDCR budget sets aside modest funding to encourage these community partnerships with local government and community-based
organizations.

The DCP would review these plans and proposals
and provide up to four years of funding for selected
programs. Funding would be based on a competitive
review of all proposals. The DCP would define an
evaluation and monitoring process to be followed by
the counties. Successful grantees would be required
to explain plans for ongoing financial support of
effective programming at the end of the initial grant
period.
11

Financial support for this Adult Offender Challenge References
Grant Program could increase over time, based on
proven results. The DCP would offer ongoing moni- California Board of Corrections (2004). Challenge Grant II Program:
toring and consultation of local efforts. Although it Final report to the Legislature, March, 2004. Sacramento, CA: Author.
is difficult to predict in advance how many counties Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry.
would want to participate in this program, or what New York: Oxford University Press.
would be the immediate impact on prison crowdShilton, M.K. (1992). Community Corrections Acts for state and local partnering, this Adult Offender Challenge Grant program ships. Laurel, MD: American Correctional Association.
would create a viable structure to encourage comTravis, J. (2005). But they all come back. Washington, DC: The Urban
munication and collaboration between CDCR and
Institute Press.
local corrections officials.

The Need for a California
Sentencing Policy Commission

This has resulted in law changes piled onto older law
changes. By many accounts, the current provisions
of the DSL are a mélange of conflicting and, often,
inconsistent provisions.

California’s Determinate Sentencing Law (DSL) was
enacted in 1976, with bipartisan political support,
to replace the old indeterminate sentencing system.
That system was denounced by some as permitting
overly lenient sentences and by others for allowing
arbitrary and discriminatory sentences. Superficially,
the DSL achieved its goal of greater uniformity of
sentencing. In most cases, judges have discretion
whether to commit an offender to prison. If they
decide a commitment is warranted, they have very
little flexibility to sentence below (or above) the
statutorily-mandated terms. After 30 years of implementation, the DSL has turned into more of a problem than a solution. “Uniformity” has meant highly
rigid sentences that make it impossible for judges to
engage in the rational individualization necessary to
ensure that the sentence truly reflects the culpability
and harmfulness of the individual offender’s act or
imposes the degree of incapacitation necessary to
prevent future serious criminality. The DSL’s rigidity
has also led to severe overcrowding, excessive costs,
and dangerous and unconstitutional prison conditions. The DSL has, in fact, made the Legislature the
sole sentencing authority in California. Those who
are unhappy with legislative actions have resorted to
ballot measures that amend the state constitution.

Worse yet, one of the DSL’s key professed goals—
eliminating the abuses of the old discretionary
parole system—has remained unmet. For one thing,
the DSL never really eliminated parole. Not only did
parole remain in its old form as a system of deciding on the release of inmates who were convicted
for the most serious violent crimes—most obviously
homicide—but parole was retained, albeit in a different guise, for other crimes. Now all prisoners are
released onto a fixed parole term of 1 to 3 years, set
according to a formula. Therefore, all prisoners use
up expensive parole supervision resources. Though
parole conditions are somewhat individualized by
parole officers, the system lacks the flexibility needed
for sensible allocation of resources to prevent recidivism and enhance reentry. Some prisoners who
pose no danger to public safety receive unnecessarily
long terms of supervision and face being reincarcerated for minor technical violations. Other prisoners
who pose greater community danger get released
on parole at the end of their determinate sentences,
whether they are ready for community reentry or
not. The current concern about releasing dangerous
sex offenders is an example of this dilemma.

12

With guaranteed parole release, convicts have little
or no incentive to prepare for release by enrolling
in reentry programs in prison, even those who wish
to benefit from these programs. While Californians
generally want to have minimum graduation standards from our high schools, there are no minimum
life skills that inmates must have before they are
released from prison, hence our crisis of dangerously crowded prisons, one of the highest parole
recidivism rates in the nation, and no governmental
infrastructure to comprehend, much less solve, these
problems.

Under the DSL, judges are left with only a narrow
set of choices called a “triad,” a high, medium, and
low sentence for the crime of conviction, but then
may add on to those an array of automatic enhancements for certain factors. A commission can issue
guidelines that, of course, operate within the range
dictated by the Legislature but allow for more careful
calibration of the sentence that balances principles
of just deserts, deterrence, incapacitation, and restorative justice demand. These tasks require finegrained rule making and identification of all relevant
aggravating and mitigating factors, based on updated
information and analysis provided by research staff.
Second, sentencing guidelines rely on research-based
expert information on the most efficient allocation
of prisoners to state and county correctional options. No legislature has the time or the logistical
ability to engage in this continuing readjustment.
But a commission, acting as the eyes and ears for the
Legislature, always subject to the ultimate control of
the Legislature, can do just that.

A legislative solution is necessary, but the key to
sentencing reform is for the Legislature to realize
that it cannot solve these problems by business as
usual. Rather, the dramatically positive lesson from
other states such as North Carolina and Virginia is
that a new governmental mechanism is necessary: a
sentencing policy commission. A sentencing policy
commission is an administrative body authorized by
the legislature to translate the broad design of sentencing statutes into a workable system that achieves
the optimal mix of uniformity and flexibility.

Equally important, a sentencing policy commission
can help resolve some of the problems of the parole
system. Just as guidelines can ensure the proper mix
of uniformity and individualized flexibility in actual
sentences, they are a crucial tool in guiding parole
officials in rationally allocating the use of parole resources to the most dangerous offenders, and in setting the most efficient parole conditions for released
prisoners. Right now, parole officials, while no doubt
acting in good faith, must make ad hoc decisions
about the reentry needs and sensible supervisory
conditions for released inmates without any overall
guidance. They do this without receiving updated
information about state-wide parole resources and
without benefiting from timely and systematic data
about the availability and effectiveness of various
reentry programs. Again, a legislature can hardly perform this task, but a sentencing commission, with
an expert staff, can do the job. We now have persistent criticism of decisions made by parole staff. A
sentencing policy commission can provide statewide

Functions of a Sentencing Policy
Commission
What would a commission do? There are many
possibilities. First, a commission could carefully review the current DSL and pinpoint major problems
and inconsistencies. Next, it could issue sentencing guidelines to carry out the appropriate goals of
sentencing legislation. Third, the commission could
conduct research to assess the impact of the guidelines on public safety, prison and parole populations,
and disparity in the statewide implementation of
the guidelines. Statutes necessarily speak in large
generalities. But effective sentencing rules to guide
judges, promote reasonable state-wide uniformity
and predictability, and allow for a necessary degree
of individualization, cannot be drawn by the Legislature itself.

13

placed within the Judiciary? Should it be an independent agency? How will its political accountability
be ensured? What will be its size? Who will select
its members? Will they be full or part-time? What
mix of public officials and private citizens will it
contain? Will the commission’s sentencing guidelines
be binding on judges or will the commission issue
“presumptive guidelines” from which judges can
diverge if they offer reasons on the record? California needs to designate a body, chaired by the Chief
Justice, with members appointed by the Chair, the
Governor, the Legislature, and the Attorney General, to propose answers to these questions about the
structure and operations of the commission.

guidelines to direct and assist the decisions of parole
officials, while also supplying those officials with the
crucial information they now lack.

Success in Other States
This concept of a modern sentencing policy commission hardly requires much imagination, because
superb models are readily available. Many states now
have such commissions, and some, notably North
Carolina, Virginia, Oregon, Washington, and Minnesota, are uniformly acknowledged by policymakers
and academics to be very successful. With the help
of their commissions, these states have drastically reduced prison costs and reallocated resources towards
incapacitation of the truly dangerous convicts while
providing alternative and less expensive sanctions
for those who are not major threats to public safety.
These commissions have done their work with a
remarkable degree of bipartisan political consensus
and a virtual absence of public controversy. For
example, both North Carolina and Virginia employed sentencing guidelines to end court-ordered
policies of accelerated release of inmates. These
state commissions permitted longer terms for the
most violent offenders and moved nonviolent and
low-risk inmates to effective intermediate sanctions.
Prison crowding was reduced in both states without
massive new prison building. Both North Carolina
and Virginia enjoyed at least as much of a decline in
serious crime rates as the rest of the nation in the
past decade.

A Time To Take Action
The successes of other states have been striking.
They have shown that a sentencing policy commission can insulate the elected officials from the
pressures to follow high visibility crimes with political sloganeering that, too often, produces laws that
actually undermine the effectiveness of the criminal
justice system. A sentencing policy commission can
be a well-oiled machine to monitor the successes and
failures of various sentencing initiatives while keeping prison populations within manageable capacities.
It can enable government officials to benefit from
the most thoroughly tested research from criminologists and other policy experts.
The commission concept has been fitfully considered by California legislators and other officials over
the past 50 years, but our leaders have never resolved
to utilize this well-tested tool of public administration. The Independent Review Panel led by former
Governor George Deukmejian strongly endorsed
this concept. Given our bulging and dangerous state
prisons and county jails, no state needs this sort of
reform more.

Commission models vary among these states, and
no one model fits California perfectly. If California
takes the crucial next step in creating a sentencing
policy commission, the Legislature will have the
opportunity to make a number of choices about
the design of that system: Should the commission
be a direct delegate of the Legislature? Should it be

14

Does the Political Will Exist To
Respond to the Prison Crisis?
The Governor and the Legislature face a daunting task to effectively respond to the prison crisis.
California is at a crossroads and must face up to the
deep problems in its state and local corrections systems. This is no time for “sound bite” policies and
politically popular quick fixes. Whatever solutions
are adopted, there will be an urgent need to pay
careful attention to the details of implementation.
We also need to enlist the best thinkers and practitioners from across the nation to assist us.

and local corrections. We need to understand the
true financial implications to fixing the corrections
imbroglio. Reforms must include a new alliance of
state and local justice officials, and an exploration
of proven safe alternatives to state confinement.
California must expand its commitment to employ
research and rigorous evaluations to determine if the
taxpayers are getting value for their massive investments in the corrections system. A clear plan that
achieves bipartisan support and includes all three
branches of government is the standard we should
uphold.

A smart reform program must balance emergency
steps, short-term measures, and a longer-term strategic vision. The NCCD believes that the proposals in
this report represent a start in that direction. Fundamental to viable solutions is a continued movement
toward a corrections system that combines effective
rehabilitation and reentry programs that reduce recidivism with appropriate public protection considerations and sensitivity to the plight of victims.

This is a time for honesty about what is working
and what needs major reforms. The public debate
on sentencing and corrections has too often been
misinformed by myths rather than empirical data.
Interest group politics must be replaced by a search
for the best ways to make our communities safer.
Finally, California must respond to the urgent plight
of the estimated 500,000 children whose parents are
incarcerated. To ignore the needs of these children
is to perpetuate an inter-generational cycle of crime
and violence that is diminishing our communities
and extending the current prison crisis long into the
future.

There are evidence-based pathways out of the deep
prison crisis that we have created. A comprehensive
approach is needed that includes realistic forecasts
of the impact of policy and law changes on state

15

Summary
As we attempt to move California’s prisons and jails away from their current disastrous crowding, we acknowledge that this effort is driven by the initiative to create a humane, safe, and effective system of crime
control and prevention that reflects the ideals of our society. Essential services, procedures, and structures
designed to reduce recidivism, break the intergenerational cycle of violence, and save taxpayer dollars for
more positive expenditures will serve the larger end of reducing crime in our communities and enhancing
public safety.

Recommendations
Move 4,500 non-serious, low-risk women to community-based facilities. The vast majority of
women prisoners are nonviolent, pose a low threat to society, and need better access to their children and to rehabilitative services.
Reform the parole system. The state must commit to a focus on reentry, adopt evidence-based supervision and assessment procedures, institute intermediate sanctions, and use a structured decision
making system.
Create an Adult Corrections Challenge Grant Program. Establishing a viable partnership between
state and local corrections would expand sentencing options, enhance rehabilitative services, and
strengthen local reentry systems. We must find creative ways to make the most of our expenditures.
Establish a Sentencing Policy Commission. This Commission model, already in use in many states,
is an administrative body authorized by the legislature to translate the broad design of sentencing
statutes into a workable system that balances uniformity of sentencing with flexibility for individualization. This body would ensure that sentencing reflects the culpability and harmfulness of a
convicted individual. A Commission would also allow for an evaluation of the use of parole and a
rational allocation of state and local correctional resources.

Principles
Implement evidence-based practices. These will reduce recidivism and increase public safety.
Standardize risk and needs assessments. These must be a integral part of a coherent plan to match
resources with needs and determine appropriate placements.
Coordinate case management. This is essential to ensuring continuity of care, reducing failure rates
and returns to prison, maintaining morale of parole and probation officers.
Provide essential services to reentering prisoners. These include housing, employment, mental and
physical health care, substance abuse treatment, education, family reunification, mentoring, and cognitive skills.
Evaluate programs. This is critical to knowing what works and what doesn’t.
Promote public awareness. The public should be well informed; they should know how their tax dollars are being spent and what they are getting for their public safety investment.

16