PacoVilla’s Corrections blog
October 27, 2008

by Rick Jaramillo

The mass imprisonment philosophy that has packed prisons and sent corrections costs through the roof around the country has hit especially hard in California, which has the largest prison population, the highest recidivism rate and a prison budget raging out of control.

According to a new federally backed study conducted at the University of California, Irvine, the state’s corrections costs have grown by about 50 percent in less than a decade and now account for about 10 percent of state spending — nearly the same amount as higher education. The costs could rise substantially given that a federal lawsuit may require the state to spend $8 billion to bring the prison system’s woefully inadequate medical services up to constitutional standards.

The solution for California is to shrink its vastly overcrowded prison system. To do so, it would need to move away from mandatory sentencing laws that have proved to be disastrous across the country — locking up more people than protecting public safety requires.

In addition, the state also has perhaps the most counterproductive and ill-conceived parole system in the United States. More people are sent to prison in California by parole officers than by the courts. In addition, about 66 percent of California’s parolees land back in prison after three years, compared with about 40 percent nationally. Four in 10 are sent back for technical violations like missed appointments or failed drug tests.

Later this year, the state is expected to begin testing a new system that redirects the lowest-risk drug addicts to treatment. But that will only work if the state and the counties dramatically expand treatment slots.

The heart of the problem is that California’s parole system is simply too big. Most states keep dangerous people behind bars or reserve parole supervision for the most serious offenders. California puts virtually everyone on parole, typically for three years.

Under this setup, about 80 percent of the parolees have fewer than two 15-minute meetings with a parole officer per month. That might be adequate for low-risk offenders, but it’s clearly too little time for serious offenders who present a risk to public safety.
A good first step would be to place fewer people on parole. The second step would be to reserve the most intensive supervision for offenders who present the greatest risk.

State lawmakers, some of whom are fearful of being seen as soft on crime, have failed to make perfectly reasonable sentencing modifications and other changes that the prisons desperately need. Unless they muster some courage soon, Californians will find themselves swamped by prison costs and unable to afford just about anything else.

We’re getting close to Election Day and we have a lot to think about.

I’ve been going around talking to people about the props. I know they’re on your radar too. Of 12 on the ballot, 3 props could mean big changes for correctional officers. Props 6 & 9 would do many things, all of which add up to keeping more people in prison for longer – and that means more overcrowding. We’ve seen these types of props before.

Only prop 5 is really something different. People talk about it like it’s great for inmates, which I think it is. But I think it’s just as good for officers. Prop 5 would bring rehab back into the system – and that means improved working conditions, better job security and more resources for protecting public safety.

For those of you who know me, you know I believe treatment works. I’m proof that it does. By providing treatment behind bars and in the community, and local sanctions for nonviolent parole violators, Prop 5 will reduce prison overcrowding. For too long officers have been forced to work in unsafe conditions at prison facilities holding far more inmates than they were designed for. Legislators have failed again and again to get serious about making correctional officers’ work environment safer. Prop 5 finally does.

That goes for officers behind the walls and in the streets. Every year legislators ask parole officers to do more with less. Prop 5 would finally provide the resources PO’s need to get their parolees into real rehab programs and out of a life of crime. It would also create a process for mandating a maximum parolee to parole officer ratio. A new independent oversight board, with two correctional union representatives, could set this ratio without budgetary pressure from the governor or legislature.

The truth is that significant changes for California’s correctional system are coming whether we like it or not. The Federal courts have already taken control of medical care delivery in California’s prisons. Two weeks after the election a federal court will decide whether to take control of the entire prison system. In that case, the court could release thousands of inmates based on their time left to serve – regardless of their commitment offense. Even Governor Schwarzenegger and members of the legislature have supported eliminating parole supervision altogether for nonviolent offenders. I think prop 5 is a better alternative to what might happen if it fails.

Prop 5 is the safest option we have to finally address the prison overcrowding crisis. It’s also the only state ballot initiative that will cut state costs – that’s what the Legislative Analyst’s Office says. Because every dollar we invest in treatment returns at least $2 to the state in reduced incarceration costs, or about $1 billion a year.

Prop 5 will finally bring reduce overcrowding and keep people from cycling back through the system. I’m going to be voting YES on prop 5. This is a chance for the prisoners to get help and to make the conditions safer for everyone behind bars. Let’s do this.

Richard Jaramillo
Executive Director
Re-Entry Inc.

Note: Paco’s opinions of Proposition 5, the Non-violent Offender Rehabilitation Act (NORA), are well documented on these pages. Even so, many people of good conscience and good heart strongly support the measure, including my friend Rick Jaramillo. Whether one agrees with the opposition or not, it is important to weigh those opinions and perspectives. Rick has assembled a very thoughtful and informative article for our consideration…it is well worth the read.