Putting Violence Behind Bars: Redefining the Role of California's Prisons

Department of Corrections' Operation left with such serve impairments that today he is bedridden, brain damaged and incapable of performing even limited functions. A neurological report by a doctor outside the prison system concluded there is not much that can be done for the inmate, but added: The one recurrent situation that might speak for removal of [the inmate] from the Department of Corrections' setting at Vacaville to a private setting is the State's serious and significant budget crisis, with discussions of early releases and reduction of inmate populations. Certainly, [the inmate] is not a physical threat to anyone. He is not going to go anyplace but where he is placed. 147 AIDS testing: State law protects all citizens from being tested for AIDS without their permission, although prisoners who have attacked a guard with resulting injuries that may allow AIDS infection may be forced by court order to submit to a test. This is a politically explosive issue that pits those concerned on behalf of prisoners about privacy rights and potential discrimination against those who worry about chance contamination of correctional workers and other inmates. The Department has conducted blind testing in the past, discovering in 1986-87 that between one and a half and three percent of prisoners were infected with the AIDS-causing virus. Blind testing is expected to occur again in 1994. Those who are satisfied with the status quo argue that prisoners who test positive for AIDS would be treated differently -- and more poorly -- by both the Department and other inmates. They urge the Department to supply inmateS with educational counseling about AIDS and to upgrade the treatment of those prisoners who are suffering from full-blown AIDS. Those two steps, they say, would encourage more prisoners to be tested voluntarily. In the meantime, proper procedures by health care providers, regardless of the AIDS status of the patient, should protect workers from infection, they argue. Those who advocate routine testing of everyone who enters the system point out that forced testing is already legal for tuberculosis and sexually transmitted diseases. They argue that AIDS should be treated no differently since it, too, is a communicable disease. They 149 Putting Violence Behind Bars lUegal aliens make up more than 10 percent of prisoners believe that workers protection is best provided if everyone is aware of a prisoner's AIDS status. Illegal aliens: Not all of the barriers that keep the Department from operating cost-effectively are erected at the state level. At least one is -- or should be -- a federal problem: prisoners who are illegal aliens. California is a magnet for immigrants coming into the United States -- many of them illegally. Although the federal government, in setting immigration policy and providing border control, has pledged to pick up the cost of illegal immigration, it has failed to do so. In the area of prisons, this has been particularly costly, diverting resources that are sorely needed for other Department responsibilities. he Department estimates that there are 16,000 iUegal aliens serving time for felony convictions. At an annual cost of $20,000 per inmate, this represents $320 million of the Department's budget. Since many are not fluent in English, it also creates added problems during the normal course of work. While some have advocated returning these prisoners to their homelands immediately after conviction, others have questioned whether they would be incarcerated in their homelands or merely set free to return to the United States and a continued life of crime. The federal government could live up to its obligation in one of two ways, according to other correctional experts. It could reimburse the State for the cost of housing the inmates. Or it could dedicate regional prisons that it is planning to build to housing all illegal aliens that enter the states' prison systems. Health care contrtICting: A final problem facing the Department cannot be corrected by simply changing a state law or federal allocation since it involves the business concept of supply and demand. Department officials said they pay a high price for medical care in communities surrounding prisons because providers do not want to cope with the type of patient they will be treating and because providers know the Department has few alternatives. The Department spends about $80 million annually on contracts with physicians and hospitals outside of prisons. Although the Department has begun to copy Medi-Cal's methods for trying to deal more aggressively 150 Department of Corrections' Operation with health care providers, it is at a disadvantage because it does not have the leverage that comes with large numbers. (As the Commission has noted in previous studies on Medi-Cal, the State is able to bargain for low prices successfully when it threatens to take its large amount of business elsewhere.) Finding a way to link the State's responsibility to provide health care to inmates with its similar responsibility to provide health care for state workers andlor Medi-Cal recipients would give the Department greater leverage in bargaining for reasonably priced health care. hile prisoners should not be stripped of all their rights and left with no protection in a system that has the potential for abuse, there is no sound reason to afford them more rights than prisoners throughout the nation enjoy under federal court interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. That level of protection would guarantee them humane treatment without tying the hands of the Department in trying to run an effective and efficient prison system. y either altering the existing compassionate leave program or creating an additional program of medical parole, the State would have the flexibility to place inmates who are no longer a threat to public safety in less costly and more suitable settings. In the event the patient's status improved or the risk factor altered, the parole option would allow the return of the inmate to prison. 151 Putting Violence Behind Bars ivorced from political arguments, AIDS testing should be treated as a health and working conditions issue comparable to tuberculosis and other contagious diseases. The legislation should include requirements of adequate and proper treatment of patients identified as carrying the virus and should specifically prohibit discriminatory actions based on test results. Ithough resolutions and letters of demand have proved futile in the past, the Governor and the Legislature should continue to apply whatever pressure they can to force the federal government to address the cost of illegal immigration. he California Medical Assistance Commission (CMAC) has saved the State billions of dollars by bargaining aggressively for low-cost hospital contracts to provide care for Medi-Cal patients. CMAC's extensive bargaining experience and leverage provided by the command of a large patient base should be put to work on behalf of the Department of Corrections. 152 Conclusion PuttinG., Violence Behind Bars 154 Conclusion Conclusion . ow California uses its prison system and the procedures it follows to operate them has a substantial impact on public safety. In the preceding seven findings and 30 recommendations, the Commission has outlined an aggressive plan to rebalance the system so that violent crime is more compellingly targeted and incarceration becomes a more successful tool for dealing with the outcasts of society. But the prisons are only a single part of a complex criminal justice system and the answer to California's crime problems cannot be so narrowly focused. The public often views the criminal justice system in terms of the people that make up its parts: the policeman on patrol, the district attorney prosecuting a case and the judge sentencing a convicted felon. Less familiar but just as important are the others who make up the system, including the lawyers who defend the accused, the sheriff's deputies and prison administrators and correctional peace officers who operate the state's jails and prisons, and the probation and parole officers who supervise criminals outside the lockup. Each plays a role, from apprehension to release, in the operation of California's criminal justice system, which deals with 1 million reported crimes yearly and with the 155 Putting Violence Behind Bars estimated 188,000 offenders who will occupy the state's jails and prisons on anyone day. The building blocks of the criminal justice system are closely interrelated, a fact that is dimly perceived by the public and often ignored by those in government. Vigorous arrest policies by city police and county sheriffs mean more inmates are occupying cells in county jails. The cases of these jailed offenders pour into the courts, forcing an increased workload on the prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges. As the court backlog grows, jail populations surge due to the number of suspects awaiting trial. The effect of vigorous police enforcement ripples beyond the county jails. In recent years, fewer lOW-level felons have received suspended sentences or county jail time, due in part to lack of space and in part to the "tough-on-crime" policies that have attracted widespread public support. In 1993, the Legislature introduced 138 sentencing bills, virtually all of them requiring tougher sentences, sending more offenders to superior courtrooms and adding more inmates to the already overcrowded prisons. Probation and parole, the "caboose" at the end of the criminal justice "train," as one official put it, handle soaring caseloads as offenders are placed on probation by the court or are released to parole from the prisons. The parole population is enlarged as the eventual result of increased enforcement and tougher sentencing, because over half of all felons violate their parole or commit a new felony. These parolees feed back into the beginning of the system, soaking up police enforcement time. Money to pay for the criminal justice system flows from different tributaries. Cities fund police. Counties pay for jails, sheriff's deputies, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and probation officers. The State funds most of the county court costs, the criminal appeals process, parole and the single biggest piece of the network -- the prisons. Despite the interrelationship between the various parts of the criminal justice system and the huge cost of keeping pace with its growth, there is little coordination between the various jurisdictions to monitor how changes in one will impact another. One barrier to better coordination is the complexity of the system: 58 counties and hundreds of other jurisdictions paddling their own policy boats. Santa Clara County, however, has developed over a nine-year period a computerized model entitled 156 Conclusion Justice System Improvement Model (JUSSIM) to analyze these changes as they affect local government. The system has filled such a pressing need that Santa Clara County regularly does consulting for other local governments and, currently, with the state of Colorado to predict costs in the criminal justice system. To illustrate the interrelationships as determined by JUSSIM, consider a recent example in Fresno County. Early in 1993, Fresno County hired the Santa Clara consultants to analyze a proposal by the City of Fresno to hire 100 additional police officers. The consultants determined the additional city officers would cost the cash-strapped county $9.5 million for 5,000 additional jail bookings, 7,000 Municipal Court cases, 500 felony Superior Court cases and the additional arrests and incarcerations for juveniles. Of the 500 felony cases, 230 would be sentenced to state prison, the study found. 148 JUSSIM's Fresno County exercise was not structured to predict impact on the state prison system, but using Department statistics, the added prison inmates would cost the state $4.8 million a year in operating costs at $21,000 per inmate and $9.4 million in construction costs, using the least expensive figure of $41,000 for a minimum security (Levell) prison bed. The Fresno County case provides a taste of the impact if Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan's 1993 post-election proposal to hire 4,000 new police officers for Los Angeles is adopted. The State has no formal system of coordination between itself and the 58 counties that send felons from local courts to the state prison system. The result is that policies can have unintended consequences or may fail to make the best use of resources that are available at different levels of government. The Legislative Analyst's Office has begun to tackle these issues by proposing a restructuring of responsibilities that bring more common sense to the division of duties between local governments and the State, including taking steps to combine the probation and parole functions. The Commission believes that it is important to move forward with the reforms cited in this report to make prisons more effective. But it is also critical for the State to address the problem of crime -- from its root causes to its end products -- in a holistic fashion. In support of that, the Commission will continue to examine state programs that have the potential of affecting crime in California. 157 Putting Violence Behind Bars 158 Appendices Putting Violence Behind Bars 160 · Appendices APPENDIX A Little Hoover Commission Criminal Justice Subcommittee Arthur Gerdes, Chair Angie Papadakis Haig Mardikian Barbara Stone Little Hoover Commission Criminal Justice Advisory Committee James Gomez, Director Department of Corrections Thomas McConnell, Executive Director Board of Corrections John Gillis, Chairman Board of Prison Terms Craig Cornett, Director Criminal Justice and State Administration Legislative Analyst's Office Don Novey, President California Correctional Peace Officers Association Jan Miller, Chair Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau Vincent Schiraldi, Director Center on Juvenile & Criminal Justice James Austin, Executive Vice President National Council on Crime & Delinquency Susan B. Cohen, Executive Director California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association Emma Childers Friends Committee on Legislation of California Ken Knost, Mayor City of Taft 161 Robert Denham, Chief Deputy Sacramento County Sheriff's Office Cary Rudman, Chief Counsel Assembly Public Safety Committee Carolyn Eggleston, Director Center for Study of Correctional Education Greg Harding, Deputy Director Department of Corrections Jim Lewis, Director Assembly Office of Research Ken Hurdle Senate Office of Research Margaret Pena, Legislative Director American Civil Liberties Union Linda Nararro California Rural Indian Health Board Leonard Greenstone Leonard Greenstone Company Lisa Rea Justice Fellowship Joan Cavanaugh, Deputy Attorney General State Attorney General's Office Gregory Harding, Deputy Director Department of Corrections Putting Violence Behind Bars Richard Schumsky, President Los Angeles County Deputy Probation Officers Union Donald Spector Prison Law Office Mary Anne Gilliard Chief Deputy Director Office of Criminal Justice Planning Curt Miller Senate Republican Caucus Mel Assagai Senior Executive for Gov't. Affairs State Bar of California Susan Wallace, Chief Counsel Joint Committee on Prison Construction and Operations Rich Hopkins, Branch Chief State Controller's Office Marcos Nieto California Research Bureau 162 APPENDIX B Witnesses Appearing at Little Hoover Commission Criminal Justice Study Public Heaings July 20, 1993, Los Angeles James Austin Executive Vice President, National Council on Crime and Delinquency James Gomez, Director California Department of Corrections Dan Lungren California Attorney General Sandra Buttitta, Chief Assistant District Attorney Los Angeles County Steven Z. Perren, Judge Ventura County Superior Court Paul Myron, Chief, Custody Division Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office Susan B. Cohen, Executive Director California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association Rowan Klein California Attorneys for Criminal Justice Patty Tate Doris Tate Crime Victim's Bureau September 21, 1993, Sacramento James Gomez, Director California Department of Corrections Craig Cornett Office of the Legislative Analyst Arnold Schuler, Deputy Controller California Controller's Office Charles Scott, Administrator Taft Return to Custody Facility Patricia Borst, Program Administrator Mesa Verde Community Correctional Facilitly 163 Appendices Putting Violence Behind Bars Don Novey, President California Correctional Peace Officers Association Carolyn Eggleston and Thorn Gehring, Directors Center for Study of Correctional Education James Provenza Former Chief Counsel, Assembly Public Safety Committee 164 Endnotes Putting Violence Behind Bars 166 Endnotes ENDNOTES 1. California Bureau of Criminal Statistics, "Criminal Justice Expenditures, State of California" 2. Ibid. 3. Larry Solomon, National Institute of Corrections, speech, November 15, 1993. 4. California Department of Corrections 1993-1998 Five-Year Facilities Master Plan, transmittal letter, February 25, 1993. 5. "U.S. Crime Down, Violence Up in Past 20 Years, Survey Finds," Sacramento Bee, November 22, 1993. 6. John J. Dilulio Jr., Rethinking the Criminal Justice System: Toward a New Paradigm, December 1992 7. Dispositions of Adult Felony Arrests 1975 and 1992, California Department of Justice. 1975 figures do not include Santa Clara and Alameda counties. 8. All state prison statistics, California Department of Corrections, California Prisoners and Parolees, 1991 and the Department of Corrections. 9. Board of Corrections, Corrections Standards and Services Division, "California County Jail Population Projections, 1975-1992 Base Data." 1 O. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics. 1990. 11. In re Rodriguez, 14 Cal. 3d 639, 537 P.2d 384,122 Cal. Rptr. 552 (1975). 12. Raymond I. Parnas and Michael B. Salerno, "The Influence Behind, Substance and Impact of the New Determinate Sentencing Law in California," UC Davis Law Review, 1978, pp 29-41. 13. P.J. Garder in Community Release Bd. v. Superior Court (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 814, 815 fn1. 14. Judicial Council's 1983 Annual Report, p. 7. 15. California Penal Code, Sections 208 (d) and 209. 16. Shine, Cathy and Marc Mauer, Does the Punishment Fit the Crime? Drug Users and Drunk Drivers, Questions of Race and Class, The Sentencing Project, March, 1993. 17. California Health and Safety Code 18. Dan McGrath, "Cruel Punishment for Pappadopoulos," September " 1993. 19. Joan Petersilia, "Crime and Punishment in California," chapter from Urban America: Policy Choices for Los Angeles and the Nation, RAND, Santa Monica, 1992. 167 Putting Violence Behind Bars 20. Drawn from Commission advisory committee working groups; the results of "Effective California Corrections," November 15-16, 1993 workshop sponsored by the Robert Presley Institute of Corrections Research and Training and the California Corrections Executive Council; and a variety of sources including John J. Dilulio Jr. in "Rethinking the Criminal Justice System: Toward a New Paradigm." 21. "Time Served on Prison Sentence: Felons First Released to Parole by Offense, Calendar Year, 1992, R Table 1 A, Department of Corrections. 22. Patty Tate, board member, Doris Tate Crime Victim's Bureau, in testimony to the Commission, July 20,1993. 23. "Rate of Felon Parolees Returned to California Prisons, Calendar Year 1992," Table 1, Department of Corrections. 24. Susan Cohen, Executive Director of the California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association, testimony to the Commission, July 20, 1993: 25. Simpson, Richard, Jailhouse Blues: Hard Time for County Taxpayers: A Study of Rising County Costs of Incarceration in California, Sacramento: California Counties Foundation, 1991. 26. Ventura County Superior Court Judge Steven Perren, testimony to the Little Hoover Commission, July 20, 1993. 27. Michael Tonry, "The Politics and Processes of Sentencing Commissions," Crime and Delinquency, July 1991. 28. All Oregon statistics from Third Year Report on Implementation of Sentencing Guidelines. 1992. Oregon Criminal Justice Council, May, 1993. 29. Von Hirsch, Andrew, Kay A. Knapp and Michael Tonry, 1987. The Sentencing Commission and its Guidelines Boston Northeast University Press, p . 177- 184. 30. Ibid, p. 12. 31. Telephone interview with Deb Dailey, executive director, Minnesota Sentencing Commission, May 23, 1993. 32. Dailey interview. 33. Telephone interview with Dave Fallen, executive director, Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission, May 24, 1993. 34. Tonry, op. cit., p. 317. 35. Tonry, op. cit., p. 326. 36. Tonry, op. cit., p. 326. 37. Section 12080.5 of the California Government Code. 38. James Austin and John Irwin, "Does Imprisonment Reduce Crime? A Critique of Voodoo Criminology," National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1993, page 24. 39. Joan Petersilia, "Califomia's Prison Policy: Causes, Costs and Consequences," The Prison Journal, 1993, Sage Publications, page 26. 168 Endnotes 40. Petersilia, "Crime and Punishment in California," page 195. 41. Jan M. Chaiken and Marcia R. Chaiken, Varieties of Criminal Behavior: Summary and Policy Implications, Rand, 1982. 42. Ibid, page, page 14. 43. Ibid, page 13. 44. Ibid, page 26. 45. Ibid, page 19. 46. Ibid, page 7. 47. "Lessons of Pop Jordan's Death," James Wootton, Newsweek, September 13, 1993. 48. Ibid. 49. California Department of Corrections, "CDC Facts," July 1, 1993. 50. California Penal Code. 51 . Wootton, op. cit. 52. Blue Ribbon Commission on Inmate Population Management, Final Report, January 1990. 53. James Austin, "Parole Outcome in California: The Consequences of Determinate Sentencing, Punishment and Incapacitation on Parole Performance," National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1989. 54. Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Prisons and Prisoners in the United States," April 1992. 55. Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 1990." 56. Senate Floor Analysis of SB 58, May 28, 1993. 57. "75 Years for Girl's Kidnap, Assault: Man Who Grabbed 11-Year-0Id Off Bike Pleaded No Contest in Deal." Sacramento Bee November 23. 1993. 58. "Flaws in System Hinder Search for Child Rapist," Sacramento Bee, December 16, 1993 59. Sacramento Bee, "Wilson, Lungren: Keep career criminals in jail," December 7, 1993. 60. "Slaying Victim Found on On-ramp: Woman, 26, is City's 89th Homicide This Year, Tying Record," Sacramento Bee, December 9, 1993. 61. Testimony of David Brown, Commissioner of the Board of Prison Terms from the "Hearing on Determinate and Indeterminate Sentencing," Senate Publications, page 56. 62. Ibid, testimony of Associate Justice James Ardaiz, 5th District Court of Apneal Fresno, page 69. 63. "Intermediate Sanctions and Their Impacts; n United States General Accounting Office, Program Evaluation and Methodology Division,Washington, D.C., 1990. 64. Ibid, page 40. 169 Putting Violence Behind Bars 65. Norval Morris and Michael Tonry, Between Prison and Probation: Intermediate Punishments in a Rational Sentencing System, New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. 66. Ibid, page 118. 67. "Prison Boot Camps," United States General Accounting Office, 1993. 68. Franklin E. Zimring and Gordon Hawkins, "Prison Population and Criminal Justice Policy in California," Institute of Governmental Studies Press, University of California, Berkeley, 1992. 69. Letters from Dennis Lee and his representatives to the Commission. 70. David Brown, Board of Prison Terms commissioner, in testimony to Joint Committee for Revision of the Penal Code, March 28, 1990. 71. T.L. Clanon, M.D., "Rehabilitation Was Working," California Lawyer, March 1982. 72. Board of Prison Terms commissioners, interview with Commission staff. 73. Don Jenkins, "On Parole: Police Track Growth, n Redding Record-Searchlight, September 20, 1993. 74. Department of Corrections memorandum to All Regional Administrators from Eddie Ylst, Deputy Director, Parole and Community Services Division, February 18, 1992. 75. Two preceding examples, Mark Lifsher, "Parolees' crimes going unpunished," Orange County Register, April 5, 1992. 76. Information from Department of Corrections parole charge sheets, parole adjustment forms, parole incident reports and memos. 77. Communication to Little Hoover Commission by Robin Reagan, daughter of the man killed, December 1993. 78. California Penal Code, Section 2933. 79. California Penal Code Section 2053.1. 80. California Penal Code, Section 2801. 81. Interview with Department Assistant Director Noreen Blonien. 82. California Penal Code Section 2816, which gives the Department's director the authority to involve inmates in public works projects. 83. T.L. Clanon, "Rehabilitation Was Working," California Lawyer, March 1982. 84. Ibid. 85. Yih-Ing Hser, "A 24-year Follow-up of California Narcotics Addicts, n Archives of General Psychiatry, July ~993. 86. Jan M. Chaiken and Marcia R. Chaiken, with Joyce E. Peterson, "Varieties of Criminal Behavior: Summary and Policy Implications," Rand, August 1982. 87. Letter to the Commission from Woodrow Glenn Willcoxon, Vacaville, Sept. 29, 1993. 170 Endnotes 88. Meeting between inmates and Commission staff at Pelican Bay Security Housing Unit, Oct. 14, 1993. 89. "Effective California Corrections," sponsored by the Robert Presley Institute of Corrections and the California Corrections Executive Council, November 15-16, 1993. 90. California Department of Corrections statistic. The PIA shows 6,295 inmates in the program for the same Period. 91. Prison Industry Authority, "Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1991-92". 92. Ibid, and information from PIA Assistant General Manager, Administration Richard Lowry. 93. Senate Advisory Commission on Cost Control in State Government, Report on the Prison Industry Authority, Milton G. Gordon, Chair, January, 1993. 94 Ibid. 95. Little Hoover Commission, California's S4 Billion Bottom Line: Getting Best Value Out of the Procurement Process, March, 1993. 96. Prison Industry Authority, op. cit. 97. Letters written in April and May 1991 from PIA to the Senate Advisory Commission on Cost Control in State Government. Contained in the advisory commission's Report on the Prison Industry Authority. 98. California Penal Code, Section 2801. 99. For the fiscal year 1992-1993. Information from Department of Corrections memo to the Commission from Diana K. Butler chief, classification services unit, Sept. 10, 1993. 100. California Department of Corrections memo, Oct. 27, 1993. 101. Testimony of Craig Cornett, director of Criminal Justice and State Administration at the state Legislative Analyst's Office, Sept. 21, 1993. 102. Handout from Joint Venture Program, dated July, August 1993. 103. Testimony of James Gomez, Little Hoover Commission public hearing, Sept. 21, 1993, in Sacramento . 104. Dr. Dale K. Sechrest and Dr. David Shichor, "Comparing Public and Private Correctional Facilities in California: An Exploratory Study," Department of Corrections, Sept. 22, 1993. 105. Senate Advisory Commission, op. cit., page 10. 106. California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Crime Prevention and Corrections, Section 3044. 107. According to a Department of Corrections Study, 1988. 108. Riverside Press-Enterprise, July 8, 1990. 109. Senate Advisory Commission, op. cit., page 10. 110. Ibid, page 11. 171 Putting Violence Behind Bars 111. little Hoover Commission, California's $4 Billion Bottom line: Getting the Best Value Out of the Procurement Process, March 1993. 112. Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 31, Section 251. 113. letter to the Commission from the legal analyst, Arizona Department of Corrections, Sept. 16, 1993. 114. larry Kyle, head of Texas' industries program, in a telephone interview with Commission staff, September 1993. 115. Howard Skolnick, assistant director, Prison Industries, Nevada Department of Prisons, in a telephone interview with Commission staff, October 1993. 116. Commission discussion with Richard Campbell, assistant chief, Education and Inmate Programs Unit, Dec. 9. 1993. 117. Commission telephone interview with Supervisor of Education Gary Durkee, Central California Women's Facility, Dec. 2, 1993. 118. Robert Presley Institute of Corrections Research and Training, "Prison literacy Act," July 1988. 119. Forty-two percent is nationally accepted as the portion of educationally handicapped prisoners, according to Dr. Carolyn Eggleston of the Center for the Study of Correctional Education. 120. Department of Corrections, "Inmate Workrrraining Status Report," June 1993. 121. Education statistics from Department of Corrections Deputy Director Gregory W. Harding in a letter to the Commission, Oct. 8, 1993. 122. Department ·of Corrections, Operations Manual, Chapter 50000, Subchapter 53000, Section 53090.1. 123. Material provided to the Commission by the California State Employees Association, Institutional Education Unit. 124. Dr. Thomas Gehring and Dr. Carolyn Eggleston, "California Department of Corrections Education Programs: Summary of Issues for Statewide Consideration, n Robert Presley Institute of Corrections Research and Training, October 1993. 125. Op. cit., page 8. 126. Op. cit., page 22. 127. Op. cit., page 5. 128. Presley Institute report, page 7. 129. Sam Houston State University, College of Criminal Justice, Prison Education and Offender Behavior: A Review of the Scientific literature, Prison Education Research Project, Report 1, July 1993. 130. Information on the Virginia Department of Correctional Education obtained from Commission telephone interview with Public Information Officer Marilyn Harris, Oct. 27, 1993. 131. Texas Department of Criminal Justice Annual Report, 1992, page 72. 172 Endnotes 132. Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Correctional Population in the United States," 1991. 133. Commission telephone interview with Acting Superintendent Chris Tracy, Sept. 24, 1993. 134. Commission telephone interview with Assistant Superintendent, Curriculumllnstruction Robert Brown, Oct. 26, 1993. 135. Interview with Jerold A. Prod, deputy director of the Department of Corrections' Legal Affairs Division, December 1993. 136. "Suit Costs Tied to Prison Crowding," Daily Journal, December 18, 1992. 137. "Litigation activity involving California Department of Corrections Health Services," December 8, 1993 memorandum to Kyle S. McKinsey, deputy director of the division. 138. Jerold Prod, deputy director of Department of Corrections Legal Affairs Division, in December 14, 1993 letter to Commission. 139. All cases cited in bullet items from "Correctional Treatment Centers Background," an issue paper prepared by the Department of Corrections Legal Affairs Division, December 8, 1993. 140. James Gomez, director of the Department of Corrections, in November 29, 1993 letter to the Little Hoover Commission. 141. Jud Scott, "Civil Death in California: A Concept Overdue for Its Grave," Santa Clara Lawyer, Volume 15, 1975. 142. Attachment to December 6, 1993 letter from James Gomez, director of the Department of Corrections. to the Commission. 143. Ibid. 144. Ibid. 145. Ibid. 146. Interview with Jeannine Hoffman of Classification Services, Department of Corrections, December 1993. 147. June 10, 1992 report from Dr. Robert M. Brittle. 148. Cushman, Robert C. "Additional Fresno County Police Department Personnel: Estimating the Expenditure and Workload Impact on the Fresno County Justice System," from a report prepared for the Fresno County Administrative Office, May 30, 1993. 173 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION FACT SHEET The Little Hoover Commission, formally known as the Milton Marks Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy, is an independent state oversight agency that was created in 1962. The Commission's mission is to investigate state government operations and -- through reports, and recommendations and legislative proposals -- promote efficiency, economy and improved service. By statute, the Commission is a balanced bipartisan board composed of five citizen members appointed by the Governor, four citizen members appointed by the Legislature, two Senators and two Assembly members. The Commission holds hearings on topics that come to its attention from citizens, legislators and other sources. But the hearings are only a small part of a long and thorough process: * * * * * Two or three months of preliminary investigations and preparations come before a hearing is conducted. Hearings are constructed in such a way to explore identified issues and raise new areas for investigation. Two to six months of intensive fieldwork is undertaken before a report -- including findings and recommendations -- is written, adopted and released. Legislation to implement recommendations is sponsored and lobbied through the legislative system. New hearings are held and progress reports issued in the years following the initial report until the Commission's recommendations have been enacted or its concerns have been addressed. Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $5.00 per copy from: Little Hoover Commission 660 J Street, Suite 260 Sacramento, CA 95814 Make checks payable to Little Hoover Commission.