Parole violations and revocations in california: Analysis and suggestions for action

Federal Probation

Volumn 73, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 2-11

  Grattet, Ryken ^a   Petersilia, Joan ^b   Lin, Jeffrey ^c   Beckman, Marlene ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF DENVER   (United States)

^d NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 68149156145     PISSN: 00149128     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Petersilia, J. (2008). California's correctional paradox of excess and deprivation. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Crime and Justice, Vol. 37). (pp. 207-278). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2. Legislative Analysts Office (2008). Judicial & Criminal Justice: 2007-08 Analysis, Sacramento, CA.
3. Fischer, R. (2005). Are California's recidivism rates really the highest in the Nation? It depends on what measure of recidivism you use. Irvine, CA: UCI Center for Evidence-Based Corrections.
4. Petersilia, J. (2006). Understanding California corrections. Berkeley, California: California Policy Research Center. Report available online at http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/pubs.
5. Glaze, L., & Bonczar, T. (2007). Probation and Parole in the United States, 2006. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. (NCJRS, NCJ 220218).
6. U. S. General Accounting Office (1991). Drug treatment: State prisons face challenges in providing services. Report to the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC: U. S. Congress. More estimates can also be found in Bloom, B., Owen, B. & Covington, S. (2003). Gender-responsive strategies-Research, practice and Guiding principles for women offenders. Washington DC: National Institute of Corrections. Report available online at http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat7/145135.pdf.
7. California Expert Panel on Adult Offender Recidivism Reduction Programming (2007). A roadmap for effective offender programming in California: Report to the California State Legislature. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
8. Travis, J. (2003). Parole in California, 1980-2000: Implications for reform. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
9. Travis, J. (2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
10. Glaze & Bonczar, Probation and Parole in the United States, 2006 (see note 6).
11. For a listing of these reports, see California Expert Panel on Adult Offender Recidivism Reduction Programming, A roadmap for effective offender programming in California (note 8). Several of these reports were conducted by the Little Hoover Commission and are available at http://www.lhc.ca.gov/ lhcdir/crime.html.
12. Indeterminate sentencing, with a hearing before the parole board, is reserved for California prisoners who have been sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole. About 20,000 prisoners (12 percent) in the California prison population have been sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. In 2006, 98.5 of all released California prisoners were placed on post-prison parole supervision.
13. See California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2006). Department Operations Manual, Chapter 8: Adult Parole Operations. Available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Regulations/Adult-Operations/docs/ DOM/Ch-8-Printed-Final-DOM.pdf.
14. Petersilia, California's correctional paradox of excess and deprivation (see note 2).
15. Petersilia, J. and Turner, S. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (Crime and Justice. Vol. 17). (pp. 281-335). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
16. Welch, S., Combs, M., & Gruhl, J. (1988). Do Black judges make a difference? American Journal of Political Science, 32(1). 126-136.
17. Sherman, L. (1980). Causes of police behavior: The current state of quantitative research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 17. 69-100.
18. Costello, M., Chiricos, T., Burianek, J., Gertz, M., & Maier-Katkin, D. (2002). The social correlates of punitiveness toward criminals: A comparison of the Czech Republic and Florida. Justice System Journal, 23. 191-220.
19. Wilson, G., & Dunham, R. (2001). Race, class, and attitudes toward crime control: The views of the African-American middle class. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28. 259-278.
20. In 2003 and 2004, the Board returned parolees for 246 homicides, 1,006 robberies, and 691 crimes involving rape or sexual assault-together accounting for 1.5 percent of all criminal violation cases during this time.
21. Helms, R. & Jacobs, D. (2002). The political context of sentencing: An analysis of community and individual determinants. Social Forces. 81: 577-604.
22. Stolzenberg, L., D'Alessio, S., & Eitle, D. (2004). A multilevel test of racial threat theory. Criminology. 42. 673-698.
23. See Martin, B., & Van Dine, S. (2008). Examining the impact of Ohio's progressive sanction grid, final report for National Institute of Justice, grant number 2005-IJ-CX-0038, Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. (NCJRS, NCJ 224317).
24. The details of PVDMI and CSRA are available from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Web site, http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/ News/2008-Press-Releases/Oct-3.html