State of California

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
December 15, 2004
The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor of California
The Honorable Don Perata
President pro Tempore of the Senate
and members of the Senate

The Honorable Dick Ackerman
Senate Minority Leader

The Honorable Fabian Núñez
Speaker of the Assembly
and members of the Assembly

The Honorable Kevin McCarthy
Assembly Minority Leader

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger and Members of the Legislature:
To improve the performance of correctional policies, states are evolving from being tough on
crime to being smart on crime. Smart crime policies incorporate the best strategies and
programs to accomplish public goals, in this case reducing violence, crime and drug abuse. In
many instances, the greatest benefits accrue when those strategies target people who are at the
greatest risk of recurring harm – to themselves, their families and their communities.
The 10,000 women in California’s prisons and the 12,000 women on parole are on the top of
this list. Most of these women have been both victim and offender, and most of them have
children. They represent some of the greatest challenges for the state’s vast, noble and underperforming network of health, education, human service and criminal justice programs. While
dollars are allocated to these programs each year, the real costs are tolled over generations.
Policy-makers have examined in detail over the last couple of years the need to reform multiple
aspects of California’s correctional policies and the implementation of those policies by the
Youth and Adult Correctional Agency.
There is growing recognition of the need for change and the direction that California should
pursue. But fundamental reforms have yet to be made.
In this report, the Commission follows up on its 2003 report on parole policies by examining
the State’s efforts to break the cycle of violence, crime and addiction by female offenders. This
review further validated the overarching need for improving the correctional system, and for
pioneering those reforms by developing a better correctional strategy for women.
By now, even prison officials publicly acknowledge that the purpose of prisons should be to
prepare inmates for release. But large remote prisons were designed to incapacitate violent
offenders. Overcrowded with non-violent drug offenders, these prisons are not equipped or
managed in ways that can achieve that essential goal. The Commission in this report
recommends as an alternative greater reliance on community corrections.

Similarly, more and more civic leaders and law enforcement officials recognize that something
other than minimal supervision and the threat of re-incarceration are needed to help parolees
get a job, find a home and stay clean. But state correctional officials are reluctant to give up
their control over parole, and local officials distrust state leaders too much to take on
responsibility without a guarantee that they will receive the resources now spent on these
offenders. In this report, the Commission recommends transitioning responsibility for parolees
to communities, beginning with female offenders, whose families are often extensively involved
in public and charitable health and human service programs.
Reform will require leadership and trust, in that order.
Leadership will be needed to craft clear and measurable goals, agreed to by executive and
legislative leaders, and to manage the correctional system to reduce violence, crime and drug
abuse in California’s communities. The integrity of that commitment will be measured by the
system that is put in place to develop evidence-based strategies and performance-based
management systems, from the Secretary of the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency on down.
The Commission, in its 2003 report and again in this document, describes a means of
accomplishing this task.
Fixing the system for women parolees also can be a good test of the correctional system’s desire
and capacity to improve. Lessons that are learned by improving outcomes for women can
inspire and guide the management of the critically necessary system-wide reforms.
The Youth and Adult Correctional Agency cannot improve these outcomes by itself; it must rely
heavily on local government and community-based partners. The Secretary of the Youth and
Adult Correctional Agency has publicly acknowledged the need for those partnerships and has
begun to cultivate them – the first steps in exercising leadership and building trust.
Much of the promise and much of the failure for public programs are distilled in the parole
system for female offenders. By effectively responding to addiction, poverty and crime among
female offenders and their children, California will be acting with the prudence required to
solve today’s problem and to seize tomorrow’s potential.
This report – and those before it – offer specific recommendations that if implemented could
help policy-makers and correctional officials achieve those goals. The Commission urges you
to embrace them and stands ready to assist you.

Table of Contents
for

Breaking the Barriers
for Women on Parole
Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................i
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
Changing Lives Through Community Intervention .......................................................... 3
Background ................................................................................................................................. 5
A Correctional Strategy for Female Offenders.................................................................25
Gender Differences Among Offenders ....................................................................................26
In a System Designed for Men.................................................................................................27
In the Context of Larger Problems ..........................................................................................28
Using Research to Guide Reforms..........................................................................................29
Summary..................................................................................................................................32

Preparing for Success ............................................................................................................35
Prisons vs. Corrections............................................................................................................35
Remote Prisons Sever Ties to Family and Community ..........................................................41
Overcrowded Facilities Frustrate Efforts to Rehabilitate.........................................................41
Attempts at Community Corrections........................................................................................43
Non-violent Offenders Can Be Treated Differently..................................................................46
Summary..................................................................................................................................47

A Re-entry Model to Reduce Recidivism ...........................................................................51
Housing Is One of the Largest Barriers...................................................................................52
Little Assistance from the State ...............................................................................................53
Federal Rules Exclude Many Women from Public Housing ...................................................54
Housing Alone Is Not Enough..................................................................................................55
Barriers to Employment for Female Parolees .........................................................................57
Employers Are Reluctant to Hire Ex-offenders .......................................................................57
Workforce Development Programs .........................................................................................58
Policies Thwart the Goals for Re-entry....................................................................................60
Community and Faith-based Efforts ........................................................................................60
The Challenge of Addiction......................................................................................................62
Family Reunification.................................................................................................................64
Multiple Needs Require Multiple Interventions ........................................................................66
Summary..................................................................................................................................67

Conclusion.................................................................................................................................71
Appendices................................................................................................................................73
Appendix A: Little Hoover Commission Public Hearing Witnesses .......................................75
Appendix B: Little Hoover Commission Expert Panel Meeting Participants ..........................77

Notes ...........................................................................................................................................81

Table of Sidebars
On the Cover.....................................................................................................................................i
Safe and Sound Parole Policies ...................................................................................................... ii
Knocking Down the Barriers ........................................................................................................... xi
Prior Parole Policy Recommendations ............................................................................................6
Female Inmates – Top Ten States 2003 .......................................................................................12
Independent Review Panel ............................................................................................................27
Crafting Policies for Female Offenders .........................................................................................30
A National Assessment..................................................................................................................39
Gender-Neutral Classification System Drives Decisions ..............................................................40
Replicating Success? ....................................................................................................................42
Application of Federal Housing Policies ........................................................................................53
Sacramento's New Housing Policy................................................................................................54
Shelter Plus Care...........................................................................................................................54
"Wrap-around" Service Providers..................................................................................................55
Housing – Potential Resources .....................................................................................................56
Finding Jobs for the Hard to Employ in Los Angeles County........................................................58
Project RIO.....................................................................................................................................59
Employment – Potential Resources ..............................................................................................62
Drug Offenses Unpacked ..............................................................................................................63
Substance Abuse – Potential Resources......................................................................................64
Why the Goals Must Change.........................................................................................................65
Community Assets – Mentors........................................................................................................66
Knocking Down the Barriers ..........................................................................................................69

Table of Charts & Graphs
Gender Difference Among Offenders............................................................................................. vi
Type of Commitment Offenses – California's Prison Population 2003 ...........................................7
Type of Commitment Offenses – New Commitments in 2003........................................................8
Inmate Classification – Female vs. Male .........................................................................................9
Time Served on Sentence – Felons First Released to Parole 2003...............................................9
Comparison of Female and Male Parole Classifications ..............................................................11
Parole Violators Released from Custody by Principal Charge Category......................................13
Comparison of Female and Male Offenders in State Prisons.......................................................15
CIW Inmate Classification..............................................................................................................18
CRC Inmate Classification.............................................................................................................18
CCWF Inmate Classification..........................................................................................................19
VSP Inmate Classification .............................................................................................................19
Community-based Correctional Facilities ......................................................................................20
Parole & Community Services Programs for Parolees .................................................................21
Office of Substance Abuse Programs for Parolees ......................................................................22
Gender Difference Among Offenders............................................................................................26
Rate of Female Offenders Per 100,000 Female Population .........................................................36
Rate of Female Offenders Per 100,000 Female Population by Offense Category ......................37
A Comparison of Female and Male Offenders in California by Controlling Offense....................38

Breaking the Barriers
for Women on Parole
An Executive Summary
Of the many scandals gripping California’s correctional system,
the failure to reduce crime, violence and drug abuse among
parolees is one of the greatest. The costs and consequences of this
failure are most onerous in the case of female offenders.
In a prison system as large as California’s – and one so ridiculed for
inmate abuse, cost overruns and ineffectiveness – it is easy to overlook
the 10,000 incarcerated women and 12,000 women on parole.
The vast majority of female inmates are not a threat to public safety.
Two-thirds of them were convicted of property or drug-related crimes.1
Indeed, more of them have been victims of violent crimes than were
convicted of violent crimes. A haunting four in 10 were physically or
sexually abused before the age of 18. 2
Most of them are housed in two of the nation’s largest prisons
isolated in the middle of the San Joaquin Valley. Despite the
relatively low security risk of female inmates, the primary
considerations in the design and operation of these facilities
are preventing escapes and minimizing violence behind bars.
Partly to control costs, the prisons are crowded far beyond
design capacity. But the costly irony is the overcrowding
further frustrates the anemic efforts at education, drug
treatment and other interventions that – if managed correctly –
could prevent many inmates from returning to prison after
they are released.
With little preparation, all inmates are placed on parole at the
end of their terms – something that is not done in most other
states. Few of them receive help finding a job, a home, or
staying clean, and in some cases they are denied help because
of their convictions. Predictably, nearly half of these women
violate the conditions of their parole and end up back in
prison. More than 90 percent of those violations are for nonviolent behaviors.3

i

On the cover: Susan
Burton, a crime victim and
parent who lost a son to
violence, served time as a
drug addict, earned a
degree as a counselor,
achieved her certificate of
rehabilitation, and is now
executive director of a nonprofit assisting women on
parole in Los Angeles
County.

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
The State spends about $1.5 billion a year on male and female inmates
after they have completed their prison terms.4 Most of those costs are
associated with re-incarcerating parole violators. While California’s
inmates are similar to those in other states, California ranks 49th in the
percentage of offenders who successfully complete parole.5
In some instances, a strong case can be made that tough parole policies
protect the public from serious and violent offenders. In its 2003 report
on parole policies, the Little Hoover Commission recommended ways to
strengthen policies regarding inmates and parolees with violent histories.
The Commission also has advocated for better data and better analytical
tools to assess the risks posed by individual offenders.
Surely, some female offenders pose a public safety risk, while in prison
and on parole. The incarceration rate among female offenders for violent
crimes has doubled over the last 20 years.6 But those offenders are not
the ones responsible for the rapid growth and overcrowding. The
statistics reveal that over the last generation, more and more women
have been captured first by addiction and then the War on Drugs. They
serve their time in prisons that are largely gender-blind and outcome
ambivalent.
At the time of their arrest, half of these women were taking care of their
children; two-thirds of those women were single parents.7
The
correctional system does little to assess its impact on the prevention of
future criminal behavior. It does even less to consider the impact of
current policies – or the potential of alternative policies – on the
thousands of children whose only parent, their mother, is in prison for
petty theft with a prior or abusing drugs. Experts agree that parental
incarceration is a significant risk factor for children, suggesting that

Safe and Sound Parole Policies
The Commission in 2003 declared California’s parole system to be a $1 billion failure, and made
comprehensive recommendations for reducing costs and improving public safety by adapting proven
strategies for reintegrating offenders back into California’s communities. Among the
recommendations:
1.

The Board of Corrections should provide ongoing oversight of the parole system to ensure
evidence-based strategies are properly implemented.

2.

Prisons should prepare inmates for release. Wardens should be held accountable for operating
effective programs and “good time” credits should be restructured to encourage inmates to
prepare themselves.

3.

Communities should assume greater responsibility for assisting parolees with housing,
employment and other supports, funded by resources now spent by the State.

4.

The State should develop a range of interventions for “failing” parolees based on effectiveness.

5.

The State must scrutinize practices of re-incarcerating parolees suspected of serious crimes as
parole violators rather than charging them with a new crime.
ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
policy-makers reconsider the use of re-incarceration as the primary
response to non-criminal parole violations – particularly for women
offenders.
By not using analytical tools, by precluding rehabilitation with the
priority on punishment, and by allowing policies to be based on the myth
that only serious and violent inmates are sentenced to prison, the State
has shackled itself to expensive and ultimately ineffective policies.
To be certain, there has been a vigorous debate about how to treat felons.
The Little Hoover Commission – as indisputable evidence has emerged
that some interventions can cost-effectively reduce crime, violence and
drug-abuse – has urged policy-makers to implement those measures as a
way of reducing public expenditures and improving public safety.
Former Governor Deukmejian – who in the 1980s championed the rapid
expansion of the prison system and refocused it on incapacitation and
punishment – this year concluded after a comprehensive and
independent analysis that the pendulum had swung too far. He urged
policy-makers to institute and expand programs that research has
proven result in less crime, violence and drug abuse among the vast
majority of felons who are released from prison and return home.
At this moment, no one can credibly defend California’s correctional
policies or be satisfied with the Department of Corrections’ capacity to
administer those policies.
There is at least rhetorical agreement from correctional officials that the
primary policy goal should be to improve public safety by reducing crime,
violence and addiction by inmates upon release. And in testimony,
officials acknowledge that to be successful, they must faithfully replicate
proven strategies.
But meaningful reforms have not been enacted.
This report builds on the Commission’s previous reports by examining
and making recommendations for improving prison and parole policies
as they relate to female offenders.
Improving policies for women offenders is not an alternative to reforming
the entire system, and indeed reforming the entire system is both needed
and would improve outcomes for women offenders.
But making the system more effective for male offenders will not be
enough to make it more effective for female offenders. And because of
their criminal histories, their smaller numbers, and the greater support

iii

At this moment,
no one can
credibly defend
California’s
correctional
policies or be
satisfied with
the Department
of Corrections’
capacity to
administer
those policies.

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
for improving the outcomes for incarcerated mothers, the
recommendations advocated in this report could pioneer the smart
reforms that are needed systemwide.
To succeed, any reform must be predicated on two undeniable realities:
1. The Department of Corrections cannot change itself. If policy-makers
and department officials are serious about making changes, they will
put in place from the beginning an effective mechanism for
independent, public, expert and outcome-based oversight of all
programs and all facilities.
2. The Department of Corrections is only one part of the correctional
continuum. It cannot and should not assume that it has sole
responsibility for parolees, and it must work collaboratively with
public and non-profit organizations to accomplish the goal of
reducing crime. Specifically, the Commission believes the State’s
objective should be a community-centered and community-based
parole system where the necessary supervision and assistance can be
mustered to help parolees become responsible, contributing and free
citizens.
This problem cannot be solved with more “programs.” Correctional
leaders and policy-makers at the state and local levels must establish
clear goals and the outcome measures that will gauge progress toward
those goals. They must develop a strategy that makes the best use of
existing resources – facilities, as well as annual budget expenditures – to
institute evidence-based programs for reducing crime, violence and drugaddiction.
Toward that end, the Commission makes the following recommendations:

A Correctional Strategy for Female Offenders
Finding 1: The Department of Corrections has not developed a correctional
strategy that effectively reduces crime, violence and drug abuse by the growing
number of women inmates upon their release.
The number of women incarcerated in California grew exponentially over
the past two decades. California has squandered limited resources by
not responding with a strategy to reduce criminal activity and enhance
public safety.
Four out of every 10 women on parole will fail and return to prison.8 The
costs and consequences of this failure place an enormous burden on
more than just the criminal justice and correctional systems, but the

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
child welfare, mental health and juvenile justice systems as well.
Research shows that children of prisoners are five to six times more
likely to become incarcerated than their peers. Ten percent are in foster
care.
For the most part, the State has relied on a punishment strategy rather
than a correctional strategy. California has failed to develop strategies to
prepare inmates for their imminent release and their transition back to
the community, despite a growing body of evidence of what works. And
the State has made minimal efforts to provide the gender-responsive
strategies that experts agree are essential for female parolees to become
self-sufficient and law-abiding citizens.

Recommendation 1: The Department of Corrections should develop a coherent
strategy to hold female offenders accountable for their crimes and improve their
ability to successfully reintegrate into their communities. Specifically, the
department should:
q

Develop leadership for reforms. CDC should appoint a director for
women’s programs to guide the development and implementation of
reforms in institutions and parole to effectively address the risks and
needs of women offenders and their children. The director should be
the equivalent of the regional directors proposed by the Independent
Review Panel.
Previously the Commission recommended that
wardens should be appointed to fixed terms and managed with
performance contracts. In addition, wardens of women’s prisons
should have professional training and skills in gender-responsive
management, operations and programs.
The department should
implement programs that have the best evidence of effectiveness in
producing the desired outcomes, including reduced recidivism,
greater employment, substance abuse recovery and reunification.
The director for women’s programs should empanel a council of
criminal justice researchers to identify and recommend best practices
and critique their implementation by the department. Independently
conducted program evaluations should be reviewed and commented
upon by this council. The panel should publicly report on whether
programs are faithfully replicating proven programs, and whether
they should be modified, expanded or discontinued.

q

Embrace evidence-based practices.

q

Develop a strategic plan. The director for women’s programs should
develop a strategic plan for female offenders, consistent with the
department’s overall strategic plan. The plan should include input
and ownership of staff and management; statements of values,
mission, goals and objectives. It should include an implementation

v

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
plan that delineates activities, budgets, time lines and those
responsible for the outcomes.

q

ü

The plan should include a robust community correctional system
to effectively house and prepare female inmates for release.

ü

The plan also should include a robust re-entry effort to effectively
supervise and assist female parolees.

Measure and report performance. The Department of Corrections
should develop performance measures to gauge the effectiveness of
its correctional strategy for women offenders.
It should report the
results to correctional staff, the public and policy-makers.

These two elements – community corrections and a community-based reentry model – are described in the following findings.

Preparing for Success
Finding 2: Mega-prisons, designed primarily to incapacitate and punish violent
offenders, are not effective for the majority of female offenders who are nonviolent, serve short sentences and need specific services to successfully return
home.
More women entered prison in the past two decades than ever before,
many caught by the tough sentencing laws passed to respond to gang
activity and the neighborhood drug wars.
However, the women caught in the drug dragnet are not like their male
counterparts – they are mostly non-violent, the majority have been
victims themselves, they have more mental health issues and more
severe drug addictions, and they are more likely to be the primary
caretaker of a young child.
Yet when reacting to the increase in female offenders, correctional
policies did not take into account the change in the nature of crimes
committed, or even in the gender of the offenders. The State responded
by constructing large, remotely located prisons that isolate women from
their children and do not provide the programs that can reduce crime
and prevent released offenders from recycling back to prison.
The State has taken a few minor steps to develop community-based
facilities that provide gender-responsive services to incarcerated mothers
with young children. While program administrators have identified
barriers to broader participation, little or nothing has been done to
remove those barriers, and the programs have not been expanded or
replicated.

vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Gender Differences Among Offenders

Female

Male

835

15,008

Percent of California Parolees with Minimum or Low
10
Supervision

88%

72%

Number of California Parolees Classified as High Control
nd
11
or 2 Strike

822

24,246

Offenders Physically or Sexually Abused Prior to Prison
12
Admission

57%

16%

Offenders in Counseling/Therapy for Mental Health
13
Issues

27%

12%

64%

57%

53%

36%

40%

60%

Californians Convicted of Crimes Against Persons in 2003

Offenders Having a Child Under 18 Years Old

14

Percent Living With Their Children Prior to Arrest
Offenders Employed at the Time of Arrest

15

16

9

The State has one privately run community correctional facility for
women where every inmate participates in educational and vocational
training programs. Located in the heart of a neighborhood in a small
community, the women at this facility have opportunities to learn skills
and give back to the community in ways that their counterparts in the
large remote facilities cannot. Yet this facility has never been evaluated,
replicated or expanded.

Recommendation 2: A core element of a strategic plan for women should be a
robust system of community correctional facilities focused on preparing women
offenders for success on parole. The State should:
q

Revise classification procedures. The Department of Corrections
should tailor its classification tool to improve its ability to classify
and make housing assignments for women offenders. The tool
should be validated to ensure that it accurately assesses the risks
female offenders pose to public safety and their needs for services to
successfully transition from prison to the community

q

Develop a continuum of incarceration options. The department
should develop a continuum of facilities for female inmates to costeffectively match inmates with the facility that best achieves the goals
of public protection and successful re-entry.
ü

The continuum should include community correctional facilities
to house inmates closer to their communities; halfway back
facilities to support the transition from prison to the community;
and, facilities specifically designed to address the needs of parole
violators who are inappropriate for less restrictive sanctions.

vii

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
ü

Prisoner mother programs should be fortified and expanded. The
eligibility criteria for the Family Foundations Program should be
revised to make it consistent with other minimum security
placements such as community correctional re-entry centers,
camps and the Community Prisoner Mother Program.
The
department should explore incentives for participation in the
programs, including providing “work credits” equal to those of the
camp program.

q

Partner with communities. The department should work with
communities to plan, develop and operate facilities based on
research and focused on successful re-entry. It should explore all
options for siting facilities, including expanding existing facilities,
utilizing closed military facilities, closed California Youth
Authority facilities and contracting with sheriff’s departments and
others.

q

Operationalize the continuum. The department should use a
competitive process to develop contracts for community
correctional facilities to deliver the array of services shown to
reduce recidivism among female offenders. Private companies,
public agencies or partnerships among them should be
encouraged to bid on the contracts.
ü

The department should restructure the contracting process to
emphasize quality of services over the lowest cost to contract
with providers with expertise in addressing the needs of
women offenders and link inmates with aftercare upon
release.

ü

The department should establish performance benchmarks in
contracts with providers and monitor and report return-tocustody rates and other outcome measures.

ü

The department should reward high-quality providers with
higher rates of reimbursement and terminate the contracts of
those that fail to meet specified outcomes.

A Re-entry Model to Reduce Recidivism
Finding 3: Female offenders are often denied assistance with housing,
employment, substance abuse treatment, and family reunification, and as a result
the public costs and personal tragedies continue to plague families and
communities.
All offenders released back into the community face nearly
insurmountable challenges – they frequently have nowhere to live,
nowhere to work and nowhere to turn for help in fighting addiction.

viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Women must not only conquer these obstacles, they also are frequently
returning as the sole caretaker of young children.
And at this most vulnerable juncture, many female parolees cannot tap
into the services that could help them and their families succeed.
In an effort to block drug abusers from utilizing social service benefits to
feed their addictions, the federal government placed a lifetime ban on
access to federal welfare funds for drug offenders. So while a non-violent
mother convicted of drug possession is denied access to federal funds
that would help her get a job and take care of her family, a robber, a
rapist or a murderer has no such restriction. Seventeen states have
applied for a waiver to this restriction but California has not.
Not surprisingly many female offenders released to parole do not succeed
and instead return to prison. Their crimes and addictions plague local
communities and sap local government resources. Their children often
are raised by over-burdened relatives or placed in costly foster care,
where they are more likely than most to become the next generation of
offenders continuing the cycle of crime and perpetuating the costs of
incarceration.

Recommendation 3: The State should develop a community-based re-entry model
to reduce recidivism among women offenders, improve public safety and reduce
public costs. Specifically, the State should:
q

The Governor
should establish an interagency council on re-entry to develop a
system of community supervision and re-entry with comprehensive,
integrated services for female offenders.

Establish an interagency council on re-entry.

ü

The council should be co-chaired by the secretary of the Youth
and Adult Correctional Agency and the secretary of the Health
and Human Services Agency. Members should include state and
community representatives from the fields of law enforcement,
education, housing and community development, employment,
alcohol and drug, mental health, child welfare, domestic violence
and victim advocacy programs. Community members, offenders
and their families should be represented.

ü

The council should identify statutory, regulatory and practical
barriers to re-entry and recommend to the Governor and
Legislature ways to overcome them.

ü

The council should identify and recommend to the Governor,
Legislature and communities evidence-based prevention and
intervention strategies for the children of incarcerated parents.

ix

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
q

Shift the responsibility for parolee supervision and assistance to
communities, starting with women. The Governor and Legislature
should require communities to assume responsibility for certain
non-violent women parolees as a first step in transferring
responsibility for the majority of non-violent offenders – male and
female – to communities.

q

ü

Communities should establish multi-agency coordinating
councils and develop local plans for supervising, assisting and
sanctioning female parolees using a case management approach
and partnerships between the adult criminal courts and
dependency courts.

ü

The State should develop agreements with sheriffs or probation
departments, in partnership with community agencies, to provide
the services. The services should be supported by shifting funds
from services now administered by the State.

Provide technical assistance. The Youth and Adult Correctional
Agency should provide assistance in developing, implementing and
evaluating correctional plans.
It should contract for technical
assistance to help communities identify and overcome barriers to
effective interagency partnerships, siting of transitional housing,
development of adequate treatment resources and others.

q

The Department of Corrections should
establish and operate, with the cooperation and participation of its
community partners, a statewide information and evaluation system
to monitor the effectiveness of the community re-entry services.

Measure performance.

x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Knocking Down the Barriers
For the community re-entry model to be effective, the State must take specific actions to
reduce legal and practical barriers to re-entry for female offenders. Specifically, the State
should:
q

Immediately enact legislation to eliminate or modify the ban on CalWORKs for certain nonviolent drug felons to improve access to housing, employment and drug treatment services
critical to successful re-entry.

q

To reduce barriers to housing, the State should:

q

q

ü

Require CDC to collect and report to the Legislature and local Public Housing Authorities data
regarding the housing needs of female parolees and their children.

ü

Create tax credit and bonus programs for private builders as incentives to build housing for
female parolees.

ü

Support, in partnership with communities, the development of a range of housing options for
female offenders, including transitional housing, permanent supportive housing and sober
living environments.

ü

Establish partnerships with Public Housing Authorities to:
•

Encourage local public housing authorities to consider evidence of rehabilitation from
criminal or substance abuse activity in their application of federal restrictions and give
preference to female parolees with children.

•

Provide vouchers as incentives for completion of substance abuse treatment and other
programs known to reduce recidivism.

•

Place eligible CDC inmates on public housing lists prior to release.

•

Adapt the Shelter Plus Care program to female parolees.

To reduce barriers to employment, the State should:
ü

Increase the allocation of discretionary Workforce Investment Act funds for offender
programs. (Currently 15 percent of total discretionary funding, or $10.6 million.)

ü

Provide fiscal incentives for local Workforce Investment Boards to serve female parolees.

To reduce barriers to substance abuse recovery, the State should:
ü

Fully fund aftercare treatment for all offenders participating in in-prison drug treatment
programs and make aftercare mandatory. It should expand aftercare options to include day
treatment, sober living with support services and other options based on offender risk and
needs assessments.

ü

Expand drug treatment furlough for women offenders and use furlough as an incentive for
completion of in-prison treatment.

ü

Evaluate the two drug treatment programs for females at the California Rehabilitation Center
to determine whether the full-time program is significantly more effective than the four-hour
program. If it is not, it should be converted to a four-hour program to increase the number of
offenders served.

ü

Assign parole agents to specialized Female Offender Treatment and Employment Project
caseloads to improve consistency and outcomes.

ü

Measure and report Proposition 36 outcomes for female offenders.

xi

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION

xii

I NTRODUCTION

Introduction

S

hortly after the Commission released its November 2003 report on
parole, Senator Gloria Romero, chair of the Senate Select
Committee on the California Correctional System, asked the Little
Hoover Commission to review the effectiveness of the parole system as it
relates to women offenders. From previous studies, the Commission was
aware of the costs resulting from the intersection of the criminal justice
and human services systems. The Commission also understood the
potential benefits to state budgets and community well-being of wellmanaged programs in these policy areas. Because women offenders are
frequently the primary caretakers of young children, improving outcomes
for women on parole could not only reduce costs and improve public
safety, but positively impact the lives of California's children.
This is the fourth time in a decade that the Commission has reviewed
state correctional policies. In its most recent review of parole policies,
the Commission in 2003 found that California stood apart from the rest
of the nation in its policy of placing every offender released from prison
on parole and then using the most costly alternative – re-incarceration –
when parolees violate a condition of their parole.
In examining other state programs, the Commission recognized that
corrections contributes to the success or failure of related human service
programs. When the Commission reviewed alcohol and drug treatment
programs, it found that substance abuse was rampant in the offender
population and that drug treatment in prison, followed by aftercare upon
release, reduced parolee failure. In the Commission's review of the
mental health system, it found that many Californians with mental
illness commit crimes and end up in jail or prison because of inadequate
mental health treatment in their communities. In its review of the foster
care system, the Commission found that many children are in foster care
because of their parents' criminal behavior, particularly drug abuse.
The Commission examined the impact of public policies on women on
parole by conducting two public hearings. It received testimony from a
national expert on gender-responsive criminal justice strategies, state
correctional leaders, wardens from two prisons for women, victim's rights
advocates and community activists.

1

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
The Commission heard from the founders of a successful jail-based
program for women in Alameda County, as well as from a graduate of
that program. Two judges, one at the forefront of drug and family courts
and one who established a successful re-entry court, discussed the
critical role of the judicial system in improving parole outcomes. The
Commission also heard from a former female parolee, who not only
successfully completed parole, but founded a non-profit organization that
assists female parolees. The witnesses are listed in Appendix A.
Early in the study, the Commission identified three critical barriers for
women parolees – the lack of affordable housing, challenges finding
employment and substance abuse. The Commission convened three
focus groups with experts, community activists, former offenders and
corrections officials to gain insight on opportunities for removing these
barriers that impact parolee success. Focus group participants are listed
in Appendix B.
The Commission toured the California Institution for Women and the
California Rehabilitation Center and met with wardens Dawn Davison
and JoAnn Gordon to learn more about the programs offered in prison
and discuss opportunities for improving parole outcomes for women.
Commission staff also toured the Leo Chesney Community Correctional
Facility, a community-based corrections alternative. Staff visited Los
Angeles Centers for Alcohol and Drug Abuse, one of two Family
Foundations Program sites and Prototypes, one of three Community
Prisoner Mother Program sites. Both programs target women offenders
who are pregnant or who have young children.
The study examines gender-responsive policies and strategies, evaluates
the current model and programs for female inmates and parolees, and
reviews the barriers that impact successful outcomes for female parolees.
The study provides recommendations that, if implemented, could reduce
costs in both the criminal justice and human services systems, cut
crime, turn offenders into taxpaying and law-abiding citizens, and
improve the lives of children whose mothers are incarcerated.
This introduction is followed three stories of lives changed by
community-based intervention and then by a background, which
provides a profile of female offenders, details critical gender differences
and identifies the State's current corrections programs. The background
is followed by three findings and recommendations.
All written testimony submitted electronically for each of the two
hearings and the executive summary and complete report are available
online at the Commission's Web site, http://www.lhc.ca.gov/lhc.html.

2

THE TESTIMONY OF THREE WOMEN

Changing Lives Through Community Intervention
In every study, the Commission hears testimony from a broad group of
stakeholders who provide insight on current policy and opportunities for
improvements. Yet often it is the voices of Californians with first-hand
knowledge that crystalize the impact of policies on real lives. In this study, the
Commission heard from several women who spent time in prison and on
parole. Their stories highlight the role the community can play in changing
lives.

"That's Why It Works, Because They Care…"
Casondra Tshimonga left an abusive home life as a teen. Soon after, she was
raising a disabled daughter by herself, got laid off from her job and began a
life of crime. She was arrested for computer crimes and spent two years in a
halfway house. With no permanent place to live and nowhere to work, she left
the halfway house and returned to crime.
The second time she was arrested, Ms. Tshimonga
was held in the Santa Rita Jail in Alameda County,
where she entered the Maximizing Opportunities
for Mothers to Succeed (MOMS) program which
provides case management services for mothers in
jail. She told her caseworker, "My biggest fear is
that I will go back to crime when I get out." Her
caseworker replied, "You are not going back to
crime because I'm not going to let you. If you try
to go back to crime, you can call me at three in the
morning – whenever – I'm going to make sure you
are not going back."

Abused as a teen,
she left home
early. A single
parent caring for a
disabled daughter,
she turned to
crime when she
lost her job.

Ms. Tshimonga was sentenced to federal prison. A year later she was
released from prison – with $28 in her pocket and a phone number for the
MOMS program. With nowhere to live and no job, she turned to the MOMS
program. A new case manager immediately provided help. "I called and told
her that I was a MOMS' client and that I was about to get out of prison. She
picked me up and drove me to a shelter."
Ms. Tshimonga feared that she would be unable to find a job because she
was prohibited from using a computer. Her caseworker referred her to a
construction training program, where she learned a trade and got a job as a
sheet metal worker.
"Everything I did when I got out was through a referral from my case manager.
The MOMS program was a lifeline. It really works and they really care. That's
why it works, because they care."

3

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION

"Without Child Care, It's Hard to Go Back to Work…"
Reneca Corbin was fortunate when she got out of prison. Fortunate because
she moved into one of two homes for women leaving prison run by the nonprofit organization, A New Way of Life Re-entry Project, where she and her
infant daughter could begin the journey toward self-sufficiency. A New Way of
Life not only provided a home, but basic necessities, counseling and referrals.
Despite this assistance, Ms. Corbin faced numerous obstacles. Because she
was convicted of a drug felony, she was no longer able to access federal
benefits – welfare assistance, job training, child care, transportation – that are
frequently the lifeline to achieving self-sufficiency. While many states have
taken advantage of a waiver to the federal ban on benefits for drug felons,
California has not.
Ms. Corbin, unlike many parolees, had a marketable job skill as a beautician.
But without temporary assistance for child care, finding and keeping a job
posed a significant challenge. Ms. Corbin told the Commission, "Without child
care, it is really hard to go back to work."

"People Coming Out Need Someone to Believe in Them."
Phyllis Gonzales had been in and out of prison many times. The fifth time she
was paroled from prison, she entered Volunteers in Parole, Inc., a program
where attorneys volunteer to mentor parolees.
"Having this program has been a good experience for me. When you come
out from prison there aren't too many resources," she said. "People coming
out need encouragement and direction. They need people to believe in
them."
When Ms. Gonzales left prison, she entered and successfully completed a
residential drug treatment program. She then was able to access affordable
housing through Cottage Housing, Inc., a Sacramento-based non-profit
organization. Having a mentor gave her an important resource to connect to
community services as well as a reliable person to call when she had
questions or needed advice. "I gained more than a mentor, I gained a
friend… someone who will be there for me until I am ready to give back
someday."
At the time Ms. Gonzales testified to the Commission, she was the mother of
five children with another one on the way. Her son was incarcerated at
Folsom Prison – the third generation in her family to enter prison. "The things
I'm doing right now, I hope will influence him when he comes home. He's
going to be in the VIP program whether he likes it or not."
Casondra Tshimonga testified at a Little Hoover Commission public hearing on April 22, 2004.
Reneca Corbin participated in the Little Hoover Commission's expert panel meetings on July
20-21, 2004. Phyllis Gonzales testified at a Little Hoover Commission public hearing on
May 27, 2004, the same day she received an early discharge from parole.

4

BACKGROUND

Background

W

omen are the fastest growing portion of the California prison
population. Like thousands of California men, women have
increasingly been caught in the net cast to catch violent drug
dealers and gang members as part of the "War on Drugs." Yet female
offenders are different than their male counterparts in important ways –
their crimes are different, their pathways into the criminal justice system
are different, their life histories are different.
If correctional programs are going to help women break the cycle of their
criminal behavior, policy-makers must recognize how women offenders
are different from men. Women offenders have different challenges to
address when they enter the criminal justice system and nearly
insurmountable barriers when they attempt to leave the criminal justice
system. If the State’s goal is to enhance public safety and reduce costs,
California must rethink its policies for female offenders.
The average female offender in California is in her late thirties. She is
likely to have been a victim of physical or sexual abuse early in life. She
is addicted to drugs, often has mental health issues and most likely was
sent to prison for using drugs or stealing to support a drug habit. She
also is likely to be a mother, and frequently the primary caregiver of
young children. As the size of the female prison population escalates, so
do the costs and burdens to society, both now and in the future.
California has more women incarcerated in prison than almost any other
state. Only Texas surpasses California in the number of women locked
up in state prison.17 As of 2003, California incarcerated approximately
10,000 women.18
The female prison population in California has grown more rapidly than
the male prison population. Between 1983 and 2003, the number of
women incarcerated in California increased five-fold, from approximately
2,000 to 10,000. The number of men incarcerated in that same time
period increased four-fold. 19
Similarly, the number of women on parole exploded during the past two
decades. Between 1983 and 2003, the number of female parolees
increased eight-fold, from just under 1,500 female parolees to more than
12,000. 20

5

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
Nearly half of the women on parole will fail. In 2003, the rate of female
felons returned to prison was 44 out of every 100 women on parole. In
2003, nearly 6,300 female parolees were returned to custody.21
Half of all commitments of women to prison are parolees. In 2003, 6,268
women were new admissions from court and 6,288 were female parolees
returned to custody. 22
Almost all female parolees returned to custody are charged with a parole
violation. In 2003, of all female parolees returned to custody, nearly
5,000 or 80 percent were charged with a parole violation while 1,300 or
20 percent were convicted of a new crime and
sentenced to serve a new term.23
Parole Policy

Prior
Recommendations

In its November 2003 report on parole
policies, Back to the Community: Safe &
Sound Parole Policies, the Little Hoover
Commission made the following conclusions:
To protect the public, the correctional system
must use proven strategies to prepare
inmates for release, supervise and assist
parolees in their communities, and intervene
when parolees fail. The State should create
the means to improve the performance of the
correctional system by changing laws,
budgets and programs to increase success
among parolees.
To increase public safety, state and local
correctional agencies, community
organizations and the inmates themselves
should prepare for the predictable release of
inmates from prison.
The goals for parole – public safety and
successful reintegration – are undermined by
the way the State supervises and assists
parolees and the lack of community
involvement in re-entry.
Correctional officials do not intervene in costeffective ways with parolees who are not
successfully reintegrating. When parole
violators are returned to custody, they are
not prepared for their imminent re-release.
To ensure public safety and fairness, the
State should scrutinize its responses to
parolees charged with new, serious crimes.
Source: Little Hoover Commission. November 2003.
"Back to the Community: Safe & Sound Parole
Policies." Sacramento.

These numbers are significant because the
majority of these women have children. And their
relatively short stays in prison disrupt their lives
and most critically, the lives of their children,
making reunification more difficult.
This failure of the parole system for women is
consistent with the Little Hoover Commission's
findings in its November 2003 report, Back to the
Community: Safe & Sound Parole Policies, which
evaluated California's overall parole system. The
Commission found that while most states face
challenges with the parole population, California
stood alone in the number of offenders it places
on parole and in its policy of returning most
parole violators to prison instead of using less
costly community-based sanctions.
In its 2003 study, the Commission found several
fundamental problems:

§

Time in prison is not used to prepare inmates
for their eventual release.

§

Available resources – particularly those in
communities – are not used to help parolees who
with some assistance could get a job and stay out
of trouble.

§

When parolees do get into trouble, the
majority of them go back to prison – even if drug
treatment, short jail stays or some other
intervention would cost less or provide a better
opportunity for parole success.

6

BACKGROUND
The consequences of these public policy failures are not just mirrored,
but magnified when evaluating women offenders.
When women
offenders arrive at the prison gate, they are more likely than their male
counterparts to be unemployed, uneducated, and more severely addicted
to drugs. These women also are more likely to be primary caregivers of
young children. The constant recycling of all California offenders is
expensive and has not been proven to enhance public safety.24 And the
costs of recycling non-violent female offenders will be paid for years as
the children of these women are more likely than most to become the
next generation of offenders – committing crime and doing time.

Profile of Female Inmates
The profile of the female prison inmate is significantly different from the
male prison inmate.
To begin with, female offenders overall are
significantly less violent. Because fewer women have been convicted of a
violent crime, more are classified as low-risk inmates and most will serve
a short sentence.

Female offenders commit fewer violent crimes. More than two-thirds
of female inmates in California prisons were convicted of a non-violent
drug or property crime, whereas 50 percent of their male counterparts
have been convicted of a crime against another person. The vast
majority of female offenders have been convicted of a property crime,
such as petty theft with a prior, or a drug offense, such as possession or
possession with intent to sell.25 The table below compares female and
male offenders serving time in California prisons by offense category.

Type of Commitment Offenses
California Prison Population 200326

Female

Male

Crimes Against Persons

30%

52%

Property Crimes

33%

20%

Drug Crimes

31%

21%

Other Crimes

7%

7%

Missing

1%

.3%

The commitment offenses on the chart above are biased for both women
and men by serious offenders serving lengthy sentences. A statistical
breakdown of inmates coming into the system more accurately reveals
the nature of inmates being sentenced to prison. Because so many
women commit low-level crimes, serve short sentences and rapidly cycle
out of prisons, they are not part of the long-term prison population. The
chart below details the crimes committed by women and men entering

7

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
prison in 2003 and reveals that approximately 87 percent of women
entering prison were convicted of non-violent property or drug crimes.

Type of Commitment Offenses
New Commitments in 2003 27

Female

Male

Crimes Against Persons

13%

28%

Property Crimes

47%

31%

Drug Crimes

34%

29%

Other Crimes

5%

12%

Most female offenders are classified as low-risk. Once incarcerated,
women are much more likely to be classified as low-risk than their male
counterparts. The California Department of Corrections (CDC), like most
other state prison systems, uses a classification system to help
determine the most appropriate placement of offenders. As offenders are
processed at a reception center prior to placement in a specific prison,
they are scored on a variety of items including length of sentence,
disciplinary history, employment history, age, prior incarcerations and
more. A higher score is supposed to reflect a greater potential to
misbehave or attempt an escape.28 California has four levels of housing
security, as defined below:

§

Level I – Primarily open dormitories with a low security perimeter.

§

Level II – Primarily open dormitories with a low security
perimeter, which may include armed coverage.

§

Level III – Facilities primarily have a secure perimeter with armed
coverage and housing units with cells adjacent to exterior walls.

§

Level IV – Facilities have a secure perimeter with internal and
external armed coverage and housing units or cell block housing
with cells non-adjacent to exterior walls.29

Approximately 42 percent of female offenders are classified as Level I as
compared to only 15 percent of male offenders. The table on the
following page compares the classifications of women and men
incarcerated in California prisons.

8

BACKGROUND
Inmate
Classification30

Female
Number

Male

Percent

Number

Percent

10,124

100%

150,655

100%

No Score

1,074

10%

Level I

4,296

42%

22,155

15%

Level II

2,698

27%

47,488

32%

Level III

1,152

11%

50,660

34%

Level IV

852

8%

27,455

18%

52

.005%

2,896

2%

Total

SHU (Segregated
Housing Unit)

Female offenders serve less time. Because female offenders overall
commit crimes that are less violent and less serious than their male
counterparts, on average they serve much shorter sentences, typically
14 months as compared to 19 months for men. The table compares the
median time served for women and men first released to parole in
California in 2003.

Time Served on Sentence
Felons First Released to Parole 200331

Female

Male

14 mos.

19 mos.

Time Served – Crimes Against Persons

22.2 mos.

27.1 mos.

Time Served – Property Crimes

13.3 mos.

14.7 mos.

Time Served – Drug Crimes

14.6 mos.

19.8 mos.

Time Served – Other Crimes

14.3 mos.

14.6 mos.

Average (median) time served

Nearly 75 percent of all female offenders are serving a determinate
sentence as compared to 57 percent of male offenders. Determinate
sentences require that an offender be released once her time has been
served, minus any "good time" credit earned by working or participating
in a prison-based program.
Approximately 13 percent of female
offenders are serving a second strike sentence, 8.5 percent are serving a
life sentence with the possibility of parole and less than 1 percent are
serving a third strike commitment. Only 137 women, or less than
2 percent, are se rving a life sentence without the possibility of parole or a
death sentence.32

9

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
In 2003, nearly 90 percent of female offenders released to parole had
served slightly more than one year for a non-violent property or drug
offense.33 In California, virtually every offender released from prison is
placed on parole for a period of one to three years.

Profile of Female Parolees
The distinction between male and female offenders continues upon
release to parole as more female parolees require minimal supervision.
There are four major parole supervision classifications: minimum
supervision, control services, high control and high services. Most
female parolees, approximately 88 percent, are either classified as
minimum supervision, meaning they must make face-to-face contact
with their parole agent once every 120 days, or control services, meaning
they must make face-to-face contact twice per quarter.34

Minimum Supervision. After satisfactorily completing 120 days under a
control services classification, parolees are automatically assigned to
minimum supervision, where they must have one face-to-face contact
with their parole agent every 120 days. Additionally, they must submit a
written form if they have a change of address, employment or marital
status. As of October 2004, 2,459 female parolees, or 20 percent were
classified as minimum supervision and 1,195, or 10 percent were
classified as minimum supervision under Proposition 36, which requires
drug treatment for offenders and parolees charged with non-violent drug
offenses.

Control Services. Parolees in this classification must make two face-toface contacts per quarter with the parole agent. As of September 2004,
4,794 female parolees, or 38 percent were classified under control
services and 1,895, or 21 percent, were classified as control services
under Proposition 36.

High Services and High Control. Parolees categorized as either high
control or high services must make contact with a parole agent twice a
month – once at the parolee's residence and once at another location.
Additionally, parole agents make two collateral contacts per month with
a doctor, relative, spouse, employer or other individual who has contact
with the parolee. High control parolees are those who were convicted of
violent felonies, must register as sex offenders, are known gang
offenders, or are of particular interest to the public. Approximately
3 percent of female parolees are high control or high-risk sex offenders.
An additional 4 percent are classified as second strikers.35 Second strike
parolees receive tighter supervision because they are high-risk offenders,
and because a third strike conviction will result in a sentence of 25 years
to life, at great expense to the State.36

10

BACKGROUND
High Services. Parolees classified as high services have the same
reporting requirements as parolees classified as high control. High
service parolees have special needs or behaviors, such as people with
severe mental illness. Approximately 1.4 percent of female parolees are
“enhanced outpatients,” defined as parolees requiring psychiatric
assistance and extensive help; 4 percent are classified as high services
for other reasons.
Approximately 88 percent of female parolees require relatively low
supervision and have minimal contact with their parole agents. Of the
12,500 women on parole, only about 800 are considered high risk,
requiring more frequent contact with their parole agents. Approximately
72 percent of male parolees require relatively low supervision. However,
of the more than 97,500 men on parole, more than 24,000 or 25 percent
are considered high risk. The graphic below reflects the percentages of
female and male parolees who are categorized in each of the parole
classifications.

Comparison of Female and Male Parole Classifications
High Control 3%
2nd Striker 3%
High Services 5%

Female

Male
14% High Control
11% 2nd Striker
3% High Services

Control Services

Minimum Supervision

59%

47% Control Services

29%
25% Minimum Supervision

Source: California Department of Corrections. Parole & Community Services Division.
October 5, 2004. Written Communication. Female Parolees by Class and Male Parolees by Class.
(Numbers have been rounded.)

Female Parole Violators
As noted earlier, about half of the approximately 12,500 women
committed to prison in 2003 were parolees returned to custody.
Approximately 20 percent of the women returned to custody were

11

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
charged with a new crime and sentenced to a new term. The remainder,
80 percent, were returned for a parole violation.37
CDC uses the term "administrative return" for parole violations that
result in a return to custody and further distinguishes between
"criminal" and "non-criminal" returns.
A criminal return involves
criminal activity, even though the parolee is not convicted of a new crime.
A non-criminal return is a violation that does not involve criminal activity
and would not result in a prison sentence except for the terms of parole,
for example, failing to meet with a parole officer.
Male parole violators are more likely than female parole violators to
return to custody for violent offenses; they are twice as likely to be
charged with assault and battery or weapons offenses, whereas women
are more likely to be charged with theft, forgery or drug possession.
Nearly 55 percent of female parole violators were charged with a drugrelated offense as compared to 40 percent of male parole violators. The
chart on the following page compares principal charge categories for
female and male parole violators in California in 2000, the most recent
year this data is available.

National Comparison of Female Offenders
While California incarcerates significantly more women than every state
except Texas, female offenders in California are not significantly different
than female offenders in other states. And despite the sheer size of the
female offender population, California's rate of incarceration per 100,000
female citizens is about average at 57 per 100,000, with 29 states having
a lower rate of incarceration and 20 states having the same
Inmates
or higher rates of incarceration.38

Female
Top Ten States 2003
Texas
California

13,487
10,656

Florida
Georgia
New York

5,068
3,145
2,914

Ohio
Illinois
Virginia
Arizona
Louisiana

2,897
2,700
2,681
2,656
2,405

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics. November 2004.
"Prisoners in 2003."

California's female parole population also is large compared
to other states, largely because of the size of the female
prison population and California's policies, which place
virtually every offender released from prison on parole.39
Female offenders in California are comparable to female
offenders across the nation in terms of types of crimes
committed. Although information on the characteristics of
California female offenders is fairly limited, data from one
study that analyzed a small group of female offenders
revealed the characteristics of California offenders were
similar to female offenders in a national study. 40

12

BACKGROUND
Parole Violators Released from Custody by Principal Charge Category
Rate of Parole Violators Returned to Prison (2003)

Female

Male

44%

61%

Number
Felon Parolees Returned to Custody (2000)
Parole Violators Returned to Custody (PV-RTC)
Continued on Parole
Parole Violators Returned to Custody

Pct.

Number

6,484

55,999

5,676
808

53,834
2,165

Pct.

5,676

100.0

55,999

100.0

947
343
105
399
1,980
1,676
226

17.4
6.3
1.9
7.3
36.3
30.8
3.9

10,616
7,190
1,704
3,468
16,051
14,805
2,165

19.7
13.4
3.2
6.4
29.8
27.5
3.9

Administrative Criminal Returns

4,475

82.1

42,686

79.3

TYPE I
Drug Possession
Drug Use
Miscellaneous Violations of Law
TYPE II
Sex Offenses
Battery and Assault (minor)
Burglary
Theft and Forgery
Drug Sales/Trafficking (minor)
Firearms and Weapons
Driving Violations (minor)
Miscellaneous Non-Violent Crimes
TYPE III
Homicide
Robbery
Rape and Sexual Assaults
Battery and Assault (major)
Burglary (major)
Drug Violations (major)
Weapon Offenses
Driving Violations (major)
Miscellaneous Violent Crimes (major)

2,985
830
991
1,164
1,087
20
92
18
359
115
37
145
301
403
4
37
3
187
22
44
40
12
54

54.8
15.2
18.2
21.4
19.9
0.4
1.7
0.3
6.6
2.1
0.7
2.7
5.5
7.4
0.1
0.7
0.1
3.4
0.4
0.8
0.7
0.2
1.0

21,100
5,841
8,543
6,716
14,416
1,272
1,482
488
2,657
1,260
329
2,547
4,381
7,170
74
487
381
3,494
323
407
843
352
809

39.2
10.9
15.9
12.5
26.8
2.4
2.8
0.9
4.9
2.3
0.6
4.7
8.1
13.3
0.1
0.9
0.7
6.5
0.6
0.8
1.6
0.7
1.5

Administrative Non-Criminal Returns

975

17.9

11,148

20.7

TYPE I - Violations of Parole Process
TYPE II - Weapons Access
TYPE III - Psychiatric Endangerment

945
28
2

17.3
0.5
0.0

10,611
532
5

19.7
1.0
0.0

Violations of Parole Process
Crimes Against Persons
Weapons Related Offenses
Property Offenses
Drug Offenses
Other Offenses
Charge Information Not Available

Source: California Department of Corrections. " Rate of Felon Parolees Returned to California Prisons, CY 2003. "Table 2, May
2004. (Rate is per 100 average daily population.) California Department of Corrections. California Prisoners and Parolees 2001."
Table 42. Numbers have been rounded.

13

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION

Characteristics of Female Offenders
While state-specific data on the characteristics of female offenders is not
readily available, national data reveals that women arrive at prison with
significantly more burdens than men: They have more severe drug
addictions than their male counterparts, are more likely to be suffering
from mental illness and have more extensive health issues.41
Additionally, the majority of women offenders were crime victims
themselves at some point in their lives; more than half report having
been physically or sexually abused prior to prison admission.42 In
general, female offenders are less educated than male offenders, were
less likely to have been employed prior to conviction and more likely to
have been receiving some form of public assistance.43 Additionally, both
national and California data indicate that female offenders are more
likely to be the parent of a child under 18-years-old than male offenders
and they are more likely to have lived with their children and been a
single parent prior to incarceration.44 The table on the following page
compares the characteristics of female offenders to that of male offenders
nationally.

What About the Children?
The dramatic increase in the number of women in prison during the past
two decades created a corresponding dramatic increase in the number of
children with mothers in prison. While children are impacted by the
incarceration of either parent, more children are displaced when their
mother goes to prison than when their father goes to prison.
While 90 percent of the children of men incarcerated in California are
cared for by their mother or step-mother, only 29 percent of the children
of incarcerated mothers are cared for by their father or step-father.45 The
vast majority of children whose mothers are incarcerated are placed with
relatives,
particularly
grandmothers,
friends
or
neighbors.
Approximately 9 percent of the children of arrested mothers are placed in
foster care or group homes.46
When a parent is incarcerated, no government agency is responsible for
keeping track of the children, unless they are in foster care. Because
nobody tracks these children, it is difficult to determine the impact of
incarceration on their personal development or the financial burden on
the social service system. In 1995, one study estimated the costs to the
social service system for the children of women in California's prisons to
be $56 million.47 But this estimate did not include the impact these
children have on the juvenile justice system.

14

BACKGROUND
Comparison of Female and Male Offenders in State Prisons
Female

Male

80-85%
40%
62%
74%

80-85%
32%
56%
69%

27%
22%

12%
9%

20-35%
5%
3.5%

7-10%
0%
2.2%

57%
46%
39%
37%

16%
13%
6%
14%

40%
37%
30%

60%
20%
8%

65%
64%
12%
46%
28%

55%
44%
20%
15%
90%

64%
53%

57%
36%

33%
67%
29%

63%
37%
85%

Substance Abuse Issues48
Percent of offenders:
l
with substance abuse problems
l
under the influence of drugs when the crime occurred
l
using drugs in the month prior to the offense
l
ever using drugs regularly (once a week for a month or more)

Mental Health Issues49
Percent of offenders:
l
receiving therapy/counseling
l
taking psychotropic medications

Physical Health Issues50
Percent of offenders:
l
participating in daily sick call
l
who enter prison while pregnant
l
who are HIV Positive

Prior Physical & Sexual Abuse of State Prisoners51
Percent of offenders:
l
ever abused before prison admission
l
ever physically abused before prison admission
l
ever sexually abused before prison admission
l
physically or sexually abused before age 18

Education & Employment52
Percent of offenders:
l
employed at the time of arrest
l
with an income less than $600 per month prior to arrest
l
who received welfare assistance prior to arrest

Offenders and Their Children– National Data53
Percent of offenders:
l
having at least one child under 18 years old
l
who lived with their children prior to prison admission
l
living as part of a two-parent household in the month prior to arrest
l
living in a single-parent household in the month prior to arrest
l
with minor children being cared for by the child's other parent or step-parent
54

Offenders and Their Children – California Data
Percent of offenders:
l
having at least one child under 18 years old
l
who lived with their children prior to arrest
Of those offenders living with their children prior to arrest, percent:
l
living as part of a two-parent household
l
living in a single-parent household
l
with at least one child being cared for by the child's other parent or step-parent

15

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
Not enough empirical data exists on these children to draw a direct line
between parental incarceration and future incarceration of the child.
Attempts to attribute specific outcomes solely to parental incarceration
are difficult, because children who suffer the loss of a parent through
imprisonment also are more likely to have other risk factors including
poverty, family violence, substance abuse, changes in residence, shifts in
caregivers and peer and community stigma.55
However, two small studies found that children of offenders are far more
likely than other children to enter the criminal justice system. In one
study of children of offenders, nearly one-third of 11 to 14-year-olds had
been arrested or incarcerated. Another study of 100 women in jail in
Riverside County found that 11 percent of the children of the women
participating in the study had been arrested and 10 percent had been
incarcerated. 56
The State has no strategy for identifying these children or targeting
prevention and intervention efforts to this vulnerable population. It also
does little to develop and target programs that would make incarcerated
parents more successful when they are released from prison.

Programs for Female Inmates
With the exception of two small programs for pregnant or parenting
female offenders, the vast majority of programs in the four women's
prisons are identical to the programs offered in the men's prisons.
Participation in programs overall is limited to a small percentage of the
population, as it is in the men's prisons, due to program capacity.
Less than one-third of all female inmates are enrolled in an academic or
vocational education program or employment training program. About
one-fourth are in a distance learning re-entry education program that
enables inmates to do coursework in their cells. Many others are in drug
treatment programs. However, nearly 2,000 women who are eligible for
programs are unable to participate due to the lack of program capacity.57
These programs include:
ü

Vocational Education.

ü

Academic Education. Educational courses include basic literacy,

Vocational education programs teach
offenders job skills including painting, printing, upholstery,
electronics, graphic arts, auto body repair, landscaping and office
services.

general education development (GED) and English as a second
language. Additionally, a six-week re-entry program for women is

16

BACKGROUND
taught covering job search techniques and how to apply for benefits
and identification.
ü

Bridging Education.

ü

Substance Abuse Program (SAP). The Office of Substance Abuse

In fall 2003, the CDC added a distance
learning program to serve offenders in reception centers. Participants
are provided information packets and given assignments to assist
their ability to reintegrate back into the community.

Programs coordinates the alcohol and drug treatment programs
inside the prisons. The programs utilize therapeutic communities
and are run by private contractors.
ü

Prison Industry Authority (PIA). The PIA was established to reduce
the cost of prison operations and help rehabilitate offenders by
putting them to work.
Programs include clothing and textile
manufacturing, dental laboratory, farm operation and eyewear
manufacturing.

ü

Joint Venture. Joint Venture programs are partnerships between
prisons and local businesses that agree to set up a production or
service enterprise within the prison walls, hire, train and supervise
inmates and sell products and services to the public. Participants
are paid prevailing wages and 80 percent of their earnings are subject
to deductions for taxes, room and board, restitution and family
support.

In addition to these programs, several classes and gender-responsive
support groups are offered, including a parent and child development
course, a conflict and anger management course focusing on domestic
violence and self-esteem building, battered women support groups and
mental health groups focusing on surviving sexual abuse and other
women's issues. However, these programs serve only about 2 percent of
the population at any given time.58

California Correctional Facilities for Female Offenders
As of September 2004, 10,264 women were incarcerated in California's
four women's prisons. All four facilities are occupied at more than
150 percent of the stated design capacity, with the California Institution
for Women the most crowded at 195 percent of design capacity.59 The
following sections briefly describe each institution.

17

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
(CIW).

Located in Chino,
approximately 40 miles east of Los Angeles, CIW houses female offenders
classified from Level I through Level III and functions as a
reception/processing center for incoming inmates awaiting classification
and program assignment. As of September 2004, 1,680 female offenders
were incarcerated at CIW and 318 offenders were in the reception center.
CIW also houses offenders with special needs such as pregnancy,
psychiatric care, methadone treatment, and medical problems, such as
HIV infection.

California

Institution

for

Women

Constructed in 1952, CIW serves as a hub institution for the selection
and physical fitness training for female firefighters selected for
conservation camps. The Prison Industry Authority operates a textile
factory producing clothing, including Nomex fire retardant clothes for
California firefighters and orange vests for Caltrans workers. Other
programs include vocational and basic educational
training. Approximately 22 percent of the women
CIW Inmate Classification
are in these programs.
Another 36 percent
participate in the Bridging Education Program.
Reception – 26%
Level I – 33%
About 14 percent are in the Forever Free program
for prison-based substance abuse treatment.
No Score – 3%
Women offenders at CIW also participate in a variety
of community-based volunteer programs including
Level IV – 3%
the Prison Pup Program in which offenders train
Level III – 9%
Level II – 26%
dogs to serve mobility-impaired Californians.60
Located approximately 50
miles southeast of Los Angeles in Norco, CRC is the only institution in
California to house both male and female offenders, albeit in separate
facilities. CRC is a Level II medium security prison and is distinguished
nationally as having the largest substance abuse treatment program for
incarcerated offenders. CRC was established as a correctional facility in
1962, converting what was once a naval facility and luxury resort into a
prison. As of September 2004, 774 women offenders were housed at
CRC, including 251 civil addicts, or offenders who have agreed to
participate in specified drug treatment programs while
in prison and upon release from prison in lieu of
CRC Inmate Classification
receiving a felony conviction.

California Rehabilitation Center (CRC).

Level II – 44%

No Score – 3%

Level I – 53%

Two private contractors provide drug treatment
programs for female offenders. Virtually all of the 526
substance abuse treatment slots are full at all times
and many of the women in the treatment programs
also participate in educational and vocational
training, including a painting and woodworking
course and a graphic art and printing shop. 61

18

BACKGROUND
Central California Women's Facility (CCWF). Opened in 1990, CCWF
is located in the San Joaquin Valley town of Chowchilla, about 30 miles
north of Fresno, and is one of the largest correctional facilities for women
in the United States. As of September 2004, CCWF housed 3,046 female
offenders ranging from Level I through Level
IV,
and
had
663
offenders
awaiting
CCWF Inmate Classification
classification in its reception center. CCWF
Reception – 19%
also is home to California's 15 women on
death row. About one-third of the inmates are
No Score – 7%
Level I – 33%
enrolled
in
educational,
vocational
or
employment training programs, including 45
Level IV – 12%
women employed by a Joint Venture electronic
manufacturing operation. About 22 percent
Level III – 13%
Level II – 23%
are in the Bridging Education Program and 14
percent are in a drug treatment program.62

Valley State Prison for Women (VSP). Also in Chowchilla, VSP is
California's newest facility for women having opened in 1995. It also is
one of the largest in the United States. As of September 2004, the facility
housed 3,735 female offenders. Of these, 2,980 women are classified in
Levels I through IV, nearly 701 are awaiting classification in the facility's
reception center and 54 are in a segregated housing unit (SHU). VSP
also is designed to be a hub for female offenders with mobility
impairments.
Nearly one-third of the inmates participate in programs, including a
Prison Industry Authority program offering farm
operation, eyewear manufacturing and laundry, as
VSP Inmate Classification
well as traditional vocational and basic educational
Reception – 19%
training. Approximately 21 percent participate in
Bridging Education and 14 percent are in a
Level I – 33%
63
substance abuse treatment program.
Other Level IV – 11%
volunteer-led programs include toastmasters, a
mother-child book recording program, peer grief
Level III – 13%
counseling and a cancer support group.
Level II – 24%

Community Correctional Facilities
There are a limited number of small, community-based correctional
centers that provide alternatives for low-level non-violent female
offenders. CDC administers two programs at five facilities for female
offenders who are pregnant or who are mothers of young children. There
are three fire camps for women offenders in Southern California and one
privately run community correctional facility. Additionally, in 2004 CDC
began a drug treatment furlough program utilizing community-based
facilities. The table describes these facilities.

19

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION

Community-Based Correctional Facilities
Facility/Program
Leo Chesney Community Correctional Facility

Capacity

Population

220

200

The Leo Chesney facility is one of 12 minimum security community correctional facilities housing low-level,
non-violent offenders and is the only facility designated for women.64 Located in Live Oak, approximately 60
miles northeast of Sacramento, it is operated by a private contractor, Cornell Companies, Inc. Offenders can
be placed in the Leo Chesney facility either directly from a prison reception center or as a step-down from
prison. On average, women serve four to six months at the facility and there is an 18-month limit.
Educational programs include basic education as well as collegiate-level coursework offered by neighboring
Yuba Community College. Vocational programs include culinary arts, carpentry, landscaping and master
gardening training. The facility also offers a 30-day voluntary pre-release program and a weekly cognitive
behavioral treatment therapy group.65

Community Prisoner Mother Program (CPMP)

70

68

The Community Prisoner Mother Program was established in 1980 for female felons with children under the
age of six years who are convicted of non-violent crimes and whose sentences do not exceed six years.
Inmates apply to CDC to transfer from prison to the program, and stay an average of eight months. These
therapeutic communities are located in Oakland, Pomona and Bakersfield. Private contractors site the
facilities and provide substance abuse treatment programs. In addition to the 70 offenders, the facilities have
the capacity to house 105 children (no more than two per mother) at a total annual cost of about $2.3
million.66

Family Foundations Program (FFP)

70

60

The Pregnant and Parenting Women’s Alternative Sentencing Program Act of 1994 authorized the Family
Foundations Program, an alternative to prison for non-violent, substance abusing pregnant or parenting
female offenders with children six years of age or younger. Offenders are referred to the program by the
court as a diversion from prison, must have sentences of 36 months or less and meet other criteria. Two
facilities owned by CDC offer the program in Los Angeles County and San Diego County. Substance abuse
and supportive services are provided by private contractors. Each facility houses up to 35 women and 40
children. A facility was purchased in Fresno, but its opening was delayed pending an increase in demand
and assessment of the impact of Proposition 36 on this population. The facility is currently being used as a
Female Offender Treatment and Employment Program facility – a substance abuse aftercare program for
women who have participated in prison-based treatment.67

Conservation Camps

320

311

Of the 37 conservation camps scattered across rural California and operated by CDC, three camps house
female offenders. All three are in Southern California, with one in Malibu, one just east of Camp Pendleton
and one in northeastern San Diego County. Inmates in camps are trained to fight forest fires and join fire
lines during fire season. In the off season, they build and repair river dikes and roads, maintain state parks
and join rescue missions. Eligibility is confined to low-level offenders with no records of violence, sexual
offenses or arson. Camps are the only opportunity where offenders can earn two days of "good time" credit
for every day of service.

Drug Treatment Furlough

150

58

CDC's Office of Substance Abuse Programs (OSAP) oversees a newly implemented drug treatment furlough
program designed to allow up to 450 non-violent in-prison substance abuse program participants to be
placed in a community residential treatment facility 120 days prior to release to parole. CDC anticipates
establishing 150 beds for women on drug treatment furlough. As of July 2004, 58 female offenders were
participating in the drug treatment furlough.68

20

BACKGROUND

Programs for Female Parolees
CDC's Parole and Community Services Division and Office of Substance
Abuse Programs (OSAP) oversee programs intended to help parolees
successfully reintegrate back into the community. Most of the programs
offered are gender neutral, with the exception of OSAP's Female Offender
Treatment and Employment Program (FOTEP). The chart below identifies
programs available to parolees through CDC and, where data is
available, the number of women estimated to be participating annually in
each program.

Parole & Community Services Programs for Parolees

Women
Served
Annually*

Female

Male

Substance Abuse Treatment and Recovery (STAR) is a curriculum-based
program designed to motivate substance abusers to participate in post-release
recovery activities. Contra Costa County Office of Education administers the
program and serves the same parole units as the literacy centers plus three
additional units. The majority of the parolees are participating as an alternative to
a return to prison for a drug or alcohol use-related parole violation.69

1,397

15.2%

84.8%

Computerized Literacy Learning Centers serve 4,727 parolees and are
administered by the Contra Costa County Office of Education through 45 parole
units in California. The California Department of Corrections (CDC) estimates
that 55,000 to 70,000 parolees could benefit from participating in this program.
The program offers computerized instruction in reading, writing, math, and
resumé preparation.70

752

15.9%

84.1%

Residential Multiservice Centers provide housing, meals, counseling and life
skills, including parenting, money management and budgeting, and job search
and placement assistance. This six-month program has 228 beds in centers
located in Fresno, Stockton, Bakersfield and Los Angeles.71

49

10.7%

89.3%

Offender Employment Continuum provides parolees educational, vocational
and job placement services. It includes a mandatory 40-hour weeklong program
to assess job skills and provide job preparation assistance. It is offered in 41
parole units in six counties: Fresno, Sacramento, Contra Costa, Alameda, Los
Angeles and San Diego. CDC estimates that 80,000 to 100,000 parolees need
these services.72

309

12.3%

87.7%

Community Correctional Re-entry Centers/Halfway Back Centers traditionally
provided transitional housing for approximately 880 lower level prison inmates
with 120 days or less remaining on their sentence. These centers provide
education, job training and counseling. In 2004, CDC began utilizing these
facilities as an intermediate sanction for parole violators. There are 18 facilities
with a total of 792 beds of which 61 are for women. CDC anticipates expanding
the number of beds by 500 in 2006.73

61

8%

92%%

Mental Health Services Continuum provides case management for mentally ill
parolees, including assistance in setting mental health appointments and
coordinating other services, such as drug treatment, education and job programs
and housing.74

3,770

18%

82%

Transitional Case Management Program for HIV/AIDS provides inmates who
identify themselves as HIV positive with medication and case management
services before and after release to parole. Upon release, HIV parolees are
treated at local government or other community facilities.75

196

14%

82%

21

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION

Parole & Community Services Programs for Parolees

Women
Served
Annually*

Female

Parolee Employment Program (PEP) provides employment services to
parolees. The maximum capacity of the PEP program is 3,200 parolees at an
annual cost of approximately $2 million. Because this is a new program, data is
not yet available.

Data unavailable

Employment Development Department (EDD), through a contract with CDC,
provides employment assistance through job placement specialists working with
parole units. EDD served about 8,000 parolees in fiscal year 2002-03, but it
estimates that 80,000 to 100,000 parolees need job placement assistance.

Data unavailable

Substance Abuse Treatment Control Unit (SATCU) provides 30-day
community-based custody with enhanced STAR education followed by a 90-day
continuing care component through SASCA.

Data unavailable

PACT – Parole and Corrections Teams partners parole with local law
enforcement and community organizations to serve new parolees. Parolees
attend a mandatory orientation session where they have opportunities for
employment, vocational training and substance abuse treatment. PACT
orientation sessions are held in more than 50 locations across the state on a
weekly, biweekly or monthly basis.76

Data unavailable

Male

Office of Substance Abuse Programs (OSAP)
Programs for Parolees

Women
Served
Annually*

Female

Male

Female Offender Treatment and Employment Program (FOTEP) provides
residential substance abuse treatment for women parolees, primarily women who
have participated in prison-based treatment programs. Partially funded by the
federal workforce investment act, FOTEP incorporates educational, vocational
and employment assistance components. The program promotes reunification
with children, when appropriate. FOTEP programs have been implemented in 13
counties in California.77

989

100%

0%

Substance Abuse Services Coordination Agency (SASCA) connects parolees
who have participated in substance abuse treatment programs while in prison.
The SASCA program connects these parolees, on a voluntary basis, with a wide
range of aftercare treatment options, including residential, outpatient and sober
living.78

1,298

12.5%

87.5%

Parole Services Network (PSN) is a partnership between CDC and the
Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs that provides substance abuse
treatment to parolees who did not receive treatment services while in prison. The
majority of parolees in PSN treatment programs are enrolled as an alternative
sanction as a result of a parole violation. Four networks serve nine counties.79

463

14%

86%

*CDC data on participants served is from 2002-03 or 2003-04. The percentages served are based on participation data by gender for
2000-01 and 2001-02. All data for the Mental Health Services Continuum and HIV case management project are for 2003-04.

Drug-related Parole Violations
While the majority of parole violators are returned to prison, diversion
alternatives are frequently used for parolees with drug violations. In
2000, more than 60 percent of California voters approved Proposition 36,
a law diverting non-violent drug offenders into community-based
treatment instead of incarceration. Offenders on probation or parole,
who commit non-violent drug offenses or who violate conditions of parole

22

BACKGROUND
related to substance abuse also may receive treatment. From 2001 to
2002, the State's female inmate population dropped by 10 percent and
CDC officials acknowledged that Proposition 36 was the biggest
contributing factor in this decline.80
During the first full operational year of Proposition 36, 2001-02, over
30,000 people received treatment. Of these, 28 percent or 8,500 were
female and of these, 514 were female parolees.81 Data from 2002-03 are
similar, with 35,947 people receiving treatment. Of these, 9,814 were
women and 763 of these were female parolees.82
Many other female parolees with drug possession or use violations who
do not utilize Proposition 36 may avoid a return to custody by agreeing to
enter treatment through the Parole Services Network or participate in the
STAR program. In 2002-03, there were 5,542 drug violations by female
parolees, and of these, just 17 percent were referred for revocation.83

Parole Program Evaluations
Several parole programs have been evaluated by independent researchers
to determine the impact on recidivism and identify opportunities for
improvement. In creating FOTEP, the Legislature required that the
program be evaluated on an ongoing basis. In December 2003, a
researcher completed an evaluation of five parole programs that make up
the Preventing Parolee Crime Program.

Female Offender Treatment and Employment Program (FOTEP).
Evaluations of the in-prison substance abuse treatment program for
women, Forever Free, revealed that parolees were more successful if they
received community-based aftercare. As a result, the Legislature in 1998
established FOTEP with three pilot programs in Southern California. The
programs were evaluated and expanded to include sites in 13 counties
that accommodate about 400 women at a time, and nearly 1,000
annually. The program provides comprehensive case management for
women who participated in prison-based substance abuse treatment as
well as a small number of substance abusing parole violators. Wraparound services include drug treatment, parenting/family services, and
vocational and employment services. Minor children may live with their
mothers in the FOTEP program and child care is available.84
FOTEP has been evaluated annually by researchers at the University of
California at Los Angeles. In 2003, the evaluators compared FOTEP
participants with women offenders who had participated in the prisonbased treatment program but did not participate in aftercare. A year
after completing the program, the FOTEP group had a significantly

23

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
higher rate of living in the community and not using drugs, 51 percent
compared to 28 percent of the control group. The FOTEP participants
also had a much lower rate of being incarcerated, 37 percent as
compared to 59 percent of the control group. 85

Preventing Parolee Crime Program (PPCP). Five programs make up
the Preventing Parolee Crime Program: the Offender Employment
Continuum, the Parolee Services Network, Residential Multiservice
Centers, Computerized Literacy Learning Centers and the Substance
Abuse Treatment and Recovery program. Jobs Plus, formerly a part of
PPCP, was eliminated in 2003.
An evaluation by researchers at
California State University at San Marcos found that 44.8 percent of
parolees who participated in one or more of the programs returned to
prison within one year as compared to 52.8 percent for non-PPCP
participants. For parolees who completed a program, reincarceration
rates were even lower at 32.7 percent.86 The study indicated the PPCP
programs saved the State more than $21 million in reduced correctional
costs during the study period, after subtracting program costs. Those
numbers did not include savings to local law enforcement, the judicial
system or potential crime victims.87
Evaluators also reviewed program participation by gender. In 2003,
women comprised 9 percent of the parole population and on average,
women comprised 14 percent of the PPCP participants, suggesting that
women are more likely than men to use PPCP services.88

24

A C ORRECTIONAL STRATEGY FOR FEMALE OFFENDERS

A Correctional Strategy for
Female Offenders
Finding 1: The Department of Corrections has not developed a correctional
strategy that effectively reduces crime, violence and drug abuse by the growing
number of women inmates upon their release.
In 2003, 44 out of 100 female parolees released from state prisons failed
parole and returned to the cellblocks, most for drug-related violations.89
The costs of these failures are borne by the criminal justice and the
correctional systems, as well as the foster care, juvenile justice and
mental health systems. Some 10 percent of the children of arrested
mothers are in foster care or group homes.90 And one in ten children
whose parents are incarcerated will one day become incarcerated
themselves.91 So there are both fiscal and human consequences, today
and in the future, when correctional programs do not break the chain of
crime, violence or addiction.
California’s Department of Corrections has fallen behind other state
prison systems by failing to develop strategies focused on preparing
inmates for release and assisting their transition back to their
communities. Similarly there is a growing consensus among correctional
experts that to be effective with female offenders “re-entry” strategies
must specifically address the circumstances and needs of women while
they are incarcerated and upon release.
Nationally and in California, the numbers of female inmates are
increasing faster than their male counterparts, a trend that has
highlighted the lack of policies and procedures geared toward women.92
Nationally, from 1990 to 2000 the number of women under correctional
control increased 81 percent, compared to a 45 percent increase in the
number of men.93 During that same time frame, the number of women
in California prisons increased 394 percent, compared with a
291 percent increase in the number of men.94 And while California,
because of its large population, is expected to have more female inmates
than less-populated states, the job of housing large numbers of female
inmates has usurped efforts to deal with the causes of criminal behavior.
For the most part, the State has relied on a prison strategy rather than a
correctional strategy. While it has developed “programs” intended to
reduce recidivism – and even introduced programs tailored for female

25

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
offenders – the dominant factor has been the State’s reliance on large,
centralized, highly secure and now overcrowded prisons.
CDC officials assert a new goal of the department will be to prepare
inmates for release – reducing the harm many parolees inflict on their
communities, their families and themselves, and ultimately driving up
prison-related expenses. But in doing so, corrections officials will have
to distinguish between male and female offenders.

Gender Differences Influence Outcomes
Female offenders differ from male offenders in their personal histories
and pathways to crime and these differences have important implications
for policies and programs in institutions and for community corrections.
For example, female offenders are far less likely to be convicted of violent
offenses than males or to be considered a danger to their community.
They are, however, far more likely to have been the victim of a violent
crime, physically or sexually abused, and are more likely to have health
and mental health needs.95 They are more likely to have been the
primary caretaker of young children prior to arrest, and more likely to
have been unemployed and homeless. Experts assert that policies and
practices must address the characteristics and circumstances unique to
women offenders to improve the effectiveness of the criminal justice
system.96

Gender Differences Among Offenders

Female
97

Male

835

15,008

Percent of California Parolees with Minimum or Low
98
Supervision

88%

72%

Number of California Parolees Classified as High Control or
nd
99
2 Strike

822

24,246

Offenders Physically or Sexually Abused Prior to Prison
100
Admission

57%

16%

Offenders in Counseling/Therapy for Mental Health
101
Issues

27%

12%

64%

57%

53%

36%

40%

60%

Californians Convicted of Crimes Against Persons in 2003

Offenders Having a Child Under 18 Years Old

102

Percent Living With Their Children Prior to Arrest
Offenders Employed at the Time of Arrest

26

104

103

A C ORRECTIONAL STRATEGY FOR FEMALE OFFENDERS

In a System Designed for Men
Through the 1980s and 1990s, the Department of Corrections was
focused on the overwhelming job of designing, building and staffing a
rapid expansion in the prison system. And with policies focused on
punishment, the department’s overriding concern was incarceration.
Through this period, policy-makers and program administrators made
few distinctions based on whether inmates were male or female or young
or old. Inmates were classified based on security risk, with length-ofsentence a dominate factor. In turn, the department planned and built
facilities based on the projected numbers of high, medium and low
security inmates.
As the Commission has previously reported,
correctional policies in this period were not based
on the substantial and growing body of research
on what works and what does not work to prevent
and respond to crime, let alone what works for
women. The minimal rehabilitative efforts that
survived – in California prisons as in other states –
were largely developed for male offenders.
As a result of these two trends, the majority of
female offenders are incarcerated in large, remote
prisons that undermine the chances that women
will become self-sufficient and law-abiding when
released. The physical structure of the prison
system tends to sever rather than strengthen
bonds between women and their children.
Research shows that inmates who maintain and
improve family ties have lower recidivism rates,105
however more than half the children of women
prisoners never visit their mothers during their
incarceration.106
Research also suggests that
search and supervision practices within prisons
often re-traumatize women with histories of sexual
and physical abuse,107 but the department has not
addressed these issues. And the lack of vocational
and educational programs means that women
offenders – who enter prison with fewer
educational and vocational skills than men – are
released just as ill-equipped for independence and
self-sufficiency, increasing their chances of reincarceration.

27

Independent Review Panel
At the request of Governor Schwarzenegger,
former
Governor
George
Deukmejian
oversaw an independent review of the Youth
and Adult Correctional Agency in 2003. The
panel urged “high priority” reforms in the
areas of leadership, organizational structure,
selection and development of personnel, the
role of labor unions and values and ethics.
The panel made specific recommendations
for improving the management of inmates
and parolees, calling for the expanded use of
education, vocational training and drug
treatment to prepare inmates for release,
and a greater reliance on community-based
services to assist parolees attempting to
reintegrate into their communities.
Many of the recommendations related to
improving outcomes of the correctional
system are consistent with recommendations
previously made by the Little Hoover
Commission. The panel, however, did not
suggest ways to specifically manage the
correctional system to improve outcomes for
female offenders.
The recommendations in this report,
including a strategic plan to make the best
use of facilities and other resources to
reduce future criminal involvement by female
offenders, consistently builds on these
previous reviews that sought to improve
public safety and lower public costs.
The Independent Review Panel’s
recommendations are available at
www.cpr.ca.gov.

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
While the department operates four major facilities for women, it does
not have written policies or practices regarding classification, property,
programs or services for women offenders. Gender is not considered in
staffing decisions – for institutions or parole – and training is not
provided to prepare staff to work effectively with female offenders.
For example, the warden at the California Institution for Women was
unaware of the ratio of female and male staff to inmates. She said she
did not understand why women inmates received so few visits – even
though it is well documented that visitation efforts are frustrated by the
remote location of women’s prisons, a lack of transportation and the
difficulties for caregivers in arranging visitation.108 Similarly, a male
CDC correctional officer newly assigned to the Leo Chesney Community
Correctional Facility said he had received no training prior to being
assigned to the all-female community correctional center.
The circumstances and consequences of these gender-blind policies are
detailed in Finding 2 as they relate to prison issues and in Finding 3 as
they relate to parole issues. Developing a framework for evidence-based
and gender-based policies, however, is a prerequisite for making specific
improvements behind bars and in communities.

In the Context of Larger Problems
In its November 2003 report on the State’s parole policies, the
Commission found that the department did not use information about
offenders and the growing body of evidence about effective correctional
practices to guide its policies. The Commission recommended that
offender risk and needs assessments be used to allocate resources for
inmates and parolees and that correctional officials use strategies shown
by research to reduce recidivism.
The secretary of the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency has
acknowledged the shortcomings of the correctional system overall and
vowed to improve the performance of the system, in part by adapting
evidence-based crime prevention strategies and developing partnerships
with community stakeholders.109
The secretary convened agency and department leaders at a week-long
meeting in July 2004 to consider the recommendations of the Governor’s
Independent Review Panel and begin developing a strategic plan. (The
department’s last strategic plan was prepared in June 1997.) However,
there was no mention of female offenders in the goals that the secretary
described – or in the Independent Review Panel’s critique of the system.

28

A C ORRECTIONAL STRATEGY FOR FEMALE OFFENDERS
The department director has acknowledged the need to create a separate
framework for managing female offenders. In April 2003, the director
said she would appoint an assistant director for women’s issues – a
policy supported by the research – but as of October 2004, had not done
so. Reportedly, the director has initiated a review of policies regarding
gender-specific inmate property rules.110 And the director said she was
looking at implementing “lots of pilot programs” – a strategy that risks
squandering public money on experimental programs when evidencebased practices have already been identified. 111
These promises for reform have been greeted by many with skepticism.
Some of the concern is over the system’s actual willingness to change,
and some concern lies in its ability to change. Over the last decade, the
department has consistently failed to successfully manage programs
intended to reduce recidivism.
Even in cases where CDC has
documented the potential for a program – such as drug-treatment – the
department has not remained faithful to the original model,
compromising the outcomes. Despite consensus that risk and needs
assessments are foundational to making decisions about offenders that
impact pubic safety, the department has implemented a more lenient
revocation policy without the benefit of that tool. And it still does not use
risk and needs assessments to more effectively allocate scarce
educational, vocational and treatment resources.

Using Research to Guide Reforms
Drawing on research from a variety of disciplines, correctional experts
have identified both strategies and specific programs that can be used to
prepare inmates for release and better transition them from incarceration
to community. At a macro level, the major elements apply to both male
and female offenders:
q

Planning for re-entry should begin on the first day of incarceration.

q

Inmates should be released from prison with the tools and support
they need to succeed in the community.

q

Communities should be provided with the necessary resources to
assist inmates and their families.

q

Public policies should promote family and community well-being.

But developing those policy goals into programs requires careful
attention to the differences between male and female offenders. In that
regard, researchers have identified six guiding principles that policymakers should consider in establishing programs to supervise and treat
women offenders. They also assembled some “policy considerations” that
contribute to the successful implementation of such programs. Those
components are detailed in the box on the following page.

29

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION

Crafting Policies for Female Offenders
Given the differences between female and male offenders, policy-makers and
program managers must develop gender-based strategies if they are to improve
outcomes for offenders, their families and their communities.

Guiding principles. In a report published by the U.S. Department of Justice, Dr.
Barbara Bloom and her colleagues distilled the following guiding principles for
developing effective policies:
1. Acknowledge that gender makes a difference.
2. Create an environment based on safety, respect and dignity.
3.
4.

5.
6.

Develop policies, practices and programs that are relational and promote healthy
connections to children, family, significant others, and the community.
Address substance abuse, trauma and mental health issues through
comprehensive, integrated and culturally relevant services and appropriate
supervision.
Provide women with opportunities to improve their socioeconomic conditions.
Establish a system of community supervision and re-entry with comprehensive
collaborative services.

Policy considerations. Drawing from the National Institute of Corrections, Federal
Bureau of Prisons, American Correctional Association and several states, the
researchers also identified common policy considerations that are fundamental to a
systematic approach to managing female offenders:
q Create parity. Female offenders must receive the equivalent range of services
available to male offenders, including opportunities for individual programming
and services that recognize the unique needs of women.
q Commit to women’s services. Mission and vision statements regarding
women’s issues, an executive-level position charged with implementing the
mission, and appropriate levels of resources, staffing and training are necessary
to ensure that women’s issues become a priority.
q Develop procedures that apply to women offenders. The American
Correctional Association recommends procedures that address the female
population’s needs regarding clothing, personal property, hygiene, exercise,
recreation, and visitations with children and family.
q

Respond to women’s pathways. Policies and programs need to respond
specifically to women’s pathways in and out of crime and to the contexts of their
lives that support criminal behavior.

q

Consider community. Based on the lower risk of violence and community harm
among female offenders and a belief that community programs are better
equipped to respond to women offenders, a wide range of correctional experts
advocate for community-based alternatives to state prison. It is important that
written policy acknowledge the actual level of risk associated with women
offenders in custody and in the community to foster strong community
partnerships.
Include children and families. ACA policy states that the criminal justice
system should “facilitate the maintenance and strengthening of family ties,
particularly between parents and children.”

q

Source: Barbara Bloom, Ph.D., Barbara Owen, Ph.D. and Stephanie Covington, Ph.D. July 2003.
"Gender-Responsive Strategies – Research, Practice, and Guiding Principles for Women Offenders."
National Institute of Corrections. Washington D.C.

30

A C ORRECTIONAL STRATEGY FOR FEMALE OFFENDERS
Similarly, the American Correctional Association in 1995 adopted a
policy concerning female offenders. The policy encouraged correctional
agencies to develop service delivery systems comparable to those for male
offenders and recommended additional services be provided to meet the
unique needs of female offenders, including:
q

Access to a range of alternatives to incarceration;

q

Acceptable conditions of confinement;

q

Access to a full range of work and programs to expand economic and
social roles;

q

Maintenance and strengthening of family ties;

q

Delivery of appropriate programs and services, including medical,
dental, mental health, substance abuse, access to legal services,
religious, educational, rehabilitative, women’s support groups, life
skills; and,

q

Access to release programs. 112

Some states have developed specific strategies for female offenders. In
1999 Florida passed the Corrections Equality Act, which mandates parity
in programs and services for female offenders. The Operational Plan for
Female Offenders is a blueprint for ensuring that the correctional system
meets the needs of female offenders. The plan places a high priority on
needs assessments to guide the development of a continuum of services
and includes mandatory staff training for correctional officers and other
professionals working in women’s institutions and community
corrections. A Female Offender Program Unit was created to ensure
accountability, reliability and continuous improvement.
The plan
includes goals and objectives and a timeline for implementation. It
identifies responsible officials and estimates the fiscal impact of
implementing the reforms. 113
Likewise, the Minnesota Legislature in 1981 established the Advisory
Task Force on the Female Offender and provided for a full-time Director
of Planning for Female Offenders within the Department of Corrections.
In 1990 the law was amended to include youthful female offenders. The
law requires that adult and juvenile women receive programming on par
with that for men; that programs for female offenders be based upon the
special needs of female offenders; and that counties submit annual plans
to the commissioner of corrections describing services for female
offenders.114
The trend toward tailoring interventions based on the needs of offenders
is supported by broader efforts to encourage correctional agencies to
replicate programs that have been proven to reduce crime, violence and
addiction.
For example, the U.S. Department of Justice and the
Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy have launched an initiative to

31

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
advance evidence-based crime and substance abuse policy. The goal is
to promulgate those interventions that have shown to be effective in
randomized trials and to encourage agencies using federal funds to adopt
these programs.115
Similarly, the U.S. departments of Justice,
Education, and Health and Human Services have developed guides for
instituting effective programs.

Summary
High rates of recidivism, unemployment and homelessness are some of
the obvious indicators that California’s correctional system is not
working well for the vast majority of female offenders. The State will
need to embrace the knowledge regarding the characteristics and needs
of female offenders and enact reforms to improve outcomes for women
offenders, their children and their communities. In turn, the State will
then be better capable of applying the lessons learned from those efforts
to all offenders.

Recommendation 1: The Department of Corrections should develop a coherent
strategy to hold female offenders accountable for their crimes and improve their
ability to successfully reintegrate into their communities. Specifically, the
department should:
q

Develop leadership for reforms. CDC should appoint a director for
women’s programs to guide the development and implementation of
reforms in institutions and parole to effectively address the risks and
needs of women offenders and their children. The director should be
the equivalent of the regional directors proposed by the Independent
Review Panel.
Previously the Commission recommended that
wardens should be appointed to fixed terms and managed with
performance contracts. In addition, wardens of women’s prisons
should have professional training and skills in gender-responsive
management, operations and programs.

q

The department should
implement programs that have the best evidence of effectiveness in
producing the desired outcomes, including reduced recidivism,
greater employment, substance abuse recovery and reunification.
The director for women’s programs should empanel a council of
criminal justice researchers to identify and recommend best practices
and critique their implementation by the department. Independently
conducted program evaluations should be reviewed and commented
upon by this council. The panel should publicly report on whether
programs are faithfully replicating proven programs, and whether
they should be modified, expanded or discontinued.

Embrace evidence-based practices.

32

A C ORRECTIONAL STRATEGY FOR FEMALE OFFENDERS
q

Develop a strategic plan. The director for women’s programs should
develop a strategic plan for female offenders, consistent with the
department’s overall strategic plan. The plan should include input
and ownership of staff and management; statements of values,
mission, goals and objectives. It should include an implementation
plan that delineates activities, budgets, timelines and those
responsible for the outcomes.

ü The plan should include a robust community correctional system
to effectively house and prepare female inmates for release.

ü The plan also should include a robust re-entry effort to effectively
supervise and assist female parolees.
q

Measure and report performance. The Department of Corrections
should develop performance measures to gauge the effectiveness of
its correctional strategy for women offenders.
It should report the
results to correctional staff, the public and policy-makers.

These two elements – community corrections and a community-based reentry model – are described in the following findings.

33

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION

34

PREPARING FOR SUCCESS

Preparing for Success
Finding 2: Mega-prisons, designed primarily to incapacitate and punish violent
offenders, are not effective for the majority of female offenders who are nonviolent, serve short sentences and need specific services to successfully return
home.
Large prisons – because of their physical characteristics and the way
they are operated – are not preparing female offenders to live
self-sufficient, crime-free lives upon release.
While two-thirds of
California’s female inmates are convicted of non-violent, drug-related and
property crimes, most women are incarcerated in large and remote
institutions that are designed to incapacitate serious, violent, and mostly
male offenders.
Over the last 20 years, policy-makers have deliberately reduced the
rehabilitative aspects of prison and emphasized the punishment aspects.
Some aspects of the prisons, while intended to increase the punishment
imposed, also undermine programs and other efforts that researchers
say can improve the chances that felons will succeed upon their release.
For example, only a fraction of female inmates have access to
educational, vocational and drug treatment programs. And most ties to
family and community are severed by both distance and visiting policies.
A correctional strategy focused on improving public safety by breaking
the cycle of crime and violence would look much different. California has
not taken that approach to corrections for male or female offenders. But
the discrepancy between inmate characteristics and the capacity of
institutions to improve outcomes is greatest for female offenders. A
better designed correctional system would result in a strong continuum
of facilities and programs that provide incapacitation, punishment and
preparation based on the risks associated with individuals and the
interventions that research shows can change behavior.

Prisons vs. Corrections
California has not always responded to non-violent female offenders with
incarceration in state prisons. The early 1980s saw a surge in violence,
often involving youth gangs and disputes among drug dealers. Other
horrific cases focused attention on the failure of sentencing policies to
incapacitate repeat violent offenders. Mandatory minimum sentences

35

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
were enacted for drug crimes. Truth-in-sentencing statutes and the
three-strikes law were enacted, fortifying the reliance on prisons to
incapacitate career criminals.
Expanded sentencing policies captured more and more women. The
chart below reflects the climb in the rate of women admitted to prison
over the past two decades.

Rate of Female Offenders Per 100,000 Female Population
(New Admissions to California Prisons CY 1983-2003)
40

Rate Per 100,000 Female Population

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Sources: California Department of Corrections, May 2004, "Historical Trends: 1983-2003,"
Table 4 and November 2003, "California Prisoners and Parolees 2002," Table 27. Also,
California Department of Finance. "E-7 Historical California Population Estimates."

Not only were many more women entering prison, but they were
sentenced to prison for much less serious offenses. A greater proportion
of women were incarcerated for non-violent offenses.
Two decades ago 40 percent of all women incarcerated had committed a
serious crime against another person while just 14 percent were
convicted of a drug offense.116 Today, the percent of women incarcerated
for non-violent drug offenses is higher than the percent of women
incarcerated for a violent offense.117 Prior to the changes in sentencing
policies, many of these non-violent women would have been sanctioned
in the community rather than sent to state prisons.
As a result, the mix of inmates changed substantially. While female
prisons once housed mostly violent and serious criminals, they now

36

PREPARING FOR SUCCESS
house mostly women sentenced for drug and property crimes frequently
committed to support drug habits.
The chart below compares the rate of incarceration for each of the four
major offense categories and displays the dramatic increase in the rate of
female offenders admitted to prison for drug crimes.

Rate of Female Offenders Per 100,000 Female
Population by Offense Category
(New Admissions to California Prisons CY 1983-2003)
18

Rate Per 100,000 Female Population

16

14

12

Person

10

Property
Drugs
Other

8

6

4

2

0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Sources: California Department of Corrections, May 2004, "Historical Trends: 1983-2003," Table
4. Also, California Department of Finance. "E-7 Historical California Population Estimates."

The growth in prison commitments triggered a growth in prisons. In the
short term, the most economical way of housing large numbers of
inmates is in large, remote facilities that rely on physical barriers – such
as walls, electric fences and remote-controlled cell doors – to minimize
operational costs. Between 1984 and 1997, California opened 21 new
prisons, including three for women, to house a burgeoning prison
population.
However, this vast expansion of the prison system did not take into
account the changing nature of the female inmate population. In fact,
the expansion did not even take into account the significant differences
between female and male inmates. More than half of male inmates are
convicted of a crime against another person, whereas the majority of
female offenders are convicted of non-violent drug or property offenses.
The chart on the following page compares the offenses committed by
female and male offenders in California.

37

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
A Comparison of Female and Male Offenders in California
by Controlling Offense
Female

Male

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Total

9,994

100%

145,728

100%

Crimes Against Persons
st
Murder 1 Degree
nd
Murder 2 Degree
Manslaughter
Vehicular Manslaughter
Robbery
Assault with a Deadly Weapon
Other Assault/Battery
Rape
Lewd Act with a Child
Oral Copulation
Sodomy
Penetration with an Object
Other Sex Offenses
Kidnapping
Property Crimes
st
Burglary 1 Degree
nd
Burglary 2 Degree
Grand Theft
Petty Theft with a Prior
Receiving Stolen Property
Vehicle Theft
Forgery/Fraud
Other Property Crimes
Drug Crimes
Controlled Substance Possession
Controlled Substance Possession for Sale
Controlled Substance Sales
Controlled Substance Manufacturing
Controlled Substance Other
Miscellaneous Other
Other Crimes
Escape
Driving Under the Influence
Arson
Possession of Weapon
Other Offenses
Missing

2,986
418
508
217
55
622
423
539
9
62
10
0
4
31
88
3,351
317
564
340
751
284
294
730
71
3,105
1,370
980
408
192
113
42
456
18
95
44
89
210
96

30%
4.2%
5.1%
2.2%
.6%
6.2%
4.2%
5.4%
.1%
.6%
.1%
0%
0%
.3%
.9%
34%
3%
6%
3%
7.5%
3%
3%
7%
.7%
31%
14%
10%
4%
2%
1%
.4%
5%
.2%
1%
.4%
.9%
2.1%
1%

75,293
9,893
9,731
2,629
496
16,338
9,895
10,666
2,176
7,508
705
231
447
2,308
2,270
30,147
6,527
5,400
2,258
4,773
2,901
4,894
1,964
590
33,252
11,691
9,963
4,450
2,164
671
1208
10,562
177
2,001
382
4,704
3,298
419

52%
6.8%
6.7%
1.8%
.3%
11.2%
6.8%
7.3%
1.5%
5.2%
.5%
.2%
.3%
1.6%
1.6%
21%
4.5%
4%
1.5%
3%
2%
3%
1%
.4%
21%
8%
7%
3%
1.5%
.5%
.8%
7%
.1%
1.4%
.3%
3.2%
2.3%
.3%

Source: California Department of Corrections, Prison Census Data as of December 31, 2003. Sacramento.
February 2004.

38

PREPARING FOR SUCCESS
The vast majority of female felons are
incarcerated in four prisons operated by the
California
Department
of
Corrections:
California Institution for Women in Corona;
California Rehabilitation Center in Norco;
Central
California
Women’s
Facility
in
Chowchilla and Valley State Prison in
Chowchilla.
The state also operates under contract with
private providers a few smaller facilities that
could be considered community correctional
facilities. The minimum-security Leo Chesney
Correctional Center in Live Oak, Sutter County,
houses women who are nearing the end of their
terms. This and other community correction
programs are described later in this Finding.

A National Assessment
A national assessment of state and federal
classification practices for female offenders
found the following:
ü

Most policy-makers recognize that, as a
group, women offenders are less
dangerous than male offenders.

ü

Classification systems in many states
overclassify women offenders.

ü

Many states do not use the classification
system to make housing assignments for
women offenders.

ü

Only about 20 states have validated their
classification systems for women
offenders.

Source: Barbara Bloom, Ph.D., Barbara Owen, Ph.D.
and Stephanie Covington, Ph.D. July 2003. "GenderResponsive Strategies: Research Practice and Guiding
Principles for Women Offenders," referencing P. Van
Voorhis and L. Presser. 2001. "Classification of
Women Offenders: A National Assessment of Current
Practice." National Institute of Corrections. Washington
D.C.

While the characteristics of the female inmate
population have changed, the facilities and the
programs did not significantly evolve to reflect
that change. One reason was CDC’s focus on
safely housing inmates, without any meaningful
expectation that the sources of criminal behavior be addressed. In
contrast, the department was under scrutiny to show that it was housing
inmates as economically as possible, which drove prison siting, design
and operational decisions.

The classification system is evidence of this policy focus. As explained in
detail in the box on the following page, the classification system drives
decisions about what kinds of facilities are built and where inmates are
placed.
To the extent the classification system overstates the risk associated with
female inmates, the State has over-relied on remote, large and highly
secure facilities. To the extent the classification system, or any other
management tool, does not assess the criminality of inmates, alternative
facilities and interventions are not considered.

39

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
Gender-Neutral Classification System Drives Decisions
In correctional institutions, classification systems are used to make housing and programming
assignments. While the focus is primarily on safety and security, classification drives most institutional
decisions. One expert said, “Both male and female inmates have enormous stakes in valid and
equitable classification because it governs decisions regarding: eligibility and access to programs,
housing assignments, selection of cell-mates, safety, access to worker status, and the fairness, equity
and appropriateness of virtually all inmate processing decisions while incarcerated.”
There is substantial agreement that “gender-neutral” classification systems – used by most
correctional agencies – place women in higher custody levels than is necessary. Correctional expert
James Austin states that “because female prisoners are far less likely to become involved in serious
or potentially violent behavior while incarcerated, as a class they are likely to be over-classified under
a system that has been normed on the male prisoner population.” Evidence also is growing that when
applied to women these systems poorly predict institutional security or public safety risk.
A national assessment of state and federal classification practices for female offenders found
classification systems often over-classify female offenders resulting in unwarranted assignment to
higher security levels and exclusion from community correctional placements. A study in Tennessee
in 1984 found that many inmates could be re-classified as minimum custody without affecting public
and prison safety.
California uses a single, “gender-neutral” classification system for all inmates. The stated goal of
CDC’s system is to place an inmate in the least restrictive security level consistent with internal
security and public safety. In the men’s prisons, inmate classification scores are used to determine
placement in one of four security levels, with Level I and Level II prisoners considered minimum risks
for violence or escape, Level III prisoners considered medium risk, and Level IV prisoners presenting
the highest potential for violence or escape.
In California’s prisons, 69 percent of female inmates are Level I and Level II. But unlike men, low risk
female offenders are sometimes housed with Level III and IV inmates. Referring to the low propensity
for violence and escape among female offenders, one warden conceded: “A Level III woman is not the
same as a Level III man."
In its 1994 final report, the Senate Concurrent Resolution 33 Commission on Female Inmate and
Parolee Issues recommended the department develop a classification system for female inmates. It
recommended the system account for the lower security and safety risk that women pose and the
implications for program eligibility.
In 1998, CDC revised its classification system to more accurately predict an offender’s potential for
violence. CDC contracted with UCLA to conduct a randomized experiment to test the revised system.
The system – intended for all inmates – was tested only on male inmates. In explaining the
methodology, the evaluators said: “Approximately 90 percent of all recent CDC inmates are male, and
levels of housing security only apply to male inmates; there really are no security levels for female
prisoners. While classification scores are computed on all inmates, only for males do the scores have
important placement implications."
When asked whether CDC had considered adapting the classification system for women, the chief of
the classification unit said she was not aware of any such considerations. She was aware that the
National Institute of Corrections had published a number of documents on the issue, but had not read
them.
Sources: Barbara Bloom, Ph.D., Barbara Owen, Ph.D. and Stephanie Covington, Ph.D. July 2003. "Gender-Responsive
Strategies – Research, Practice, and Guiding Principles for Women Offenders." National Institute of Corrections. Washington
D.C. Tim Brennan. 1998. “Institutional Classification of Females: Problems and Some Proposals for Reform,” in “Female
Offenders: Critical Perspectives and Effective Interventions, " Ruth T. Zaplan, Aspen Publishers Inc. Gaithersburg, Maryland.
James Austin, Ph. D. June 25, 2003. “Findings in Prison Classification and Risk Assessment.” National Institute of
Corrections, Prisons Division, Issues in Brief. The George Washington University. Richard A. Berk, Heather Ladd, Heidi
Graziano, and Jong-Ho Baek. February 10, 2003. "A Randomized Experiment Testing Inmate Classification Systems." UCLA
Department of Statistics. JoAnn Gordon, Warden, California Rehabilitation Center. August 31, 2004. Personal communication.
"Senate Concurent Resolution 33 Commission Report on Female Inmate and Parolee Issues, Final Report." June 1994. Linda
Rianda, Chief, Classifications Services Unit, Institutions Division, California Department of Corrections. Personal
communication.

40

PREPARING FOR SUCCESS
The result of this decision-making process is a prison-based strategy
with limited potential to break the cycle of crime, violence and drug
addiction. Among the reasons:

Remote Prisons Sever Ties to Family and Community
The State’s policy of siting large correctional facilities in remote locations
impacts the ability of women offenders to maintain connections with
their families and children during their incarceration.
While the 28 facilities housing male offenders are located throughout the
state, some 75 percent of female offenders are housed in the two facilities
located in the San Joaquin Valley town of Chowchilla, 30 miles north of
Fresno. The majority of the remaining female offenders are housed in
two small facilities 40 and 50 miles southeast of Los Angeles.
Two-thirds of incarcerated women have minor children and about twothirds of women in state prisons lived with their young children before
entering prison.118
More than half of the children of female prisoners never visit their
mothers during their incarceration, in part because of the difficulty
caretakers face in arranging transportation to remotely located
prisons. 119 Experts assert that whether connections between prisoners
and their families are maintained can mean the difference between
offender success and recidivism.120
The problem has been exacerbated by the department’s decision to cut
back visiting days to save money. Visiting was reduced from four days to
two days a week at the California Institution for Women. At the same
time, however, the prison was working with the Center for Children with
Incarcerated Parents to assess and improve the visiting policies.121 At
the California Rehabilitation Center, visiting was cut from three days to
two days a week.122 According to the warden, the cutbacks decreased
the opportunities for social workers to bring children in foster care to
visit their mothers – a common requirement for reunification.123

Overcrowded Facilities Frustrate Efforts to Rehabilitate
Female prisons are nearly as crowded as male prisons. The most
severely crowded women’s prisons are operating at 185 to 190 percent of
design capacity.124
With the exception of violence, the effects of
overcrowding – reduced programming space, reduced programming and
inadequate staffing – are as severe as in the men’s prisons.125 (The State
in 2002 closed the Northern California Women's Facility. The closure
was attributed to declining female offender population due in part to the

41

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
success of Proposition 36, which diverted non-violent drug offenders into
treatment in lieu of a prison sentence.)
The differences between female and male offenders have important
implications for how prisons prepare women for release. Research shows
that to become self-sufficient, avoid future crime and reunite with their
families, female offenders need an array of interventions that are
delivered in a way that is responsive to their unique characteristics and
needs. Female offenders particularly need educational and vocational
services, health and drug treatment programs and opportunities to
restore and strengthen bonds with their children and families. And they
need re-entry planning to help them successfully transition from prison
to the community.126
In the last two decades, overcrowded facilities, the focus on punishment
and budget constraints have dramatically limited educational and other
programs in prisons, including those for women.
q

Education and vocational education. Approximately 29 percent of

Replicating Success?
Even when CDC employs strategies that can
work, the department does not do what
should be done to replicate proven
successes.
AT CRC, the department contracts with two
providers. Program participants spend four
hours a day in the program operated by
Mental Health Systems, Inc. The Walden
House Program is more intensive, with
inmates involved eight hours per day. The
staff said the variance resulted from two
separate competitive contracts initiated at
different times with different funding
amounts.
Inmates are assigned based on openings,
rather than which program would best match
their needs.
The programs have not been evaluated, so it
is unknown whether the eight-hour program
produces better outcomes than the four-hour
program, or if the four-hour program could be
expanded to cost-effectively serve more
inmates. The warden’s observation is that
the eight-hour program is better.
Source: JoAnn Gordon, Warden, California
Rehabilitation Center. July 7, 2004. Personal
communication.

the women in California's four women's prisons
are enrolled in an academic or vocational
education program or employed through Joint
Venture or the Prison Industry Authority.
Another quarter of the female inmate population
participates in the Bridging Education Program, a
distance learning program implemented in late
2003 to allow inmates in reception centers and
other inmates who are not in a program to earn
day-for-day credits by completing educational
activities in their cells. Student-teacher ratios
vary wildly from prison to prison for the Bridging
Education program. While two of the women's
prisons were at or near the goal of a 54 to 1 ratio,
one facility had just five instructors for more than
700 students. Still, nearly 2,000 women who are
eligible to participate and could benefit from
educational and job training programs are unable
to participate due to the lack of program
capacity.127
While
California has expanded drug treatment in
prisons, only a fraction of substance abusers
have access to treatment. Numerous studies
have documented that in-prison substance abuse
treatment,
followed
by
community-based
q

42

Substance

abuse

treatment.

PREPARING FOR SUCCESS
aftercare, dramatically reduces recidivism. Approximately 80 percent
of women in state prisons have substance abuse problems.128 The
department oversees an in-prison substance abuse treatment
program with 8,500 treatment slots. Of these, 1,764 beds are
allocated for female offenders serving approximately 18 percent of the
female population estimated to be in need of treatment. (Male
offenders are allocated 6,736 beds, serving approximately 5 percent
of those estimated to be in need of treatment.)
q

What happens to offenders in prisons –
whether they are male or female – influences whether they succeed or
fail on parole. Until recently there were approximately 900 re-entry
prison slots and a limited number of substance abuse treatment slots
that met the needs of a fraction of the prison population.129 In
response to the mandate in the 2003-04 budget to reduce recidivism,
the department in February 2004 began placing parole violators into
existing Community Correctional Re-entry Centers, pending the
establishment of a system of halfway back centers for parole
violators. The strategy eliminated 61 re-entry beds for women
prisoners to transition from prison to parole, using them instead for
female parole violators as an alternative to re-incarceration.
According to a parole administrator, the department has issued
requests for bids to operate halfway back facilities in three parole
regions beginning in January 2005. 130

Re-entry programs.

Attempts at Community Corrections
Despite the overarching trends and policies, the State has made a few
attempts at using less secure, but potentially more effective facilities and
programs to deal with the female offenders who in the past would have
not been sent to state prison.

A Community-based Facility
The Leo Chesney Community Correctional Facility houses approximately
200 Level I and II female inmates in Sutter County. All of the women are
involved in educational, vocational or pre-release programs to prepare
them to return to the community. In addition to the basic education
courses, the center offers collegiate-level coursework through
neighboring Yuba Community College. Vocational education includes a
culinary arts school, carpentry, landscaping and a master gardening
program, which trains women for jobs with nurseries and landscaping
companies and provides fresh produce for the center's cafeteria. For
recreation, the facility has a gym open seven days a week where women
participate in sports, games or hobby craft.

43

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
Although the facility is locked, it is located within a neighborhood.
Inmates from the center participate in a variety of community service
projects, such as park and public building exterior maintenance, food
distribution and set up and clean up of civic events. The Live Oak
community, although at first cautious about the facility, is now
supportive of the facility and rallied with the center when CDC attempted
to shut it down.
CDC contracts with Cornell Companies, Inc. to run the facility. CDC
does not permit Cornell to collect recidivism data and the facility has not
been evaluated for outcomes. The director of the facility stated he could
accept an additional 50 offenders immediately. CDC has not sought to
expand its use of the facility; the California Correctional Peace Officers
Association is opposed to privately run facilities.

Alternatives for Pregnant and Parenting Women
Faced with a growing number of female inmates with substance abuse
problems and children, policy-makers established two community
correctional programs: the Community Prisoner Mother Program and the
Family Foundations Program. Both programs allow low-level and nonviolent female offenders who also are pregnant or parenting to live in a
community facility with their children.
Surprisingly, department staff struggle to get inmates to enter these
voluntary programs. CDC staff regularly go to women’s prisons and jails
to recruit participants for the Community Prisoner Mother Program and
make presentations to judges, district attorneys and public defenders to
encourage referrals to the Family Foundations Program. But despite the
assumption that women would be anxious to stay with their children,
many offenders reportedly find it easier to leave their children with a
caretaker and do their time.131 In addition, these programs compete with
the fire camp program for the same inmates and camp participants earn
two days off their sentences for every day served, which is twice the
credit for participating in some other program. It also was suggested
that prison staff discourage women from entering these alternative
programs to ensure that prison beds remain filled.
The Family Foundations Program must overcome even greater challenges
maintaining enrollment. While the program was designed for substance
abusers, only women sentenced for simple possession are allowed to
participate. Women convicted for transportation or sale of drugs, for
instance, are excluded. As a result, many of the women who could
benefit – and for whom the program was ostensibly designed – are
ineligible. Also, women who voluntarily enter the program must agree to

44

PREPARING FOR SUCCESS
serve 12-months – requiring them to forfeit six months of “good time”
credit they would earn in prison.132
While neither program has been subject to independent evaluation,
anecdotes and observations suggest they are effective with the small
numbers of women who have access to them. According to CDC staff, a
“point in time” study showed an 85 percent success rate for the Family
Foundations Program compared to a 73 percent success rate for the
Community Prisoner Mother Program, which required the shorter stay.133
But eligibility criteria and program requirements limit access and
discourage participation.
Furthermore, the model has not been
considered for the larger population of female offenders – with similar
characteristics and risk levels – who could benefit.

Community Correctional Re-entry Centers
Existing law permits the CDC director to establish and operate
community correctional re-entry facilities for certain non-violent
offenders and parole violators. Offenders must have 120 days or less left
on a sentence and must apply for a transfer.134
CDC contracts with public, private and non-profit organizations to
operate these facilities. In addition to housing and supervision, the
contractors provide counseling, substance abuse treatment, computer
supported education, job search and placement assistance, pre-release
planning and other services. Currently, there are 18 community
correctional re-entry facilities in California with 792 beds, of which 61
are for women. In 2004, CDC increased the use of these facilities as an
intermediate sanction for parole violators and anticipates that inmate
placement will be phased out by the end of 2004. 135 Simultaneously,
CDC's Office of Substance Abuse Programs began implementation of a
new drug treatment furlough program that would allow up to 450 nonviolent offenders who participated in prison-based treatment to be
released to a residential treatment facility 120 days prior to release to
parole.

Restitution Centers
There are two restitution centers with 60 beds for female offenders and
50 beds for male offenders. Offenders are sent to a restitution center
through a court commitment and must have a sentence of three years or
less. These centers provide a means for offenders to pay their victims
financial restitution either as ordered by the court or as agreed upon by
the offender and the victim. Inmates' earnings are equally divided among
the State, the victim and the inmate. CDC has proposed expanding
restitution center capacity by 390 beds beginning in January 2005.136

45

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION

Non-violent Offenders Can Be Treated Differently
Research supports the growing consensus among experts and
practitioners that a large proportion of female offenders are not career
criminals, are not violent and do not pose a serious threat to the
community and could be more effectively held in community-based
facilities that address their underlying problems.137 The research also
indicates that outcomes for non-violent women offenders would be
improved – and public costs reduced – if these offenders were
incarcerated in smaller, community correctional facilities that can
provide proximity to children and families and the multiple communitybased services that female offenders need to be successful.
Over the last decade several independent reviews have recommended
that the State treat non-violent offenders – and specifically non-violent
female offenders – differently than serious, violent male offenders.
Among them:
q

Commission on Female Inmate and Parolee Issues. The Senate
Concurrent Resolution 33 Commission on Female Inmate and Parolee
Issues said in its 1994 final report: “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. These characteristics offer CDC and the State of California
opportunities to develop, for very specific targeted female
populations,
demonstration
programs,
punishment
options,
intermediate sanctions, and other methods of holding inmates
accountable for their actions without decreasing public safety.”138

q Blue Ribbon Commission on Inmate Population Management. In
1990, the commission found that "there is an economic and practical
need to support the development and maintenance of a broad
spectrum of punishment options and services for offenders, giving
sentencing authorities options beyond state incarceration and
traditional probation and parole." It recommended establishing a
partnership between state and local government to significantly
expand intermediate community sanctions for offenders. It said that
the State should target non-violent offenders with short-term
sentences and non-violent parole violators.
The Commission
recommended that the State construct secure facilities to house 100
to 400 offenders in counties that volunteered to participate in this
partnership with the State and these counties would be funded by
the State to operate the facilities.139
q Little Hoover Commission. In its 1994 and 1998 reports on the
correctional system, the Commission concluded that the State was
using prisons – the most expensive and often least effective sanction -

46

PREPARING FOR SUCCESS
for increasing numbers of non-violent drug offenders. The
Commission recommended that the State treat non-violent offenders
differently than violent offenders. It urged policy-makers to adopt a
multi-faceted correctional strategy that ensures there is always room
in state prisons for the worst offenders and uses less costly, more
effective community-based strategies for low-level offenders.140
Finally, in its 2003 report on parole, the Commission concluded that
the State’s prisons overall are failing to prepare inmates for success
on parole, largely because of the singular focus on punishment,
parole revocation policies that drive overcrowding and failure to
effectively target limited resources.
q Independent Review Panel. The recent report of the Department of
Correction’s Independent Review Panel also concluded that the
current system is not adequately preparing inmates for a successful
return to society, resulting in the State’s high recidivism rate; it
recommended a renewed focus on preparing inmates for release.141
In 1997, Senator Richard Polanco authored legislation to create the
Nonviolent, Nonserious Women Offenders’ Alternative Sentencing
Program to provide for community incarceration of nonviolent female
felons. The bill would have required the court to sentence female
offenders convicted of crimes other than serious, violent felonies to the
Department of Corrections for placement in a community correctional
facility. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated that the State could
save more than $7 million – a 7 percent reduction in prison operating
costs – if the proposal were enacted. At the time, there were about the
same number of female inmates as there are today (10,000) and about
the same percentage (75 percent) were low-level offenders serving
sentences for nonviolent, drug-related or property crimes.142
The
department, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association and
the California State Employees Association opposed the bill and it died in
the Assembly.

Summary
The number of women incarcerated for non-violent low-level offenses has
grown dramatically in the past two decades. California responded to this
growth by building prisons – with little consideration for the type of
offender or even the gender. For more than a decade, experts have
asserted that non-violent female offenders pose little risk to public safety
and could be most effectively held in community-based facilities with
programs that address the underlying issues, such as poverty and
substance abuse, that lead to crime.

47

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
Recommendation 2: A core element of a strategic plan for women should be a
robust system of community correctional facilities focused on preparing women
offenders for success on parole. The State should:
q

Revise classification procedures. The Department of Corrections
should tailor its classification tool to improve its ability to classify
and make housing assignments for women offenders. The tool
should be validated to ensure that it accurately assesses the risks
female offenders pose to public safety and their needs for services to
successfully transition from prison to the community.

q

Develop a continuum of incarceration options. The department
should develop a continuum of facilities for female inmates to costeffectively match inmates with the facility that best achieves the goals
of public protection and successful re-entry.

q

ü

The continuum should include community correctional facilities
to house inmates closer to their communities; halfway back
facilities to support the transition from prison to the community;
and, facilities specifically designed to address the needs of parole
violators who are inappropriate for less restrictive sanctions.

ü

Prisoner mother programs should be fortified and expanded. The
eligibility criteria for the Family Foundations Program should be
revised to make it consistent with other minimum security
placements such as community correctional re-entry centers,
camps and the Community Prisoner Mother Program.
The
department should explore incentives for participation in the
programs, including providing “work credits” equal to those of the
camp program.

Partner with communities. The department should work with
communities to plan, develop and operate facilities based on research
and focused on successful re-entry. It should explore all options for
siting facilities, including expanding existing facilities, utilizing closed
military facilities, closed California Youth Authority facilities and
contracting with sheriff’s departments and others.

q

Operationalize the continuum .

The department should use a
competitive process to develop contracts for community correctional
facilities to deliver the array of services shown to reduce recidivism
among female offenders. Private companies, public agencies or
partnerships among them should be encouraged to bid on the
contracts.
ü

The department should restructure the contracting process to
emphasize quality of services over the lowest cost to contract with
providers with expertise in addressing the needs of women
offenders and link inmates with aftercare upon release.

48

PREPARING FOR SUCCESS
ü

The department should establish performance benchmarks in
contracts with providers and monitor and report return-tocustody rates and other outcome measures.

ü

The department should reward high-quality providers with higher
rates of reimbursement and terminate the contracts of those that
fail to meet specified outcomes.

49

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION

50

A R E-ENTRY M ODEL TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM

A Re-entry Model to Reduce Recidivism
Finding 3: Female offenders are often denied assistance with housing,
employment, substance abuse treatment, and family reunification, and as a result
the public costs and personal tragedies continue to plague families and
communities.
While female parolees face many of the same challenges as their male
counterparts, the nature of their criminal involvement, their ability to
support themselves, and their responsibilities as mothers often make
those challenges even harder to overcome.
Moreover, much of the public assistance that would be available to them
because they are impoverished, the caretakers of young children or the
victims of crime, is denied them once they are convicted of crimes, and
drug crimes, in particular.
The research is convincing that without assistance with basic needs,
most of these parolees will not become self-sufficient, free of drugs and
alcohol and capable of taking care of their children.
The fiscal
consequences of this continued failure are also clear. A year in prison
for a single drug offender costs the state General Fund $31,000.
Parolees who are released unprepared and unassisted carry that burden
into the community – drawing on emergency rooms, police and jail
services, and charity-based efforts to care for the homeless, the hungry,
and the untreated mentally ill.
California can only break this cycle if it changes policies, reallocates
resources and enlists community assets to more effectively intervene in
the lives of the offenders and to prevent the expensive repercussions for
their children.
Some of these barriers are deliberate public policy choices. As part of
“welfare reform” and the “War on Drugs,” policy-makers have sought to
punish drug users or prevent them from misusing benefits. But denied
housing and food assistance, and even drug treatment, female parolees
are more likely to be homeless, addicted, commit a crime or be the victim
of crime – and be re-incarcerated.
The 1996 federal welfare reform law prohibits anyone convicted of a drug
felony after that time from receiving federally funded food stamps or Title

51

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
IV-A welfare assistance. As a result, many women offenders with drug
convictions are ineligible for cash assistance, employment services and
drug treatment through CalWORKs, California’s program to implement
the federal welfare law. Ironically, offenders who were convicted of
serious violent offenses like murder and rape are not denied this
assistance. While states have the option of limiting or even eliminating
the ban, California is one of 17 states that has not passed such
legislation.
Federal policies also permit communities to restrict access to publicly
assisted housing for criminal behavior, including drug crimes. And
longer, mandatory sentences for drug crimes means that many low-level
female offenders with children in foster care are not able to meet new,
stricter reunification time frames.143
These policies – intended primarily for serious, career criminals who
threaten the safety of communities – are significant obstacles to re-entry
for non-violent female offenders, increasing their chances of re-offending.
As described in Finding 2, existing resources could be better used to
prepare female offenders for release and keep them connected to their
children and community. Similarly, by reconsidering policy-erected
barriers to re-entry, making better use of existing resources, and
encouraging communities to assist female parolees, California could
benefit offenders, their families and communities.

Housing Is One of the Largest Barriers
Experts say that access to safe and affordable housing is one of the
greatest challenges facing women when they are released from prison.
Yet in many instances housing is the linchpin to successful re-entry.
Adequate housing affects the ability of parolees to obtain and retain
employment, participate in substance abuse treatment and reunify with
children, particularly those in the child welfare system.
In part, the problem is just one more dimension of the State’s overall
shortage of affordable housing. Parolees compete for affordable housing
with millions of other Californians – and do so with the added challenges
of a criminal record and non-existent or poor credit and tenant histories.
According to researchers, the characteristics common to female parolees
– severed social relations, economic vulnerability, addiction, and abuse –
increase their likelihood of being homeless.144 Criminologist Barbara
Bloom reports that women offenders identify better housing as one of six
vital factors that would help them avoid further criminal involvement.145

52

A R E-ENTRY M ODEL TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM
Some 10 percent of California parolees are homeless when released from
prison.146 In urban areas homelessness among parolees ranges from
30 to 50 percent.147 Homeless women involved in the criminal justice
system are much more likely than their male counterparts to have young
children in their care and to be dependent on public assistance.148
According to the California Research Bureau, one in four inmate mothers
reported living on the street or in a shelter for some or all of the year
before their arrest. Offender mothers were more than twice as likely as
imprisoned fathers to have been homeless.149

Little Assistance from the State
With an increasing focus on punishment, the prison system has
essentially abandoned efforts to ensure that inmates have a plan for
housing prior to release. Most prisoners are released from prison with no
“step down” process to help them make the transition. CDC has three
transitional housing programs available for female parolees. The Female
Offender Treatment and Employment Program (FOTEP) provides
residential treatment for fewer than 1,000 women parolees with
substance abuse problems. Four Residential Multi-Service Centers
provide 228 beds for homeless parolees who stay an average of six
months. In 2003-04 women occupied 10.7 percent of those beds.
Community Correctional Re-entry Centers in 2003-04 provided
transitional housing for about 880 lower level inmates with 120 days or
less remaining on their sentences; women occupied about 13 percent of
the available slots. In 2004 CDC began utilizing these facilities for parole
violators and implemented a drug treatment furlough program for up to
450 non-violent offenders who have participated in prison-based drug
treatment. CDC plans to utilize 150 of these beds for female offenders.

Application of Federal Housing Policies
The Commission surveyed 10 local housing authorities regarding their application of the federal drug
and criminal activity policies. The surveys indicated:
ü

Most give preference to veterans, the elderly, the disabled and individuals already living or
working within the authority’s service area. No agency specifically targeted services to women
parolees or collected data on the number of women parolees they serve.

ü

All indicated that women on parole could participate in their programs provided they otherwise met
eligibility requirements, including the housing authority restrictions on criminal and drug activity.

ü

All conducted some type of criminal background assessment. Some gave criminal background
checks a low priority, doing them when individuals applied for assistance or when the housing
authority perceived a possible threat to public safety or property. Others made criminal record
checks a high priority, requesting criminal records from law enforcement officials when screening
applicants and also doing routine checks for some households already receiving assistance.

When making a determination to deny housing assistance, all said they would consider mitigating
evidence that showed rehabilitation from criminal or substance abuse activity. However, some
housing authorities appeared to have more formal evidence requirements than others for determining
what demonstrated rehabilitation.
53

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
Finally, CDC has some discretionary funds to assist parolees with
housing, but approximately 90 percent of those funds are used to house
paroled sex offenders.150

Sacramento's New Housing Policy
In August 2004, the Sacramento Housing
and Redevelopment Authority adopted a new
policy to increase criminal background
checks on adults living in public housing or
receiving rent subsidy checks.
Currently, all new applicants to public
housing are screened with a criminal
background check. Applicants with a
criminal history are reviewed on a case-bycase basis and depending on the nature of
the crime they may be denied housing.
Beginning in 2005, the agency also plans to
conduct criminal background checks on
tenants in targeted buildings or
neighborhoods where there is criminal
activity. The new policy is meant to identify
tenants who commit new crimes or join a
household after the initial screening.
Evidence of a felony conviction of an adult
household member could result in an
eviction, again, depending upon the nature of
the crime.
The director of the program stated that the
goal was not to get people kicked out of
public housing. The policy provides another
tool that the agency can use to keep
neighborhoods safe, calm and peaceful.
Source: Mark Stephenson, Assistant Director of Housing
Management, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment
Authority. October 28, 2004. Personal communication.

Federal Rules Exclude Many
Women from Public Housing
Federal regulations ban access to federally
funded housing by anyone convicted of
manufacturing or producing methamphetamine
in federally assisted housing or anyone with a
lifetime requirement to register as a sex
offender. This regulation, often called the “one
strike” rule, also gives local housing agencies
broad discretion to bar individuals with a
history of drug or criminal activity from public
housing.151
Advocates for female offenders assert that these
federal housing policies, designed to promote
safe and secure housing environments,
significantly limit the ability of women parolees
to access public housing – making it harder for
them to successfully re-enter society.152
Riverside County, for example, took a “zero
tolerance” approach toward criminal activity
that strictly applies federal rules. The policy
excludes people with drug convictions from
receiving housing assistance.
Applicants,
however, can appeal based on proof that they
have been rehabilitated. Advocates for parolees
argue these types of policies disproportionately

Shelter Plus Care
Shelter Plus Care is a program run by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development which
targets homeless persons who are mentally ill, addicted or physically disabled. This competitive grant
program provides state and local governments and public housing authorities funding for rental
assistance for the hard-to-serve homeless population.
Grant recipients must match the funding with supportive services, such as case management. Rental
assistance is awarded for five or 10 years, depending upon the nature of the assistance requested,
providing a long-term housing solution. Grants can be renewed annually through a non-competitive
process. In December 2003, California cities, counties and public housing authorities were awarded
more than 80 grants totaling over $46 million.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. "Shelter Plus Care Program."
www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/programs/splusc/index.cfm. Web site accessed October 15, 2004.

54

A R E-ENTRY M ODEL TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM
impact women offenders. At the same time, housing authorities say they
grapple with balancing conflicting public goals – the need to protect
housing properties and tenants, and the need to help women offenders
transition back into society.153
Experts point out that while public housing is an important resource, it
would be largely unavailable to parolees even without the federal
restriction because of the limited supply and lengthy waiting lists. For
women to succeed, communities will need to increase the supply of a
range of housing options, including transitional
housing, congregate sober living homes and
“Wrap-around” Service Providers
permanent supportive housing.154
A New Way of Life Foundation. A New
Way of Life Re-entry Project in Southern
Housing Alone Is Not Enough
California provides housing for up to 25
women leaving prison and some of their
Corrections and housing officials and offenders
children. Services include day treatment,
said housing must be part of a comprehensive
counseling, assistance in obtaining and filing
government documents, assistance in
package that includes therapy and other support
obtaining health care and re-unification with
services.
For many women parolees, that
family. Additionally, the program offers
includes a structured setting with strict
referrals to health and mental health
monitoring to ensure they are not victimized by
services, job opportunities, educational
courses and long-term housing solutions.
male criminals. An official with the Oakland
Housing Authority estimates that between 25 and
30 percent of all evictions in Oakland are due to a
male coming into a woman’s household and
engaging in criminal activity.155
In many communities, religious groups, local
agencies and community-based organizations
provide housing or help women to access publicly
assisted housing. These projects generally follow
the model advocated by criminologists for
integrated
or
“wrap-around”
services,
as
described in the box.
Providing housing and improving outcomes for
women offenders and their children will require a
commitment from state leaders, communities and
public and private entities. It will likely require
some new resources and the reallocation of
existing resources. Mostly, it will require the
recognition that having a safe and affordable
place to live is foundational to success on parole
– and that communities benefit when women and
their children are successful. It will require the
recognition that failing to intervene effectively in

55

Cottage Housing, Inc. This non-profit
provides Sacramento’s disabled homeless
with housing and social programs. The
program targets people coming out of
emergency shelters, substance abuse
treatment or domestic violence programs,
including women parolees. It operates two
housing projects, including Quinn Cottages,
and plans to build two more in the next few
years.
Catherine Center. A faith-based effort by
the St. Vincent de Paul Society in San Mateo
and the Sisters of Mercy in Burlingame,
Catherine Center provides transitional
housing and employment assistance for
women after release from prison. The
center houses six women for up to six
months while they complete substance
abuse, education and career development
programs.
MOMS Program. MOMS is a partnership of
the Oakland Housing Authority and the
Alameda Sheriff. Women offenders and their
children live in one of 10 housing units
owned by the housing authority. If they
successfully complete a nine-month re-entry
program the housing authority transitions
them into federally funded public housing.

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
the lives of female parolees and their children will result in higher costs
to the criminal justice, mental health, juvenile justice and child welfare
systems as the cycle of crime and victimization is perpetuated. Finding
adequate resources is an obvious challenge. But given the resources
spent on a poorly performing system, the opportunity is to move dollars
from ineffective to effective programs.

Housing – Potential Resources
Enormous resources are spent on incarceration and parole supervision for non-violent
offenders. Incarceration costs the State $31,000 annually per inmate. Over $1 billion
alone is spent on parolees who are returned to custody. Policy-makers should
reallocate some of these resources to expand housing for women parolees. The State
should tap potential additional federal and private funding sources. And it should
bolster the use of community-based efforts. Initial opportunities are suggested below.

§

Reallocate existing resources: Most female offenders qualify for early release
to a community correctional center for the last 120 days of incarceration and are
appropriate for community-based alternatives to revocation. Experts estimate that
the State could save $151 million by using alternatives to prison for the large
percentage of parole violators charged with drug use and possession, and could
save an additional $300 million annually by reducing the length of revocation
sentences for certain offenders from an average of 140 to 100 days. The State
could reallocate savings generated from these reforms to expand re-entry centers
and transitional and supportive housing options. The State could reallocate parole
resources to reimburse local organizations, and partnerships like the MOMs
program in Alameda County, willing to house and provide services to non-violent
women parolees upon release. Existing resources could be used more efficiently
to provide support services to parolees with disabilities and mental illness if
funneled through the Supportive Housing Initiative Act (SHIA) and county mental
health programs.

§

Identify new resources: The federal Shelter Plus Care program targets the
disabled homeless population, a demographic characteristic of many parolees.
California local governments and public housing authorities received $46 million in
2004 from this program that requires matching case management services. The
State should consider eliminating parole for certain low level offenders and
reallocate savings to local governments to fund case management services and
draw down additional federal Shelter Plus Care funding.
The Governor should request an in-state Policy Academy by the federal
Interagency Council on Homelessness designed to help state and local
policymakers improve access to resources and services for the homeless.
(California is one of only three states that have not taken advantage of this free
assistance.)
The State should identify a permanent, dedicated source of funding for the
California Housing Trust Fund, as recommended by the Commission in its May
2002 report on the State’s affordable housing crises.

§

Optimize community assets: In California, A New Way of Life Re-entry
Project, Catherine Center and Cottage Housing are examples of non-profit
organizations providing housing and assistance for parolees. The State could
save money by providing some funding to these and other non-profit. In Illinois, for
example, the Department of Corrections pays St. Leonard’s Ministries, a local
supportive housing provider, just under what its costs to supervise parolees; St.
Leonard’s then provides housing, social services and a large portion of the
supervision for parolees. (www.reentrypolicy.org)
56

A R E-ENTRY M ODEL TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM

Barriers to Employment for Female Parolees
Research has established a positive link between employment and
reduced criminality. A 1995 meta-analysis of 400 studies from 1950 to
1990 found that the single most effective factor in lower offending rates
was employment.156 One study showed that 89 percent of parolees who
violated parole in New York were also unemployed. 157 A 1997 report by
CDC found that 70 to 90 percent of parolees in California were
unemployed.” 158
Some experts assert that compared to men, women offenders face unique
and possibly greater challenges in obtaining and retaining employment.
Barriers to employment include less education and vocational training,
greater incidents of substance abuse and mental illness, poor
employment and earnings histories, and lack of child care,
transportation and stable housing.
Parolees also face legal barriers to employment. In California, parolees
are barred from working in the professions of law, real estate, medicine,
nursing, physical therapy and education. Some offenders are also barred
from professions that involve computer technology.159 All states bar
former offenders from employment as barbers, beauticians and
nurses.160 There is, however, a process for obtaining waivers from the
restriction on employment in the cosmetology professions.161
Some barriers are easier to resolve. To be employed, parolees need
identification.
But California’s prison system has struggled
unsuccessfully for years to ensure that inmates have identification and
other necessary documents upon release. Correctional officials assert
that the Department of Motor Vehicles will provide identification cards to
inmates as part of a new pre-release program mandated by the
Legislature.

Employers Are Reluctant to Hire Ex-offenders
Many employers are reluctant to hire ex-offenders. Ex-offenders also
have difficulty in meeting employers’ requirements for bonding against
theft. In Hawker v. New York (1968) the court ruled that employers may
refuse bonding to felons. And prospective employers sometimes insist on
bonds from people with criminal records that they do not require of
others. Many bonding companies refuse to underwrite bonds for exprisoners.162
The federal and state governments provide fiscal incentives to employers
who hire ex-offenders, but many potential employers, parole agents and

57

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
parolees are not aware of these programs. The Work Opportunity Tax
Credit Program provides employers with a federal tax credit of up to
$8,500 when they hire an economically disadvantaged ex-felon within
one year of conviction or release from prison.163 The Fidelity Bonding
Program provides bonding services at no cost to employers, employees
and job seekers at Job Service sites and One-Stop Career Centers. It is
funded by the U.S. Department of Labor and administered by the
Employment Development Department (EDD). 164
At the same time, some industries, such as construction, have been
willing to hire ex-offenders – in part because they desperately need
workers. For female parolees, “non-traditional” jobs permit them to earn
living wages not paid in most jobs available to unskilled women
generally.

Workforce Development Programs
California administers 34 different employment programs in 14 state
agencies and departments, but little of that money benefits female
offenders. A report by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
identified over $4.6 billion allocated to state
workforce development programs in 2003. 165 Of
Finding Jobs for the Hard to
that amount, approximately 2 percent was
Employ in Los Angeles County
budgeted for job training programs in CDC and
Chrysalis, a non-profit employment
women parolees benefited from only some of
organization in Los Angeles County, targets
this spending.
the hard to employ, including the homeless,
ex-offenders, recovering addicts, and the
long-term unemployed. In 2003, the
q Workforce Investment Act.
California
organization assisted 2,300 job-seekers at a
receives approximately $450 million annually
cost of $2,600 per job placement. By
through the federal Workforce Investment Act
contrast, $110 million in federal Workforce
(WIA) to help the unemployed and working poor
Investment Act funds were allocated to local
Workforce Investment Boards in California to
become self-sufficient. Youthful offenders ages
assist the general adult population in finding
14 to 21 are a target group for WIA-funded
employment. Nearly 21,000 participants
programs.
entered employment at a cost of $5,300 per
job placement. Additionally, 90 percent of
the funding for the Chrysalis programs are
State government is allocated 15 percent of
from revenues generated from a streetfederal WIA funds (approximately $68 million)
sweeping business and a temporary labor
for
discretionary
purposes
such
as
business run by the organization and by
administration, state employment service
private donations. The remaining 10 percent
programs, or employment-related grants. The
of funding comes from government contracts
and grants.
remaining 85 percent (approximately $388
Source: "Year End Review 2003. Chrysalis.
million annually) is allocated through EDD to
www.changinglives.org. Web site accessed November
local Workforce Investment Boards.
In
5, 2004. California Workforce Investment Board.
"Workforce Investment Act Title I-B – California's Annual
California, $10.6 million, or 15 percent of the
Report." Program Year 2003-04." Pages 43 and 54.
discretionary WIA funding, goes to offender
employment services.166

58

A R E-ENTRY M ODEL TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM
Most local workforce investment boards do not specifically target
their programs to parolees. They assert that “pay-for-performance”
requirements are a disincentive to serve this “hard-to-employ”
population and that they cannot absorb costs that are not
reimbursed when parolees fail.
In 2003-04, local Workforce
Investment Boards served only 1,113 female offenders and these
included any women who are or have been subject to any stage of the
criminal justice process – a group much broader than female
parolees.167
q

ü

The department
administers two programs designed to assist hard to employ
individuals, including:

Employment

Development

Department.

Job Service Program. The program
refers job applicants to employers seeking
to hire. The program operates through
more than 100 field offices throughout the
state.

ü

Funded by the
federal Workforce Investment Act, these
neighborhood-based
service
centers
provide unemployed and working poor
individuals a range of services pertaining
to employment, training and education,
employer assistance, and guidance for
obtaining other assistance. Administered
by local Workforce Investment Boards,
services and programs are designed to
reflect the unique needs of their area.

One-Stop Centers.

CDC uses some WIA funds to contract with
EDD to provide special job services to
parolees. An EDD administrator reported
that while EDD previously provided this
assistance to approximately 40 parole
units, this would be trimmed to about 30
units due to budget reductions.168
q

workforce preparation efforts.
Vocational programs in prison have been
targeted in recent budget cuts and as a
result, only a small percentage of women
offenders have access to those programs.
CDC

59

Project RIO
Project RIO (Reintegration of Offenders) is
jointly operated by the Texas Workforce
Commission and the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice. Parole officers are required
to refer all unemployed, underemployed and
part-time employed parolees to the program at
their initial parole visit. Parolees are required
to contact the program, find a job on their own
or return to prison for violation of their parole.
Project RIO provides placement services to
about 16,000 parolees each year. A 1992
independent evaluation documented that 69
percent of RIO participants found employment,
compared with 36 percent of a matched group
of non-RIO parolees. During the year after
release, 23 percent of high-risk RIO
participants returned to prison, compared with
38 percent of a comparable group of non-RIO
parolees. The study found that the program
was especially beneficial for those rated “high
risk.”
Project RIO also helps inmates leave prison
with official picture identifications, birth
certificates, social security cards, resumes and
other documents that they must have to begin
the search for work immediately upon release.
The project has developed a pool of 12,000
employers that have hired parolees from the
program.
Source: S. Heinrich. "Reducing Recidivism Through
Work: Barriers and Opportunities for Employment of ExOffenders." P. 11-12. Great Cities Institute, University of
Illinois. Chicago.

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
A survey of participants in the Female Offender Treatment and
Employment Program (FOTEP) revealed they were most critical of the
employment assistance component of the program designed to help
substance abusing female parolees transition from prison to the
community.
Similarly, CDC has not developed effective partnerships with
community-based employment assistance providers, like workforce
investment boards, who serve hard-to-employ individuals.
The
Secretary of the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency has recently
acknowledged the failure to do so and vowed to partner with
community agencies statewide to reduce recidivism. In July 2004
representatives of 150 community-based organizations were invited
to meet with department leaders.

Policies Thwart the Goals for Re-entry
Because California has not modified or eliminated the ban on access to
CalWORKs for drug offenders, the large proportion of female parolees
convicted of drug offenses are ineligible for critically needed employment
assistance. The CalWORKs ban does not only restrict drug offenders’
access to cash assistance during the critical time immediately after their
release from prison. It also makes them ineligible for CalWORKs funded
employment services designed to help recipients get and hold jobs –
including case management, child care, transportation assistance and
training.

Community and Faith-based Efforts
A growing number of community and faith-based programs are stepping
in to help parolees become employed. Some of the more promising
programs combine housing assistance, substance abuse treatment,
counseling and other services with employment opportunities, skill
training and job-readiness counseling.
Other programs focus on
providing specialized employment services while collaborating with other
community-based service providers to meet the needs of parolee
participants. Some tap public funding to pay for programs, others do
not. Some examples:
ü

This program
prepares men and women ex-offenders for apprenticeships in the
construction industry. Trainees learn construction skills by building
homes under the supervision of journeymen instructors.
The
program has been in operation for 10 years, has over 500 graduates
and has built more than 90 homes affordable to low-income first-time
buyers.169 Wages after graduation generally range from $10 to

Northern California Construction Training, Inc.

60

A R E-ENTRY M ODEL TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM
$15 per hour and jobs usually provide health benefits. The training
program routinely recruits women trainees and typically half the
recruits are women.
ü

Century Community Training Program. Administered by Century
Housing, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit corporation, the program
offers building trade training for men and women transitioning from
incarceration into the workforce. The program reported that under a
contract with the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, it
trained and placed in employment 685 trainees; more than half
(55 percent) were ex-offenders. Approximately 15 percent of those
placed were women. Most graduates get union jobs. Program
officials estimate that placing ex-offenders in jobs saved $260 million
in corrections-related costs. 170

ü

Delancey Street Foundation. Delancey Street provides a structured
employment, educational and living environment for ex-felons.
Residents live and work together, pooling income generated through
businesses owned and operated by Delancey Street. The foundation
helps parolees develop job skills and provides work opportunities
through its businesses, providing a bridge to long-term employment.
Delancey reports it has moved over 10,000 offenders into productive
lives.
Women comprise about 25 percent of the clients.
Headquartered in San Francisco, Delancey Street also operates in Los
Angeles, New Mexico, North Carolina and New York.

In its 2003 report on parole policies, the Commission concluded that the
State’s failure to use prison time to prepare offenders for release was
jeopardizing public safety and squandering public resources.
It
recommended strategies to hold wardens accountable for developing
programs – including vocational and educational programs – to prepare
inmates for release and incentives for inmates to participate meaningfully
in programs. But after release, the opportunity for leadership shifts to
communities – local governments and non-profit agencies – that are
better suited to coordinate the multiple supports that parolees need to
break free of criminality.

61

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
Employment – Potential Resources
More than $4.6 billion in public funds are allocated to workforce development
programs. Non-profit employment agencies funded primarily by foundations are
successfully helping the homeless and ex-offender populations get jobs at a
fraction of the cost of state and federal programs. Policy-makers should examine
the effectiveness of the billions spent on employment services and consider
reallocating resources to proven community-based programs. Additionally, new
sources of federal funding could be tapped for job training. Initial opportunities to
consider are detailed below.

§

Reallocate existing resources: The State receives $68 million in
discretionary Workforce Investment Act funds, of which $10.6 million is
allocated to offender employment programs. The State could evaluate these
programs to determine their effectiveness in assisting parolees to get and
retain jobs and based on the evaluation, reallocate WIA resources to the
successful programs or to non-profit organizations that successfully assist
parolees in obtaining jobs.

§

Identify new resources: The State could adopt a waiver to the lifetime
federal ban for CalWORKs, similar to the waiver adopted by the Legislature in
2004 for food stamps, to tap into additional federal funds to provide
transportation assistance, child care and employment training to female
parolees so they can find jobs.

§

Optimize community assets: Non-profit organizations such as Delancey
Street, Northern California Training Council, Century Community Training and
others who have proven successful in helping hard-to-serve clients could be
bolstered by state support funded through CDC savings.

The Challenge of Addiction
Substance abuse is a major barrier to success on parole, particularly for
female offenders. Approximately 31 percent of females incarcerated in
California were convicted of a drug-related offense and more than
34 percent of females incarcerated were convicted of a property crime.171
National research indicates substance abuse is the underlying cause of
at least one-third of all property crimes committed by women. One-third
of female parolees returned to custody for a parole violation are charged
with a drug-related offense.
There are significant differences between substance-abusing male and
female offenders that impact treatment outcomes.

§

Women are more likely to have a severe history of substance abuse
and recovery may involve more than one relapse. Women also are
more likely to have a co-occurring mental disorder, which
complicates both the therapy and reduces the chances that effective
publicly funded treatment will be available.

62

A R E-ENTRY M ODEL TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM
§

Treatment for women often must take into
consideration their greater history with
physical and sexual abuse.

§

Because of minimal job experience and
extreme poverty, addiction is often not the
only or even the primary hurdle to selfsufficiency.

§

Female offenders are much more likely to be
the primary caretaker of young children.
Child care responsibilities often impede the
ability of female offenders to successfully
complete aftercare treatment.
Aftercare
treatment facilities often cannot accommodate
children.

§

Drug Offenses Unpacked
Approximately 31 percent of women
incarcerated in California prisons were
convicted of a drug crime. The data below
depicts the percentage of women convicted
of drug crimes by the type of drug offense.
Drug Possession
1,370
44%
Possession for Sale
980
32%
Drug Sales
Drug Manufacturing
Other Drug Offenses

408
192
113

13%
6%
4%

Miscellaneous Other

42

1%

Source: California Department of Corrections. "Prison
Census Data as of December 31, 2003." February
2004. Sacramento.

Treatment may be a foster care system
requirement for reunification with children.

Despite the need for treatment – and addiction-related challenges facing
many female parolees – the State’s policies fall short of assertively and
effectively responding to this need. Substance abuse treatment for
inmates for the most part is voluntary, and is not linked to any concrete
incentive. Similarly, the aftercare component also is voluntary, and is
funded at 50 percent of those participating in treatment while in prison,
even though evaluations show that aftercare is critical to recovery.
Finally, the majority of parolees who violate parole are returned to
prison, rather than less costly alternatives like community-based drug
treatment. However, as described in the Background, many female
parolees with drug-related violations receive treatment as an alternative
to prison or are diverted to treatment through the provisions of
Proposition 36.
In August 2004, the California Legislature modified the federal ban on
access to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds, by
adopting a law that will allow certain low-level non-violent drug offenders
who participate in substance abuse treatment to receive food stamps.
Because the food stamp program is administered through an
electronically tracked debit card, there is little opportunity to convert
food assistance into drugs. In signing the bill into law, Governor
Schwarzenegger wrote:
The challenge of overcoming a drug addiction is substantial and
universally denying food stamp benefits to people with felony drug
convictions has created additional obstacles to independent drug
free living and increases the likelihood of re-offending behavior….
Individuals who do not participate in treatment or were convicted of

63

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
felonies beyond personal use will remain ineligible. As such, this
bill offers an appropriate incentive and reward to individuals who
overcome their addiction. 172
However, parolees convicted of drug offenses still cannot participate in
treatment funded through CalWORKs – California’s version of welfare
reform – or receive other benefits that can assist in recovery, such as
child care. Women offenders are disproportionately impacted because
they are more likely than male offenders to have been convicted of a drug
offense. Because so many of these women are the primary caretakers of
minor children, the laws impact their children as well.

Substance Abuse – Potential Resources
California annually spends $11 billion on the costs and consequences of
substance abuse. The tentacles of substance abuse reach deep into the budgets
of the child welfare, health care, mental health, public safety and criminal justice
systems. Addiction costs the criminal justice system more than $4 billion a year.
Policy-makers should reallocate existing resources to maximize the effectiveness
of drug treatment programs, better utilize federal resources and bolster effective
community-based efforts to treat substance abuse. Initial opportunities are
identified below.

§

Reallocate existing resources: The State could reallocate a portion of
the funding for in-prison substance abuse programs to fully fund aftercare for
those who participate in prison-based programs.

§

Identify new resources: The State could adopt a waiver to the lifetime
federal ban for CalWORKs, similar to the waiver adopted in 2004 for food
stamps, to tap into additional federal funds to assist women in gaining access
to substance abuse treatment.

§

Optimize community assets: A New Way of Life, Catherine Center,
Cottage Housing and other non-profit organizations that provide sober living,
access to treatment and other wrap-around services could be expanded or
replicated to serve more clients. Private foundations could be made aware of
the critical link between female parolee success and improved outcomes for
children, families and communities.

Family Reunification
Incarceration and limited visiting, coupled with post-release challenges
in obtaining housing, employment and treatment, impact the ability of
female offenders to successfully reunify with their children.
Reunification challenges escalate when children are in the child welfare
system, in part because these families need the most complex – and
costly – array of services and because the goals of the criminal court and
dependency court often conflict. It is estimated that 10 percent of
women prisoners have children in foster care.173

64

A R E-ENTRY M ODEL TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM
When asked about the intersection between the
criminal court and dependency court, a Santa
Clara County Superior Court judge with years of
experience with women offenders and their
children said, “when women with children are
arrested and held in custody, their intersection
with the dependency system is a ‘collision,’ not an
intersection.” Drug abusing women offenders are
sentenced to prison during which it is nearly
impossible for them to demonstrate that they are
able to provide for their children, while at the same
time reunification time lines are short and strict.
The judge asserted that there is little doubt that
many children are placed in foster care and group
homes because incarcerated mothers were
“unavailable” to participate in court ordered
reunification services.

Why the Goals Must Change
"If we do nothing, we perpetuate two
systems that are antagonistic to one another,
involved with a parent who is caught in the
middle, without motivation, and given no
incentive, let alone hope. Continued
recidivism on release is the forgone
conclusion."
"If we truly believe in successful offender reentry and family reunification, then we must
take risks and create change. In sum, I have
concluded that children are given a better
chance if they remain with their mothers and
the needed services are provided and
mandated, while the participants are under
continued judicial supervision, and that
mothers will more likely reunify with their
children if we change our goals."
Source: Stephen V. Manley, Judge, Santa Clara County
Superior Court. May 27, 2004. Written testimony to the
Little Hoover Commission.

Santa Clara County has established an effective
program for female drug offenders that provides a
bridge linking the dependency court and the adult
criminal drug court in an effort to prevent a prison sentence that could
eventually lead to termination of parental rights. Officials from both
courts meet weekly to discuss mutual clients and set compatible goals
that include some form of reunification.174

Most experts agree that once a woman is incarcerated, reunification with
children in the foster care system is challenging. The federal 1997
Adoption and Safe Families Act authorizes termination of parental rights
once a child has been in foster care for 15 or more months of a 22-month
period. 175 In California, termination of parental rights can occur once a
child under three has been in foster care for six months or more and
once a child over three has been in foster care 12 months or more.176
The average time served by women in California prisons is 14 months,
perilously close to the federal termination time line and beyond the
California time line.
Once released to parole, a mother who is quickly attempting to reunify
with her children may neglect needed substance abuse treatment, will
incur additional cost burdens and may have limited access to welfare
services if she was convicted of a drug crime. Child care issues can
exacerbate unemployment problems.
Currently, there is no simple way to calculate the cost burden of women
in prison to the foster care system as data from foster care cannot be
matched with criminal justice data, and corrections and law enforcement

65

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
do not keep data on the children of inmates. What is known, is that one
in 10 children whose parents are incarcerated will one day become
incarcerated themselves.177
When mothers are sentenced to prison, their children are sentenced to
instability. The majority are sent to live with relatives or friends or are
placed in foster care. Family reunification becomes challenging, if not
impossible. The costs to society are immense as the cycle of crime and
conviction continues as these children become the next generation of
offenders.

Multiple Needs Require Multiple Interventions
In its 2003 report on the State’s parole policies, the Commission found
that the goals for parole – public safety and successful reintegration – are
undermined by the way the State supervises and assists parolees and
the lack of community involvement in re-entry. The Commission
recommended that communities assume greater
responsibility for parolees and provide the
Community Assets – Mentors
leadership and funding to make those efforts
Many programs and opportunities exist
successful.
within communities that could be utilized to
assist parolees in transitioning back to the
The supervision and services that female
community with minimal costs.
parolees need most are those that the CDC is
Two female offenders testified to the
least equipped to provide. The National Council
Commission that mentoring was key to their
success on parole. One woman had a
on Crime and Delinquency conducted a study to
formal case manager through the Oakland
identify the most “promising” strategies for
MOMs program. She stated that just having
supervising female offenders in the community.
someone to call who really cared was key to
It found the programs that appeared to be most
her success. Another women had
effective
used
reliable,
consistent
and
participated in a formal mentoring program
that paired her with an attorney upon release
coordinated supervision measures to maintain
from prison through Volunteers in Parole,
women offenders in the least restrictive settings,
Inc. The attorney-mentor provided
consistent with public safety.178 In comparison,
assistance in finding social services and
the majority of California’s female parolees see
most importantly, providing the parolee with
their parole agent two times every three months,
someone to call for help.
even in the critical time immediately following
Many community members could fill similar
release.179 The services female parolees need,
roles as mentors for parolees including
retirees, teachers, doctors and government
including housing, employment, drug treatment
workers.
and child welfare are all delivered by local
government and private agencies – not the
State. To be effective for the most needy and
difficult to serve parolees, the services must be integrated and case
managed to address multiple needs and overcome structural barriers –
competencies of local communities, not the State.

66

A R E-ENTRY M ODEL TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM

Summary
Public policies deny many women offenders – particularly drug offenders
– access to public services that can make the difference between success
and failure on parole. The policies impact the ability of these women to
obtain housing, employment, drug treatment and to take care of their
children. And so the costly cycle of crime and victimization continues.
The cycle will only be broken if California reforms policies, reallocates
resources and effectively leverages community assets.

Recommendation 3: The State should develop a community-based re-entry model
to reduce recidivism among women offenders, improve public safety and reduce
public costs. Specifically, the State should:
q

q

The Governor
should establish an interagency council on re-entry to develop a
system of community supervision and re-entry with comprehensive,
integrated services for female offenders.

Establish an interagency council on re-entry.

ü

The council should be co-chaired by the secretary of the Youth
and Adult Correctional Agency and the secretary of the Health
and Human Services Agency. Members should include state and
community representatives from the fields of law enforcement,
education, housing and community development, employment,
alcohol and drug, mental health, child welfare, domestic violence
and victim advocacy programs. Community members, offenders
and their families should be represented.

ü

The council should identify statutory, regulatory and practical
barriers to re-entry and recommend to the Governor and
Legislature ways to overcome them.

ü

The council should identify and recommend to the Governor,
Legislature and communities evidence-based prevention and
intervention strategies for the children of incarcerated parents.

Shift the responsibility for parolee supervision and assistance to
communities, starting with women. The Governor and Legislature
should require communities to assume responsibility for certain
non-violent women parolees as a first step in transferring
responsibility for the majority of non-violent offenders – male and
female – to communities.

ü Communities

should establish multi-agency coordinating
councils and develop local plans for supervising, assisting and

67

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
sanctioning female parolees using a case management approach
and partnerships between the adult criminal courts and
dependency courts.
ü

q

The State should develop agreements with sheriffs or probation
departments, in partnership with community agencies, to provide
the services. The services should be supported by shifting funds
from services now administered by the State.

Provide technical assistance. The Youth and Adult Correctional
Agency should provide assistance in developing, implementing and
evaluating correctional plans.
It should contract for technical
assistance to help communities identify and overcome barriers to
effective interagency partnerships, siting of transitional housing,
development of adequate treatment resources and others.

q

The Department of Corrections should
establish and operate, with the cooperation and participation of its
community partners, a statewide information and evaluation system
to monitor the effectiveness of the community re-entry services.

Measure performance.

68

A R E-ENTRY M ODEL TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM

Knocking Down the Barriers
For the community re-entry model to be effective, the State must take specific actions to reduce
legal and practical barriers to re-entry for female offenders. Specifically, the State should:
q

Immediately enact legislation to eliminate or modify the ban on CalWORKs for certain nonviolent drug felons to improve access to housing, employment and drug treatment services
critical to successful re-entry.

q

To reduce barriers to housing, the State should:

q

q

ü

Require CDC to collect and report to the Legislature and local Public Housing Authorities data
regarding the housing needs of female parolees and their children.

ü

Create tax credit and bonus programs for private builders as incentives to build housing for
female parolees.

ü

Support, in partnership with communities, the development of a range of housing options for
female offenders, including transitional housing, permanent supportive housing and sober living
environments.

ü

Establish partnerships with Public Housing Authorities to:
•

Encourage local public housing authorities to consider evidence of rehabilitation from
criminal or substance abuse activity in their application of federal restrictions and give
preference to female parolees with children.

•

Provide vouchers as incentives for completion of substance abuse treatment and other
programs known to reduce recidivism.

•

Place eligible CDC inmates on public housing lists prior to release.

•

Adapt the Shelter Plus Care program to female parolees.

To reduce barriers to employment, the State should:
ü

Increase the allocation of discretionary Workforce Investment Act funds for offender programs.
(Currently 15 percent of total discretionary funding, or $10.6 million.)

ü

Provide fiscal incentives for local Workforce Investment Boards to serve female parolees.

To reduce barriers to substance abuse recovery, the State should:
ü

Fully fund aftercare treatment for all offenders participating in in-prison drug treatment programs
and make aftercare mandatory. It should expand aftercare options to include day treatment,
sober living with support services and other options based on offender risk and needs
assessments.

ü

Expand drug treatment furlough for women offenders and use furlough as an incentive for
completion of in-prison treatment.

ü

Evaluate the two drug treatment programs for females at the California Rehabilitation Center to
determine whether the full-time program is significantly more effective than the four-hour
program. If it is not, it should be converted to a four-hour program to increase the number of
offenders served.

ü

Assign parole agents to specialized Female Offender Treatment and Employment Program
caseloads to improve consistency and outcomes.

ü

Measure and report Proposition 36 outcomes for female offenders.

69

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION

70

CONCLUSION

Conclusion

C

alifornia spends hundreds of millions of dollars on prison and
parole strategies for women offenders that don’t work. The State
needs to acknowledge the facts about women offenders and
develop a new strategy built on community-centered practices that
research shows could effectively address the underlying causes of crime
and prepare these women to lead law-abiding lives.
The failure of the State to effectively manage women offenders is not a
failure of information or knowledge. Information about what works to
reduce crime, violence and drug abuse is growing and other states – and
some communities in California – are using proven programs to reduce
recidivism and cut correctional costs. But the State has remained
focused, almost singularly, on a policy of punishment and incapacitation
designed for violent male offenders. A decade of research and blue
ribbon reports – including several from this Commission – have reviewed
the evidence and recommended alternatives.
In its 2003 report on parole, the Commission advocated for a correctional
strategy that distinguishes between violent and non-violent offenders and
that emphasizes community-based assistance, supervision and sanctions
for non-violent offenders.
Correctional leaders have acknowledged the failures. But they are
reluctant to yield control over programs to local agencies. Community
leaders, in turn, fear that state leaders will not honor any commitment to
provide the resources along with the responsibilities. Policy-makers –
despite frustration with the failures and concurrence with suggested
reforms – have not pursued this bold next step.
The department has begun to implement some reforms required by the
Legislature. But the changes are intended primarily to cut costs, not
improve outcomes – and in the long run may not do either. Some local
law enforcement leaders assert that the reforms are threatening rather
than improving public safety.
Admittedly, reforming a large bureaucracy as fundamentally
dysfunctional as the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency is hard work.
But a commitment to policies based on the evidence of what works allows

71

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
decisions to be based on facts rather than ideology – and to overcome the
special interest pressures to preserve the status quo.
The costs – in public dollars, individual lives and community well-being –
grow every day the State fails to tackle this problem.
The reforms proposed by the Commission are not radical, are firmly
supported by the research, and have been successfully implemented in
other states. In nearly every example the critical factor in garnering
support for the changes – and in successfully implementing them – was
leadership.
It will be no different in California. Fixing corrections will require the
leadership of the Governor, members of the Legislature and corrections
officials. Reform will require a firm and unwavering commitment to
improved outcomes – reduced crime, violence and drug abuse – and to
make investments based on evidence about what works to achieve those
goals.
Reforming the correctional policies for women offenders would be a good
– and smart – place to start. An initial focus on the much smaller
population of women offenders could pave the way for changes in how
the State responds to all offenders.
A smart investment in women offenders today can pay dividends for
generations to come. A focus on women offenders promises improvement
in the lives of these women, as well as the lives of their children who are
at increased risks for costly involvement in foster care, juvenile
delinquency and adult criminality.
Many of these women, like their children, were victims before they were
criminals.
Tragically, their children are poised to follow in their
footsteps, becoming the next generation of inmates and parolees if state
leaders fail to act. Those are the stakes. Individuals, families and
communities would benefit.
Correctional leaders should move beyond rhetoric with meaningful,
research-based action. The Governor and Legislature should ensure that
they do – and hold them accountable if they do not.

72

APPENDICES & NOTES

Appendices & Notes
ü Public Hearing Witnesses
ü Expert Panel Meeting Participants
ü Notes

73

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION

74

APPENDICES & NOTES

Appendix A
Little Hoover Commission Public Hearing Witnesses
Witnesses Appearing at Little Hoover Commission
Public Hearing on Women & Parole, April 22, 2004
Elizabeth Belzer
Women's Programs Coordinator
Alameda County Sheriff's Office

Jo Ann Gordon
Warden
California Rehabilitation Center

Barbara E. Bloom, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Department of
Criminal Justice Administration
California State University, Sonoma and
Project Director, National Institute of
Corrections, Gender-Responsive Principles
Project

Richard Rimmer
Acting Chief Deputy Director
California Department of Corrections
Field Operations Division

John Dovey
Warden
California Institution for Women

Curtis L. Watson, Undersheriff
Alameda County Sheriff's Office

Casondra Tshimanga,
MOMS Program Alumna

Jeanne S. Woodford, Director
California Department of Corrections

Witnesses Appearing at Little Hoover Commission
Public Hearing on Women & Parole, May27, 2004
Cindy Marie Absey
Victim/Witness Director
San Luis Obispo County
District Attorney's Office

Robin Taylor
Attorney Mentor
Volunteers in Parole, Inc.
Phyllis Gonzalez
Mentee
Volunteers in Parole, Inc.

Susan Burton, Executive Director
A New Way of Life Re-entry Project
Stephen V. Manley, Judge
Santa Clara County Superior Court

Mike Zimmerman
Executive Director
Volunteers in Parole

John Surbeck, Judge
Allen County Superior Court
Fort Wayne, IN

75

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION

76

APPENDICES & NOTES

Appendix B
Expert Panel Meeting Participants
The following people participated in one of the Commission's three expert panel meetings
convened during the Women and Parole study. The meetings focused on three key challenges
in successfully transitioning from prison to the community, including accessing safe and
affordable housing, obtaining and maintaining employment, and addressing substance abuse
issues.

Participants at a Little Hoover Commission
Expert Panel Meeting on Housing on July 20, 2004
Elizabeth Belzer
Women's Programs Specialist
Alameda County Sheriff's Office

Fred Haywood
California Department of Corrections
Parole & Community Services Division

Marguerite Buchanan, Program Director
Catherine Center, Burlingame

Cynthia Hunt
Quinn Cottages

Susan Burton, Executive Director
A New Way of Life Re-entry Project

David Husid
Tim Jones
Oakland Housing Authority

Yvonne Cooks, Community Liaison
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

Cecelia Lakatos Sullivan
Reneca Corbin
A New Way of Life Re-entry Project

Peggy Merical, Program Director
Quinn Cottages

Sharon DeCray, Family Services Manager
Alameda County Housing Authority

Gloria Ramirez, Resident
Quinn Cottages

Matthew Doherty, Program Officer
Corporation for Supportive Housing

Ken Shoenlau
Southern California Sober Living Coalition

Linda Evans, Organizer
All of Us or None
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

Karen Shouldis
Robert Tobin, Executive Director
Cottage Housing

Millicent Gomes
Mental Health Administrator
California Department of Corrections
Parole and Community Services Division

Dyana Wheeler, Resident
Quinn Cottages

Judy Harris, Deputy Parole Administrator
California Department of Corrections
Parole & Community Services Division

Arlene Wilson Grant
Sacramento Region Community Foundation

77

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION

Participants at a Little Hoover Commission
Expert Panel Meeting on Employment on July 21, 2004
Kenneth Allen, Program Manager
HALT/RSAT Program
Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center

Jodi Green
Sacramento Sheriff’s Department
Judy Harris
Deputy Parole Administrator
California Department of Corrections
Parole & Community Services Division

Elizabeth Belzer
Women's Programs Specialist
Alameda County Sheriff's Office
Bill Burke
Employment Development Department
Workforce Development Branch

Marilyn Kalvelage
Assistant Deputy Director
California Department of Corrections
Parole & Community Services Division

Susan Burton, Executive Director
A New Way of Life Re-entry Project

Delores Lyles
Program Manager

Yvonne Cooks, Community Liaison
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

Dr. J. Alfred Smith, Sr.
Training Academy
Allen Temple Baptist Church

Reneca Corbin
A New Way of Life Re-entry Project

Charr Lee Metsker, Chief
Employment & Eligibility Branch
California Department of Social Services

Linda Evans, Organizer
All of Us or None
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

78

APPENDICES & NOTES

Participants at a Little Hoover Commission
Expert Panel Meeting on Substance Abuse on July 21, 2004
Kenneth Allen, Program Manager
HALT/RSAT Program
Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center

Karen Johnson
California Department of Corrections
Office of Substance Abuse Programs

Judy Appel
Deputy Director of Legal Affairs
Drug Policy Alliance

Marilyn Kalvelage
Assistant Deputy Director
California Department of Corrections
Parole & Community Services Division

Elizabeth Belzer
Women's Programs Specialist
Alameda County Sheriff's Office

Toni J. Moore, Director
Alcohol & Drug Programs
Sacramento County Department of Health
& Human Services

Susan Burton, Executive Director
A New Way of Life Re-entry Project

Rod Mullen, President & CEO
Amity Foundation

Yvonne Cooks, Community Liaison
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Reneca Corbin
A New Way of Life Re-entry Project

Joe Ossmann, Parole Agent III
California Department of Corrections
Parole & Community Services Division

Victoria Eberle
California Department of Corrections
Office of Substance Abuse Programs

Denise Sassoon, Program Manager
Providence Place
Mental Health Systems, Inc.

Linda Evans, Organizer
All of Us or None
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

Del Sayles-Owen, Deputy Director
Office of Criminal Justice Collaboration
California Department of Alcohol and Drug
Programs

Jodi Green
Sacramento Sheriff’s Department

Renee Smith LCSW
Director of Criminal Justice Programs
Walden House, Treasure Island

Judy Harris
Deputy Parole Administrator
California Department of Corrections
Parole & Community Services Division

79

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION

80

APPENDICES & NOTES

Notes
1.

California Department of Corrections. February 2004. "Prison Census Data as of
December 31, 2003." Sacramento.

2.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. April 1999. "Prior Abuse
Reported by Inmates and Probationers." Washington D.C.

3.

California Department of Corrections. May 2004. "Rate of Felon Parolees Returned to
California Prisons, CY 2003." Table 2 (Rate is per 100 average daily population.) Also,
California Department of Corrections. "California Prisoners and Parolees 2001." Table
42.

4.

Michael P. Jacobson, Ph.D., Professor, John Jay College of Criminal Justice. New York.
September 18, 2003. Written communication.

5.

Michael P. Jacobson, Ph.D., Professor, John Jay College of Criminal Justice. New York.
January 23, 2003. Written testimony to the Commission.

6.

California Department of Corrections. May 2004. "Historical Trends: 1983-2003."
Table 4. Sacramento.

7.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. August 2000. "Incarcerated
Parents and Their Children." Washington D.C. Also, M. Anne Powell, Clare Nolan and
Jennifer L. Newman. November 2003. "California State Prisoners with Children:
Findings from the 1997 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities."
California Research Bureau. Sacramento

8.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 3.

9.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 6.

10.

California Department of Corrections. October 5, 2004. "Female Parolees by Class,"
and "Male Parolees by Class." Sacramento. On file.

11.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 10.

12.

U.S. Department of Justice , Bureau of Justice Statistics. April 1999. "Prior Abuse
Reported by Inmates and Probationers." Washington D.C.

13.

U.S. Department of Justice , Bureau of Justice Statistics. July 2001. "Mental Health
Treatment in State Prisons." Washington D.C.

14.

U.S. Department of Justice , Bureau of Justice Statistics. See endnote 7. Also, M.
Anne Powell, Clare Nolan and Jennifer L. Newman. See endnote 7.

15.

U.S. Department of Justice , Bureau of Justice Statistics. See endnote 7. Also, M.
Anne Powell, Clare Nolan and Jennifer L. Newman. See endnote 7.

16.

U.S. Department of Justice , Bureau of Justice Statistics. December 1999. "Special
Report: Women Offenders." Washington D.C.

17.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. November 2004. "Prisoners
in 2003." Washington D.C.

18.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 1.

19.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 6. Table 3.

20.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 6. Table 7. Also, California
Department of Corrections. See endnote 1.

21.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 3. Table 3.

81

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
22.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 6. Tables 4 and 5.

23.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 3. Table 3.

24.

Jeremy Travis, Senior Fellow, Urban Institute. Washington D.C. February 27, 2003.
Written testimony to the Commission.

25.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 1.

26.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 1.

27.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 6. Table 4.

28.

Richard A. Berk, et al. February 10, 2003. "A Randomized Experiment Testing Inmate
Classification Systems." Department of Statistics, University of California at Los
Angeles.

29.

California Department of Corrections. "Definitions of Departmental Major Programs."
Included with written communication from Ann Efseaff, Department of Corrections.
August 18, 2004.

30.

California Department of Corrections. "Number of Female Felons by Classification
Score Level as of August 11, 2004." Written communication from Linda Rianda, Chief,
Classification Services Unit, Institutions Division, California Department of Corrections.
August 17, 2004. (Ten percent of the female offenders have no score because they were
awaiting classification.) On file. Also, California Department of Corrections. January
2004. "Average Daily Prison Population by Commitment Type, Facility Type and Level
of Institution, CY 2003." (Male offender data and SHU data.)

31.

California Department of Corrections. February 2004. "Time Served on Prison
Sentence : Felons First Released to Parole by Offense, Calendar Year 2003." Tables 2
and 3. Sacramento.

32.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 1.

33.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 31. Table 2.

34.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 10.

35.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 10.

36.

Legislative Analyst's Office. February 2000. Analysis of the 2000-01 Budget Bill.
Sacramento.

37.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 3. Table 3. Also, California
Department of Corrections. February 2004. "Characteristics of Felon New Admissions
and Parole Violators Returned With a New Term." Table 2. Sacramento.

38.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. See endnote 17.

39.

Jeremy Travis. See endnote 24.

40.

M. Anne Powell, Clare Nolan and Jennifer L. Newman. See endnote 7. As compared to,
United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. See endnote 16.

41.

Barbara Bloom, Ph.D., Barbara Owen, Ph.D. and Stephanie Covington, Ph.D. July
2003. "Gender-Responsive Strategies – Research, Practice, and Guiding Principles for
Women Offenders." National Institute of Corrections. Washington D.C. Also, United
States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. See endnotes 13 and 16.

42.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. See endnote 2.

43.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. See endnote 16.

82

APPENDICES & NOTES
44.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. See endnote 16. Also, M.
Anne Powell, Clare Nolan and Jennifer L. Newman. See endnote 7.

45.

M. Anne Powell, Clare Nolan and Jennifer L. Newman. See endnote 7.

46.

Barbara Bloom, Ph.D., Barbara Owen, Ph.D. and Stephanie Covington, Ph.D. See
endnote 41.

47.

Katherine Gabel and Denise Johnston. 1995. "Children of Incarcerated Parents." Page
294. Table 19.1.

48.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. See endnote 16.

49.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. See endnote 13.

50.

Barbara Bloom, Ph.D., Barbara Owen, Ph.D. and Stephanie Covington, Ph.D. See
endnote 41. Also, United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
See endnote 16.

51.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. See endnote 2.

52.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. See endnote 16.

53.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. See endnote 7.

54.

M. Anne Powell, Clare Nolan and Jennifer L. Newman. See endnote 7.

55.

Jeremy Travis and Michelle Waul. 2003. "Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of
Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families and Communities." Urban Institute.
Washington D.C.

56.

Katherine Gabel and Denise Johnston, M.D. See endnote 47. Page 80.

57.

Lieutenant Timothy Shirlock, California Rehabilitation Center. October 26, 2004.
Written communication. Also, Patti Paulat, Administrative Assistant to Warden Dawn
Davison, California Institution for Women. November 4, 2004. Written
communication. Also, Javier Cavazos, Public Information Officer, Valley State Prison
for Women. November 4, 2004. Written communication. Also, Kevin Costecky, Public
Information Officer, Central California Women's Facility. November 9, 2004. Written
communication. All on file.

58.

California Institute for Women. July 7, 2004. Site visit. Also, Richard Rimmer, Chief
Deputy Director, Field Operations, California Department of Corrections. Written
communication. April 9, 2004. On file. Also, Javier Cavazos and Kevin Costecky. See
endnote 57.

59.

California Department of Corrections. October 4, 2004. "Monthly Report of Population
as of Midnight September 30, 2004."

60.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 59. Also, Patti Paulat. See endnote
57. Also, site visit July 7, 2004. Also, for data for classification chart, see endnote 29.
Also, Department of Corrections Web site,
http://www.corr.ca.gov/InstitutionsDiv/INSTDIV/facilities/default.asp, Site accessed
September 29, 2004.

61.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 59. Also, Lieutenant Timothy
Shirlock. See endnote 57. Also, site visit July 7, 2004. Also, for data for classification
chart, see endnote 29. Also, Department of Corrections Web site,
http://www.corr.ca.gov/InstitutionsDiv/INSTDIV/facilities/default.asp, Accessed
September 29, 2004.

62.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 59. Also, Kevin Costecky. See
endnote 57. Also, for data for classification chart, see endnote 29. Also,

83

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
http://www.corr.ca.gov/InstitutionsDiv/INSTDIV/facilities/default.asp. Web site
accessed September 29, 2004.
63.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 59. Also, Javier Cavazos. See
endnote 57. Also, for data for classification chart, see endnote 29. Also,
http://www.corr.ca.gov/InstitutionsDiv/INSTDIV/facilities/default.asp. Web site
accessed September 29, 2004.

64.

California Department of Corrections. Third Quarter 2004. "Facts and Figures."
http://www.corr.ca.gov/CommunicationsOffice/facts_figures.asp. Web site accessed
August 31, 2004.

65.

Leo Chesney Community Correctional Facility. July 22, 2004. . Site visit. Also, written
documents provided to the Commission during the site visit.

66.

Sean McCray, Correctional Counselor II (Specialist), Women and Children’s Service
Unit, California Department of Corrections. April 7, 2004. Personal communication.
Also, California Department of Corrections, Office of Substance Abuse Programs.
July 13, 2004. Written communication. On file.

67.

California Department of Corrections. "Annual Report to the Governor and Legislature
– Pregnant and Parenting Women's Alternative Sentencing Program Act." January 1,
2004. Also, California Department of Corrections, Office of Substance Abuse Programs.
See endnote 56.

68.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 56.

69.

Millicent Gomes, Parole & Community Services Division, California Department of
Corrections. July 9, 2004. Written communication. On file. Also, Sheldon Zhang,
Ph.D., Principal Investigator, California State University at San Marcos. "An Evaluation
of the California Preventing Parolee Crime Program." December 2003.

70.

Millicent Gomes. See endnote 69. Also Sheldon Zhang. See endnote 69.

71.

Millicent Gomes. See endnote 69. Also Sheldon Zhang. See endnote 69.

72.

Millicent Gomes. See endnote 69. Also Sheldon Zhang. See endnote 69.

73.

California Department of Corrections, Parole and Community Services Division.
"Community Correctional Reentry Centers/Halfway Back Centers, Briefing Document."
May 19, 2004. Fred Haywood, Parole Administrator, Department of Corrections.
August 19, 2004. Personal communication.

74.

Millicent Gomes, Parole & Community Services Division, California Department of
Corrections. July 9, 2004. Written communication.

75.

Millicent Gomes, Parole & Community Services Division, California Department of
Corrections. July 9, 2004. Written communication. (An additional 4 percent of those
served by the program are transgender.)

76.

Millicent Gomes, Parole & Community Services Division, California Department of
Corrections. November 18, 2004. Written communication.

77.

California Department of Corrections, Office of Substance Abuse Programs. See
endnote 66.

78.

California Department of Corrections, Office of Substance Abuse Programs. See
endnote 66. Also, Jim L'Etoile, Assistant Director, Department of Corrections, Office of
Substance Abuse. October 10, 2003 and October 15, 2003. Written communication on
the total number of SASCA clients served in 2002-03: 10, 371.

79.

California Department of Corrections, Office of Substance Abuse Programs. See
endnote 66. Sheldon Zhang. See endnote 69.

84

APPENDICES & NOTES
80.

Drug Policy Alliance. May 1, 2002. "Early Reports Indicate Proposition 36 is Working
as Intended."

81.

California Department of Alcohol & Drug Programs. December 2003. "Substance Abuse
and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 – Second Annual Report to the Legislature."
Sacramento.

82.

Douglas Longshore, Ph.D., et al. Integrated Substance Abuse Program, University of
California, Los Angeles. September 23, 2004. "Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and
Crime Prevention Act, 2003 Report."

83.

Joe Ossmann, Parole Agent III, California Department of Corrections, Parole and
Community Services Division. July 20, 2004. Written communication.

84.

California Department of Corrections, Office of Substance Abuse Programs. See
endnote 66. Also, Christine E. Grella, Ph.D., Drug Abuse Research Center/Integrated
Substance Abuse Programs Neuropsychiatric Institute, University of California, Los
Angeles. August 2003. "Female Offender Treatment and Employment Program:
Annual Evaluation Report."

85.

Christine E. Grella. See endnote 84.

86.

Sheldon Zhang. See endnote 69.

87.

Sheldon Zhang. See endnote 69.

88.

Sheldon Zhang. See endnote 69.

89.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 3.

90.

Barbara Bloom, Ph.D., Barbara Owen, Ph.D. and Stephanie Covington, Ph.D. See
endnote 41.

91.

Kerry Kazura. 2001. "Family Programming for Incarcerated Parents: A News
Assessment Among Inmates." Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. Vol. 32 (4).
Pages 67-83.

92.

Barbara Bloom, Ph.D., Barbara Owen, Ph.D. and Stephanie Covington, Ph.D. See
endnote 41. Page 1.

93.

Barbara Bloom, Ph.D., Barbara Owen, Ph.D. and Stephanie Covington, Ph.D. See
endnote 41. Page 1.

94.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 6.

95.

Barbara Bloom, Ph.D., Barbara Owen, Ph.D. and Stephanie Covington, Ph.D. See
endnote 41. Page 1.

96.

Barbara Bloom, Ph.D., Barbara Owen, Ph.D. and Stephanie Covington, Ph.D. See
endnote 41. Page 90.

97.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 6. Table 4.

98.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 10.

99.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 10.

100.

U.S. Department of Justice , Bureau of Justice Statistics. See endnote 2.

101.

U.S. Department of Justice , Bureau of Justice Statistics. See endnote 13.

102.

U.S. Department of Justice , Bureau of Justice Statistics. See endnote 7. Also, M.
Anne Powell. See endnote 7.

103.

U.S. Department of Justice , Bureau of Justice Statistics. See endnote 7. Also, M.
Anne Powell. See endnote 7.

85

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
104.

U.S. Department of Justice , Bureau of Justice Statistics. See endnote 16.

105.

Barbara Bloom, Ph.D., Barbara Owen, Ph.D. and Stephanie Covington, Ph.D. See
endnote 41. Page 57.

106.

Barbara Bloom, Ph.D., Barbara Owen, Ph.D. and Stephanie Covington, Ph.D. See
endnote 41. Page 7.

107.

Barbara Bloom, Ph.D., Barbara Owen, Ph.D. and Stephanie Covington, Ph.D. See
endnote 41.

108.

Barbara Bloom, Ph.D., Barbara Owen, Ph.D. and Stephanie Covington, Ph.D. See
endnote 41. Page 7.

109.

Rod Hickman, Secretary, Youth and Adult Correctional Agency. July 12, 2004.
Remarks at Future Focused Leadership: A Call to Action, Richard A. McGee Correctional
Training Center, Galt, California.

110.

Jo Ann Gordon, Warden, California Rehabilitation Center. September 20, 2004.
Personal communication.

111.

Jeanne S. Woodford, Director, California Department of Corrections. April 22, 2004.
Testimony to the Little Hoover Commission.

112.

Florida Department of Corrections. July 1999. Operational Plan for Female Offenders.
Tallahassee, Florida. Web site accessed November 23, 2004.
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/females/opplan/intro.html.

113.

Florida Department of Corrections. July 1999. Operational Plan for Female Offenders.
Tallahassee, Florida. Web site accessed November 23, 2004.
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/females/opplan/index.html.
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/females/opplan/intro.html.

114.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
October 1998. "Juvenile Female Offenders – A Status of the States Report."
Washington D.C. Web site accessed November 23, 2004.
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gender/state-mn.html.

115.

Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. December 2003. “Bringing Evidence-Driven
Progress To Crime and Substance-Abuse Policy: A Recommended Federal Strategy." A
Project Sponsored by the Council for Excellence in Government. 'Washington D.C.

116.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 6. Table 3.

117.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 6. Table 3.

118.

Barbara Bloom, Ph.D., Barbara Owen, Ph.D. and Stephanie Covington, Ph.D. See
endnote 41. Page 7.

119.

Barbara Bloom, Ph.D., Barbara Owen, Ph.D. and Stephanie Covington, Ph.D. See
endnote 41.

120.

Jeremy Travis and Michelle Waul. See endnote 55.

121.

Dawn Davison, Warden, California Institution for Women, Little Hoover Commission
July 7, 2004. Site visit.

122.

Lieutenant Timothy Shirlock, California Rehabilitation Center. October 18, 2004.
Personal communication. (In large prisons four visitation days were reduced to two, in
smaller prisons, three visitation days were reduced to two.)

123.

Jo Ann Gordon, Warden, California Rehabilitation Center, Little Hoover Commission
July 7, 2004. Site visit.

86

APPENDICES & NOTES
124.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 59.

125.

Corrections Independent Review Panel. June 30, 2004. "Reforming Corrections." Final
Report. Sacramento. Web site accessed November 23, 2004.
http://www.report.cpr.ca.gov/indrpt/corr/index.htm.

126.

Barbara E. Bloom, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Justice
Administration, California State University, Sonoma; Project Director, National
Institute of Corrections, Gender-Responsive Principles Project. April 22, 2004. Written
testimony to the Little Hoover Commission.

127.

Lieutenant Timothy Shirlock , Patti Paulat, Javier Cavazos and Kevin Costecky. See
endnote 57. Jeanne S. Woodford. April 15, 2004. "Significant Issue Report"
Submitted by Roderick Q. Hickman, Agency Secretary, Youth and Adult Correctional
Agency to Marybel Batjer, Cabinet Secretary. Page 4. (54 to 1 ratio)

128.

Barbara Bloom, Ph.D., Barbara Owen, Ph.D. and Stephanie Covington, Ph.D. See
endnote 41. Citing U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for
Substance Abuse Treatment. 1997. "Substance Abuse Treatment for Incarcerated
Offenders: Guide to Promising Practices." Rockville, MD.

129.

Renee L. Hansen, Manager, Legislative Liaison Office, Department of Corrections.
October 3, 2003 and October 15, 2003. Written communication. Also, California
Department of Corrections. See endnote 73.

130.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 73.

131.

David L. Robinson, Chief, Women and Children's Services Unit, Office of Substance
Abuse Programs, California Department of Corrections. August 18, 2004. Commission
site visit.

132.

Sean McCray. See endnote 66.

133.

Sean McCray. See endnote 66.

134.

California Penal Code Section 6250-6259.

135.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 73.

136.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 73.

137.

Barbara Owen, California State University, Fresno. Barbara Bloom, University of
California, Riverside. "Profiling Women Prisoners: Findings from National Surveys and
a California Sample." The Prison Journal, June 1995.

138.

California Senate Concurrent Resolution 33 Commission on Female Inmate and Parolee
Issues. June 1994. "Final Report." Sacramento.

139.

Blue Ribbon Commission on Inmate Population Management. January 1990. "Final
Report." Sacramento.

140.

Little Hoover Commission. January 1998. "Beyond Bars: Correctional Reforms to
Lower Prison Costs and Reduce Crime." Also, Little Hoover Commission. January 1994.
"Putting Violence Behind Bars: Redefining the Role of California's Prisons."

141.

Corrections Independent Review Panel. See endnote 125.

142.

California Senate Bill 818, February 26, 1997. Amended in Assembly September 3,
1997.

143.

Jeremy Travis and Michelle Waul. See endnote 55. Page 25.

144.

Barbara Bloom, Ph.D., Barbara Owen, Ph.D. and Stephanie Covington, Ph.D. See
endnote 41. Page 53.

87

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
145.

Barbara Bloom, Ph.D., Barbara Owen, Ph.D. and Stephanie Covington, Ph.D. See
endnote 41. Page 86.

146.

Little Hoover Commission. January 1998. "Beyond Bars: Correctional Reforms to
Lower Prison Costs and Reduce Crime." Page 69. Also, California Department of
Corrections. April 1997. "Preventing Parolee Failure Program, An Evaluation."

147.

Joan Petersilia. 2003. "When Prisoners Come Home." Page 121. Oxford University
Press. New York.

148.

Barbara Bloom, Ph.D., Barbara Owen, Ph.D. and Stephanie Covington, Ph.D. See
endnote 41. Page 54.

149.

M. Anne Powell, Clare Nolan and Jennifer L. Newman. See endnote 7. Page 18.

150.

Fred Haywood, Parole Administrator, California Department of Corrections, Little
Hoover Commission Expert Panel on Housing, July 20, 2004. Sacramento.

151.

Rachel M. Haberkern. March 2003. "Issue Notes: Helping Parents With Criminal
Records Find Employment and Achieve Self-Sufficiency." Welfare Information Network.
Washington D.C.

152.

Barbara Bloom, Ph.D., Barbara Owen, Ph.D. and Stephanie Covington, Ph.D. See
endnote 41. Page 63.

153.

Sharon DeCray, Family Services Manager, Alameda County Housing Authority. July 20,
2004. Little Hoover Commission Expert Panel on Housing. Sacramento.

154.

Panel participants. July 20, 2004. Little Hoover Commission Expert Panel on Housing.
Sacramento.

155.

Tim Jones, Oakland Housing Authority. July 20, 2004. Little Hoover Commission
Expert Panel on Housing. Sacramento.

156.

Joan Petersilia, See endnote 147. Page 112.

157.

Debbie A. Mukamal. January-February 2000. "Confronting the Employment Barriers
of Criminal Records: Effective Legal and Practical Strategies. Journal of Poverty Law
and Policy. Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law. Chicago.

158.

E. A. Hall, D.M. Baldwin and M.L. Prendergast. 2001. "Women on Parole: Barriers to
Success after Substance Abuse Treatment." Human Organization. 60 (3). Page 226.

159.

Marilyn Kavelage, Assistant Deputy Director, Parole & Community Services Division,
California Department of Corrections. July 21, 2004. Little Hoover Commission Expert
Panel on Employment. Sacramento.

160.

Joan Petersilia. See endnote 147. Page 113.

161.

Yvonne Cook, Community Liaison, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children.
July 21, 2004. Little Hoover Commission Expert Panel on Employment. Sacramento.

162.

Joan Petersilia. See endnote 147. Page 114.

163.

California Employment Development Department. "Work Opportunity Tax Credit and
Welfare to Work Tax Credit." Sacramento. Web site accessed November 23, 2004.
www.edd.ca.gov/wotcjstx.htm.

164.

California Employment Development Department. September 2003. "EDD Fidelity
Bonding Program." Fact Sheet DE 8714FF, Revision 11. Sacramento.

165.

Todd Feinberg, Assistant Director, Governor's Office of the Advocate for Small Business.
October 8, 2003. "White Paper: California’s Workforce Development System." Governor’s
Office of Planning and Research. Sacramento.

88

APPENDICES & NOTES
166.

Dennis Petrie, Deputy Director, Workforce Development Branch, California Employment
Development Department. July 13, 2004. Written communication. On file.

167.

Bill Burke, Workforce Development Branch, Employment Development Department.
"Workforce Investment Act Services to Individuals With Previous Involvement With the
Criminal Justice System Based on State Fiscal Year 2003-04 Data." Written
communication. On file.

168.

Bill Burke, Workforce Development Branch, Employment Development Department.
July 21, 2004. Little Hoover Commission Expert Panel on Employment. Sacramento.

169.

Northern California Construction Training, Inc. Informational brochure. On file.

170.

Century Housing. Century Community Training Program. Web site accessed
June 10, 2004, www.centuryhousing.org/job_training.htm.

171.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 6. Table 3.

172.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. September 30, 2004. Press Release. Legislative
Update. AB 1796 (Leno) Signing Message.
http://www.governor.ca.gov/govsite/pdf/press_release/AB_1796_sign.pdf. Web site
accessed October 22, 2004.

173.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. See endnote 7.

174.

Stephen V. Manley, Judge, Santa Clara County Superior Court. May 27, 2004. Written
testimony to the Commission.

175.

Jeremy Travis and Michelle Waul. See endnote 55. Page 25.

176.

California Welfare & Institutions Code Section 361.5

177.

Kerry Kazura. See endnote 91.

178.

James Austin, Ph.D., Barbara Bloom, Ph.D. and Trish Donahue. September 1992.
“Female Offenders in the Community: An Analysis of Innovative Strategies and
Programs.” National Council on Crime and Delinquency. San Francisco, CA.

179.

California Department of Corrections. See endnote 10.

89

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION

90