S TATE OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFOR NIA DEPA RTM ENT OF COR R ECTIONS AND
R EHAB ILITATION
ADULT PROGRAMS

An n u a l Re p o rt

Division of Addiction and Recovery Services
June 2009

MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the Division of Addiction and Recovery Services (DARS)
is to provide evidence-based substance use disorder treatment services
to California’s inmates and parolees.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION
ADULT PROGRAMS
DIVISION OF ADDICTION AND RECOVERY SERVICES

MATTHEW L. CATE
SECRETARY

KATHRYN P. JETT
UNDERSECRETARY, ADULT PROGRAMS
C. ELIZABETH SIGGINS
CHIEF DEPUTY SECRETARY (Acting), ADULT PROGRAMS

THOMAS F. POWERS
DIRECTOR
DIVISION OF ADDICTION AND RECOVERY SERVICES

SHERRI L. GAUGER
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DIVISION OF ADDICTION AND RECOVERY SERVICES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This report was prepared by the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitations’ (CDCR) Division of Addiction and Recovery Services’ (DARS) Data
Analysis and Evaluation Unit (DAEU) with assistance from Steven Chapman, Ph.D.,
Assistant Secretary, Office of Research. It provides an initial summary of performance
indicators, demographics and background information on the DARS Substance Abuse
Treatment Programs. The information presented in this report is designed to assist the
treatment programs and institutional staff in assessing progress, identifying barriers and
weaknesses to effective programming, and analyzing trends, while establishing baseline
points to measure outcomes. Under the direction of Bill Whitney, Staff Services
Manager II; Gerald Martin, Staff Services Manager I; Sheeva Sabati, Research Analyst
II; Ruben Mejia, Research Program Specialist; Krista Christian, Research Program
Specialist, conducted extensive research and analysis for this report. Peggy Bengs,
Information Officer II and Norma Pate, Special Assistant to the Deputy Director, DARS
provided editorial contributions.

NOTE: In 2007, DARS designed the Offender Substance Abuse Treatment Database to monitor and
evaluate programs. Information is collected on offender participants receiving treatment services and
matched with data from the CDCR Offender Information Services Branch (OISB) and the Distributed Data
Program System on a monthly basis. The Return-to-Prison information in this report is based on offenders
who paroled in Fiscal Year 2005-06, the most recent year that provides DARS a complete cohort to
compare one and two-year return-to-prison rates. Available program performance data for program years
2006-09 is also used in this report.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

i

INTRODUCTION

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4

HISTORY, DIVISION OF ADDICTION AND RECOVERY SERVICES (DARS)

15

OVERVIEW OF ADULT PROGRAMS,
DARS SERVICES AND PROGRAM LOCATIONS

20

PROGRAMS
I. In-Prison Programs
II. Continuing Care Programs
Voluntary
Mandatory
III. DARS Offender Demographics – Clients Served

29
38
39
42
45

RETURN-TO-PRISON ANALYSIS

50

PLANNED INITIATIVES FOR CONTINUED IMPROVEMENT

56

APPENDICES
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

California Logic Model
Success Stories and News Articles
Substance Abuse Programs Slot Authorization by Fiscal Year
Data Tables
Definitions And Explanation Of Calculations

ii

60
61
79
81
100

INTRODUCTION
National Perspective
In the past 30 years there have been significant increases in the number of individuals
incarcerated in federal and state prisons or placed under other forms of criminal justice
supervision. In 2007, more than 7.3 million people were on probation, in jail or prison,
or on parole at year end -- 3.2 percent of all United States (U.S.) adult residents or one
(1) in every 31 adults, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS). There were more than 1.6 million state and federal prisoners at
midyear 2008: 1.4 million in state jurisdiction and more than 201,142 in federal
jurisdiction.
Alcohol and drug abuse is a major contributor to incarceration. A majority (56 percent)
of state inmates in 2004 used drugs in the month before the offense, while a third
(32 percent) committed their current offense under the influence of drugs, according to
BJS’s most recent publication “Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional
Facilities,” released in October 2006. Nearly half of violent offenders in state prison
(47 percent) had recent drug dependence or abuse; more than a quarter (28 percent)
committed their current offense while under the influence of drugs; and ten percent
committed their crime to obtain money for drugs.

California Perspective
Consistent with these disturbing trends, substance abuse is a major contributor to
incarceration in California.
Since 1983, the percentage of inmates committed
specifically for a substance abuse or driving under the influence (DUI) offense has more
than tripled. In 2008, 28.4 percent of the total California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) commitments were for a substance abuse offense. In 1983, 8.1
percent of commitments were for substance abuse offenses.
In 2008, DUI
commitments were 8.2 percent; in 1983 1.4 percent of commitments were for DUI.
Upon release from prison, parolees with untreated substance abuse problems often
commit new crimes and are returned to custody – re-victimizing California communities
and contributing to the State’s high recidivism rate.
CDCR began providing drug treatment services to civil addicts in 1961 and adopted the
Therapeutic Community as a primary treatment model in 1989. The Department’s
recent efforts to increase offender access to effective in-prison and community-based
(also referred to as “continuing care” or “aftercare”) substance abuse treatment
programs, along with other rehabilitative programming, may be helping to reduce
recidivism. In the first six months of 2008, according to BJS, 16 states, including
California, reported decreases in their prison populations.
On January 1, 2009, the prison population in California totaled 170,973 inmates, with
159,581 male inmates and 11,392 female inmates. The parole population totaled
125,097, with 111,399 male parolees and 13,698 female parolees. Of the total
1

population of 296,070 inmates and parolees, 91.5 percent were male offenders and 8.5
percent were female offenders. The median age of offenders was 37. The average
prison term for a new felon admission in 2008 was 49.4 months. The average time
served for male parole violations on a return-to-prison was 3.9 months and for female
parole violations, 3.5 months.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, CDCR Secretary Matthew Cate, the California
Legislature, CDCR executives and national experts have been strong leaders in
supporting California’s efforts to improve public safety by reducing the rates at which
inmates re-victimize communities and return to prison. Implementing change in such a
large organization as CDCR is a major undertaking. Progress has been made and
continues to be made with the support of CDCR staff, partnering agencies, local
communities, law enforcement and the courts.

Current CDCR Approach
The Division of Addiction and Recovery Services (DARS) was established to address
the issue of substance abuse and to reduce the incidence of relapse and recidivism.
Implementing successful evidence-based substance use disorder treatment for
offenders to reduce recidivism requires alignment with the California Logic Model (See
Appendix A page 59) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Principles. The
NIDA Principles for Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations include the
following:

•

Drug addiction is a chronic relapsing brain disease that affects behavior.

•

Recovery from drug addiction requires effective gender specific treatment,
followed by continued care.

•

The duration of treatment should be sufficiently long to produce stable behavioral
changes.

•

Assessment is the first step in treatment and tailoring services to fit the needs of
the individual offender is an important part of effective drug abuse treatment for
criminal justice populations.

•

Drug use during treatment should be carefully monitored and the treatment
should target factors associated with criminal behavior. Criminal justice
supervision should incorporate treatment planning for drug abuse offenders, and
treatment providers should be aware of correctional supervision requirements.

•

Continuity of care is essential for drug abusers re-entering the community. A
balance of rewards and sanctions encourages pro-social behavior and treatment
participation. Offenders with co-occurring drug abuse and mental health
problems often require an integrated treatment approach.

2

Reporting Period
This Annual Report reviews efforts of Adult Programs, DARS to improve the efficacy of
California’s in-prison and community-based substance abuse treatment programs for
offenders. This report provides in-prison and community-based substance abuse
treatment program outcome information, participant demographics, and return-to-prison
rate analysis. The Return-to-Prison information in this report is based on offenders who
paroled in Fiscal Year 2005-06, the most recent year that provides DARS a complete
cohort to compare one and two-year return-to-prison rates. Available program
performance data for program years 2006-09 is also used in this report.
Note on the Timing of this Report
It should be noted that by the time this report is released, the State’s Fiscal Crisis will
likely have required CDCR to reduce the services described in this report as well as
reduce and reorganize our Adult Programs operations. Nevertheless, CDCR is very
proud of these accomplishments and wanted to show them in this report. Lessons
learned from this report will assist CDCR in developing strategies to reduce cost and
maximize our ability to reduce recidivism without compromising treatment integrity.

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
“Substance abuse has a negative effect on families and drives incarceration; however, research
has shown that investing in substance abuse treatment has a real cost benefit to the public.”
- Matthew Cate, Secretary, CDCR.

Background
Substance abuse is a major contributor to incarceration in California. Since 1983, the
percentage of inmates committed specifically for a substance abuse or driving under the
influence offense has more than tripled. In 2008, 28.4 percent of California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) commitments were for a substance abuse
offense, up from 8.1 percent in 1983; 8.2 percent were for driving under the influence,
up from 1.4 percent in 1983.
Effective substance abuse treatment is critical to California’s efforts to reduce the
number of inmates who return to a life of crime. The Division of Addiction and Recovery
Services (DARS) administers inmate offender substance abuse programs for men and
women in prisons, reception centers, community correctional facilities, fire camps and
community-based substance abuse treatment programs (also referred to as “continuing
care” or “aftercare”).

Adding the “R” to CDC
On July 1, 2005, the California Department of Corrections adopted a new name and
became the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, underscoring the
increased priority of inmate rehabilitative programs, including substance abuse
treatment and recovery. The Department’s organizational structure was also modified
to improve the effectiveness of service delivery to inmates and accountability to the
public. The nexus between effective rehabilitation programs and public safety was also
realized.
In March 2007, the Office of Substance Abuse Programs (OSAP) was renamed the
Division of Addiction and Recovery Services (DARS) and elevated in CDCR from an
Office to a Division. This organizational change was made in response to a CDCR
Office of the Inspector General (OIG) recommendation to review the placement of the
office to ensure that the organizational level was consistent with the scrutiny and
attention needed to effectively manage and oversee the Department’s substance abuse
treatment programs.
Two significant events occurred between May and September 2007. In May 2007,
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed landmark legislation, the Public Safety and
Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007 (AB 900). This statute fundamentally
changes California’s correctional system by focusing on rehabilitative programming for
offenders as a direct way to improve public safety upon return of inmates to their
communities. In September 2007, the Undersecretary of Adult Programs was
4

appointed, overseeing DARS, Education and Vocation; Community Partnerships;
Correctional Health Care Services; Victim & Survivor Rights and Services; and Prison
Industry Authority.

AB 900 and other Adult Program Reforms
Assembly Bill (AB) 900 is a major effort to reform California’s prison system by reducing
prison overcrowding and increasing rehabilitative programming. DARS has
responsibility for two of thirteen benchmarks established by AB 900 that must be met
prior to the release of funds for construction projects outlined in the bill. They are: 1) At
least 2,000 substance abuse treatment slots have been established with aftercare in the
community. (The bill requires a total of 4,000 new in-prison substance abuse treatment
slots with aftercare in the community overall), and 2) Prison institutional drug treatment
slots have averaged at least 75 percent participation over the previous six months.
DARS met the benchmark to add 2,000 in-prison substance abuse slots with aftercare
in the community on December 30, 2008. At that point, all of the new programs were
operational and inmates were participating in treatment. DARS added approximately
55,000 square feet of new programming space to five institutions and one community
correctional facility. In addition, between April 2007 and December 2008, the
Department expanded community care participation by 2,960 treatment slots. This is a
119 percent growth in community care participation from 2,498 in April 2007 to 5,458
participants in December 2008.
In March 1, 2009, DARS began piloting the Interim Computerized Attendance Tracking
System (ICATS) at Solano and Folsom State Prisons to monitor in-prison substance
abuse program utilization. This system will be implemented at all in-prison substance
abuse programs to ensure that substance abuse treatment program utilization is
captured and sustained at 75 percent or above.
In June 2007, the Expert Panel recommended the California Logic Model as this state’s
approach to integrating evidence-based principles into its rehabilitation programming.
(See Appendix A, page 60). The Governor’s Rehabilitation Strike Team provided
guidelines on how to implement the Expert Panel recommendations.
DARS has been challenged to provide quality evidence-based rehabilitative treatment
programs aligned with the California Logic Model. This rehabilitation programming
implements programs based on inmate risk to recidivate and assessment of individual
needs that will better prepare offenders for successful community reentry and
reintegration. The Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions
(COMPAS) and CDCR’s Addiction Severity Index (ASI) assessment tools will guide
CDCR in placing the right offender in the right program at the right time.
DARS is continuing to develop programs that address the substance use disorder
needs of its inmate population. Today, DARS delivers a redesigned program model that
is trauma-informed, gender-responsive and includes standards and measures. In
addition to the current modified Therapeutic Community, Cognitive Behavioral
5

Treatment and Psycho-Educational Treatment models are being included to better
address the needs of offenders.

Currently, DARS manages more than 12,000 substance abuse treatment slots in 44
programs at 21 institutions. In addition, as of the June 30, 2008, 5,503 parolees
participated daily in community-based Substance Abuse Treatment, or “continuing care”
programs, throughout the State.
DARS achieved major milestones in CDCR’s mission to strengthen substance abuse
recovery programs, to reduce recidivism, and to increase public safety. Following are
highlights of DARS accomplishments:
I. REDUCED RECIDIVISM
Return-to-prison rates are significantly reduced for offenders completing
in-prison and community-based substance abuse treatment programs
The utility of corrections-based treatment for substance abusing offenders has spurred
both research and debate this decade. The Prison Journal contains reports on the
nation’s three largest prison-based treatment studies. These studies, being conducted
in California, Delaware, and Texas, offer further evidence that substance abuse
treatment for appropriate correctional populations can work when adequate attention is
given to engagement, motivation, and aftercare. 1 Corrections-based treatment policy
should emphasize a continuum of care model (from institution to community) with high
quality programs and services. 2 DARS’ multi-year commitment to linking inmates who
have completed in-prison substance abuse programs with community-based substance
abuse treatment programs is proving to be a successful combination. The most recent
data which followed offenders who paroled in 2005-06 for a one-year and a two-year
period demonstrates that the recidivism rate was reduced for offenders who completed
in-prison substance abuse treatment programs – with a more substantial reduction in
recidivism for offenders completing in-prison followed by community-based substance
abuse treatment programs.
Recidivism, or return-to-prison, is defined as a paroled offender returning to prison for
any reason during a specified time period. This includes offenders who are returned to
Substance-Abuse Treatment-Control Units in correctional facilities; returned pending a
revocation hearing by the Board of Parole Hearings on charges of violating the
conditions of parole; returned to custody for parole violations to serve revocation time;
or returned to custody by a court for a new felony conviction.

1

(Simpson, D.D., Wexler, H.K., & Inciardi, J.A. (Eds.) (September/December, 1999). Special issue
on drug treatment outcomes for correctional settings, parts 1 & 2. The Prison Journal, 79 (3/4).
2
(Hiller, M. L., Knight, K., & Simpson, D. D. (1999). Prison-based substance abuse treatment,
residential aftercare and recidivism. Addiction, 94(6), 833-842.

6

DARS Programs:

•

Demonstrated a lower return-to-prison rate for female offenders who completed both
in-prison and community-based substance abuse treatment in Fiscal Year (FY)
2005-06 (8.8 percent after one year and 16.5 percent after two years) as compared
to the return-to-prison rate for all CDCR female offenders (30.1 percent after one
year and 43.7 after two years).
Figure 1A: Comparison of Female Return to Prison Rates

Comparison of eturn-to-Prison 1 for IFemale Parolees
Completing n-Prison SAP and Continuing Care to the
General Population of Females that aroled in FY 2005/2006
50.0%
43.7%

45.0%
40.0%
35.0%

..
GJ

&!!

Cl.

Ii:

30.0%
~

25.0%

Female In-Prison SAP and
Continuing Care Completers

20.0%
• Female General Population

15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
% Ret III rning to Pri!;on

% Returning to Pri!;on

Within One ¥,ear

Within T\vo Years

Thisd·ata is b.3S~d upon dernographi. information fromtheOffender-B.=sed Inform.3tionSystem [OB.ISjcombined with substan.e
.abuse pr,ogram treatmentdatafrom theOffenderSubstan~Abuse Tra.king [OSAnd3t.abase.
'See "Definitioll5and Explan.ation ofCalrulatio115"

7

•

Demonstrated a lower return-to-prison rate for male offenders who completed both
in-prison and community-based substance abuse treatment in FY 2005-06
(25.4 percent after one year and 40.4 percent after two years) as compared to the
return-to-prison rate for all CDCR male offenders (41.2 percent after one year and
55.6 percent after two years).
Figure 1B: Comparison of Male Return to Prison Rates

Comparison of Return-to-Prison 1 for Male Parolees
Completing n-Prison SAP and Continuing Care to the
General opulation of Males that Paroled in Y 2005/2006
60.0%

55.6%
50.0%

40.0%

..
GJ

&!!

~

.30.0%

Male In-Prisoon SAP and
Continuing Care Completers

Cl.

Ii:

• Male'General Population

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
% Returning to Pr~!;oll
Within One Year

% Returning to Pr~!;on
Within Two Years

Thisd·at3 is b.3Sed upon dernogr3phi. information fromtheOffender-B.3Sed InformationSystem [OB.ISlcambined with substan.e
ab use program t reatm ent data fro m the Offe n der Su bstan.e Ab use Tra.king [OSAn datab.3Se.
, Se e "0 efi n it io ns an d Exp 13natio n ,ofC31ru lat io ns"

8

•

Overall, all offenders, both male and female, who completed both in-prison and
community-based substance abuse treatment in FY 2005-06 had a return-to-prison
rate of 21.9 percent after one year and 35.3 percent after two years. This compares
with a 39.9 percent return-to-prison rate after one year and a 54.2 percent return-toprison rate after two years for all offenders.
Figure 1C: Comparison of Parolee Return to Prison Rates

Comparison of Return-to-Prison 1 Rates for All IParolees
Completing ~n-Prison SAP and Continuing Care to the
General opulation of Offenders t at IParoled in
IFY 2005/2006
60.0%
54 ..2%

50.0%

40.0%

GJ

i

Q"

s:

~

30.0%

In-Prison SAP and Continuing
Care Comp Iete rs

-General Population

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
% Returning 0 Prison Within

% Returning to Prison Within

OneYear

Two Years

This d:it= is based upon de mogr.=phie information fromtheOff-ender-Sased Infonn,=tionSyst!em fOBISlcombined with subst=nce
.=b use program tre.3tm entd.3t= fro m the Offe n der Su bst=n ee Ab use Tracking (OSAT) d..,t=base.
'See "D-efinitions.=nd Expl=nation ofC=I,cul=tions"

9

•

Reduced the statewide return-to-prison rate for one-year to 5.8 percent for
female parolees and to 19.3 percent for male parolees in FY 2006-07.

One year Return to Prison (RTP) Rates for Offenders who Completed* In-Prison** SAPs during
Fiscal Year 2006/2007
In-Prison SAP
Completers Returned to
RTP Rate for
Gender
Completers
Prison
Completers
Female (SAP Only)
1,387
425
30.6%
Females Showing Up to
CC, but not completing
522
170
32.6%
Female (SAP & Comp
CC)
687
40
5.8%
Male Paroles (SAP Only)
3,714
1,462
39.4%
Males Showing Up to CC,
but not completing
1,210
560
46.3%
Male (SAP & Comp CC)
1,514
292
19.3%
Totals
9,034
2,949
32.6%
*Completion is defined as those participants who successfully complete treatment as determined by the
contract treatment provider.
**Includes offenders who graduated from in-prison SAPS, but did not receive community-based
treatment; those who graduated from in-prison SAPS and received some community-based treatment,
but did not complete community-based treatment; and those who completed both in-prison SAPS and
community-based treatment. Does not include reception center inmates.

II. INCREASED UTILIZATION AND REHABILITATION OF PAROLEE POPULATION
More than doubled the population in community aftercare programs
DARS has successfully implemented several incentive-based and alternative sanction
programs to increase participation in the continuum of in-prison to community-based
substance abuse treatment services. These programs include: Senate Bill (SB) 1453,
which mandates eligible in-prison substance abuse program graduates to complete
residential, community-based continuing care as a condition of their parole; In-Custody
Drug Treatment Program (ICDTP) which added 1,800 additional community-based
treatment slots for use as a remedial sanction; and Mandatory Conditions of Parole, a
pilot program at Valley State Prison for Women and the California Rehabilitation Center,
which mandates residential aftercare treatment for eligible felon inmates paroling from
in-prison substance abuse programs. These programs:

•

Established 1,800 ICDTP slots for use as a remedial sanction by April 1, 2008,
meeting the U.S. District Court order which required CDCR to establish 1,800
ICDTP slots by that date as a result of the Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger class
action lawsuit.

•

Increased the percent of offenders who completed in-prison programs and
continued on to aftercare to 54.6 percent as of June 30, 2008 (compared to 30
percent cited in the OIG 2007 report). (See Appendix E, Table 3E, page 93).

10

•

More than doubled the average daily population of parolees receiving
community-based treatment from 2,632 on June 27, 2007, to 5,503 on
June 30, 2008. (See Figure 11, page 44).

•

Reduced the average length of parole from three years to five months for 1,270
parolees who successfully completed SB 1453 150-day mandatory aftercare
residential treatment program. This data reflects the time frame from program
start up in March 2007 through June 30, 2008.

III. PROGRAM EXPANSION
Significantly increased substance abuse treatment capacity in California prisons
In-prison substance abuse programs can now provide services to more offenders due to
the addition of new in-prison treatment slots. AB 900 requires CDCR to add 4,000 new
in-prison substance abuse disorder treatment slots. CDCR activated the first phase of
2,000 slots December, 2008. DARS:

•

Increased admissions to in-prison substance abuse program between
FY 2004-05 and FY 2007-08 from 9,935 to 14,066. Program completions
during the same time period rose from 6,751 to 8,839. (See Figure 5, page 34)

•

Met the AB 900 benchmark to add 2,000 new in-prison substance abuse
treatment slots in December 2008.

•

Completed new modular buildings to increase programming space and allow for
treatment staff to provide one-on-one counseling services in addition to group
programs, which added or provided 59,520 additional square feet of rehabilitative
programming space.

•

Reduced custody lockdown hours from an average of 571 hours per month in
FY 2007-08 to 248 hours per month during the first half of FY 2008-09. This
increased the hours of substance abuse programming and improved program
effectiveness.

IV. MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
Improved effectiveness of management of in-prison substance abuse programs
Aggressive strategies substantially improved the effectiveness of the management of
in-prison substance abuse programs. In 2007, the OIG identified weaknesses and
mismanagement in the implementation of in-prison substance abuse programs. CDCR
has completed or substantially implemented 23 of the 30 OIG recommendations. Some
of the OIG recommendations completed include:

11

•

Implemented all prior recommendations of external program evaluators.

•

Integrated evidence-based treatment services in DARS’ treatment model.

•

Collaborated with substance abuse treatment experts, including the Expert Panel
and the Governor’s Rehabilitation Strike Team.

•

Formed the Treatment Advisory Committee ∗ which is comprised of nationally
recognized researchers and substance abuse program evaluators.

•

Relocated treatment programs to institutions more amenable to programming,
with consideration to lockdowns and other interruptions to service delivery.

•

Enhanced monitoring of contracts to ensure contract compliance and fidelity to
the treatment model. DARS monitors each program quarterly using a detailed
assessment tool – Performance Accountability Review to track program
effectiveness and establish corrective action plans.

•

Resolved program issues where treatment hours fell short of contract terms.
Contractors were required to adjust their schedules to meet those terms.

•

Increased competition for in-prison substance abuse program contracts to ensure
that the State receives the best value for the price by improving the Department’s
bidding process for selecting program providers.

•

Included performance measures in the in-prison substance abuse treatment
contracts to improve aftercare participation.

V. NEW DATA SYSTEMS
Developed new data systems to track, monitor and evaluate program
effectiveness
The Division implemented data systems to track and monitor program effectiveness and
evidence-based reforms. DARS:

•

Developed a database to collect data and report program performance and
established specific performance measures to monitor individual program
effectiveness.

∗

The Treatment Advisory Committee Members are: Christine Grella, Ph.D, Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, University of
California, Los Angeles; Igor Koutsenok, MD, MS, Director, Center for Criminality and Addiction Research, Training and
Application , University of California, San Diego; Michael Prendergast, Ph.D, Integrated Substance Abuse Programs NPI-Semel
Institute for Neuroscience, University of California, Los Angeles; and Harry K. Wexler, Ph.D.

12

•

Paved the way, through collection of more extensive and accurate data, for
CDCR to better evaluate substance abuse programs, measure rates of
recidivism, and rapidly make any needed changes for maximum program
effectiveness.

VI. EVIDENCE-BASED REHABILITATION REFORMS
Implemented historic evidence-based rehabilitation reforms
During FY 2007-08, DARS also played a major role in historic reforms to bring
evidence-based rehabilitation to California’s correctional system. These reforms use
evidence-based rehabilitation – academic, vocational, substance abuse and other
programs – to help offenders succeed when they return to their communities, and
reduce the State’s recidivism rate. The major principles of evidence-based programs
include: research-based risk and needs assessments, targeting of criminogenic needs,
skills-oriented, responsivity to an individual’s unique characteristics, program intensity
(dosage), continuity of care, and ongoing monitoring and evaluation. To integrate these
evidence-based principles, DARS:

•

Demonstrated that the national research which states that in-prison substance
abuse treatment followed by community-based aftercare reduces recidivism.

•

Integrated evidence-based treatment services in DARS’ treatment model. DARS
solicited input for its treatment model from experts in the field including the
CDCR Expert Panel, the DARS Treatment Advisory Committee and outside
evaluators. This treatment design now includes Cognitive Behavioral Treatment
and Psycho-Educational Interventions as well as the modified Therapeutic
Community model. DARS in-prison substance abuse provider contracts now
include the requirement that programs offer all of these models. Also included in
this expanded treatment model is individualized treatment planning based on risk
and needs assessment from COMPAS as an initial screening tool and the ASI as
a secondary assessment instrument.

•

Implemented recommendations in “The Master Plan for Female Offenders: A
Blueprint for Gender-Responsive Rehabilitation 2008” from the Division of Adult
Institutions’ Female Offender Programs and Services (FOPS) office, and national
experts including Barbara Bloom, Ph.D., Stephanie Covington, Ph.D., Barbara
Owen, Ph.D., Nena Messina, Ph.D. and Christine Grella, Ph.D.
These
recommendations have informed CDCR’s approach to providing GenderResponsive and Trauma-Informed Treatment for female offenders.

•

Opened the first-of-its-kind Trauma-Informed Gender-Responsive substance
abuse treatment program for female offenders at Leo Chesney Community
Correctional Facility. This program was implemented in collaboration with
CDCR’s FOPS Division. This evidence-based model will be included in all
AB 900 slots being added at Central California Women’s Facility and Valley State
Prison for Women.
13

•

Participated in launching a pilot project at California State Prison, Solano, to
implement and assess the effectiveness of DARS’ expanded treatment model,
which includes science-based risk and needs assessment tools, risk-needs
responsive treatment services and integrated treatment services. Placement of
inmates is based on their risk to reoffend and their need for rehabilitative
programs. CDCR is initially targeting offenders with a moderate to high risk to
reoffend for placement in intensive rehabilitation programs that include substance
abuse, vocation and education, anger management, and criminal thinking.

14

HISTORY
DIVISION OF ADDICTION AND RECOVERY
SERVICES
(DARS)

15

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
DIVISION OF ADDICTION AND RECOVERY SERVICES (DARS)

CDCR began providing drug treatment services for inmates in 1961 at the California
Rehabilitation Center (CRC) with the legislative enactment of the California Civil Addict
Program. This program provided for the commitment and treatment of narcotic addicts
that included an in-prison phase of six to eighteen months with out-patient community
treatment phase and parole supervision.
In 1989, CDCR created the Office of Substance Abuse Programs (OSAP) and began
providing treatment services in November 1990, with a 200-slot modified Therapeutic
Community substance abuse treatment program for Level III male felons at the Richard
J. Donovan Correctional Facility (RJD) in San Diego. Community-based substance
abuse treatment began in November 1991 for a limited number of RJD participants who
completed the in-prison phase. This nine-to-eighteen month voluntary program provided
each inmate with more than 20 hours of programming per week, including individual and
group interaction, cognitive and behavioral restructuring, recovery education and
12-step meetings (California Department of Corrections, Overview of Substance Abuse
Programs, December 1999).
In May 1991, the “Forever Free Program” was implemented for female felons at the
California Institute for Women (CIW). This four month program initially served 120
offender participants and later was expanded to serve 240 participants. Long-term
evaluations of these programs indicated the longer the exposure to treatment, the less
likely the offender participant was to return-to-prison. In 1996, the program was divided
into two tracks, one for women with more than six months of incarceration time and one
for women with less than six months of incarceration time. The program included
behavior change, 12-step activities and a focus on gender-specific topics including
physical/sexual abuse and parenting.

Mandatory Prison Sentencing and a Growing Influence of Substance Abuse in
Prison Commitments
By the late 1990s, voter approved mandatory sentencing in response to California’s
growing crime rate and the detrimental influence of substance abuse in incarceration
had become clear. Incarceration had grown from 39,373 on December 31, 1983 to
160,332 as of April 1, 1999. By December 1998, 28.0 percent of all commitments were
for specific drug offenses, up from 8.1 percent in 1983, and 1.4 percent of total
commitments were for driving under the influence offenses. It became apparent that if
California was to be effective in bringing down its incarceration and recidivism rates, it
had to strengthen its commitment to successful substance abuse treatment.

16

Evaluation Reveals Success of Long-term Treatment
A major evaluation released in 1998 found a reduced return-to-prison rate for individuals
spending a longer time in treatment, especially those who completed community-based
continuing care. The 1998, five year (1992 to 1997) long-term outcome evaluation
study was conducted by Dr. Harry K. Wexler, Ph.D. This study evaluated the RJD
return-to-prison custody data for five groups: Control, Program Drop, Prison Treatment
Only, Community Program Drop, and Community Program Completers (Wexler,
DeLeon, Thomas, Kressel & Peters, in press; Lowe, Wexler & Peters, 1998). The
control group subjects returned to prison after an average of 295.0 days, compared to
578.5 days for offenders completing Continuing Care. Additionally, only 25 percent of
the community-based continuing care completers had been returned to prison at 36
months. The positive outcomes of these early programs at RJD and CIW impacted
policy decisions regarding substance abuse treatment for inmates and parolees as
DARS (OSAP at the time) expanded the CDCR in-prison treatment slots from 400 to
3,000 slots by December 1999.

Voluntary and Mandatory Participation
Participation in DARS (OSAP) substance abuse treatment programs was voluntary
before 1997. This policy was based on the reasoning that space was limited and
voluntary participants were thought to be more highly motivated than non-volunteers.
However, research became available that showed positive results for individuals placed
into mandatory treatment settings (DeLeon, 1998). CDCR adopted emergency
regulations to the California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Crime Prevention and
Corrections, Division 3, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Chapter 1.
Section 3040.1(f), stating “inmates placed in a Substance Abuse Program (SAP) are
subject to the same program performance and discipline requirements as they would be
in any other work assignment. This is necessary to ensure that inmates understand that
they are required to participate in the SAP. Inmates who refuse to perform satisfactorily
would be subject to loss of work/training incentive program credits as a result of
non-participation.”

Substance Abuse Programs for Female Civil Addicts
In April 1995, CDCR implemented an intensive 204-bed in-prison Therapeutic
Community (TC) substance abuse treatment program at the California Rehabilitation
Center. This nine-to-twelve month program was for female civil addicts in a segregated
housing unit. Participants received comprehensive social, cognitive, and behavioral
services. These services included individual, family, and group counseling, substance
use education and planning for re-entry to the community.

17

Substance Abuse Treatment Facility
In September 1997, the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF) was activated
specifically to provide substance abuse treatment programming. The SATF complex
had a housing capacity of 6,013 slots with two distinct secure treatment facilities
designed to provide housing and TC treatment for 1,478 Level I and II offenders. The
six-to-eighteen month program provided 20 hours per week of substance use disorder
treatment plus ten hours per week of other structured activities. The SATF program was
expanded to 1,878 slots in 2006.

Substance Abuse Program for Male Civil Addicts
In 1998, a six-to-eighteen month intensive TC program serving 200 male civil addicts
was established at CRC. Participants received a substance use disorder assessment
resulting in the development of an individualized treatment planning and received 20
hours of individual and group treatment services.

Expansion of Community-Based Treatment Programs
In the late 1990s, the Department expanded its community-based substance abuse
treatment programs which began in 1991 with implementation of the Bay Area Services
Network in six San Francisco Bay Area Communities. Subsequently, parolee network
treatment services became available in Los Angeles, San Diego, Fresno, Orange,
Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Parole agents were added to coordinate the
partnership between in-prison and community-based continuing care substance abuse
programs. The Substance Abuse Services Coordinating Agencies were also developed
as intermediary agencies working with in-prison substance abuse programs and
community-based continuing care providers to link inmates to a continuum of treatment
following their release.

Elevating DARS to a Division
On July 1, 2005, the California Department of Corrections adopted a new name and
became the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR),
underscoring the increased priority of inmate rehabilitative programs, including
substance abuse treatment and recovery. In March 2007, the Office of Substance
Abuse Programs (OSAP) was renamed the Division of Addiction and Recovery Services
(DARS) and elevated in CDCR from an Office to a Division. This organizational change
was made in response to an Office of the Inspector General recommendation to
effectively manage and oversee the Department’s substance abuse treatment
programs.
DARS is engaged in the Department’s system-wide shift of prioritizing functions and
resources, increasing program utilization and improving evidence-based rehabilitation
services for offenders and parolees. DARS is actively working to improve the quality
18

and delivery of its programs based on recommendations from several expert
stakeholders, including CDCR’s Expert Panel on Adult Offender and Recidivism
Reduction Programming and the Governor’s Rehabilitation Strike Team, and is
continuing to develop programs that address the substance use disorder needs of its
inmate population.

19

OVERVIEW
ADULT PROGRAMS
DARS
SERVICES AND PROGRAM LOCATIONS

20

DARS SERVICES

Mission of the Division of Addiction and Recovery Services (DARS)
The mission of DARS is to provide evidence-based substance use disorder treatment
services to California’s inmates and parolees. DARS provides the leadership,
development, implementation, coordination and monitoring of treatment services to
achieve the following goals:

•

Reduce recidivism through evidence-based, gender responsive interventions that
reduce substance use behaviors and criminogenic risks and needs.

•

Increase participation in community aftercare by promoting its value to in-prison
populations and ensuring the successful linkage between in-prison programs and
community-based aftercare entities.

•

Improve in-prison and community aftercare program performance by
implementing effective assessment and tracking procedures, implementing best
practices, and responding to recommendations from the Treatment Advisory
Committee.

•

Develop and implement comprehensive assessment processes which allow
measurement and tracking of individual participant change as a result of service
interventions.

•

Improve program performance by implementing a partnership between DARS,
the Treatment Advisory Committee, the academic community, the professional
community, and service providers to identify new program models, innovations to
existing program models, and identification and elimination of unsuccessful
programs.

New Evidence-Based Rehabilitation Treatment Model
The goal of evidence-based rehabilitation is to reduce recidivism by implementing the
five principles of effective intervention:

•
•

•
•
•

Risk Principle: Target high-risk offenders
Need Principle: Treat risk factors associated with offending behavior
Treatment Principle: Employ evidence-based treatment approaches
Responsivity Principle: Tailor treatments to meet special needs
Fidelity Principle: Monitor implementation, quality, and treatment fidelity

Substance Abuse Programs represent one of several core offender rehabilitation
program areas that also include: Education; Vocation; Criminal Thinking, Behaviors and
Associations; and Anger, Hostility and Violence Management. Integrated service
delivery fosters rehabilitation by incorporating various types of treatment that
21

correspond to each individual’s unique needs, instead of a standard set of services.
Practitioners within the fields of education, vocation, substance abuse treatment, and
mental health will collaborate to design individualized treatment plans, and analyze and
monitor the overall impact of all treatment services for each individual.
All in-prison adult programs are being aligned with the California Logic Model. The
California Logic Model is a detailed, sequential description of how California will apply
evidence-based principles and practices and effectively deliver a core set of
rehabilitation programs.
Research shows that to achieve positive outcomes,
correctional agencies must provide rehabilitative programs to the right inmate at the
right time and in a manner consistent with evidence-based programming design.
The Logic Model includes the following eight components: 1) Assess High Risk,
2) Assess Needs, 3) Develop Behavior Management Plan, 4) Deliver Programs,
5) Measure Progress, 6) Prep for Re-entry, 7) Reintegrate, and 8) Follow-Up.
(See Appendix A page 60)
The University of California, San Diego’s research staff assisted DARS in the
development of an expanded substance use disorder treatment model. In addition to
the current modified Therapeutic Community, DARS will now provide Cognitive
Behavioral Treatment and Psycho-Educational Intervention models, and has added
assessments and standard performance measures to the new programs.
The new substance abuse treatment models deliver a redesigned program that is
trauma-informed and gender-responsive. Females in the correctional system have
unique needs relative to the male offender population. Addressing these issues through
treatment approaches has significant impacts on the success of female offender
rehabilitation. DARS recognizes the importance of Gender Responsive treatment and
offers specialized therapy programs for female inmates. These programs cover a range
of issues including trauma rehabilitation, parenting skills programs, and programs for
battered women.
DARS selected the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) as a secondary assessment tool to
match offenders with appropriate intensity and level of substance abuse treatment, and
worked with researchers to modify the ASI to be used in a correctional environment.
The Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternatives Sanctions (COMPAS)
assessment tool and the CDCR ASI as a secondary tool will assist the Department in
appropriate rehabilitative program placement.

CDCR Partners
DARS provides coordinated services for inmates and parolees by working with partners
in statewide law enforcement, health, and social services communities. It provides
broad-based substance abuse treatment programs in correctional facilities that include
transitional programs preparing inmates for release on parole, and community-based
substance abuse treatment programs.

22

Community-based organizations and state and local governmental agencies are
assisting DARS in carrying out its mission. Community-based substance abuse
treatment contractors provide most of the services for DARS inmates and parolee
offender participants. These contractors include the Amity Foundation, Center Point,
Community Education Centers, Inc. (CiviGenics, Inc.), Mental Health Systems, Phoenix
House, Walden House, West Care, and the Contra Costa County and Orange County
Offices of Education. Essential partners within CDCR for these treatment services
include:

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Division of Community Partnerships
Division of Education, Vocation and Offender Programs
Division of Correctional Health Care Services
Division of Adult Institutions
Female Offender Programs and Services
Board of Parole Hearings
Division of Adult Parole Operations
Office of Research
Office of Business Services
Office of Legal Affairs
Enterprise Information Services

Program Locations
The Map of California’s Correctional and Rehabilitation Facilities on page 24 shows the
locations of CDCR institutions as well as DARS In-Prison Substance Abuse Treatment
Program locations. The tables on pages 25-27 summarize the capacity, custody level
and location within the institution of DARS' In-Prison Substance Abuse Treatment
Programs, and the location and capacity of Transitional Treatment Programs, Parolee
Programs and Parolee Diversion Programs.
As of June 30, 2008, DARS operated 41 in-prison programs in 20 institutions, with a
total capacity of 10,119 treatment slots; 8,355 (83 percent) for males and 1,764
(17 percent) for females (See Table 2, page 26-27).
In FY 2007-08 there were 21,464 inmate participants that received substance abuse
treatment services in-prison and 10,946 parolees who received community-based
substance abuse treatment services which represent a total offender population served
of 32,410. Of this total offender population, 21.6 percent are female and 78.4 percent
are male (See Figure 2, page 28).

23

Map of California’s Correctional and Rehabilitation Facilities - Indicates Location of
DARS In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs

Map of California's Correctional
and Rehnhilitation facilities

,,==============,-....."'--.,

. 40
~
•

AWl·

o•

t~F:"'---

_.~

.-

_OiL

"''''''"'

.-<>.. . . ., - ..
"""---

~-~

.

--......--_.
::~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~~.
---..... - ,.
--,,-•.
*
*.
_,. .

,-- .
.......
----.....,
..__.....-_----._,_ee-_.,__-'
---:±~ ---

• -_0"",""

......

...-_.
. .- •

~;:==========:;;;:~
;
.,.,

_~

-

....- - •

,~--------_.1:i:.:-=:.:.:--

".

_.-g ".. _GO""'•

.-" =,,,,.,.

24

Table 1: The following two tables provide a glossary of the names of institutions and the
DARS treatment locations and capacity as of June 30, 2008. Acronyms for institution
names will be used in all subsequent tables.
Table 1: Glossary of Institution Acronyms

Division of Addiction and Recovery Services
Glossary of CDCR's Institutions/Programs Acronyms
Institution Acronym

Institution Name

1. ASP

Avenal State Prison

2. CCWF

Central California Women's Facility

3. CCI

California Correctional Institution

4. CIM

California Institution for Men

5. CIW

California Institution for Women

6. CMC

California Men's Colony

7. CRC

Correctional Rehabilitation Center

8. COR

California State Prison, Corcoran

9. CTF

Correctional Training Facility

10. CVSP

Chuckawalla Valley State Prison

11. FTTF

Folsom Transitional Treatment Facility

12. KVSP

Kern Valley State Prison

13. NKSP-RC

North Kern State Prison-Reception Center

14. PVSP

Pleasant Valley State Prison

15. RJD

Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility at Rock Mountain

16. SATF

California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State
Prison at Corcoran

17. SCC

Sierra Conservation Center

18. SOL

California State Prison, Solano

19. VSPW

Valley State Prison for Women

20. WSP-RC

Wasco State Prison-Reception Center

25

Table 2: DARS Treatment Locations and Capacity as of June 30, 2008

Division of Addiction and Recovery Services
Substance Abuse Treatment Programs
Treatment Locations and Capacity
In-Prison Substance Abuse
Location
Custody
Treatment Programs
Level
ASP
CCI

Facility I
1 Yard
2 Yard

CIM

Minimum Security
Facility (MSF)

CMC

West Facility

Facility II
CRC
Facility I
Sensitive Needs Yard
COR
CTF
CVSP
TTP
*Program located at FTTF
KVSP
NKSP-RC
PSAP
*Program located at FTTF
PVSP

RJD

SATF

SCC

SOL
WSP-RC

MSF
MSF
North Facility
Facility C
Folsom Transitional
Treatment Facility *
Facility D
Facility C
Folsom Transitional
Treatment Facility*
Facility B
Facility C
MSF
Facility 1
Facility 3
F Yard
G Yard
Baseline Camp
Sensitive Needs Yard
Facility 3-4
Vocational Area
Facility 1
Reception Center

26

II
I
II-SNY
I
I
I-II
I
II
II
II
II
II
II-SNY
I
I
III
II
I-II
IV
Reception
Parolee
III
III
I
III
IV-SNY
I – II
I – II
I
III-SNY
I – II
II
II
Reception

Treatment
Capacity
200
200
175
200
200
180
50
200
300
88
263
263
200
190
208
250
340
200
256
200
203
200
200
100
150
200
939
939
125
236
200
200
200
300

Table 2: (cont.) DARS Treatment Locations and Capacity as of June 30, 2008
In-Prison Treatment Programs
Custody
Treatment
(cont.)
Location
Level
Capacity
CCWF

Facility B
Facility C

CIW

Main Yard

VSPW

D Yard

Inmate Furlough Treatment
Programs

Location

Drug Treatment Furlough

Regions 1 – 4

Parolee Programs

Location

Voluntary Residential

Regions 1 – 4

Mandatory Conditions Of Parole
(MCOP)

Regions 1 – 4

Mandatory Residential Aftercare
(SB 1453)

Regions 1 – 4

Sober Living Environment/NonResidential
Non-Residential

Regions 1 – 4

I – IV
I – IV
I – III
I – III
I – III
I – IV
I – IV

Regions 1 – 4

250
256
294
218
240
256
250

Treatment
Capacity
400

Treatment
Capacity
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies

Female Offender Treatment and
Employment Program (FOTEP)

Region 1

112

Female Offender Treatment and
Employment Program (FOTEP)

Region 2

53

Female Offender Treatment and
Employment Program (FOTEP)

Region 3

123

Female Offender Treatment and
Employment Program (FOTEP)

Region 4

122

Parolee Services Network

Statewide

915
Treatment
Capacity

Parolee Remedial Sanctions

Location

In-Custody Drug Treatment
Program - Jail-Based Treatment
In-Custody Drug Treatment
Program - Community-Based
Treatment

Regions 1 - 4

Varies

Regions 1 - 4

Varies

Parolee Substance Abuse Program

Folsom Transitional Treatment
Facility

27

203

Figure 2: Clients Served in DARS’ Programs by Gender

Clients served by In-Prison 1 and
Community-Based Programs
during FY 2007/2008 by Gender
(n = 32,410)

'" frmolr

Th;, d•• ;, ....d .0°""'''''''' """~ ;<f<>,_;on fro<n 'MOllo"'... -&-' """""•
""","""dw;'"
d

""".d

O

"
;""

" .._(

fOil">

.", ""'.."
ab . . . . "..-"'" "_,,... d... from'". ",,"nd............'" ...... T'''.... (llSAT)
Ci.. _",'<""d;tt~

,"'"IT,._, '"_.... ..,d T'......... r..........."'1'.....

28

PROGRAMS

I. IN-PRISON SUBSTANCE ABUSE
PROGRAMS

29

DARS IN-PRISON SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROGRAMS

In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs
DARS In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs (SAPs) seek to reduce the incidence of
addiction, relapse and recidivism among participants through substance use disorder
treatment. These programs offer services that are gender-responsive, comprehensive
in scope, and that promote pro-social behavior. These services are provided to prepare
participants for successful release into the community. Substance abuse treatment
organizations are contracted to provide services to both men and women, to inmates in
conservation camps, and to inmates in all four institutional security levels (I-IV).
As of June 2009, CDCR operates 44 in-prison SAPs within 21 institutions, one
correctional community facility, and one fire camp, providing approximately 12,000
treatment slots in-prison. The in-prison SAP inmates have a history of arrests or
convictions for being under the influence of drugs (including alcohol), or have been
arrested or convicted for committing a crime while under the influence; have a pattern of
arrests, convictions, behavior, or other factors that indicate they have, or have had a
substance abuse problem; and have a release date of no less than six months from
date of assignment to a maximum of 24 months (up to 36 months for Level III and Level
IV institutions). The inmates attend substance abuse recovery programming half-time
and spend half time in education or vocational education programs or a work
assignment. Incentives are provided for inmates who participate in substance abuse
programs. Credit earnings for inmates are two days off for every day worked in a fire
camp and up to one day for every day an inmate is assigned to an in-prison SAP.
Some inmates receive reduced credits, and some do not qualify for these credits at all
due to mandatory sentencing laws.
DARS provides an evidence-based continuum of behavioral, addiction and family
centered treatment services that include assessments, treatment planning, case
management, individual and group counseling, and transitional planning. Staffing for
in-prison SAPs include correctional counselors, custody staff, parole agents, community
treatment provider staff and headquarters administrative staff working together to
provide treatment services to inmates and parolees.
The in-prison programs serve inmates at all classification levels. In-prison programs
prepare inmates to transition to community-based substance abuse treatment programs
for parolees.

30

Reception Center
DARS operates a Reception Center substance abuse program at North Kern State
Prison and Wasco State Prison. The purpose of the Reception Center substance abuse
program is to screen and assess inmates entering CDCR institutions for histories of
substance abuse and eligibility for placement into the in-prison SAPs. Inmates
identified as substance abusers receive in-prison SAP orientation services for an
average of 45 to 90 days with a goal of transitioning into an in-prison or communitybased treatment program.

Drug Treatment Furlough (DTF)
The Drug Treatment Furlough (DTF) is a program designed to allow non-violent,
non-serious inmates in in-prison SAPs to furlough from prisons into community
residential treatment facilities for up to 120 days prior to parole. Eligible inmates are
placed in community-based residential treatment facilities 120 days prior to their release
date. This placement option is designed to accelerate treatment, support treatment
gains and prepare the inmate for successful reintegration to the community. These
placements are expected to alleviate costs associated with prison bed overcrowding.

Civil Addict
The Civil Addict Program was enacted in 1961 to provide treatment and rehabilitation to
persons convicted of felonies and misdemeanors whose crimes were attributable to
repeated use of narcotics. Penal Code 3050-4 provides for a court hearing to determine
if the defendant should be placed in the Civil Addict Program. Once in the program the
subject will be incarcerated for a period of time while receiving treatment for substance
use disorder followed by a period of parole with continuing treatment in the community.
At the present time the average length of commitment is three years. Civil Addicts are
housed primarily at the California Rehabilitation Center (males) and the California
Institution for Women.

31

Figure 3 figures 3-6 summarize in-prison SAP treatment events, admissions,
completions, and total number served by gender for FY 2007-08.

Figure 3: In-Prison SAPs Treatment Events by Gender

In-Prison SAP Treatment Events 1
by Gender in FY 2007/2008
(n =23,582)

It Fe ....le

.1.1.,.
18,390 (78.0%)

"",."," ,"'. UO'>" do.",..."". ''''~I", .."""'.OIfo'....· _ I,,,,,",,,,,,,,lyrtom lotlll'o<rO~....... '
....""',, "UM _om , .. "",.."." ..."", '''' OIfood... SU'''''''' .... UM T''''''IIC6ol'1.''''''',
, ~um",oJ '''''''''''''''_'''''~d'''''M
,no " .... ol,no~.<a'yO"• .n_ """'.....
.. m " "•• ~ ",.n. ~ .". yO...,..,. ",_ ...
~
01.n. ~ yO.... '"" "I.. "" ..."',
<0 " . " . " " " "'., ",Iud. m~"
~
'd .... uoh d "~I ~ K" yO...

,","''''''..""
,0-.."""' "..,,""'
" """..,.

'"'''''m''' • ""'"'"'"

32

It"

Figure 4 shows that of the 14,066 individuals admitted to in-prison SAPs, 71.6 percent
were men. The remaining 28.4 percent of in-prison SAP admissions were women.

Figure 4: In-Prison SAP Admissions by Gender

In-Prison SAP Admissions 1 by Gender
in FY 2007/2008
(n = 14,066)

r_.. . . . .

.,J~3,995

(28.4)%

" F.rnol •
• Mol.

' ' ' mot'oo fro""".""'"" ....
IOB"I<o""'~'"Wit" " , _ "
°"'. "".., "f ,.rt",.",... ""to. '0'''' ,100" "",to",,, oO"", ,_..",." '" "'." .",

Thl,.ot." , .... "0" •• .,.,.,.""'.
oO , ..
ot.fro",
, No '"
I","", o<,".h'
...... "",
""""00 {..,to", ",,"

''''I''''' ,"'_"",.

'''"f '"

-&-' ,""'",,.,,,"""""

,no""'"" '" ,<ton", "" , .. T""""IIOSATj. otoO",

O"ITculm..,' F'''''","" ..,. T,..,~'o,,", Tculm.... '''''''''''

<0"".0""

33

'".~d",h.... o"~

Figure 5 shows the overall increase in admissions and completions over the past four
FY. Both in-prison SAP admissions and in-prison SAP completions have decreased
over the last FY (2007-08). This is due to movement and discontinuation of programs in
preparation for slots to be added with the AB 900 expansion.

Figure 5: In-Prison SAP Admissions and Completions by FY

In-Prison SAP Admissions! and (ompletions 2

by Fisca I Yea r
20,000

..

,,,

lS,OOO

11,481
9,93S
8,1139

---9,Gll

lO,OOO

ti,lSl

ti~2S ~ "f-

"

.....-----.....
fY 2004!200S

Thl••.,.,. b.... "0' •• .,.,.,..,.,.

fY 200S!2om

fY 2om!2001

fY 2001!2008

,_mot,,., fro""".""'"'....-a.-l"lo"".,"''''''''''

1000"I<o""~'"

Wit"

,_.." '","m'" •.,.fro","'.""'" ,....'"""..,'" "" '''''''''IIOSATj•.,"'...
•No",b.,", "'",""o",.,,,h,o"'. ,,,,,b... o' ,...ri ' " ...
'0 ""',"",,,brt..,'" "'.... ,_."'.....
.,..~'"

"",... ""...", c..,...., b,",."'.. O"I'''''m..,' """"'"" ..,. "..,~.,.,., ,,..,,,,.'" '''''''''''

.eo"",.,,,"",.., '''"''"'''" SAl' , _ . . " ,••., ....,.."". by",."b_,.""

34

.. ,,..,,,,.,,, " ....d...

"b",,,..b,..

.....

~I"'.".,.'

Figure 6 shows that of 8,839 in-prison SAP completers in FY 2007-08, 69.6 percent
were men and 30.4 percent were women.

Figure 6: In-Prison SAP Completions by Gender FY 2007-08

In-Prison SAP Completions! by Gender
in FY 2007/2008
(n = 8,839)

r-.........

J2,M1

IlO·."1

.Mol.

Th I••".,. ,.... '''''' .''''''''-'''''' ''''''_'00 1ro""".01!0'....-a.-lI""""""''''''''' 108"1

m",01".""., "'<lon","'u" '""''''''',..,m.....".Iro"''''.01!0'....'"''''onco """'" T"'''''I
1000Tj.".,.... ' """, ,'" ,"'"•• "".", "" ,on""
'en""1••,,,,",on 1..-',"", SAl' ,"",,,,,,;••• ,,,",~'" 'V"""'<1"""''''''''' ',._on' ,,,,,,d...on.
",p""•• ,oO"",

35

Figure 7 shows the governing offenses for in-prison SAP completers. Drug crimes
represented 37 percent, while property crimes represented 41.2 percent and crimes
against persons 12.4 percent.

Figure 7: In-Prison SAP Completions by Governing Offense Category FY 2007-08

In-Prison SAP Completions 1 by Governing
Offense Category in FY 2007/2008
In =8,839}
I,(1'9B(11.4"1
J,6JB(41.2"1

'" Crime, Ap;mt Person'
• Drul (ri"""

= other Crime,
Q

_'<n 'ro",,"'''''

Thi' d... i' 0.....""" d. rr<>",""" ~ ,
",b"an","." ,"'.',,"',
fOSATj .......... ' "".. "ot
r..",o.,.,
'«><n,I._ 0' on .......""'" <» • _ _ i,d."

.om~,,.d";",

i,,"•••

rnMr -a.-l ,""""'
d.....""'''....." .... "'''''

Property-Crime,

.." fOMlSl

. - Tr..m.

'"
.,..... ,"''''"..'''''' . ._

,.""" ••to 0""'

36

, .._,.""""'- an.

Figure 8 there is no significant difference between the mean age (36) of the
in-prison SAP population and the general prison population (37) as reported in the
Office of Research’s Prison Census Data as of December 31, 2008 (p.9).

Figure 8. In-Prison SAP Completions by Age FY 2007-08

In-Prison SAP Completions! by Age Group
in FY 2007/2008
(n = 8,839)
1910.2%.

.Ai0 21to 3S

.AioSlto6S
.Ai06So,Old ..

3,869143.8%.

...on..... ·".......

Thl••.,.,. b.... "0' ••.,.,.,..".,. ' ' ",mot'oo fro"'U"""'"'....-a.-l,,"""'.,"',"""" IOB"I
m",01".""'" "brt...,,,,.I,,.. '_...,,',..,m......,.fro""".""'"'....'"""...,'" "".... T'''''''I
1000Tj • .,..,.... O<Ho, '"' "."". "''''pi'''''''''''''
'Co"",.."" 01..., '0-""'" SAl' '"""...,,;
rm~.. by".."brt...,"'..,.... ,,._...,, ''''''d......,.
"""'''.'00'''''. ,,,,,,,,,,,",,'" ",.10 ..., "'.,. ,.~o;,.",.

37

PROGRAMS

II. CONTINUING CARE PROGRAMS

38

VOLUNTARY COMMUNITY-BASED SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROGRAMS
DARS administers community-based substance abuse treatment programs
(also referred to as “continuing care” or “aftercare”) for parolees. Research has shown
that inmates completing in-prison and continuing community-based care programs are
significantly less likely to return to prison. These programs provide continuing care
services through the Substance Abuse Services Coordination Agencies (SASCA).
There are four SASCAs, one in each parole region. SASCAs refer, place, and track
parolees in continuing care programs. SASCAs also provide transportation from prison
to treatment facilities.

Female Offender Treatment and Employment Program (FOTEP)
DARS provides continuing care programs that are designed to be appropriate for
female parolees and their children. FOTEP offers intensive, gender-responsive
counseling and case management services to women. Female parolees receive up to
15 months of residential treatment services and are allowed to have up to two minor
children reside with them during their participation in the program. The goal of FOTEP is
to reduce recidivism by providing substance abuse treatment services, family
reunification, vocational training, and employment services to prepare the female
parolees for successful reintegration into the community and workplace.
Core elements of the FOTEP programs include:

•

residential care

•
•

substance abuse treatment

•

parenting and family reunification

•
•

education and counseling

•

referrals to affordable housing

•

other services as needed

life skills, anger management

employment assistance

39

Figure 9 figures 9-10 describe community-based drug treatment events in FY 2007-08
by gender and parole region.

Figure 9: Number of Parolees Served in Community-Based Substance Abuse
Treatment by Gender FY 2007-08

Community-Based SAP Treatment Events 1

by Gender in FY 2007/2008
(n

= 14,2831

'" F.rnol.
_Mol.

lhi. dot.,..... d .""" d• .,.,.,.
ab "
d.......

,om.'nod""., ...........

~ ......",.,,"" "omt. . O".,d... -a-d ,""""'ot ""

_

''''''m'''d... from U,.""""""' .......,'"

'''''mo."f _~"an".. "",, I",. . . ,,,,
...... ad '" 111. d d."." U.. , .... l'M'. "'" ,,,,

("""'I

r,.,m.I""'-T)

""""ta. , "" ofU,.fi"....., U",.. who

ko_... " . .

1>0 _ . ,. ,,..., "'..... ,

m",,','" ,..""ant ..""".. to< I.........,. d"' "" " .. l'M'_

40

nd of U,. fi,," l'M'

I",... ,

Figure 10: Number of Parolees Served in Community-Based Care by Region
FY 2007-08

Community-Based SAP Participationl
by Parole Region in FY 2007/2008
(n = 14,283)
',251122.8"1

II ROllO" 1

=ROllO" 3

',161

ThI...,.I. ,_. ,~o •• ..",.""",, l~ot_l"" 1to",,,.orr.M...-a.... ,"fo"".. ",o~..,, 108ISI'o",",~"w'II"
" ..,"'",. ". Ito'" ,,,. orr. "' So, "'0" .,,,.. T'''' "" 105A11.".,_

'","'". .,,, ..

,tot"'"

, N"",'.,of ,"''',,>n''
1"'•.,.. '.....'""0.......10 "..",,.,,,., "~a ~.~ of,"~""""', ,,_ ...""........."'.....,"'., ~"'"
.....,>nO ,,_ '""0...." I", cu< ..... ., " . . "'of<" ~ "........ I"",... "',."10 ,.._on,.,"""", 1m I'","",••• "~I ~ " ...

41

CONTINUING CARE PROGRAMS

Senate Bill 1453
The Senate Bill (SB) 1453 Program (Penal Code Section 2933.4) allows eligible
in-prison substance abuse program graduates to complete 150 days of residential,
community-based continuing care as a condition of their parole. Eligible inmates
include non-serious, non-violent, non-sex offenders who complete a minimum of 90
days of an in-prison SAP. Parolees who successfully complete 150 days of residential
continuing care treatment are discharged from parole. Successful completion is
determined by an Aftercare Successful Completion Assessment Team (ASCAT). The
ASCAT includes a SASCA designee, a FOTEP designee (in a FOTEP facility), a
community-based provider designee, a DARS Parole Agent II, and the Agent of Record.

Mandatory Conditions of Parole (MCOP)
The Mandatory Conditions of Parole (MCOP) program is a pilot program and is located
at the Valley State Prison for Women and the California Rehabilitation Center. The
MCOP mandates 120 days of residential aftercare treatment for felon inmates paroling
from in-prison substance abuse programs. MCOP eligibility requires a pattern of arrest,
convictions, behavior or other factors that indicate inmates have a substance use
disorder problem.

PAROLE DIVERSION PROGRAMS

In-Custody Drug Treatment Program (ICDTP)
The In-Custody Drug Treatment Program (ICDTP) offers remedial sanctions in lieu of
prison for parolees who violate parole. Participants engage in 150 days of treatment in
one of two models:
1.

Jail-Based Model: Parolees participate in a 60-day, jail-based, educationaldrug treatment program. Parolees receive 30 days of treatment in residential
community-based settings for the second phase of their program participation.
Parolees complete their final 60 days of treatment in a residential program,
outpatient and/or sober-living, or a combination of both, based on individual
assessment. Outpatient treatment includes programs such as Alcoholics
Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, aftercare groups, etc.

2.

Community-Based Model: Parolees participate in the first phase of treatment
in a residential community-based setting for a minimum of 90 days. Parolees
42

complete the last 60 days in residential, outpatient and/or sober-living
programs.

Parolee Substance Abuse Program (PSAP)
The Parolee Substance Abuse Program (PSAP) was established in December 2003 to
provide an educational-based 90 day in-custody treatment program for parolees who
have committed violations related to drug or alcohol dependency. Eligible parolees are
placed in a PSAP by the Board of Parole hearings based on the recommendation of the
agent of record. The PSAP is located at the Folsom Transitional Treatment Facility on
the grounds of Folsom State Prison and serves parolees in CDCR Parole Region I. In
addition to in-custody treatment, participating parolees are eligible for up to 90 days of
continuing care at a residential treatment facility after the completion of PSAP
treatment.

Parolee Services Network (PSN)
The Parolee Service Network (PSN) provides community-based alcohol and drug
treatment services for eligible parolees (felons and civil addicts). The PSN is a CDCR
collaborative program that includes the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs
(ADP), 17 county alcohol and drug programs, case management providers, and
community-based organizations. As of June 30, 2008, 915 parolees were being served
by PSN, 353 in residential treatment and 562 in outpatient treatment. (California
Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs-Office of Criminal Justice Collaborations,
Parolee Services, Statewide PSN Client Count, June 2008).
PSN provides a full array of community-based substance abuse treatment services for
parolees in the community who cannot normally use SASCA services. CDCR has an
interagency agreement with ADP for the purpose of administering the PSN. The goal of
PSN is to reduce recidivism and improve parole outcomes as evidenced by reduced
alcohol and drug related parole revocations.
PSN is comprised of the following four regional services networks:

•

Bay Area Services Network serves male and female parolees in nine Bay Area
Counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa
Clara, Solano and Sonoma).

•

Central Valley Network serves male and female parolees in three counties (Fresno,
Kern and Sacramento).

•

Los Angeles Parolee Project Network serves male and female parolees in
Los Angeles County.

•

Southern California Network serves male and female parolees in Orange, Riverside,
San Bernardino and San Diego counties.
43

Figure 11 community-based aftercare participation for parolees increased by over 109
percent during FY 2007-08. In July 2007, there was an average daily population of
2,632 clients participating in aftercare programs. By the end of June 2008, the average
daily population of clients participating in DARS’ aftercare treatment programs had
increased to 5,503. Much of the growth in community-based aftercare participation
comes from the implementation of SB 1453, which mandates 150 days of residential
treatment for qualified clients, the utilization of the ICDTP as an alternative sanction for
parole violators, and the reporting of PSN participants into aftercare counts.

Figure 11: Aftercare Participation by Month for FY 2007-08

Aftercare Participants--FY 07/08
7000

6500

6000

5500

# of Participants

5503
5000

4890
4500

4000

3814

3500

3850

3608
3228

3000

3358

3027
2814

2500

2778

2814

Sep-07

Oct-07

2632
2000

1500

Jul-07

Aug-07

Nov-07

Dec-07

Aftercare Participants

44

Jan-08

Feb-08

Mar-08

Apr-08

May-08

Jun-08

PROGRAMS

III. DARS OFFENDER DEMOGRAPHICS
FISCAL YEAR 2007/08

45

DEMOGRAPHICS OF CLIENTS SERVED BY DARS

Figures 12-15 summarize demographic information of clients served in DARS in-prison
and Community-Based Substance Abuse Programs.
Figure 12 shows a total of 32,410 offenders were served by DARS Programs in
FY 2007-08. Of these, 7,010 (21.6 percent) were women and 25,400 (78.4 percent)
were men. Female offenders comprise 21.6 percent of the substance use disorder
treatment population, compared to female offenders comprising 8.9 percent of the
overall CDCR population (institutions and parole).

Figure 12: Clients Served by Gender (All Programs) FY 2007-08

Clients served by In-Prison 1 and
Community-Based Programs
during FY 2007/2008 by Gender
(n =32,410)

r_........,':.:10121.ti"l
" Femol•

• Mol.

""._.no-d "'O" ".,.._~ ,""'
<om.;. . d_
'" brt
dot _ _ D•• .,.. '''''

, lod..... _..,.""C

_

fr

. . . . . . ..." , , _

,,,.""""""'........ ,",,,"',,,.., ...... (OIlS1
d•• ""," tho """""'" ......."'" " " - T'-"""II""'1)

Ci.. ''"'''''.'Md; .

""'IT"'_""""

""d T,,,,,•.,,," T,_",.,. , _.....

46

Figure 13 shows that the mean age of all offenders participating in DARS programs is
36 years.

Figure 13: Clients Served by Age (All Programs) FY 2007-08

Clients served by In-Prison 1 and
Community-Based Programs during
FY 2007/2008 by Age
(n = 32,410)

2,112918.1".

.Ai0 21to 3S
=Aio36toSO
:AAioSlto6S
.Ai066o,Old ..

Th I,."." b.... '''''' •• ".,.,-oph' ''''''''''''00 Imm ,n. """ , --..-. """"',,"," ....." IOB"I <O"*'~ ..
""'" "b.to,,,,"'''' ,_om ,,.,,,,,.,,,•.,.lmm ".. """' "'b_,. "",..'oo'''''IIOSATj."..,... Oot.o
.1"",,,, 0'" N..-mt< ... ~~.
, "",

.".G,{......., 0"'1''''''''''''' ,,""'.... ..,. "..,.,,"', 'rut","", ''''''00'''

47

Figure 14 shows that the most common governing offense for DARS program
participants is drug crimes (42.5 percent).

Figure 14: Clients Served by Governing Offense (All Programs) FY 2007-08

Clients served by In-Prison 1 and
Community-Based Programs during
FY 2007/2008 by Governing Offense
(n =32,410)

r_·......

;::1,lSll22.1" •

• DrurCri"""
=OlherCri"", •
.. PropertyCrl""'.

Th

i,. 01."

from'''.

om

... ""'''

..... '''''' •• """,""""' '''''''_'00
011o , ....--..-. ",,,,,,., io, " "
1011"1 <O""'~
d 01...."'" It.. ""' ......
T..,.." 1'-""Tj dot..... 0.,. .1'"

'"."..,u ..,.. ,r'V,,", ,..""'.."

'"'.-u ""..

I""',d","""
""'"". .......
Md.",
,
[)<u,lr."",,,,, ',<'0,'" ..,d Ir..,"Oo I...,,,,, .. '""r.....
'''''',d"Iloi:..,~ooC

48

Figure 15 displays the distribution of DARS program participants by race.

Figure 15: Clients Served by Race (All Programs) FY 2007-08

Clients served by In-Prison 1 and
Community-Based Programs during
FY 2007/2008 by Race
In =32,410)

.......

r.~

",~9"'H (29.1")
lflllack

= Other
"Whit.

=Thi. dot. i
......"'CO

d "",," 'I....,..-.,..~ ; _ , . . , from ,n. """"""'-&ood """""...... ,."..." IOBIS) ,
_ .... , .._ _ d ... ""'" ,,," """""...
T. " ' _ """Tj d
_0

"'._co""...

"""
'In<'"d.. """'.""C..,,... "'"IT,._on, ,"""'.... """ T'.....", Tr_..... ,"'.......

CiwiI

"W<"'~

9,886 (JO.5")

49

_"
;",lud. .

RETURN-TO- PRISON ANALYSIS

50

PROGRAM COMPLETION AND RECIDIVISM REDUCTION ANALYSIS
Recidivism, or return-to-prison, is defined as a paroled offender returning to prison for
any reason during a specified time period. This includes offenders who are returned to
Substance Abuse Treatment Control Units in correctional facilities; returned pending a
revocation hearing by the Board of Parole Hearings on charges of violating the
conditions of parole; returned to custody for parole violations to serve revocation time;
or returned to custody by a court for a new felony conviction.
The following data is based on offenders who completed both in-prison and community
care treatment. CDCR recognizes that there may be some selection problems by
focusing only on offenders that completed the program. Future analyses will attempt to
assess all offenders assigned to a substance abuse treatment program, including those
who do not complete.
Female Offenders
Female offenders who completed both in-prison and community-based substance
abuse treatment had substantially lower return-to-prison rates (8.8 percent after one
year and 16.5 percent after two years) than those who completed in-prison substance
abuse programs (SAPs) but did not attend community-based substance abuse
treatment (25.0 percent after one year and 37.7 percent after two years). These rates
compare with a 30.1 percent return-to-prison rate after one year and a 43.7 percent
return-to-prison rate after two years for all CDCR female offenders (CDCR, Adult
Research Branch: One and Two Year Recidivism Rates For All Paroled Felons
Released from Prison for the First Time in 2005 Under the Supervision of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, February 2009). (See Table 3, page 52
and Figure 16, page 53).

Male Offenders
Male offenders who completed both in-prison and community-based substance abuse
treatment had lower return-to-prison rates (25.4 percent after one year and 40.4 percent
after two years) than male offenders who completed in-prison SAPs but did not attend
community-based substance abuse treatment (39.8 percent after one year and 55.8
percent after two years). These rates compare with a 41.2 percent return-to-custody
rate after one year and a 55.6 percent return-to-prison rate after two years for all CDCR
male offenders (CDCR, Adult Research Branch: One and Two Year Recidivism Rates
For All Paroled Felons Released from Prison for the First Time in 2005 Under the
Supervision of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
February 2009). (See Table 3, page 52 and Figure 17, page 54).

Overall
Overall, all offenders, both male and female, who completed both in-prison and
community-based substance abuse treatment in FY 2005-06 had a return-to-prison rate
51

of 21.9 percent after one year and 35.3 percent after two years. This compares with a
39.9 percent return-to-prison rate after one year and a 54.2 percent return-to-prison rate
after two years for all offenders. (See Table 3, page 52 and Figure 18, page 55).
Table 3 illustrates that overall, female offenders have lower return-to-prison rates than
male offenders across all continuums. Furthermore, offenders who successfully
complete both in-prison and community-based substance abuse treatment programs
have markedly lower rates of return-to-prison than offenders who either do not receive
treatment or only receive in-prison SAP.
Table 3. One and Two-Year Return-to-Prison Rates for Offenders Who Completed
In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs in FY 2005-06
1

2

RETURNED TO PRISON RATES FOR OFFENDERS WHO COMPLETED IN-PRISON
SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROGRAMS DURING FISCAL YEAR 2005/2006
INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM OSAT DATA AS OF FEBRUARY 14, 2009

Gender
F
E
M
A
L
E

In-Prison
Substance
Abuse Program Completers Return to
Completers
Prison up to 12 months

Program
3

In-Prison Substance Abuse Program Only
Continuing Care Completers

4

Continuing Care Non-Completers

5

FEMALE SUBTOTAL
In-Prison Substance Abuse Program Only3

M
A
L
E

Continuing Care Completers

4

Continuing Care Non-Completers

5

Completers Return to
Prison up to 24 months

1,012

253

25.0%

382

37.7%

339

30

8.8%

56

16.5%

314

98

31.2%

156

49.7%

1,665

381

22.9%

594

35.7%

2,863

1,139

39.8%

1,598

55.8%

1,261

320

25.4%

509

40.4%

836

432

51.7%

555

66.4%

MALE SUBTOTAL

4,960

1,891

38.1%

2,662

53.7%

GRAND TOTAL

6,625

2,272

34.3%

3,256

49.1%

Reception Center Offenders and Offenders with a Modality of 4 are excluded in this data.
1
Completion is defined as those participants who successfully complete treatment program as determined by the contract treatment provider.
2

Includes offenders who graduated from In-Prison SAPS, but did not receive community-based treatment; those who graduated from In-Prison SAPS
but did not complete community based-treatment; and those who completed both In-Prison SAPS and community-based treatment. Does not include
Reception Center inmates.
3
Offenders who graduated from In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs Only, but did not receive community-based treatment (continuing care).
4
Offenders who graduated from In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs and completed community-based treatment.
5
Offenders who graduated from In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs, went to community-based treatment but DID NOT complete.

52

Figure 16. Return to Prison Rates for Female Parolees

Comparison of Return·to·Prison 1 Rates for Female Parolees
Completing In·Prison SAP and Continuing Care to the General
Population of Female Offenders that Paroled
in FY 2005/2006
SOO%
43.1"

4S.0%
40.0%
3SO%

I

•

•

" " Returnini to Pri",n Within
OneYur

300%
2SO%

. " Relurnini to Pri",n Within
TwoYu"

20.0%
1S,0%
100%
,~

O~

Fe ....le In·Pri",n SAP ond
"'nlinuin. c.re ",,,,,,Ide,,

Fe ....le Gene ..1Populolion

1111•• ,,,1. ,
,pon .'II'!OJ'opIlk 1"",_1", ~m,",orr.n.....a-d Info""""ns.,..,,,,, 1000ISI'o""'~ ......, "'non,..''''
p~''''' " ..'m
"~m'".orr.'" ... s.."'.,,'" ..... 1'"'g,.IOUT!.".....
's.. "[).o~nl"",.".[,p~n""n olCo1",Iol""'"

53

Figure 17: Return to Prison Rates for Male Parolees FY 2005-06

Comparison of Return·to·Prison 1 Rates for Male Parolees
Completing In-Prison SAP and Continuing Care to the General
Population of Male Offenders that Paroled in FY 2005/2006
60.0'%
500'%

Ill"

40,0'%

,I•

R.turnlni to Prl",n Wit"ln

OneY..r

30.0'%

. " R.turnini to Pri",n Witnin
TW() Yeo"

200'%
100'%

""

MIll/: IIt-Pr"on SAP and
(ont"",illl (Me (omplete"

ThI•••,.I. ,_. 'P'O" .,....,.ropll< 101",,,,,,1,,, """,,,,orr.oo...-a-o

I"fo"""""~,,,,108151<00'0""' ....'

le,.,",,","" leo'" H.. orr..,j... So,,,,",, >.tl "0 T""""IIWT). 01" ... ,
. So, "Do~" l "'" on... P100 01 "" of '01",10< "","

54

'",_,. .,,, .. p~,"",

Figure 18 shows a comparison of the return-to-prison rates for all men and women
who successfully completed both a in-prison and community-based continuing care
substance abuse program, as well as a comparison to the general population of
parolees for FY 2005-06.

Figure 18. Comparison of Return to Prison Rates for FY 2005-06

Comparison of Return-to-Prison 1 Rates of All In-Prison SAP
Completers and Continuing Care to the General Population of
Offenders that Paroled in FY 2005/2006
60.0%
54.2"
50.0%

40.0%

+-

--c.=

,39.9%,_ _

34.3"§

1•

,

§

'" In-Priwn SAP .nd Conlinuin, Cor<
Compel.,<

30.0%
.In-Pri"'n SAP Complelo"

20.0%

"(;en.,.1 Popul.lion

10.0%

" Rolurnod 10 Pri",n Wilhin
OnoYo.r

" Rolurnod 10 Pri",n Wilhin
Two Yo."

"0' ••.,.,.,..,.,. '_mot'oo fro""".""'"'....-&-' "10"""10,,,,,,,,, 1000"I<o""~'" Wit" ","'". ."
,_..."
''''''m
".fro","'.""'",....'"""...".
"".... Tr"""IIOSATj. ".,...
. So. '"Oo",'lor..,.
o'U",lotlo,."

Thi••".,. ,

u,~,"Io,

55

..

PLANNED
INITIATIVES FOR CONTINUED
IMPROVEMENT

56

Planned Initiatives for Continued Improvement

While CDCR continues its major reforms, the Courts and Legislature are reviewing how
to reduce the prison population and realign costs while ensuring public safety.
Regardless of what happens with the current policy decisions being considered,
California and its criminal justice system will continue to need viable, current, evidencebased models for substance abuse treatment which are integrated with medical, mental
health and rehabilitative care.
CDCR will continue to design and provide effective gender responsive substance abuse
treatment for female and male offenders. Much is being learned at California State
Prison, Solano in Vacaville through the Solano Proof Project, implementing the
integrated rehabilitative case management model, with assessments and program
placement based on risk and need. An important component of this Solano model is the
implementation of an “Offender Mentor Academy” – a partnership between DARS,
Orange County Office of Education, the United States Department of the Navy and the
California Association of Alcohol and Drug Counselors. The Academy is training lifers
and long-term inmates to become certified alcohol and other drug counselors. This
intensive training is preparing these offenders to be peer mentors and to assist other
treatment programs. One unanticipated outcome of this program to date has been the
rehabilitative and motivational impacts to the program participants.
CDCR is also reviewing improved rehabilitative services for the higher security and lifer
populations. This past year Adult Institutions and Adult Programs, along with the
University of California, San Diego, sponsored a high security symposium with
Dr. Stanton E. Samenow, Ph. D. who is a national expert on criminal thinking. The
symposium explored possible approaches which can lead to reduced violence and
criminal thinking while motivating offenders to participate in the rehabilitative programs
that will best address their risk and needs.
DARS will continue to seek improvements and efficiencies by requiring qualifying
education and certification of treatment staff, and sponsoring collaborative cross
trainings with institutional, custodial, other core program staff and the contract provider
staff. These cross trainings provide participants with increased awareness of roles,
responsibilities and program plans.
The COMPAS and the implementation of the newly designed CDCR, ASI as a
secondary assessment instrument (developed by Dr. Larry Carr, CDCR and Dr. Tom
McClellan from the Treatment Research Institute at the University of Pennsylvania) will
be reviewed this year. Improved data collection, research on SB 1453 outcomes and

57

the implementation of automated tracking systems to collect treatment dosage and
performance data are also planned goals for DARS.
This Annual Report tells a positive story of successful change in progress. DARS has
more to accomplish in transferring the science and principles of effective treatment into
the “real world” prison and community settings to reduce recidivism and ensure public
safety. The key to “doing it better” and “accomplishing more” is to enhance the
capacities and working relationships of CDCR staff and program stakeholders.
Note on the Timing of this Report
It should be noted that by the time this report is released, the State’s Fiscal Crisis will
likely have required CDCR to reduce the services described in this report as well as
reduce and reorganize our Adult Programs operations. Nevertheless, CDCR is very
proud of these accomplishments and wanted to show them in this report. Lessons
learned from this report will assist CDCR in developing strategies to reduce cost and
maximize our ability to reduce recidivism without compromising treatment integrity.

58

APPENDICES

59

APPENDIX A.

Califo ia Logic

el

~I"'"

;IiI:mII

;IiI:ICI1III:IIl:a.i

. IlOIIJ

TI'p-~,,",

~II!IIII~~"
1'111

6U ilia

_1Ia

tftII D.1II

Amio_l><oIiI
a.t:s -.:, lELtI

,

Hc~"~
"'

_It :I
.,..111'
1II111f1.

....

"0lI
l1li,..

I'\"qr_'

ElI""'ol

~.f'II

ClI~d

Prl"
Ilol1»&

lloolJ Go ..
Qr.n.-U'

BI>-... ~
ill........'
~"lI:~,
"~Ir",,..

" ....'" lOr

Ifii"l,~,*.

Pii\WO

[Mid

"_~di

a_
1lIq.~

_01_ r._

" .......tn:III

p,

IiJiifiI-QlM

111111
IlII

r""ad Ir

""

1*",
1.1:_

60

'

'~

1lIq.ra<

~IJ,:Il,-

1'lIIII1I1

•• ::IIIJm •.

ilaI,IiIlI8.'Ii,

q.""

~"".

~

:tI!tu

0·"1

0"

- - :lll1iI~J.

lIA1tlll
SI

l~~_~~~ __

I

1IIIIIIIa"'4[~

-

I!IIa:a

".......

"-Ufli:m
IIIV"''' 01 ..... ~,
.... ·!l'in<it
&t.~,Ii1.

~ ~
Ed..:a.: .....a..a ..
&Rii*~,

c.n.. all'
h:_I~

a_..

Ca.ty_

FdI

nO: ott

~",lI:

JlIiI"

_..
aUlD Ill...

r

AofI·
~I"'''
fb:st''.Ia:l

I
,,,",
~
1lIII

Eolot

APPENDIX B.
Success Stories and News Articles
Division of Addiction and Recovery Services
Substance Abuse Programs

“Jessie” was addicted to crack cocaine and lived on the streets of San Francisco. She lost
contact with her five children. When she was controlled by her addiction, she had a sixth
child. He was born addicted to crack. She left him in the hospital and never went back for
him. Child Protective Services took her four boys away for adoption. She entered the
Trauma Informed Substance Abuse Treatment (TI-SAT) Program at Leo Chesney
Correctional Facility and is now clean and sober. She just reunited with her two daughters,
whom she hadn’t seen for seven years. Here is what she said about the TI-SAT program:
“It’s given me a chance to be a better mother, to rebuild my relationship with [my
daughters], to walk away from my old behavior – people, places and things. It’s time for
me to break the cycle. I’m tired. I don’t want to do it anymore. My girls are looking forward
to me changing my life. I made that promise. I’m willing and ready.”
“Jessie,” Leo Chesney Correctional Facility
Live Oak, California

“John” was paroled after serving 27 years of a seven years-to-life sentence. For the last
five years, he was a Walden House Peer Mentor at the California Substance Abuse
Treatment Facility (SATF) and State Prison, Corcoran. During his tenure in the Walden
House program he completed several college courses as well as numerous self help
programs. He recently paroled to a Walden House 28-bed residential program in Los
Angeles. This program will be able to provide him with more individual counseling and
services to address his specific needs, especially after such a lengthy incarceration. The
weekend supervisor, “Joe” also paroled from the Walden House Peer Mentor Program
(SATF) five years ago, after serving 13 years of his life sentence. Joe will be able to
provide John with support and direction in his re-entry to society, which will strengthen
John’s likelihood of success. This is a testament that treatment does work and has made a
difference for two lifers from SATF.
Cynthia Hebron, Correctional Counselor III
Division of Addiction and Recovery Services
California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility
and State Prison, Corcoran

61

For Immediate Release
Contact: Paul Verke / Michele Kane
(916) 445-4950
September 30, 2008

CDCR Launches First-of-its-Kind Substance Abuse Treatment
Program for Female Offenders

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
The Trauma Informed Substance Abuse Treatment Program, or TI-SAT, is unique for CDCR in that it takes a multidimensional approach that acknowledges women's pathways into the criminal justice system and targets the causes of
substance abuse. The program, provided by Walden House, is geared for 200 inmates at the Leo Chesney Community
Correctional Facility.

video

| 6 min video

The new Trauma Informed Substance Abuse Treatment Program addresses women’s root causes of
substance abuse and helps meet the goals of prison reform legislation.
LIVE OAK –Today, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations (CDCR) Secretary Matthew Cate
joined staff, participants, and substance abuse treatment professionals at the opening ceremony for the new
Trauma Informed Substance Abuse Treatment Program for women offenders at the Leo Chesney Community
Correctional Facility in Live Oak. The program is one of the components of the Public Safety and Offender
Services Act of 2007, also known as AB 900, landmark prison reform legislation signed by Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger in May 2007.
“This innovative program is a down payment on CDCR’s commitment to provide more rehabilitation programs
to offenders and showcases the Department’s shift away from the one-size-fits-all approach to female
incarceration,” said Secretary Cate. “Substance abuse has a negative effect on families and drives
incarceration; however, research has shown that investing in substance abuse treatment has a real cost benefit
to the public.”
The Trauma Informed Substance Abuse Treatment Program, or TI-SAT, is unique for CDCR in that it takes a
multi-dimensional approach that acknowledges women’s pathways into the criminal justice system and targets
the causes of substance abuse. The program, provided by Walden House, is geared for 200 inmates at the
Leo Chesney Community Correctional Facility. Clinicians and counselors provide the 150 women currently in
the program treatment in a safe environment. The program targets social and cultural factors including abuse,

62

violence, family relationships and co-occurring disorders, and treats the trauma that may have lead the women
to abuse drugs and alcohol.
“This program provides female offenders with gender-responsive treatment and services to help them
successfully reintegrate in their communities,” said Thomas Powers, Director of CDCR’s Division of Addiction
and Recovery Services. “Improving outcomes for these women will also translate into improved outcomes for
their children and assist with CDCR’s important efforts to break the intergenerational cycle of incarceration.”
Powers said that gender-responsive means the housing, supervision, treatment programs, services, the staff
who develop and deliver the programs, and every aspect related to the incarceration of women reflects an
understanding of the realities and issues of women’s lives.
“For several years, CDCR has tackled the issue of female incarceration and developed policies and strategies
to address that issue,” Powers said. “Research shows that more than 57 percent of incarcerated women have
been physically or sexually abused at some time in their lives compared with 16 percent of male inmates. This
program is specifically geared to help the women deal with the trauma that may have led to their addiction and
subsequent imprisonment.”
AB 900 directed the CDCR to expand in-custody substance abuse treatment services as well as follow up
treatment for offenders on parole. The TI-SAT program represents the first milestone in the goal to add 2,000
substance abuse treatment slots statewide by December 30, 2008.
It is also part of CDCR’s long-term strategic plan for female offenders which began in January 2005 when
CDCR established the Gender-Responsive Strategies Commission to develop overall plans, policies,
procedures and programs for improving outcomes for juvenile and adult females in prison or on parole.
During the first two weeks of the TI-SAT program, inmates go through an orientation and then progress to the
main treatment phase where they are placed in classes and groups geared to address their needs identified in
their assessments and interventions.
The Leo Chesney Community Correctional Facility in Live Oak opened in April 1989 and is operated by Cornell
Companies, Inc. under contract with CDCR. Located 60 miles north of Sacramento, the facility houses up to
305 minimum-security female offenders. In addition to the TI-SAT program, the facility also offers academic
educational programs, substance abuse and addiction support groups, a pre-release program, vocational
training and other programs.
Click here to view AB 900 Benchmark Documents
###
Click here to view CDCR web page on the opening of the TI-SAT program and related video.

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/News/2008_Press_Releases/Sept_30.html

63

The Sacramento Bee
Officials tout Live Oak prison to ease fears about re-entry facilities
hsangree@sacbee.com
Published Sunday, Oct. 12, 2008
In the town of Live Oak, in the shadow of the Sutter Buttes, Roberto Ruiz lives with a prison just
a few feet from his backyard.
His neighbor is the Leo Chesney Community Correctional Facility, a minimum-security
women's prison. But the 42-year-old construction worker said he's never had a problem with the
prison's 300 inmates.
"They're good neighbors," he said.
While residents of the small Yolo County town of Madison are worried sick about a proposal to
build a new prison nearby, neighbors of the Chesney facility have had few complaints.
Chesney is similar in many ways to the re-entry prisons planned for Madison and other locations
throughout the state, said Carole Hood, chief deputy secretary at the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Chesney's small population of inmates study in portable classrooms, bunk in open dorms and
raise organic produce in colorful gardens.
Inmates are counseled against substance abuse and take anger management and family
relationship classes. They also train for careers as cooks, cable technicians and landscapers.
It's all meant to keep them from returning to California's overcrowded prison system.
Re-entry prisons, which will house up to 500 inmates each, are also intended to rehabilitate
felons nearing parole by offering intensive education, counseling and vocational training in
unconventional prison settings.
But in a number of counties, Yolo among them, plans to build the new prisons have met
resistance.
Corrections officials chalk it up to a not-in-my-backyard attitude. They hope the example of the
Chesney prison might change some minds.
Bordered on three sides by residential neighborhoods, the prison is operated by Cornell Cos., a
private contractor, in conjunction with the state's department of corrections.

64

Its inmates, many transferred from larger prisons, are in the final year or two of their sentences.
Chesney is different from the planned re-entry prisons in at least two important ways.
Re-entry prisons are expected to house mostly male offenders, including serious and violent
felons. Chesney accepts only women who have committed lower-level crimes.
And Chesney looks like an elementary school surrounded by razor wire. The re-entry prisons,
designed in California mission or ranch style, will contain inmates without guard towers or
perimeter fences.
The programs at Chesney, however, are similar to what will be offered in the new facilities.
That's the point state officials want to get across to communities like Madison, where residents
are concerned about safety, home values and preserving their small-town way of life.
In a substance-abuse session at Chesney last week, a dozen women wearing white T-shirts and
blue jeans sat in a circle with a counselor, passing around family photos.
They talked of children and grandchildren and their longing to be with them.
Anna Urbiana, 44, is doing time for assault. She said she hadn't seen her family for four and half
years, but her daughters and mother were planning to visit soon. She was hoping to see her 6month-old grandson for the first time.
Urbiana said the drug-treatment program, with its emphasis on trust and sharing among inmates,
has helped her change.
"I'm going back into society and never coming back," she said.
At Chesney, inmates grow vegetables in the prison gardens, while others learn to cook them in
culinary classes taught by an instructor from the local community college.
In another classroom, a group of women learned the fine points of installing fiber optics and
coaxial cable.
Upon graduation, inmates can be certified as entry-level cable technicians, with jobs starting at
around $20 an hour, said instructor Patty Henderson.
LaJoy Smith, 47, of Los Angeles said she intends to go into the delicate work of splicing fiberoptic cables. She hopes her conviction for forgery won't get in the way.
Physical conditioning also is a part of the curriculum. In the prison gym, inmates went through a
grueling workout to a Tae Bo video on a big-screen television.
Fawn Butrick, 29, from Rocklin, said she had lost 90 pounds since June through "determination
and consistency."

65

She said she'd been a drug user and had never exercised before coming to Chesney.
"I wanted to make changes so I could live productively on the outside," said Butrick, who was
serving a sentence for passing counterfeit bills. "I was lucky the opportunity was here for me."
Instructor Gary Reedy said it's not just about exercise, but "about setting goals, reaching goals
and feeling good."
Reedy recalled a woman who cried when he handed her a certificate for completing a class. She
told him it was the first thing she had ever finished in her life.

Call The Bee's Hudson Sangree, (916) 321-1191.

66

Chesney, trauma program locking up better futures
By Howard Yune/Appeal-Democrat October 2, 2008
Venessa Bean began using drugs nearly 20 years ago, and the most recent of her stumbles — a
conviction for heroin possession — landed her in a Live Oak prison.
Now, the middle-aged Sacramento woman and mother of two hopes her current prison term will break her
vicious circle by helping her do more than kick her drug habit.
Bean is one of California's first prisoners to enter a new counseling program aiming not only to keep drug
offenders clean, but to train them to keep their lives in line after they leave.
"This is my first prison term — and my last," she said Tuesday at the Leo Chesney Community
Correctional Facility, home to about 300 minimum-security female inmates. "For a woman who's never
had the opportunity to experience stability, a steady job, it's good. I'm getting my foundation back."
Chesney is a private facility operated by Houston, Texas-based Cornell Corrections Inc.
Officials at the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation call the counseling program at the
Chesney center — a combination of drug treatment, group therapy and vocational training — the first of
its kind in a California community prison.
Named Trauma Informed Substance Abuse Treatment, or TI-SAT, the program is the first fruit of a 2007
Assembly bill to provide treatment and rehabilitation for up to 2,000 more inmates.
At Chesney, inmates in the program alternate between group counseling, addiction therapy and
workshops that teach skills such as computer repair and furniture making.
At an open house at Chesney to introduce the month-old program, corrections leaders called TI-SAT a
way to attack the root causes of addiction for many inmates, and hopefully keep more of them out of the
revolving door of drug-linked imprisonment.
"What we see is emotional abuse, sexual abuse, violence," said Thomas Powers, director of the
department's Division of Addiction and Recovery Services. "They start focusing on going to a place of
safety, and then the drugs show up and that's the perfect numbing agent."
"We're looking for a future where we do more than house folks and hope they don't come back," said
Kathryn Jett, corrections undersecretary.
About 150 women at Chesney have enrolled in the rehabilitation program since Sept. 2, according to the
department.

67

(This article was This article was printed from the Local Stories section of the Sacramento
News & Review, originally published April 2, 2009.This article may be read online at:
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content?oid=936668. Copyright ©2009 Chico
Community Publishing, Inc.)

Ca tc h a n d Re le a s e
California’s prisons are packed with repeat nonviolent drug offenders.
Folsom State Prison’s Parolee Substance Abuse Program seeks to
rehabilitate, not incarcerate.
By Janelle Weiner

,

For more than 20 years, Julius
Johnson’s life swung dangerously out of
whack. Although he tried to attend school
and hold down a job, plans for how and
where to get his next drink or bag of weed
crowded his mind. Constantly drunk,
stoned or both, he landed in prison
multiple times.
“You don’t wanna know how many times
I’ve been in,” says Johnson, shaking his
head. At 45, his face is still boyish, but the
ache in his voice reveals a man who has
suffered beyond his years. He’s tried to
walk the straight and narrow, but always
loses his balance and winds up back
“behind the wall.”

..

~~.

Julius Johnson’s pursuit of the eternal buzz
landed him repeatedly in prison on nonviolent
offenses. At the Folsom Transitional
Treatment Facility, he hopes to restore balance
to his life.
Photo By Kyle Monk

This time it’s different. After his most
recent parole violation, Johnson was given
a choice: Go back behind the wall, or enter the Parolee Substance Abuse Program, located
in the Folsom Transitional Treatment Facility, in the shadow of the maximum-security state
prison.
Johnson chose the latter, and now he says he’s been “reborn.”
Like Johnson, all of the 200 parolees participating in the recovery program have at least one
nonserious, nonviolent felony on their records. Some have been in and out of custody for as
long as they can remember. This time when they violated parole—many, but not all, for
failing drug tests—they were given the same choice as Johnson: Return to prison for five
months to a year or begin a 90-day substance-abuse and transitional living program at
Folsom’s minimum-security treatment facility.

68

With California’s prisons facing unprecedented overcrowding and ballooning costs,
proponents of parole reform are looking at programs like Folsom’s to keep inmates from
repeatedly returning to prison. Many experts say California’s rigid parole policies result in
parolees returning to prison at nearly twice the rate of the national average. They want more
options for parole violators, including expanding rehabilitation and transitional services as
an alternative to lengthy and costly prison terms for nonviolent offenders.
Nevertheless, systematic improvements have been met with resistance from government
leaders, the public and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger and the Legislature have repeatedly stricken reform measures from the
budget, while voters and the CCPOA continue to hold fast to “three strikes.”
The short of it? Unless the state takes immediate action, the three federal judges empowered
in 2007 to reduce prison overcrowding may turn loose as many as 50,000 nonviolent
offenders on the streets. Many won’t have the skills to survive and will land right back in
trouble. And thanks to the state’s ongoing financial problems and lack of political will,
recovery programs such as Folsom are in short supply exactly when they’re needed the
most.
“If no one addresses their substance abuse, even if they have a job, they’re right back,”
insists Thomas Powers, director of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s Division of Addiction and Recovery Services. “The more risk and needs we
can address in an inmate, the lower chance they have to recidivate.”

The school of drugs and hard knocks
In the cavernous room where Johnson and the other men sleep, a row of low concrete walls
separates narrow beds from a section of the dorm used as a classroom for new arrivals.
Battered lockers next to each bed provide some sense of individual space, and slivers of
natural light fall from narrow windows. Outside the window, a fence topped with barbed
wire and video cameras encloses the property.
The mattresses aren’t soft, but it could be worse. The parolees could be behind the wall. A
2007 audit of CDCR’s rehabilitative services labeled in-prison programs across the state “a
complete waste.” The program at the Folsom Transitional Treatment Facility, outside the
main prison, offers a stark contrast to that assessment.
The Contra Costa County Office of Education runs the program; principal Shannon Swain
monitors activities on site. She strolls across the linoleum floor in a long skirt, passing
parolees who move aside and say, “Excuse me.”

69

One guy looks up, his blue eyes dancing, and grins at
Swain as she passes.
“Hey, you’re the director or head coordinator or
something, right?” he asks. The yellow lettering on his
uniform reads “CDC Prisoner.” Although the CDCR
changed its name to include “Rehabilitation” in 2005, not
all of the uniforms reflect the change.
“Principal,” Swain says.
“I knew it was something like that.”

All along the watchtower.
Minding the beat at Folsom
State Prison.
Photo By Kyle Monk

Swain and project coordinator Sam Williams Jr. proceed
across the enclosed outdoor common area to a classroom
where parolees in their first 30 days of the program—
Phase I—are reviewing the answers to a test on
psychopharmacology. They sit around tables in small
groups, folders, paper, pens and blue “Framework for
Recovery” workbooks covering the surfaces in front of
them. A few men chatter. One rests a foot on a chair.

The teacher, a small, peppy woman with graying hair moves back and forth to the
whiteboard at the front of the room. She has written the objective at the top: “Student will
classify drugs into categories and will be able to identify two withdrawal symptoms from
each category.” All of the teachers at PSAP are credentialed. They utilize structured lesson
plans as wells as hands-on and cooperative learning to keep their students engaged.
“Under law, barbiturates are classified as … ” she calls out, getting the ball rolling.
Answers pop up from around the room. A blond-haired guy calls out from the back row,
“B—narcotics!”
The teacher writes the answer on the board and continues. The pace is quick. Participation is
high.
“A lot of drugs make you impotent,” she mentions at one point. A lanky college-age parolee
whispers a question from his seat in the front.
“Not being able to rise to the occasion,” answers the teacher.
The guy mouths, “Ohh.”
Slumped in his seat in the back of the room, a short, muscular Latino man with tattoos under
both eyes and above one eyebrow folds his arms tightly across his chest. His jaw is set and
he looks tense, guarded, as if he’s defending a one-man fortress. He’s been staring straight
70

ahead since Swain and Williams entered the room.

Swain asks to borrow his test packet
momentarily. He nods.
“How are you doing?” she asks, gently
lifting the packet from his hands.
The man’s pained face softens into a
smile. His shoulders drop. “Good, good,”
he says quietly. He has been here two
weeks. The first days and weeks of Phase I
are perhaps the most difficult. Detox,
depending on the parolee’s drug of choice, Tight quarters, but life in Folsom’s minimumcan be physically demanding, and the
security treatment facility is a lot cozier than
intense psychological work needed to root life behind the wall.
out the addiction can be emotionally
Photo By Kyle Monk
draining. At least two parolees per month
drop out of the program and return to prison.
But Julius Johnson is no quitter. It was during Phase I that he realized he’d been given a
second chance. Outside the wall, Johnson spent most of his time trying to score. Early
mornings would find him passing by the same building where the same group of people
always seemed to be standing outside, waiting to get in. Even when it was cold, even when
it was dark, they were there.
One day, returning with his stash, Johnson noticed the walk in front of the building was
empty and decided to investigate. He pushed opened the door, stuck his head inside, and
was greeted by a roomful of familiar faces turning to look at the man hovering in the
doorway.
Johnson backed out of the silent room, away from the faces. Later that day, he asked a
custodian what took place there in the mornings. It was an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting.
The next time he passed by, he could have walked in, grabbed a cup of coffee and taken a
seat. He could have told them his name and admitted he had a problem.
“That should have been my wake-up call,” he says. “This is where I was supposed to go, but
I didn’t.”
When his parole officer suggested he attend a rehabilitation program instead of returning to
a prison cell, Johnson initially resisted. He knew how to do prison. He’d never attended
recovery before, and he didn’t believe in it.
“I knew I had a problem,” he says. “But I always thought if a person wanted to stop, they
would.”
71

“The first week or so, they don’t wanna be here,” confirms project coordinator Williams,
who passed on his powerful physique to his NFL player son. “Their parole officer did them
an injustice. Then after about a week, it’s ‘Oh, this isn’t as bad as I thought it was. I could
learn something here.’ We see that all the time.”
Phase I opened doors for Johnson, teaching him how to raise his self-esteem and understand
his emotions.
“It was like I was reborn,” he says.

Later in Phase I, Johnson and his
classmates cycled through lessons such as
“The Process of Addiction” and
“Cognitive Restructuring”—or as
Williams calls it, “changing their stinkin’
thinking.”
The walls come down. Denial and grief are
exposed. The men often keep it together in
the classroom, only to break down in
sessions with their independent-study
teachers later. They reveal that a father
Stephen Siscoe’s life spun out of control
thanks to methamphetamine addiction, landing abused them or that a mother taught them
how to use drugs. To climb out of the hole,
him in prison multiple times. He hopes to
they’ve got to get to the bottom of it first.
break the cycle with the help of Folsom’s
Parolee Substance Abuse Program.
In response to the 2007 audit, Gov.
Photo By Kyle Monk
Schwarzenegger and prison leadership
convened an expert panel to make recommendations for improving rehabilitation and
reducing overcrowding. Among the numerous problems they found with existing in-prison
programs were shoddily monitored care providers, classes frequently interrupted by
lockdowns and prison politics that distracted inmates from the mental and emotional work
of recovery.
Stephen Siscoe, a recovering methamphetamine addict currently going through Phase I, has
experienced prison politics up close and personal. He says the continuous, often violent
struggle between various gangs and factions behind the wall don’t apply at Folsom’s
minimum-security program. After spending six hours a day in classes together, many of the
men go back to the dorms and continue their conversations. Some talk about their pasts.
Others prefer to focus on the future. There is almost always someone willing to offer
support.
If Siscoe hadn’t been sent to the program, he has no doubt he would still be on the streets,
addicted and on the run.
“I would be out there cheating, lying, justifying my behavior, looking behind my back,” he
72

says, elbows perched on a metal table bolted to the dormitory floor. Siscoe’s large hands
spill out of his denim uniform as he describes what landed him here. Family, adolescence,
culture, choices.
“We’re all adolescents inside,” he says. In Phase I, he finally began to grow up.

Breaking the born-bad mold
The sign above the door of the Phase II classroom reads: “Nothing Changes Until I
Change.” Williams and Swain venture into the classroom, where parolees continue to focus
on unlocking negative thought and behavior patterns. They learn how to manage anger and
maintain healthy relationships, all the skills necessary to stay clean and sober outside the
wall.
The room is packed with men sitting in pairs at rows of tables. An animated discussion in
the classroom next door filters through the floor-to-ceiling room divider, but no one seems
to notice. Someone jokes, “We’re all crazy in here,” but no one laughs.
Even with his beard, the teacher looks younger than the majority of men in the room. He’s
not intimidated, and enthusiastically leads a lesson on stereotypes.
“Is there such a thing as a ‘bad’ person?” he asks.
The room is quiet, and the teacher asks a thin young man with a close-shaved head if he
would like to answer.
The man says he’s not sure, so the teacher presses him to share some things about himself
that show he’s a good person.

“Playing with my kids, hanging out with
my old lady, working. Those show I’m not
bad.”
A few others raise their hands. The
discussion takes a philosophical turn.
“Everyone does bad stuff, it’s just some
get caught,” comes a voice from the back
of the room.
Cedric McKinney reached his turning
point one day during the second phase. He
and his classmates were asked to consider
the way substance abuse had affected their
lives. The teacher told them to think of
three things they had lost.

Mike Gray brings 30 years of social work and
teaching experience to Folsom’s Parolee
Substance Abuse Program.
Photo By Kyle Monk

73

“I could think of more,” he says.
McKinney wants to change. That increases his chances for success. But in a prison system
where participation in some rehabilitation programs has actually been correlated with a
higher recidivism rate, wanting to change isn’t always enough. For McKinney, the
difference is in the support he receives from the teachers at Folsom.
“The people who run the program give you all they have,” says McKinney, who tutors
fellow parolees for the GED in the evenings after class. “They don’t just let you float
through like it’s prison.”
James Ayres spent 31 months behind the wall and was released back to the community
before coming to the program. On the outside, he informally counseled other addicts on the
street. Then he got hooked again himself.
Ayres prefers to keep to himself in the dorms, but he has developed an admiration of teacher
Mike Gray. Beyond helping him develop a transition plan for attending school, Gray has
helped Ayres understand what the experience might be like.
In Gray’s classroom, a detailed pencil drawing of Emiliano Zapata rests on a table. Gray
encourages his students to explore and take pride in their cultures.
Throughout his 30 years of social work and teaching experience, Gray has worked to
balance the need to maintain appropriate boundaries with his students and communicating
to them that he knows where they’ve been.
To Ayres, Gray is “on the level.”
As the lesson on stereotypes continues in the Phase II classroom, a common theme emerges.

74

“No one in society thinks we can be
better,” one parolee says soberly. “You
find that out when you try to get a job.”
“You begin to feel hopeless,” another
student chimes in.
From the front of the room, a heavy-set
African-American man gets the floor.
“They don’t care about us,” he says. “Or
An instructor asked parolee Cedric McKinney they say they care, but they do it from a
distance. If there were more programs, if
to list three things he’d lost because of
we had more people advocating, we’d do
substance abuse. McKinney came up with a
better.”
lot more, and the realization helped turn his
life around.
Photo By Kyle Monk
Tough on crime,weak on justice
Dr. Barry Krisberg, director of the
National Council on Crime and Delinquency, says there are limits to the effect rehabilitative
programming can have on reducing recidivism. Nevertheless, he laments what he sees as a
lack of reform in CDCR’s rehabilitative policies and programs.
“The principal barrier has been political will,” says Krisberg. “We added the ‘R’ [in
CDCR], but the progress has been glacial.”
The three-judge federal panel in the overcrowding case that recently wrapped up in San
Francisco found that California could save $803 million to $906 million annually by
instituting a system of earned credits and parole reform to reduce the prison population.
That money could be used to implement the expert panel’s recommendation to provide
more evidence-based rehabilitation programs in the community.
CDCR currently provides 5,692 community treatment slots that deliver transitional services
for recently released inmates. Some 2,028 slots are being utilized by parolees in another
remedial sanction program for parole violators, the In Custody Drug Treatment Program.
The three-judge panel left the door open for state officials to divert prisoners into
rehabilitative programs rather than commit to a wholesale release of the estimated 50,000
prisoners it would take to bring the population to a safe level.
Nevertheless, in a March report, the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board noted none
of the reforms for rehabilitation programs recommended by the expert panel were included
in the governor’s final budget, passed in February.
“The expert panel’s report was basically thrown in the garbage,” says Krisberg. “If we’re
unwilling to change because we’re afraid of being seen as soft on crime, then we’re locked
into the same failure mode.”
75

Back at the Folsom Transitional Treatment Facility, it’s almost time for the head count. The
parolees have lunch together and return to their classrooms for three more hours of
instruction.
Tables are arranged conference style in the Phase III classroom, where Swain slips into an
empty seat next to Johnson. All around her, parolees focus on teacher Vic Wedloe, a
muscular former cop who leans against his desk and looks hard at the men as he lays out a
situation they’re likely to encounter once they’re back home, around the old influences, the
old temptations.
“It’s the middle of the night,” says Wedloe. “And you’ve got the craving. How do you get
through it?”

Eyes flicker. The sea of blue uniforms shifts. The men
seem to ponder, but no one raises a hand to answer.
Wedloe calls on a wiry man a few seats down from Swain.
The man hesitates, but finally says, “If I can recognize it, I
guess I can substitute drugs with something else.”
His comment motivates others to speak up. They share
stories and insights, chuckles and knowing nods. They
articulate their plans: Turn on the television, rearrange the
fridge, use positive self-talk. But Wedloe doesn’t let them
off easy. There are plans, and then there’s the reality of
facing a lifelong drug addiction.
When Johnson suggests he will call his sponsor, Wedloe
challenges him.
“It’s 3 in the morning. You wanna wake him up?”
Johnson pauses, looks down. “The way I understand it,
he’s gotta pick up. If he’s a good sponsor, he’ll pick up.”
Wedloe nods, satisfied. If the men become familiar with
their symptoms and have the tools to fight back, they can
recover.

,."

,

-

A construction-paper mobile
hanging over Julius Johnson’s
bed illustrates the elements he
must balance to help ensure a
sober and successful return to
society.
Photo By Kyle Monk

“That sensation’s never gonna rule your life again?” asks Wedloe.
“Never,” Johnson says.
Like 60 percent of the program’s graduates, Johnson will attend a 90-day after-care program
that includes transitional housing, recovery services and job assistance. Krisberg and other
experts say aftercare is critically important—to increase the odds that a parolee will, in fact,
76

stay clean.
Williams, the program’s coordinator, is careful to point out that recovery, like addiction, is a
process. Some of the parolees will return. Recently, a man who was part of the first group to
attend the program approached Williams in the yard and asked if he remembered him.
Williams had to think a minute, but then recalled the man’s stay. It wasn’t a pleasant one,
and the man didn’t attend aftercare.
“I shoulda listened to you,” he told Williams.

Revenge or rehabilitation?
Although the price tag for a parole violator to attend
substance-abuse classes is $50 higher per day than a
prison stay, the program stands to save the state money
since the stay is shorter and, at least anecdotally, the
parolees who attend the Folsom program stay out of
trouble longer, even if they do eventually recidivate.
“The old approach based on revenge needs to be replaced
with something based on science,” says Krisberg.
Williams isn’t about revenge. He shakes his head when he
talks about the parolee in the yard, but his voice is filled
with understanding.

John Ayers spent 31 months in
prison and informally
counseled addicts on the street
upon his release. He got
hooked again, and chose
toenter the Parolee Substance
Abuse Program instead of
returning to prison.
Photo By Kyle Monk

“We’re not mad at them if they come back,” he says. “If a
lifelong addict can stay clean for six months to a year, it is
counted as a success.”
“Of course, we hope they stay out for longer,” he adds.

Graduations occur on a rolling basis, since new parolees
enter the program almost every day. CDCR director
Powers says there are no current plans to expand the
Parolee Substance Abuse Program, but he is optimistic
that improving in-prison rehabilitative programs will
lower recidivism rates. “What we’re trying to do is make
the whole yard a therapeutic yard,” he says.
He also stresses the need to expand the number of openings in community-based transition
programs for parolees beyond the current 5,692 slots. California currently releases more
than 100,000 inmates back to the community each year.
With Assembly Bill 900, the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of
2007, Gov. Schwarzenegger and legislators attempted to improve prison conditions and
77

rehabilitation programs without releasing prisoners. Since the bill’s passage, the number of
in-prison drug-treatment slots has increased to nearly 10,000.
Powers, however, estimates 35,000 to 40,000 inmates could benefit from treatment. Many
other experts, including Dr. Joan Petersilia, a professor of criminology at UC Irvine who
served on the state’s expert panel for prison reform, put the estimate at more than twice that.
Meanwhile, Stephen Siscoe will soon leave Folsom to enter a recovery program and take
steps towards becoming a substance-abuse counselor himself.
“I’ve thought about it a lot,” he says. “If I understand even more, I’ll be more likely to stay
away.”
Ayres also plans to become a certified counselor. McKinney managed to enroll himself in a
construction training course to begin the Monday immediately after his graduation.
Pastel-hued paper mobiles hang from the ceiling above Julius Johnson. The tags, with words
like “hobbies,” “family” and “respect” written on them, reflect the pieces individual
parolees must juggle to lead balanced lives.
If he had been sent back to prison for his parole violation, Johnson would still be there,
serving out his sentence and waiting for his “gate money,” the $200 all prisoners are given
on completion of their sentence. Instead, he will soon enter aftercare and start attending a
school that will move him towards his goal of attaining a heavy-equipment operator’s
license.
At the Folsom facility, Johnson has been reborn. He’s been given a second chance, and he
knows it’s up to him to restore balance to his life. He does not intend to go back behind the
wall.

78

APPENDIX C. SAP Slot Authorization by Fiscal Year-Men’s’ Institutions

Division of Addiction and Recovery Services
Substance Abuse Program Slot Authorization by Fiscal Year through 6/30/08
Institution Fiscal Year
Authorized

Legislative or Budgetary Authority

Number of
Slots

MEN'S INSTITUTIONS
ASP

2000-2001 Additional 1,500-Slot Expansion BCP

200

CCI

2000-2001 Additional 1,500-Slot Expansion BCP
2006-2007 SAP Realignment

175
200

CIM

2000-2001 1,500-Slot Expansion BCP

400

CMC

2000-2001 Additional 1,500-Slot Expansion BCP

180

CRC

1994-1995
1998-1999
1999-2000
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
2006-2007

COR

2000-2001 Additional 1,500-Slot Expansion BCP

190

CTF

1999-2000 2,000-Slot Expansion BCP
2000-2001 Additional 1,500-Slot Expansion BCP

208
250

CVSP

2000-2001 Additional 1,500-Slot Expansion BCP
2006-2007 Provision 22 (MCOP, SAP Expansion, and KVSP
BCPs)

292
48

FTTF

2003-2004 Balance of FY/01-02 500-Slot Expansion BCP
2003-2004 Redirect NCWF's 100 SAP and 100 Cognitive Skills
Slots

200
203

ISP

2000-2001 Additional 1,500-Slot Expansion BCP
2006-2007 SAP Realignment

KVSP

2006-2007 Provision 22 (MCOP, SAP Expansion, and KVSP
BCPs)

LAC

2000-2001 Additional 1,500-Slot Expansion BCP
2006-2007 SAP Realignment

NKSP-RC

2004-2005 500-Slot BCP

200

PVSP

2000-2001 1,500-Slot Expansion BCP

400

RJD

1990-1991 RJD BCP
2000-2001 1500-Slot Expansion BCP

200
250

SATF

1997-1998 SATF BCP
2006-2007 Provision 22 (MCOP, SAP Expansion, and KVSP
BCPs)

Civil Addict Program Enhancement
1,000-Slot Expansion BCP
2,000-Slot Expansion BCP
Slots Absorbed Due to End of Byrne Funds
Additional 1,500-Slot Expansion BCP
500-Slot Expansion BCP
SAP Realignment

79

80
200
1,030
3
13
300
(312)

200
(200)
256
200
(200)

1,478
400

APPENDIX C. (cont) SAP Slot Authorization by Fiscal Year-Men’s’ Institutions
Substance Abuse Program Slot Authorization by Fiscal Year through 6/30/08 (continued)
Institution Fiscal Year
Authorized

Legislative or Budgetary Authority

Number of
Slots

MEN'S INSTITUTIONS (continued)
SCC

1998-1999 1,000-Slot Expansion BCP
1999-2000 2,000-Slot Expansion BCP
2006-2007 Provision 22 (MCOP, SAP Expansion, and KVSP
BCPs)

200
125
36

SOL

1998-1999 1,000-Slot Expansion BCP
2000-2001 1,500-Slot Expansion BCP

200
200

WSP

2004-2005 500-Slot BCP

300

SAP Slot Authorization by Fiscal Year-Women’s’ Institutions
Substance Abuse Program Slot Authorization by Fiscal Year through 6/30/08
Institution Fiscal Year
Authorized

Legislative or Budgetary Authority

Number of
Slots

WOMEN'S INSTITUTIONS
CCWF

1998-1999 1,000-Slot Expansion BCP
1999-2000 2,000-Slot Expansion BCP

200
306

CIW

1990-1991 CIW Legislative Authority
1997-1998 CIW BCP
2006-2007 SAP Realignment

120
120
512

VSPW

1999-2000 2,000-Slot Expansion BCP
2000-2001 1,500-Slot Expansion BCP

256
250

80

DATA TABLES

81

APPENDIX E. DATA TABLE CONTENTS
Table 1A. Annual Male Felon Admissions to In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs by Institution Program
Table 1B. Annual Civil Addict Male Admissions to In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs by Institution Program
Table 1C. Annual Female Felon Admissions to In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs by Institution Program
Table 1D. Annual Civil Addict Female Admissions to In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs by Institution
Program
Table 2A. Annual Male Felon Completions from In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs by Institution Program
Table 2B. Annual Civil Addict Male Completions from In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs by Institution
Program
Table 2C. Annual Female Felon Completions from In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs by Institution Program
Table 2D. Annual Civil Addict Female Completions from In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs by Institution
Program
Table 3A. Male Felon Show-Up Rates to Continuing Care by Institution Program for FY 2007-2008
Table 3B. Male Civil Addict Show-Up Rates to Continuing Care by Institution Program for FY 2007-2008
Table 3C. Female Felon Show-Up Rates to Continuing Care by Institution Program for FY 2007-2008
Table 3D. Female Civil Addict Show-Up Rates to Continuing Care by Institution Program for FY 2007-2008
Table 3E. Participation Rates in Continuing Care by Population for In-Prison SAP Parolees for FY 2007/2008
Table 4A. FY 2005-06 Return to Prison (RTP) Rates for Male Felons from In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs
Table 4B. FY 2005-06 Return to Prison (RTP) Rates for Male Civil Addicts from In-Prison Substance Abuse
Programs
Table 4C. FY 2005-06 Return to Prison (RTP) Rates for Female Felons from In-Prison Substance Abuse
Programs
Table 4D. FY 2005-06 Return to Prison (RTP) Rates for Female Civil Addicts from In-Prison Substance Abuse
Programs
Table 4E. FY 2005-06 Return to Prison (RTP) Rates for Male Felons from In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs
Followed by Completion of Continuing Care
Table 4F. FY 2005-06 Return to Prison (RTP) Rates for Male Civil Addicts from In-Prison Substance Abuse
Programs Followed by Completion of Continuing Care
Table 4G. FY 2005-06 Return to Prison (RTP) Rates for Female Felons from In-Prison Substance Abuse
Programs Followed by Completion of Continuing Care
Table 4H. FY 2005-06 Return to Prison (RTP) Rates for Female Civil Addicts from In-Prison Substance Abuse
Programs Followed by Completion of Continuing Care

82

APPENDIX TABLE 1A. Annual Male Felon Admissions to In-Prison* Substance Abuse Programs by Institution Program
Program

Program Name

Avenal State Prison
CA Correctional Institution-A
CCI
CA Correctional Institution-B
CA Institute for Men-A
CIM
CA Institute for Men-B
CA Men's Colony
CMC
CA State Prison - Corcoran
COR
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-A
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-C
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-E
CRC
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-G
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-J***
Correctional Training Facility - Soledad-A
CTF
Correctional Training Facility - Soledad-B
Chuckawalla Valley State Prison
CVSP
Folsom Transitional Treatment Program
FTTP
Ironwood State Prison***
ISP
Kern Valley State Prison
KVSP
CA State Prison Los Angeles County***
LAC
Pleasant Valley State Prison-A
PVSP
Pleasant Valley State Prison-B
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility-A***
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility-B***
RJD
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility-C
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility-D
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility - Corcoran-A
SATF
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility - Corcoran-B
Sierra Conservation Center Jamestown-A
SCC
Sierra Conservation Center Baseline-B
Solano State Prison-A
SOL
Solano State Prison-B
Drug Treatment Furlough
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 1
DTF-1
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 2
DTF-2
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 3
DTF-3
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 4
DTF-4
Total
ASP

Admissions**

Custody
Level

Prog Slots
(2007)

FY 2004/05

FY 2005/06

FY 2006/07

FY 2007/08

Total 04/05 07/08

II
II
I
I
I
II
I
II
II
II
II
II
I
III
II
TTP
III
IV
IV
III
III
III
III
I
IV-SNY
I - II
I - II
III
I
II
III

200
175
200
200
200
180
190
200
263
263
300
200
208
250
340
200
200
256
200
200
200
200
200
100
150
939
939
236
125
200
200

280
N/A
N/A
226
247
310
200
145
151
105
167
N/A
231
175
430
324
275
N/A
248
N/A
N/A
147
N/A
76
1
911
N/A
251
143
258
103

315
320
N/A
258
230
318
244
84
116
108
156
N/A
265
188
325
609
191
N/A
189
106
319
125
171
100
2
797
N/A
228
191
259
103

277
224
N/A
238
230
262
265
119
154
152
202
N/A
329
392
395
632
240
326
126
332
271
102
128
105
54
903
1619
284
163
259
211

240
177
231
233
272
363
229
106
114
143
266
261
290
291
465
519
27
210
N/A
268
368
197
49
143
136
1,044
952
179
286
178
256

1,112
721
231
955
979
1,253
938
454
535
508
791
261
1,115
1,046
1,615
2,084
733
536
563
706
958
571
348
424
193
3,655
2,571
942
783
954
673

129
5
151
130
5,819

225
N/A
285
247
7,074

219
N/A
291
238
9,742

205
N/A
341
223
9,262

778
5
1,068
838
31,897

*Does not include reception centers.
**Each offender is counted once on first treatment admission during the reporting period.
***Programs transferred to another facility or institution during 2007.

83

APPENDIX TABLE 1B. Annual Civil Addict Male Admissions to In-Prison* Substance Abuse Programs by Institution Program
Admissions**
Program

Program Name

CA Institute for Men-A
CA Institute for Men-B
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-A
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-C
CRC
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-E
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-G
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-H
Folsom Transitional Treatment Program
FTTP
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility - Corcoran-A
SATF
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility - Corcoran-B
Sierra Conservation Center Jamestown-A
Sierra Conservation Center Baseline-B
SCC
Sierra Conservation Center Jamestown-C
Solano State Prison-A
SOL
Solano State Prison-B
Drug Treatment Furlough
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 1
DTF-1
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 4
DTF-4
Total
CIM

Custody
Level

Prog Slots
(2007)

FY 2004/05

FY 2005/06

FY 2006/07

FY 2007/08

Total 04/05 07/08

I
I
II
II
II
II
II
TTP
I - II
I - II
III
I
III SNY
II
III

175
200
200
263
263
300
88
200
939
939
236
125
236
200
200

N/A
N/A
152
320
288
244
140
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
N/A

N/A
N/A
150
251
303
246
126
N/A
1
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
2
N/A

N/A
N/A
135
232
314
220
145
1
4
1
N/A
2
N/A
1
N/A

1
N/A
126
171
247
134
104
N/A
6
5
N/A
1
1
2
1

1
0
563
974
1,152
844
515
1
12
6
1
3
1
7
1

1
N/A
1,148

1
2
1,083

N/A
N/A
1,055

N/A
N/A
799

2
2
4,085

*Does not include reception centers.
**Each offender is counted once on first treatment admission during the reporting period.

84

APPENDIX TABLE 1C. Annual Female Felons Admissions to In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs by Institution Program
Admissions*
Program

Program Name

Central CA Women's Facility Chowchilla-A
Central CA Women's Facility Chowchilla-B
CA Institute for Women-A
CA Institute for Women-B
CIW
CA Institute for Women-C
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-D**
CRC
Valley State Prison for Women-A
VSPW
Valley State Prison for Women-B
Drug Treatment Furlough
DTF-1
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 1
DTF-2
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 2
DTF-3
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 3
DTF-4
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 4
Total
CCWF

Custody
Level

Program
Slots (2007)

FY 2004/05

FY 2005/06

FY 2006/07

FY 2007/08

Total 04/05 07/08

I - IV
I - IV
I - IV
I - III
I - IV
I - IV
I - IV
I - IV

256
250
240
294
218
294
256
250

299
405
503
176
N/A
228
314
509

374
457
496
N/A
149
196
295
544

356
370
438
N/A
74
101
414
507

327
344
597
247
153
N/A
433
516

1,356
1,576
2,034
423
376
525
1,456
2,076

62
2
108
67
2,673

100
N/A
142
204
2,957

222
24
277
495
3,278

150
91
380
407
3,645

534
117
907
1,173
12,553

*Each offender is counted once on first treatment admission during the reporting period.
**Programs transferred to another institution during 2007.

APPENDIX TABLE 1D. Annual Civil Addict Female Admissions to In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs by Institution Program
Admissions*
Program
CCWF

Program Name

Central CA Women's Facility Chowchilla-A
CA Institute for Women-A
CA Institute for Women-B
CIW
CA Institute for Women-C
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-D**
CRC
Valley State Prison for Women-B
VSPW
Drug Treatment Furlough
DTF-4
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 4
Total

Custody
Level

Program
Slots (2007)

I - IV
I - IV
I - III
I - III
I - IV
I - IV

256
240
294
218
294
256

*Each offender is counted once on first treatment admission during the reporting period.
**Programs transferred to another institution during 2007.

85

FY 2004/05
1

FY 2005/06
1

FY 2006/07
1

FY 2007/08

Total 04/05 07/08

7
1
84
225
2

2
1
263
63
N/A
2

5
23
264
408
594
6

N/A
291

N/A
358

2
322

19
350

21
1,289

8
N/A
114
166
2

7
N/A
147
203
N/A

APPENDIX TABLE 2A. Annual Male Felon Completions from In-Prison* Substance Abuse Programs by Institution Program
Program

Program Name

Avenal State Prison
CA Correctional Institution-A
CCI
CA Correctional Institution-B
CA Institute for Men-A
CIM
CA Institute for Men-B
CA Men's Colony***
CMC
CA State Prison - Corcoran
COR
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-A
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-C
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-E
CRC
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-G
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-H
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-J
Correctional Training Facility - Soledad-A
CTF
Correctional Training Facility - Soledad-B
Chuckawalla Valley State Prison
CVSP
Folsom Transitional Treatment Program-A
FTTP
Ironwood State Prison****
ISP
KVSP
Kern Valley State Prison
CA State Prison Los Angeles County****
LAC
Pleasant Valley State Prison-A
PVSP
Pleasant Valley State Prison-B
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility-A****
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility-B****
RJD
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility-C
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility-D
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility - Corcoran-A
SATF
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility - Corcoran-B
Sierra Conservation Center Jamestown-A
Sierra Conservation Center Baseline-B
SCC
Sierra Conservation Center Baseline-C
Solano State Prison-A
SOL
Solano State Prison-B
Drug Treatment Furlough
DTF-1
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 1
DTF-3
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 3
DTF-4
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 4
Total
ASP

Treatment Completions**

Custody
Level

Prog Slots
(2007)

FY 2004/05

FY 2005/06

FY 2006/07

FY 2007/08

Total 04/05 07/08

II
II
I
I
I
II
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
III
II

200
175
200
200
200
180
190
200
263
263
300
88
200
208
250
340
200
200
256
200
200
200
200
200
100
150
939
939
236
125
200
200
200

162
N/A
N/A
203
55
156
N/A
70
53
69
110
N/A
N/A
193
84
156
242
113
N/A
94
N/A
N/A
97
N/A
59
1
672
N/A
224
132
N/A
149
72

151
113
N/A
225
137
164
136
78
73
79
110
N/A
N/A
174
93
206
486
53
N/A
75
11
93
66
41
79
3
289
N/A
192
165
N/A
162
21

160
131
N/A
227
173
143
169
86
81
88
115
N/A
N/A
231
161
220
524
96
20
65
152
132
83
30
84
7
567
499
262
121
N/A
143
11

126
118
82
219
183
173
115
82
104
69
112
N/A
N/A
217
173
261
373
11
61
N/A
141
131
28
25
56
32
686
740
N/A
144
55
72
60

599
362
82
874
548
636
420
316
311
305
447
0
0
815
511
843
1,625
273
81
234
304
356
274
96
278
43
2,214
1,239
678
562
55
526
164

128
112
52
3,458

197
237
136
4,045

273
352
81
5,487

253
344
153
5,399

851
1,045
422
16,071

III
IV
IV
III
III
III
III
I
IV-SNY
I - II
I - II
III
I
III-SNY
II
III

*Does not include reception centers.
**Completions are defined as those who successfully completing treatment according to treatment provider records.
***Missing data from CMC between July and October 2006 due to changes in treatment contractors.
****Programs transferred to another facility or institution during 2007.

86

APPENDIX TABLE 2B. Annual Civil Addict Male Completions from In-Prison* Substance Abuse Programs by Institution Program
Program

CIM

Program Name

CA Institute for Men-A
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-A
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-C
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-E
CRC
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-G
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-H
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility-A
SATF
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility-B
Sierra Conservation Center-A
SCC
Sierra Conservation Center-B
Solano State Prison-A
SOL
Solano State Prison-B
Drug Treatment Furlough
DTF-1
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 1
Total

Treatment Completions**

Custody
Level

Prog Slots
(2007)

FY 2004/05

FY 2005/06

II
II
II
II
II
I - II
I - II
III
I
II
III

200
263
263
300
88
939
939
236
125
200
200

N/A
192
263
291
216
122
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
123
209
265
209
106
1
N/A
1
N/A
1
N/A

N/A
1,085

N/A
915

*Does not include reception centers.
**Completions are defined as those who successfully completing treatment according to treatment provider records.

87

FY 2006/07
1

FY 2007/08

Total 04/05 07/08

127
205
297
202
112
2
N/A
N/A
1
2
N/A

128
160
216
143
92
5
2
N/A
1
N/A
1

1
570
837
1,069
770
432
9
2
1
2
3
1

1
950

N/A
748

1
3,698

APPENDIX TABLE 2C. Annual Female Felon Completions* from In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs by Institution Program
Program

Program Name

Central CA Women's Facility Chowchilla-A
Central CA Women's Facility Chowchilla-B
CA Institute for Women-A
CA Institute for Women-B
CIW
CA Institute for Women-C
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-D**
CRC
Valley State Prison for Women-A
VSP
Valley State Prison for Women-B
Drug Treatment Furlough
DTF-1
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 1
DTF-2
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 2
DTF-3
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 3
DTF-4
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 4
Total
CCWF

Treatment Completions*

Custody
Level

Prog Slots
(2007)

FY 2004/05

FY 2005/06

FY 2006/07

FY 2007/08

Total 04/05 07/08

I - IV
I - IV
I - IV
I - III
I - IV
I - IV
I - IV
I - IV

256
250
240
294
218
218
256
250

203
262
286
134
N/A
188
206
301

215
239
328
134
N/A
67
57
80

191
217
352
N/A
87
109
215
261

182
208
402
54
59
N/A
222
334

791
926
1,368
322
146
364
700
976

84
N/A
92
20
1,776

111
N/A
112
112
1,455

245
9
269
341
2,296

194
102
311
377
2,445

634
111
784
850
7,972

*Each offender counted once on first treatment admission during the reporting period. Completions are defined as those who successfully completing treatment according to treatment provider
records.
**Programs transferred to another institution during 2007.

APPENDIX TABLE 2D. Annual Civil Addict Female Completions* from In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs by Institution Program
Program

CCWF

Program Name

Central CA Women's Facility Chowchilla-A
CA Institute for Women-A
CA Institute for Women-B
CIW
CA Institute for Women-C
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-D**
CRC
Valley State Prison For Women-B
VSPW
Drug Treatment Furlough
DTF-4
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 4
Total

Custody
Level

Prog Slots
(2007)

I - IV
I - IV
I - III
I - III
I - IV
I - IV

256
240
294
218
294
250

Treatment Completions*
FY 2004/05

1
1
N/A
101
161
3
N/A
267

FY 2005/06

N/A
N/A
N/A
106
104
N/A
N/A
210

FY 2006/07
2

FY 2007/08

N/A
N/A
116
179
N/A

3
6
167
51
8
1

2
299

9
245

Total 04/05 07/08
6

7
167
374
452
4
11
1,021

*Each offender counted once on first treatment admission during the reporting period. Completions are defined as those who successfully completing treatment according to treatment provider
records.
**Programs transferred to another institution during 2007.

88

APPENDIX TABLE 3A. Male Felon Show-Up Rates to Continuing Care by Institution Program* for FY 2007-2008
Program

ASP
CCI
CIM
CMC
COR
CRC
CTF
CVSP
FTTP
ISP
KVSP
LAC
PVSP
RJD

SATF

Program Name

Avenal State Prison
CA Correctional Institution-A
CA Correctional Institution-B
CA Institute for Men-A
CA Institute for Men-B
CA Men's Colony
CA State Prison - Corcoran
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-A
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-C
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-E
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-G
Correctional Training Facility - Soledad-A
Correctional Training Facility - Soledad-B
Chuckawalla Valley State Prison
Folsom Transitional Treatment Program-A
Ironwood State Prison****
Kern Valley State Prison
CA State Prison Los Angeles County****
Pleasant Valley State Prison-A
Pleasant Valley State Prison-B
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility-A****
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility-B****
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility-C
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility-D
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility - Corcoran-A

Substance Abuse Treatment Facility - Corcoran-B
Sierra Conservation Center Jamestown-A
SCC
Sierra Conservation Center Baseline-B
Sierra Conservation Center Baseline-C
Solano State Prison-A
SOL
Solano State Prison-B
Drug Treatment Furlough
DTF-1
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 1
DTF-3
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 3
DTF-4
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 4
Total

Custody
Level

IPSAP Treatment
Completions**

Admitted to Cont.
Care

II
II
I
I
I
II
I
II
II
II
II
I
III
II
TTP
III
IV
IV
III
III
III
III
I
III-SNY

126
118
82
219
183
173
115
82
104
69
112
217
173
261
373
11
61
N/A
141
131
28
25
56
32

60
48
25
100
88
103
65
26
40
20
37
128
48
96
195
2
20
N/A
25
40
15
13
36
12

48%
41%
30%
46%
48%
60%
57%
32%
38%
29%
33%
59%
28%
37%
52%
18%
33%
N/A
18%
31%
54%
52%
64%
38%

I - II

686

313

46%

I - II
III
I
III SNY
II
III

740
N/A
144
55
72
60

319
N/A
112
29
30
19

43%
N/A
78%
53%
42%
32%

253
344
153
5,399

150
244
128
2,586

59%
71%
84%
48%

Show-Up Rate***

*Data timeframe covers 12 months (180 days) of in-prison substance abuse program participation followed by 6 months (180 days) of continuing care participation
following in-prison treatment completion.
**Count of treatment completions does not include those in Reception Centers. Completions are defined as those who successfully completed treatment according to
treatment provider records.
***Show-up rate is calculated by dividing the number of offenders who "show-up" at community-based substance abuse treatment (continuing care) within 180 days of
parole release by the total number of inmates paroled after treatment completion at anytime.
****Programs transferred to another facility or institution during this reporting period.

89

APPENDIX TABLE 3B. Male Civil Addict Show-Up Rates to Continuing Care by Institution Program*
for FY 2007-2008

Program

CRC

SATF
SCC
SOL
Total

Program Name

CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-A
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-C
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-E
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-G
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-H
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility-A
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility-B
Sierra Conservation Center-B
Solano State Prison-B

Custody
Level

II
II
II
II
II
I-II
I-II
I
III

Exited After
Treatment
Completion**

Admitted to Cont.
Care

Show-Up Rate***

128
160
216
143
92
5
2
1
1
748

116
143
192
133
80
5
2
0
0
671

91%
89%
89%
93%
87%
100%
100%
0%
0%
90%

*Data timeframe covers 12 months (180 days) of in-prison substance abuse program participation followed by 6 months (180 days) of continuing care participation.
**Count of Civil Addicts does not include those in Reception Centers. Completions are defined as those who successfully completed treatment according to treatment
provider records.
***Show-up rate is calculated by dividing the number of offenders who "show-up" at community-based substance abuse treatment (continuing care) within 90 days of
parole release by the total number of inmates exiting prison after treatment completion at anytime.

90

APPENDIX TABLE 3C. Female Felon Show-Up Rates to Continuing Care by Institution Program* for FY 2007-2008
Program

Program Name

Central CA Women's Facility Chowchilla-A
Central CA Women's Facility Chowchilla-B
CA Institute for Women-A
CA Institute for Women-B
CIW
CA Institute for Women-C
Valley State Prison for Women-A
VSP
Valley State Prison for Women-B
Drug Treatment Furlough
DTF-1
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 1
DTF-2
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 2
DTF-3
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 3
DTF-4
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 4
Total
CCWF

Custody
Level

IPSAP Treatment
Completions**

Admitted to Cont.
Care

Show-Up Rate***

I - IV
I - IV
I - IV
I - III
I - III
I - IV
I - IV

182
208
402
54
59
222
334

83
117
148
23
25
148
209

46%
56%
37%
43%
42%
67%
63%

194
102
311
377
2,445

122
62
180
237
1,354

63%
61%
58%
63%
55%

*Data timeframe covers 12 months (365 days) of in-prison substance abuse program participation followed by 6 months (180 days) of continuing care participation
following in-prison treatment completion ending December 31, 2008.
**Completions are defined as successfully completing treatment during the time period as determined by treatment program staff or treatment provider records.
***Show-up rate is calculated by dividing the number of offenders who "show-up" at community-based substance abuse treatment (continuing care) within 90 days of
parole release by the total number of inmates exiting prison after treatment completion at anytime.

91

APPENDIX TABLE 3D. Female Civil Addict Show-Up Rates to Continuing Care by Institution Program* for FY
2007-2008

Program

CCWF

Program Name

Central California Women's Facility - A
CA Institute for Women-A
CA Institute for Women-B
CIW
CA Institute for Women-C
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-D
CRC
Valley State Prison For Women-B
VSPW
Drug Treatment Furlough
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 4
DTF-4
Total

Custody
Level

IPSAP Treatment
Completions**

I - IV
I - IV
I - III
I - III
I - IV
I - IV

Admitted to Cont.
Care

3
6
167
51
8
1

1
6
155
44
3
0

Show-Up Rate***

9
245

5
214

55.6%
87.3%

33.3%
100.0%
92.8%
86.3%
37.5%
0.0%

*Data timeframe covers 12 months (365 days) of in-prison substance abuse program participation followed by 6 months (180 days) of continuing care
participation following in-custody treatment completion ending December 31, 2008.
**Completions are defined as successfully completing treatment during the time period as determined by treatment program staff or treatment provider
records.
***Show-up rate is calculated by dividing the number of offenders who "show-up" at community-based substance abuse treatment (continuing care) within 180
days of parole release by the total number of inmates paroled after treatment completion at anytime.

92

APPENDIX TABLE 3E. Participation* Rates in Continuing Care by Population for In-Prison SAP
Parolees for FY 2007/2008
Population

Show-Up Rate**
47.90%

Male Felons
Female Felons

55.38%

Male Civil Narcotic Addicts

89.71%

Female Civil Narcotic Addicts

87.35%

Total (All Parolees)

54.60%

*Data timeframe covers 12 months (180 days) of in-custody substance abuse program participation followed by 6 months
(180 days) of continuing care participation following in-custody treatment completion ending Dec. 31, 2008.
**Show-up rate is calculated by dividing the number of offenders who show-up at community-based continuing care within
180 days by the total number of inmates paroled after treatment completion at anytime.

93

APPENDIX TABLE 4A. Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Return to Prison* (RTP) Rates for Male Felons** from In-Prison*** Substance Abuse
Programs

Program

Program Name

Avenal State Prison
CA Correctional Institution-A
CA Institute for Men-A
CIM
CA Institute for Men-B
CA Men's Colony*****
CMC
CA State Prison - Corcoran
COR
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-A
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-C
CRC
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-E
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-G
Correctional Training Facility - Soledad-A
CTF
Correctional Training Facility - Soledad-B
Chuckawalla Valley State Prison
CVSP
Folsom Transitional Treatment Program-A
FTTP
Ironwood State Prison
ISP
CA State Prison Los Angeles County
LAC
Pleasant Valley State Prison-A
PVSP
Pleasant Valley State Prison-B
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility-A
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility-B
RJD
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility-C
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility-D
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility - Corcoran-A
SATF
Sierra Conservation Center Jamestown-A
SCC
Sierra Conservation Center Baseline-B
Solano State Prison-A
SOL
Solano State Prison-B
Drug Treatment Furlough
DTF-1
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 1
DTF-3
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 3
DTF-4
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 4
Total
ASP
CCI

Custody
Level

II
II
I
I
II
1
II
II
II
II
I
III
II
TTP
III
IV
III
III
III
III
I
I
I - II
III
I
II
III

Number
Completed

Completed**** in 2005/06

Completed in 2005/06

12 Month Return to Prison

24 Month Return to Prison

Number RTP*

151
113
225
137
164
136
78
73
79
110
174
93
206
486
53
75
11
93
66
41
79
3
289
192
165
162
21

60
43
74
59
57
53
29
26
37
47
72
50
63
204
23
37
5
38
21
22
34
2
110
66
54
64
8

197
237
136
4,045

79
63
49
1,549

RTP Rate

39.7%
38.1%
32.9%
43.1%
34.8%
39.0%
37.2%
35.6%
46.8%
42.7%
41.4%
53.8%
30.6%
42.0%
43.4%
49.3%
45.5%
40.9%
31.8%
53.7%
43.0%
66.7%
38.1%
34.4%
32.7%
39.5%
38.1%

40.1%
26.6%
36.0%
38.3%

Number RTP*

53.6%
52.2%
51.6%
57.7%
47.0%
55.9%
50.0%
57.5%
65.8%
61.8%
55.2%
72.0%
51.5%
56.2%
60.4%
66.7%
54.5%
60.2%
47.0%
70.7%
57.0%
66.7%
55.4%
50.5%
49.7%
54.9%
66.7%

104
96
74
2,198

52.8%
40.5%
54.4%
54.3%

*Return to Prison includes any return to a prison facility for any reason within the specified time frame.
**Includes Felons who only attended in-prison substance abuse programs as well as felons who attended both in-prison and community-based substance abuse treatment programs.
***Does not include reception centers.
****Completed is defined as successfully completing treatment during the time period as determined by treatment program staff or treatment provider records.
*****Missing data from CMC between July and October 2006 due to changes in treatment contractor.

94

RTP Rate

81
59
116
79
77
76
39
42
52
68
96
67
106
273
32
50
6
56
31
29
45
2
160
97
82
89
14

APPENDIX TABLE 4B. Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Return to Prison* (RTP) Rates for Male Civil Addicts** from In-Prison*** Substance
Abuse Programs

Program

CRC

SATF
SCC
SOL
Total

Program Name

CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-A
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-C
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-E
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-G
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-H
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility-A
Sierra Conservation Center-A
Solano State Prison-A

Custody
Level

II
II
II
II
II
I-II
III
II

Completed**** in 2005/06

Completed**** in 2005/06

12 Month Return to Prison

24 Month Return to Prison

Number
Exited

Number RTP*

123
209
265
209
106
1
1
1
915

49
83
106
48
56
0
0
0
342

RTP Rate

39.8%
39.7%
40.0%
23.0%
52.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
37.4%

Number RTP*

62
107
138
83
73
0
0
0
463

RTP Rate

50.4%
51.2%
52.1%
39.7%
68.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.6%

*Return to Prison includes any return to a prison facility for any reason within the specified time frame.
**Includes Civil Addicts who only attended in-prison substance abuse programs as well as felons who attended both in-prison and community-based substance abuse treatment programs.
***Does not include reception centers.
****Completed is defined as successfully completing treatment during the time period as determined by treatment program staff or treatment provider records.

95

APPENDIX TABLE 4C. Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Return to Prison (RTP) Rates* for Female Felons** from In-Prison Substance
Abuse Programs

Program

Program Name

Central CA Women's Facility Chowchilla-A
CCWF
Central CA Women's Facility Chowchilla-B
CA Institute for Women-A
CIW
CA Institute for Women-C
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-D
CRC
Valley State Prison for Women-A
VSPW
Valley State Prison for Women-B
Drug Treatment Furlough
DTF-1
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 1
DTF-3 Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 3
DTF-4 Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 4
Total

Custody
Level

I - IV
I - IV
I - IV
I - III
I - IV
I - IV
I - IV

Completed*** in 2005/06

Completed*** in 2005/06

12 Month Return to Prison

24 Month Return to Prison

Number
Completed

Number
RTP

215
239
328
134
67
57
80

53
59
93
28
20
7
26

24.7%
24.7%
28.4%
20.9%
29.9%
12.3%
32.5%

111
112
112
1,455

12
20
24
342

10.8%
17.9%
21.4%
23.5%

RTP Rate

Number RTP

RTP Rate

83
96
130
49
28
12
34

38.6%
40.2%
39.6%
36.6%
41.8%
21.1%
42.5%

28
32
43
535

25.2%
28.6%
38.4%
36.8%

*Return to Prison includes any return to a prison facility for any reason within the specified time frame.
**Includes Felons who only attended in-prison substance abuse programs as well as felons who attended both in-prison and community-based substance abuse treatment programs.
***Completed is defined as successfully completing treatment during the time period as determined by treatment program staff or treatment provider records.

APPENDIX TABLE 4D. Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Return to Prison (RTP) Rates* for Female Civil Addicts** from In-Prison
Substance Abuse Programs

Program

CIW
CRC
Total

Program Name

CA Institute for Women- C
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-D

Custody
Level

I - III
I - IV

Number
Exited

106
104
210

Completed*** in 2005/06

Completed*** in 2005/06

12 Month Return to Prison

24 Month Return to Prison

Number RTP

20
19
39

RTP Rate

18.9%
18.3%
18.6%

Number RTP

25
34
59

RTP Rate

23.6%
32.7%
28.1%

*Return to Prison includes any return to a prison facility for any reason within the specified time frame.
**Includes Civil Addicts who only attended in-prison substance abuse programs as well as felons who attended both in-prison and community-based substance abuse treatment
programs.
***Completed is defined as successfully completing treatment during the time period as determined by treatment program staff or treatment provider records.

96

APPENDIX TABLE 4E. Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Return to Prison (RTP) Rates* for Male Felons from In-Prison** Substance Abuse Programs
Followed by Completion of Continuing Care

Program

Program Name

Avenal State Prison
CA Correctional Institution
CA Institute for Men-A
CIM
CA Institute for Men-B
CA Men's Colony****
CMC
CA State Prison - Corcoran
COR
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-A
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-C
CRC
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-E
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-G
Correctional Training Fac - Soledad-A
CTF
Correctional Training Fac - Soledad-B
Chuckawalla Valley State Prison
CVSP
Folsom Transitional Treatment Program
FTTP
Ironwood State Prison
ISP
CA State Prison Los Angeles County
LAC
Pleasant Valley State Prison-A
PVSP
Pleasant Valley State Prison-B
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Fac-A
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Fac-B
RJD
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Fac-C
Substance Abuse Treatment Fac - Corcoran-A
SATF
Sierra Conservation Center Jamestown-A
SCC
Sierra Conservation Center Baseline-B
Solano State Prison-A
SOL
Solano State Prison-B
Drug Treatment Furlough
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 1
DTF-1
DTF-3 Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 3
DTF-4 Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 4
Total
ASP
CCI

Custody
Level

II
II
I
I
II
I
II
II
II
II
I
III
II
TTP
III
IV
III
III
III
III
I
I - II
III
I
II
III

Completed*** Treatment in 2005/06

Completed*** Treatment in 2005/06

12 Month Return to Prison

24 Month Return to Prison

Number Completed
IPSAP &
Completed* Cont
Care

Number RTP* w/
Cont Care

24
24
29
13
38
39
14
9
10
12
31
10
26
55
1
2
2
8
9
7
26
53
27
62
27
1

6
7
8
2
6
12
1
2
2
5
4
6
5
17
0
0
0
3
1
2
4
9
8
15
6
0

25.0%
29.2%
27.6%
15.4%
15.8%
30.8%
7.1%
22.2%
20.0%
41.7%
12.9%
60.0%
19.2%
30.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
37.5%
11.1%
28.6%
15.4%
17.0%
29.6%
24.2%
22.2%
0.0%

44
49
33
685

9
4
9
153

20.5%
8.2%
27.3%
22.3%

RTP Rate

*Return to Prison includes any return to a prison facility for any reason within the specified time frame.
**Does not include reception centers.
***Completed is defined as successfully completing treatment during the time period as determined by treatment program staff or treatment provider records.
****Missing data from CMC between July and October 2006 due to changes in treatment contractor.

97

Number RTP** w/ Cont
Care

RTP Rate

9
10
12
2
10
20
3
3
6
6
12
7
8
21
0
0
0
4
2
5
9
20
12
23
10
1

37.5%
41.7%
41.4%
15.4%
26.3%
51.3%
21.4%
33.3%
60.0%
50.0%
38.7%
70.0%
30.8%
38.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
22.2%
71.4%
34.6%
37.7%
44.4%
37.1%
37.0%
100.0%

16
6
14
251

36.4%
12.2%
42.4%
36.6%

APPENDIX TABLE 4F. Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Return to Prison (RTP) Rates* for Male Civil Addicts from In-Prison Substance
Abuse Programs Followed by Completion of Continuing Care

Program

CRC
Total

Program Name

CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-A
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-C
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-E
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-G
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-H

Custody
Level

II
II
II
II
II

Completed** in 2005/06

Completed** in 2005/06

12 Month Return to Prison

24 Month Return to Prison

Number Exited
& Comp Cont
Care

Number RTP* w/
Cont Care

82
127
137
167
63
576

23
39
41
35
29
167

RTP Rate

28.0%
30.7%
29.9%
21.0%
46.0%
29.0%

Number RTP* w/
Cont Care

33
58
61
64
42
258

*Return to Prison includes any return to a prison facility for any reason within the specified time frame.
**Completed is defined as successfully completing treatment during the time period as determined by treatment program staff or treatment provider records.

98

RTP Rate

40.2%
45.7%
44.5%
38.3%
66.7%
44.8%

APPENDIX TABLE 4G. Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Return to Prison* (RTP) Rates for Female Felons from In-Prison Substance
Abuse Programs Followed by Completion of Continuing Care

Program

Program Name

Central CA Women's Facility Chowchilla-A
CCWF
Central CA Women's Facility Chowchilla-B
CA Institute for Women-A
CIW
CA Institute for Women-C
CIW
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-D
CRC
Valley State Prison for Women-A
VSPW
Valley State Prison for Women-B
Drug Treatment Furlough
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 1
DTF-1
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 3
DTF-3
Drug Treatment Furlough - Region 4
DTF-4
Total

Custody
Level

I - IV
I - IV
I - IV
I - IV
I - IV
I - IV
I - IV

Completed** in 2005/06

Completed** in 2005/06

12 Month Return to Prison

24 Month Return to Prison

Completed
IPSAP &
Cont Care

RTP w/
Cont Care

24
32
50
15
9
10
8

1
1
4
1
2
0
1

4.2%
3.1%
8.0%
6.7%
22.2%
0.0%
12.5%

26
31
19
224

1
3
3
17

3.8%
9.7%
15.8%
7.6%

RTP Rate

RTP w/
Cont Care

RTP Rate

2
5
6
2
2
0
1

8.3%
15.6%
12.0%
13.3%
22.2%
0.0%
12.5%

4
5
5
32

15.4%
16.1%
26.3%
14.3%

*Return to Prison includes any return to a prison facility for any reason within the specified time frame.
**Completed is defined as successfully completing treatment during the time period as determined by treatment program staff or treatment provider records.

APPENDIX TABLE 4H. Return to Prison* (RTP) Rates for Female Civil Addicts from In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs
Followed by Completion of Continuing Care

Program

CIW
CRC
Total

Program Name

CA Institute for Women-C
CA Rehabilitation Center Norco-D

Custody
Level

I-III
I - IV

Exited w/
Cont Care

59
56
115

Completed** in 2005/06

Completed** in 2005/06

12 Month Return to Prison

24 Month Return to Prison

RTP w/ Cont
Care

6
7
13

RTP Rate

10.2%
12.5%
11.3%

RTP w/ Cont
Care

9
15
24

*Return to Prison includes any return to a prison facility for any reason within the specified time frame.
**Completed is defined as successfully completing treatment during the time period as determined by treatment program staff or treatment provider records.

99

RTP Rate

15.3%
26.8%
20.9%

APPENDIX F.

DEFINITIONS AND EXPLANATION OF CALCULATIONS
Program Completion: Number or rate of participants who successfully completed treatment
during the time period as determined by treatment program staff or treatment provider
records.
Recidivist: An offender who returns to prison for any reason during a specified follow-up
period.
Return to prison: Includes offenders who are returned to Control Units in correctional
facilities; returned pending a revocation hearing by the Board of Parole Hearings on charges
of violating the conditions of parole; returned to custody for parole violations to serve
revocation time; or returned to prison by a court for a new felony conviction.
Return-to-Prison Rate: The ratio of the number of recidivists (number returned) to the
number of offenders at risk of recidivating (number paroled) during the specified period, times
one hundred.
Show-up: The number or rate of offenders who show-up at community-based continuing care
within the specified time frame.
How DARS calculates recidivism: The recidivism rate starts with a cohort of offenders who
are released to parole in a given year. They are tracked for a period of three years to
determine if they return to prison.
How DARS calculates show-up rates: The show-up rate is calculated by dividing the
number of offenders who show-up at community-based continuing care within 180 days by the
total number of inmates paroled after treatment completion at anytime.

100