Home › News › County News
Proposed prison budget cuts worry local law enforcers
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from County NewsThe governor's proposed budget cuts to California's prison system seem to have something for almost everyone to hate, although the director of one public policy institute said the cuts could lead to real reform.
Concerns of police chiefs and district attorneys took center stage when California legislators met with officials from the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation on Wednesday to discuss the proposed cuts.
Top Ventura County law enforcement officials worry the proposed early, largely unsupervised release of thousands of state prison inmates serving time for relatively minor offenses will lead to increased crime and stress on local agencies.
The county's top public defender disagreed with the idea that keeping such offenders in prison will make communities safer, but he shared law enforcement concerns that proposed funding cuts to programs that aim to prevent crime among young and mentally ill people could hurt the county in the long run.
The proposed Corrections and Rehabilitation cuts are part of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to narrow the state's projected $14.5 billion budget gap by slashing 10 percent from nearly every state department and program.
The corrections department estimates it would have to release 22,159 prison inmates 20 months early during the 2008-09 fiscal year and not provide the customary supervision by parole officers. The department also has proposed cutting $20 million in grant funding designed to prevent recidivism among juvenile offenders and $4.5 million from programs that focus on mentally ill offenders.
'There's no evidence'
Under the current proposal, prisoners serving time for "nonviolent, nonserious, nonsexual" offenses without prior violent incidents on their records would be eligible for early release, said department Secretary James Tilton. Most would be people serving time for possession or sale of drugs or for property crimes such as theft, forgery and fraud, department officials said.
Ventura County Sheriff Bob Brooks said the county could see an influx of more than 1,500 inmates, who would likely increase crime, stretch law enforcement resources and further stress already overcrowded local jails.
"Our anticipation is that it will immediately impact workload and citizens and our jails," Brooks said.
Ventura County District Attorney Greg Totten agreed, saying people sent to prison for nonviolent crimes still can be dangerous and likely to reoffend.
"Their most recent offense may have been a narcotics offense, but typically they have a lengthy criminal history before a judge will send them to prison," Totten said.
Local authorities also are concerned that state officials will expect people sentenced to less than 20 months in prison to just serve their time in local jails, Totten said.
Ventura County Public Defender Ken Clayman, however, rejected the assumption that the community is safer when low-level offenders spend more time in prison. "There's no evidence to support that the incarcerating of these types of individuals for lengthier periods of time provides a greater degree of public safety," he said.
But Clayman is concerned about the proposal to cut grant programs while releasing inmates without parole supervision. Drug diversion and rehabilitation programs for the mentally ill could suffer when they are most needed, he said.
'Going to get out anyway'
Daniel Macallair, executive director of the nonpartisan Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in San Francisco, said the early release of nonviolent inmates could be a step toward meaningful reform of a dysfunctional corrections system.
He called it a "simple, mild" reform that doesn't require much work and wouldn't have much of an effect on public safety.
"These people are going to get out anyway," Macallair said.
But "if we want to do it right, they should enhance parole" and rehabilitation services, he said.
Currently, all inmates released from a California prison are put on "active parole," typically for three years. That means they have to report to parole officers, and if they violate parole terms, they can be sent back to prison. California and Illinois are the only states that put every inmate on supervised parole.
Under the cost-cutting plan, the corrections department would put early-release inmates on "summary parole." Police could still search them without warrants and test them for drugs, but they would not be supervised and would not go back to prison for minor parole violations.
Speaking to the Assembly's budget subcommittee Wednesday, Tilton said those offenders in reality don't get much supervision now.
But any decrease in parole supervision worries Alan Hammerand, chief deputy of the Ventura County Probation Agency. Unsupervised parolees are more likely to fall back into criminal patterns, and those who commit new crimes could end up on probation, further taxing already-stretched local probation officers, he said.
Also, the proposed grant cuts could put $750,000 worth of successful local probation programs in jeopardy, Hammerand said.
Posted by under_the_dome on February 1, 2008 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When will law enforcement concede that the past 40 years of 'lock 'em up and throw away the key' mentality does NOT work? Law enforcement has been the first to support cutting rehabilitative programs -- knowing these people would eventually be released -- and building warehouse comlexes to house offenders. Now law enforcement expresses concern that the they have to reap what they have sown? Come on... you know as well as I do that many of these offenders are the (non-violent) habituated and SHOULD have been diverted into drug treatment programs instead of prison, while we had the chance. Law enforcement: YOU opposed doing that, YOU opposed Prop. 36 expansions, YOU lobby the lawmakers in Sacramento to take away rehabilitative programs.
Posted by eileenareena on February 1, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Since the county supervisors have been slow to address this problem, our county is faced with an ongoing problem for about one and a half years where the jail is full and many prisoners will be released.
This increases the need for the community to jointly address support and follow-up for the early releases. I wish Sheriff Brooks would start a task force of parole officers, employment counselors, drug counselors, probation officers, educators, etc to develop a strategy to actively apply a new community solution. Santa Barbara county has one. I think Ventura County can work towards a solution also. It just takes some political courage. The reality is that the revolving door on our prisons is closing, so warehousing is no longer a solution.
Posted by frankcourser on February 1, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why does law enforcement use scare tactics and misinformation? The informed public knows over 100,000 inmates are paroled each year with little effect on crime.Those with less than 20 months left, will still be released in 20 months or less? and 22,000 is drop in the bucket compared to the 100,000 released every year! I can only think they must fear only losing their fat pay checks!What ever happened to spending our tax dollars wisely?
Posted by FedUp on February 1, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
the reason for the inlfux of prisoners is not the lack of "rehab" facilities. it the fact that prison is not really a deterrent to crime. these criminals get three hot meals a day, cable tv, exercise, games, and sleeping accomodations. all for free!!!!
unless they are doing real hard time in solitary (these are not the ones who are overburdening our system though) then they have no reason to be worried about being caught with drugs, or stealing from someone. they know it is a temporary free room and board.
for example: the STAR ran an article on a buena high school student who was on the wrestling team. he spent some time in juvie for drug related problems. he said that he would be mad if he went back to jail, but thought it would be nice to see his friends again.
that is the attitude that criminals have today. it is not a big deal, because they get to kick it with their homies who are "locked up".
I say give harsher punishments. take away the tv's and games. make them work in the fields, dig some ditches, etc, etc. make it real hard time, where they are not going to want to go back.
you will save tons of money in the long term. save on labor costs for some jobs, you dont have to supply tv or cable, etc, etc.
Posted by sslocal on February 1, 2008 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All prisons should be self supporting. Grow your own food and raise your own animals.
Also, since we have so many prisoners we should have some of the finest roads in the nation. But then CalTrans wouldn't like that, would they?
Posted by Morris1 on February 1, 2008 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
FedUp. People who think the way you do is exactly why our prisons are stuffed to 200% capacity. If longer sentences worked we wouldn't be having this problem. California has some of the longest sentences in the country with the over 100 enhancement sentences voters have approved that add decades to crimes that are better served by 2-4 years. The only thing longer sentences do is cost Calfornians the $45,000 each per year and much more in some cases. Prison neither deters or rehabilitates. It creates criminals. Inmates don't get to pick the facility they are sent to. Most times they go 6 to 12 hours away from their homies. Being locked in a 6 x 9 cell for 23 hours out of a day with a cellmate in the same space is not the Ritz. The overcrowding in our prisons has taken away most programs and jobs that they could do. There is no empty places. The ever longer sentences and the creation of more and more laws and penalties do nothing but cost CA billions and create more law enforcement jobs. They are not interested in helping to change young people that broke the law. Those young people keep them employed and their union growing. California will pay 20 Billion a year by 2018 if they don't reform sentencing and parole and start changing the direction of Corrections in this state. The punishments need to fit the crimes and they no longer do. For those who have addictions, prison does nothing. They go in addicted and they come out addicted. The State has commissioned report after report that give them the answers to recidivism. They choose to ignore the professionals and do things their way. The failure continues and the budget deficit skyrockets. Keep up the good work.
Posted by FedUp on February 1, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Morris -
so what if we deport the 30% of illegals who are currently clogging up the prison system? that would be a start.
my point was, if you have more severe punishments, it will deter more repeat offenders. therefore, less people clogging the system.
it seems like a no-brainer to me.
Posted by ironwoman on February 1, 2008 at 6:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Morris- Why should it be easy for prisoners? Why should they be close to their families? You make it seem like it's so wrong that they live in cells. Well, I have to say "go read their crimes". Talk to their victims.
The reason why criminals get sent to prison is because they are a danger to our society.
Rehabilitation only works if the person chooses to make it work, only if they want to change.
Many prisoners are dangerous, even the low level offenders. Selling drugs and doing drugs is just as dangerous as a robber with a gun.
It doesn't matter if the inmates are going to be "released anyway" as the article states. These criminals will be feeding off our system anyway...either committing more crimes or collecting welfare. Many don't rehabilitate. Only a certain percentage makes it. Why? Because they choose to.
The State of California shouldn't be responsible for making someone "do the right thing". What the State is responsible for is PUBLIC SAFETY.
Posted by Morris1 on February 2, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Fedup- Absolutely I agree with deporting all illegals. That would help a great deal.
Catlover, take your own advice, read their crimes. 50% don't have victims. Personally I'm tired of victims rights groups thinking they know how to legislate. 3 strikes, Jessicas law and Megans law so far have had the unintended consequences like scooping up the wrong targets and wasting hundreds of millions of dollars every year tracking and incarcerating the wrong profiles.
Lockem up mentality doesn't work. Try reading some of the "professional reports" rather than believing what you want to believe. I don't have the credentials or the education that criminologist do that study crime and punishment across the United States. But they all agree our system in CA is one of the worst systems for recidivism and the creation of worse individuals. This is not the Golden State when it comes to our prison system. Other states are closing prisons because they educate and rehabilitate. We warehouse so we will continue to spend billions and create more criminals and law enforcement jobs. If that is the kind of system you want to support that's fine. Just realize those billions come out of the General fund and Education, Medical, Transporation and every other state services does also. We need to be smarter on crime. Rehabilitation should be the goal. Not revenge. Read "Unlocking America" www.JFA-Associates.com Read "The Little Hoover Report". Read something. I am not saying we don't need punishment. But we need to temper it with Education and Rehabiliation to be successful. Our sentences no longer fit the crimes.
Posted by Morris1 on February 2, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This article posted late in December. It says alot about the current problems. It was in this publication.
Posted by FedUp on February 6, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I would be curious to see what the ratio of gang members in prison was in those states that are closing prisons. I think that CA. has it completely different than most other states. I read something that said we CA. has more gang members per capita in the nation. I think that says something about why we house so many prisoners.
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
- Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
- Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
There are 11 comments to this article.
Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.