California's Parole Experiment

• NCJ Number: 197177
• Author(s): Jeremy Travis; Sarah Lawrence
• Date Published: August 2002
• Length: 7 pages
• Corporate Author: The Urban Institute
• Sale Source: The Urban Institute
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Program/Project Description
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This document describes California’s policy on parole and whether it has been effective.

Abstract

The incarceration levels in California have increased at rates greater than the national average. California’s growth in the numbers of people on parole supervision -- and in the numbers whose parole has been revoked -- has exceeded the growth in the rest of the Nation. Eighteen percent of the country’s parole population resides in California. A majority of parolees released from California prisons fail to make the transition back to the community and are returned to prison. A parolee can be sent to prison via two distinct routes -- by a court following a conviction for a new crime, or by the parole board for violating the conditions of parole. The vast majority of returns are for technical violations, such as missing an appointment with a parole officer or failing a drug test, not for new crimes. It is in this area of policy that California differs most sharply from national trends. The State abandoned indeterminate sentencing in 1977 but kept in place a system of parole supervision for everyone getting out of prison. Tough policies exist in the Bureau of Prison Terms that have resulted in more technical violations and longer prison terms. California spends $900 million a year to house parole violators -- who spend an average of 5 months in prison when they are returned. The benefits of the current policies in California are uncertain. There is no research documenting the link between revocation policies like those seen in California and reductions in recidivism. Recently, policy makers have begun to focus on the State’s unique parole issues. An inquiry into the practices of parole supervision has been suggested. Innovations in this area of criminal justice policy have gathered interest around the country. These include transitional housing, work requirements, drug testing, community-based re-entry coalitions, and re-entry courts. California should consider some of these innovations.