Monday, August 15, 2011
California spending billions to build new prisons
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Lea Suzuki / The Chronicle
An inmate passes through a corridor of the medical center at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, where a $33.6 million, 64-bed medical center addition to the existing hospital will open next month.
At a dusty construction site in Vacaville adjacent to a prison yard, workers are putting the finishing touches on a 45,000-square-foot structure that will soon house dozens of California's most severely mentally ill offenders.
When the $33.6 million project at the California Medical Facility is completed this fall, prison psychologists and psychiatrists will have private offices to treat their patients, and inmates requiring inpatient care will have individual cells near a nurse's station, as required by law.
The building, which will include 64 cells, is one of 13 prison construction projects being funded by a $7.4 billion bond approved by the Legislature in 2007. It is all part of an effort by the state to comply with a court order to reduce overcrowding and improve health care in its prisons.
Even as the construction continues, however - and as the state continues to face pressure to reduce its prison population - there is debate over whether Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown should move forward with the projects.
Thirteen other states have seen their inmate populations drop and are working to close prisons - including Texas, which began shutting down a century-old lockup last week.
Some people think California should follow suit.
"It's such a failed opportunity if we just build more beds instead of getting smart about policies," said Emily Harris of Californians United for a Responsible Budget, a coalition working to reduce the state's prison population and spending. "We know in California that if we build them, we will fill them."
The state, she said, should "use this as an opportunity to make smart reforms that advocates have been pushing for decades, and that we know from recent polls voters support."
Changing needs
The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office bolstered that argument last week when it released a report recommending that the state reconsider its construction program.
The report's author, Paul Golaszewski, said approximately 1,500 low-security beds proposed at two of the 13 construction sites may not be needed once the state starts sending more inmates to local jails this fall under the governor's realignment plan, and that all future projects should be carefully evaluated.
"We don't know for sure whether they will need these projects," he said. "We don't think they should be delivering more dorm beds. Especially with realignment, it doesn't make sense."
After its completion next month, the Vacaville center will house maximum-security mentally ill inmates who need an inpatient setting. It will have an office area for mental health workers, a dining hall and an exercise yard. Rooms for group therapy will be furnished with heavy, rubber chairs that are impossible to pick up or use as a weapon. There will also be areas for occupational therapy and a handful of rooms with restraints or padded walls. All 64 cells will be within 90 feet of a nurse's station, as required by law.
Court order
Prison officials say this and the other 12 projects are medical and mental health sites that are crucial to getting the state out from under the court order, which arose when advocates sued, claiming that shoddy medical and mental health treatment was violating inmates' rights to decent care and leading to the preventable deaths of up to 50 inmates a year.
A federal court agreed, placed medical care under the control of a federal receiver and ordered the state to reduce its prison population by nearly 34,000 inmates over the next two years.
The conundrum for prison officials is that the population reduction order is directly linked to the court's finding of inadequate medical care and mental health treatment. Prison officials argue that the construction projects under way will help the state comply with the courts.
Improving services
The Vacaville center, for example, won't do much to ease crowding in the main prison, which is about 25 percent over capacity. But the new center will free up treatment space and help state officials better deliver mental health services, according to Stirling Price, who runs the Department of Mental Health's psychiatric program at the prison.
Currently, Vacaville inmates attend group therapy in makeshift rooms, including old cafeterias, and mental health workers must share tiny, crowded offices for individual therapy sessions. The new housing unit will give psychologists and psychiatrists their own office space away from inmates.
Another three-story, $24 million treatment space is also being built at the same prison for mentally ill patients who can be treated in an outpatient setting.
In all, mentally ill patients make up about one-third of the Vacaville institution's population.
"The construction will allow us to provide services based on a specific need. Right now it tends to be based on where the inmate lives," said David Silbaugh, chief psychologist at the prison. "The idea is to have (inmates) at the top of their game when they go back into the community."
State officials said the projects under AB900, the prison construction and rehabilitation law, have been constantly readjusted to match new policies, including Brown's plan to begin sending low-level offenders to county jails starting Oct. 1. Several projects for lower-security inmate housing were dropped after it became apparent they were not needed.
"We carefully thought through the things we needed, knowing the fiscal challenges of the state," said Deborah Hysen, deputy director of planning, construction and management at the prison agency. "We wanted to know that what we needed, we would need for a very long time, so if there is any concern about us going slow, it might have to do with the fact that we want to be careful."
Steep price tag
The price tag of these medical and mental health sites has nevertheless drawn scrutiny. On average, taxpayers will shell out $315,000 per bed for the projects that are under way.
Nancy Kincaid, a spokeswoman for the federal receiver in charge of health care in prisons, said the investment is worth it. The projects, she said, will allow California to treat far more inmates behind prison walls at a much cheaper cost than transporting them to outside centers.
"The people going back to the counties ... are not the people that use the medical facilities generally," she said. "Eighty to 90 percent are used by inmates with long-term sentences."
Kincaid said outside medical care contracts are the state's largest single expense, costing about $480 million a year.
The debate is likely to continue as the state considers moving forward with a handful of other projects authorized under AB900. Those include expansions of local jails, high-security additions to existing prisons and the creation of re-entry centers in cities and counties around California.
State Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who earlier this year called on Brown to rethink the AB900 projects, said he agrees with the Legislative Analyst's Office report calling for reassessments of individual projects, but feels the prison department has done a good job so far focusing on things that are necessary.
"We need to match the beds we have to the needs we have, which is not currently the case," he said. "But we cannot and will not build our way out of our prison problem."
Prison construction
AB900 was signed into law in May 2007, authorizing $7.4 billion in lease revenue bonds for the construction or expansion of prisons, jails and re-entry centers. Nearly half of that money, $3.5 billion, will be used to add new beds and treatment and programming space at existing prisons. Among the ongoing projects are:
-- California Medical Facility
Location: Vacaville
Details: 64-bed mental health center at existing hospital
Cost: $33.6 million, or $526,000 a bed
Estimated date of completion: September
-- California Institution for Women
Location: Chino
Details: 45-bed acute- and intermediate-care mental health center for female inmates
Cost: $33.7 million or $750,000 a bed
Estimated date of completion: December
-- California Health Care Facility
Location: Stockton
Details: 1.2 million-square-foot medical center with 1,722 beds for patient-inmates
Cost: $906 million, or $52,000 a bed
Estimated date of completion: July 2013
-- California Men's Colony
Location: San Luis Obispo
Details: 50-bed mental health crisis unit
Cost: $35.7 million or $715,000 per bed
Estimated date of completion: September 2012
-- California Medical Facility
Location: Vacaville
Details: Additional treatment and office space for mental health patients
Cost: $24.2 million; no beds
Estimated date of completion: February 2013
-- DeWitt-Nelson YCF Conversion
Location: Stockton
Details: Renovation of former youth lockup into 1,133-bed adult mental health treatment center
Cost: $188 million, or $16,500 a bed
Estimated date of completion: August 2013
-- Estrella
Location: Paso Robles
Details: Conversion of former youth lockup to 1,000-bed adult center aimed at inmates with medical needs.
Cost: $110 million or $11,000 a bed
Estimated date of completion: unknown
-- California State Prison, Sacramento, Enhanced Outpatient program
Location: Sacramento
Details: Treatment and office space for 192 inmates
Cost: $12.7 million, no beds
Estimated date of completion: November
-- Lancaster State Prison
Location: Lancaster
Details: Treatment and office space for mental health services for 150 inmates
Cost: $11.49 million, no beds
Estimated date of completion: July 2012
-- Central California Women's Facility
Location: Chowchilla
Details: Treatment and office space for inmates with mental health treatment needs
Cost: $17.7 million, no beds
Estimated date of completion: October 2013
-- Corcoran State Prison
Location: Corcoran (Kings County)
Details: 14,932-square-foot building for mental health treatment space for existing inmates
Cost: $16.5 million, no beds
Estimated date of completion: February 2013
-- Salinas Valley State Prison
Location: Soledad
Details: Treatment and office space for mental health treatment for existing inmates
Cost: $25.3 million, no beds
Estimated date of completion: July 2013
-- Northern California Re-entry Facility
Location: Stockton
Details: 500-bed re-entry center for inmates at the end of their sentence
Cost: $116.8 million or $23,000 a bed
Estimated date of completion: 2013
-- Additional projects funded by AB900
$700 million to improve health sites at six existing prisons
$2.6 billion for up to 10,000 beds at secure re-entry centers in cities and counties around the state. The centers are located in local communities where inmates can serve the last part of their sentences and receive job training, mental heath and substance-abuse counseling, housing placement and other help.
At least two high-security additions to existing prisons at an unknown cost.
$1.2 billion for expansion of local jails. Counties may apply for the money if they agree to host a re-entry center. Five counties have already signed on.
E-mail Marisa Lagos at mlagos@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/13/MNHN1KJ12V.DTL&ao=all#ixzz1V0yQe8tR
Friday, June 10, 2011
'Revolving door' of California prisons
The latest on California politics and government
June 9, 2011
'Revolving door' of California prisons
California's prison system takes center stage this morning as two Senate committees hear from a public safety expert on national trends in cutting recidivism and prison costs.
Adam Gelb directs the Washington-based Pew Center on the States' Public Safety Performance Project, which aims to help states develop policies on sentencing and corrections.
He's also the author of "State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America's Prisons," a Pew report published in April that notes most inmates returned to prison in California are getting locked up on technical violations.
That hearing starts at 9 a.m. in the Capitol's Room 4203.
With one day left before the redistricting commission releases its draft maps, members of SEIU California are announcing a new election strategy this morning that they say will help break Sacramento's partisan gridlock.
The union's leader, David Kieffer, said yesterday in a talk with the Bee Capitol Bureau that he thinks Democrats can defeat conservative Republicans next year by taking advantage of the state's new "top-two" primary system.
Meanwhile, Sen. Leland Yee and others are still on alert, as the U.S. Supreme Court may rule this morning on the state's law banning the sale or rental of excessively violent video games to children.
The San Francisco Democrat carried Assembly Bill 1179, which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down in 2009 "as presumptively invalid content-based restriction on speech" violating the First Amendment. Gov. Jerry Brown appealed that decision back when he was attorney general.
If the court issues a ruling, Yee and others will hold a news conference at San Francisco's Hiram Johnson State Building.
VETERANS: Here are three names you don't usually see in the same sentence: Doris Matsui, Dan Lungren and Tom McClintock. The congressmembers are scheduled to attend a presser in which the U.S. Olympic Committee and the city of Sacramento's Department of Parks and Recreation announce a new sports initiative for veterans. The event starts at 10 a.m. at Samuel C. Pannell Community Center, 2450 Meadowview Road.
BUDGET: Next10 releases an update to its nonpartisan California Budget Challenge with an interactive budget workshop at Commonwealth Club in San Francisco from 10 a.m. to noon. Listed speakers include John Myers of KQED Public Radio, Dan Schnur of the University of Southern California's Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics, Jim Mayer of California Forward, and F. Noel Perry of Next10.
CRIME: Democratic Assemblyman Roger Dickinson of Sacramento and Assemblywoman Alyson Huber of El Dorado Hills join community leaders on the Capitol's west steps at 2 p.m. to highlight the case of Seth Parker, who says two men shouted gay slurs at him before badly beating him in the parking lot of an Elk Grove bowling alley Sunday.
TOUR: Sen. Joel Anderson, R-Alpine, joins state Republican Party Chairman Tom Del Beccaro and others in the south state for another of the state party's "California Speaks Out" town halls. The event, co-sponsored by KCBQ-AM, starts at 7 p.m. at Hawthorne CAT Power Systems, 8050 Othello Ave., San Diego.
PHOTO CREDIT: Shen Buechler, an inmate at Folsom State Prison, works on measuring an engine Wednesday, February 24, 2010, at the prison's auto mechanic's class.
Hector Amezcua / Sacramento Bee
Read more: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/06/am-alert-california-prisons-adam-gelb.html#ixzz1OvpDE3sZ
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
The Role of the Prison Guards Union in California’s Troubled Prison System
Jailing is big business. California spends approximately $9 billion a year on its correctional system, and hosts one in seven of the nation’s prisoners. It has the largest prison population of any state. The number of correctional facilities, the amount of compensation for their unionized staffs, and the total cost of incarcerating a prisoner in the state—$44,563 a year—have exploded over the past 30 years. Over that same period, the quality of the state’s prison system declined precipitously. From the 1940s to the 1960s, California’s correctional system was the envy of the nation: Its wardens held advanced degrees in social work and wrote groundbreaking studies on prisoner reform and reducing recidivism. “California was the model of good correctional management and inmate programming,” says Joan Petersilia in California’s Correctional Paradox of Excess and Deprivation, 37 Crime & Just. 207, 209 (2008), “and its practices profoundly influenced American corrections for over 30 years.”
By the 1980s, however, California began radically reforming its prison system. An incarceration rate that had held to 100 to 150 per 100,000 Californians prior to 1980 spiked to over 450 by the year 2000. The prison population surged from less than 25,000 in 1980 to more than 168,000 in 2009. The state’s prison budget swelled to meet the needs of the more than six-fold population increase. Between 1980 and 2000, California built 23 new prisons. New guards were needed to staff the new facilities, increasing their number from approximately 5,600 to nearly 30,000 over the same period. Prior to construction, annual spending on the state’s correctional program amounted to about $675 million, or about 3% of California’s general fund. By 2008, spending topped $10 billion, and consumed almost 11.5% of the state’s general fund.
It still wasn’t enough, however, since spending on rehabilitation was systematically excised from the state’s correctional policy at the same time in around 1980. As a result, according to the San Francisco Chronicle in 2002, California has the highest rate of recidivism in the nation:
Before the mid-1970s, most sentences were indeterminate, meaning that most inmates could get off much earlier than their original sentence if they completed vocational or academic classes in addition to good behavior.
The state replaced that system with one lacking an incentive for inmates to take classes or get counseling to help them prepare for life outside prison.
Now, virtually everyone released from prison spends three years on parole. Most – about 71 percent – end up back in prison within 18 months – the nation’s highest recidivism rate and nearly double the average of all other states.
According to data provided by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, in 1977, parolees who were returned to prison or convicted of new crimes accounted for just 10% of California’s prison population. The percentage topped 20 only once prior to 1980. In 2009, however, the number was an alarming 77%, having held firm between the high 60s and low 80s since 1986.
The growth of California’s incarceration system, and the decline of its quality, tracks the accession to power of the state’s prison guards union, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (“CCPOA”). The CCPOA has played a significant role in advocating pro-incarceration policies and opposing pro-rehabilitative policies in California. In 1980, CCPOA’s 5,600 members earned about $21,000 a year and paid dues of about $35 a month. After the rapid expansion of the prison population beginning in the 1980s, CCPOA’s 33,000 members today earn approximately $73,000 and pay monthly dues of about $80. These dues raise approximately $23 million each year, of which the CCPOA allocates approximately $8 million to lobbying. As Ms. Petersilia explains, “The formula is simple: more prisoners lead to more prisons; more prisons require more guards; more guards means more dues-paying members and fund-raising capability; and fund-raising, of course, translates into political influence.”
The CCPOA has used this political influence to advance a highly successful pro-incarceration agenda. Alexander Volokh writes in his article, Privatization and the Law and Economics of Political Advocacy, 66 Stanford Law Review 1197 (2008):
many of [CCPOA’s] contributions are directly pro-incarceration. It gave over $100,000 to California’s Three Strikes initiative, Proposition 184 in 1994, making it the second-largest contributor. It gave at least $75,000 to the opponents of Proposition 36, the 2000 initiative that replaced incarceration with substance abuse treatment for certain nonviolent offenders. From 1998 to 2000 it gave over $120,000 to crime victims’ groups, who present a more sympathetic face to the public in their pro-incarceration advocacy. It spent over $1 million to help defeat Proposition 66, the 2004 initiative that would have limited the crimes that triggered a life sentence under the Three Strikes law. And in 2005, it killed Gov. Schwarzenegger’s plan to “reduce the prison population by as much as 20,000, mainly through a program that diverted parole violators into rehabilitation efforts: drug programs, halfway houses and home detention.”
Ms. Petersilia further observes that “CCPOA-sponsored legislation was successful more than 80 percent of the time” during the ‘80s and ‘90s, including most notably California’s aggressive three-strikes initiative passed in 1984. Following the 2010 elections, one CCPOA lobbyist boasted “we should be able to develop a good contract with this governor given the fiscal times the state’s in, and we should have no trouble getting it ratified. We have such good relationships, and we were right in so many races, that we’ve got a lot of friends over there.” Thus, while the state’s pro-incarceration laws swell union membership and dues revenue, the CCPOA is able to successfully lobby for more generous compensation for their membership. As of July 2006, the average CCPOA correctional officer earned $73,248 a year—more than the average salary of an assistant professor with a PhD at the University of California ($60,000 per year in 2006). With overtime, it is not uncommon for California correctional officers to earn over $100,000 a year. A Los Angeles Times investigation found that 6,000 correctional officers earned more than $100,000 in 2006, with hundreds earning more than legislators and other state officials.
Prison guards also enjoy pensions calculated using the favorable 3%-at-50 formula. An officer who retires at 50 takes as his pension a percentage of his last year’s salary equal to three times the number of years worked. (For example, an officer who retires at age 50 after 30 years on the job will receive 90% of his salary during retirement (3 x 30 years). More on this subject here.) Since the maximum retirement benefits are 90 percent, working past 30 years is basically working for free. Teachers, by contrast, receive a pension calculated as 2.5 percent of their salaries per year of employment at age 63.
As CCPOA member Lt. Kevin Peters observed, the union’s successful pro-incarceration policy results in more and better opportunities for union members:
You can get a job anywhere. This is a career. And with the upward mobility and rapid expansion of the department, there are opportunities for the people who are [already] correction staff, and opportunities for the general public to become correctional officers. We’ve gone from 12 institutions to 28 in 12 years, and with “Three Strikes” and the overcrowding we’re going to experience with that, we’re going to need to build at least three prisons a year for the next five years. Each one of those institutions will take approximately 1,000 employees.
The facts observed over the past 40 years suggests the cycle described by Ms. Petersilia is basically accurate: higher incarceration leads to greater union influence, which in turn leads to still higher incarceration, and thus higher union membership, revenues, and political influence. Whatever the initial causes of California’s prison problems, the prison guards’ institutional pro-incarceration and anti-rehabilitation agenda has calcified a broken correctional system.
Timeline of the CCPOA’s Influence in California’s Crime, Incarceration, and Rehabilitation Policies
To provide an understanding the CCPOA’s objectives in and influence over California’s prison system, it may be helpful to recite a brief history of the prison system since the CCPOA’s inception over 50 years ago:
■1957: California Correctional Officers Association (the predecessor to the CCPOA) is founded.
■1972: In its initial decades, the CCOA largely backed conservative political measures. For example, in 1972 the CCOA backed Prop 17, which amended the California Constitution reinstating capital punishment following the California Supreme Court decision in People v. Anderson, holding the death penalty violated the state constitutional prohibition against “cruel or unusual punishment.”
■1973: The CCOA reaches 3,200 members. It is still dwarfed by the 102,000 member California State Employees Association.
■1976: California becomes the second state after Maine to abolish indeterminate sentencing, which had explicitly embraced rehabilitation as a correctional goal and tied a prisoner’s release date to his or her rehabilitative progress.
■1978: Gov. Jerry Brown signs the Dills Act into law, giving public employees collective bargaining rights.
■1980: California has 12 prisons. Prison guards make approximately $21,000 per year.
■1980: Don Novey takes over as president of CCPOA; although no longer working in a prison, Novey continues to receive his $59,900 salary, in addition to his new $60,000 union chief salary.
■1983: By the end of Jerry Brown’s term as governor, total prison population increases by 9,899, from 24,471 to 34,640.
■1983: CCPOA successfully negotiates a 2.5% at 55 retirement package.
■1984: CCPOA membership swells to 10,000.
■1990: CCPOA contributes $1 million to Pete Wilson.
■1990: The CCPOA contributes over $80,000 to an unknown opponent of Senator John Vasconcellos, D-Santa Clara, who led opposition to a prison-building bond as an assemblyman in 1990. The much more visible Vasconcellos only narrowly defeated the unknown CCPOA-backed candidate.
■1991: By the end of George Deukmejian’s term as governor, total prison population explodes by 62,669, from 34,640 to 97,309. The Corrections’ share of the General Fund saw an 81% increase over the past 8 years.
■July 1993: The CCPOA is one of the top 10 state political campaign contributors with more than $1 million in contributions, substantially to Republican candidates, including a challenger to an assemblyman who had repeatedly called for slowing growth in prison operating budgets.
■1992: Prison guards’ pay averages $45,000 per year.
■1994: With the help of CCPOA’s $101,000 support, Californians passed Proposition 184, the nation’s toughest three-strikes law mandating 25-years-to-life sentences for most felony offenders with two previous serious convictions.
■1995: States around the country spend more building prisons than colleges for the first time in history.
■1998: Don Novey, president of the CCPOA, contributes $2.1 million to the Gray Davis campaign.
■1998: The CCPOA donates a total of $5.3 million to legislative races, the Gray Davis campaign, and voter initiatives. It was the No. 1 donor to California legislative races at $1.9 million. It contributed $2.3 million into Davis’s campaign, placed television spots for Davis in the conservative Central Valley, and helped fund a bank of telephone callers before the election. The CCPOA contributed $3 million to Gray Davis during his term in office.
■1998: Since approximately 1980, California tripled its number of prisons and increased its inmate population to nearly 160,000 at 33 prisons and 38 work camps.
■1998: Gov. Pete Wilson, who receives $1.5 million in CCPOA contributions in 1998, vetoes pay raises for other state workers while CCPOA members obtain a 12% pay increase, bringing top pay from $46,200 to $50,820. State university instructors earn between $32,000 and $37,000. By the end of Pete Wilson’s term as governor in 1999, total prison population increased by 67,875, from 97,309 to an estimated 165,166.
■1999: After the Legislature approves a bill to establish a $1 million pilot program to provide alternative sentencing for some nonviolent parole offenders—estimated to save taxpayers $600 million a year—the CCPOA opposes the bill. Governor Gray Davis then vetoes the bill. The CCPOA also persuades Gov. Davis to close three privately run prisons, even though they housed inmates at substantially lower costs than state-run facilities.
■2000: The CCPOA contributes at least $75,000 to the opponents of Proposition 36, the 2000 initiative that replaced incarceration with substance abuse treatment for certain nonviolent offenders.
■2002: CCPOA contributes $1 million to Gray Davis’s campaign. The CCPOA contributes $200,000 to defeat Assemblyman Phil Wyman in 2002, an advocate of private prisons. The CCPOA negotiates an increase to prison guards’ pay estimated between 28% and 37%, at a price tag of $500 million per year. Senior guards earn $52,700 a year, compared to $30,000 for a senior supervisor in Texas. The California Legislature approves $170 million in extra prison spending. In addition to granting correctional officers a major boost in pay, the labor pact permitted officers to call in sick without a doctor’s note confirming the illness. With the new policy in place, prison officers called in sick 500,000 more hours in 2002 than in 2001, a 27% increase. "Our overtime would have been below 2001, or real close, had it not been for that 500,000-hour increase," said Wendy Still, the main budget analyst for the Department of Corrections. Corrections officers called in sick 27 percent more often last year than they did in 2001, for an additional 500,000 lost hours. More than a third of the overtime logged last year was to compensate for guards who called in sick, according to the Bureau of State Audits. The California Department of Finance requests $70 million to cover unexpected prison costs from 2001. In December, Gray Davis asks lawmakers for $10 billion in emergency cuts to other state programs.
■2003: Gray Davis asks the Legislature to approve another $150 million for prison system’s budget. The CCPOA contributes $25,000 to Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, a San Francisco Democrat, three months after giving $12,000 to Senate Republican Leader Jim Brulte of Rancho Cucamonga. CCPOA members receive a 7% raise, pushing average annual take-home pay to $64,000. California’s prison budget is estimated at $5.2 billion.
■2004: The CCPOA spends over $1 million to defeat Prop 66, the initiative that would have limited the crimes that triggered a life sentence under the Three Strikes law.
■2005: The CCPOA defeats Governor Schwarzenegger’s plan to “reduce the prison population by as much as 20,000, mainly through a program that diverted parole violators into rehabilitation efforts: drug programs, halfway houses and home detention.” Spending on California’s penal system constitutes approximately 7% of the state’s general funds. CCPOA membership reaches 26,000.
■2006: The average CCPOA correctional officer receives compensation worth $73,248 per year. Over 900 workers added $50,000 or more to their base salaries in overtime pay; over 1,600 officers’ total earnings topped $110,000. (Kathryne Tafolla Young, The Privatization of California Correctional Facilities: A Population-Based Approach, 18 Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev. 438, 441-42 (2007).)
■2007: Following a 2007 ruling requiring the state to fix its prison overcrowding problem, the Legislature passes a $3.5 billion bond package to finance the construction of new prisons, yet four years later not a single new facility has been built.
■2008: The CCPOA contributes $2 million to Jerry Brown’s gubernatorial campaign. The CCPOA contributes $1 million against Prop 5, a measure to reduce prison overcrowding by providing treatment rather than prison sentences for nonviolent drug users.
■2011: Gov. Brown’s proposed Fiscal Year 2011-2012 budget funds the prison system $9.19 billion, nearly 7.2% of the entire state budget. It costs an average of $44,563 a year to house each of California’s approximately 158,000 inmates in a system at roughly 200% of capacity. The national average is $28,000.
By 2011, CCPOA members are among the most generously compensated public workers in the state, even while their union resists policy changes to bring prison overcrowding, recidivism, and costs under control. As observed by Rich Tatum, a 33-year prisons veteran and president of the California Correctional Supervisors Organization, “It does seem at times like the union is running the department.” John Irwin, a retired professor and commentator of California’s correctional system, worries that “the wardens don’t feel they have much control of what goes on. The cliques – mostly led by sergeants – at the prisons are very strong, and the union, of course, backs them up when they get into trouble.”
That the CCPOA effectively wields so much governmental power explains how the misconduct of their members goes unchecked, and reported sexual assault, unreasonable use of tasers and pepper spray, hitting with flashlights and batons, punching and kicking, slurs and racial epithets, among others, go uninvestigated. According to the 138-page opinion in Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146 (N.D.Cal. 1995), “The court finds that supervision of the use of non-lethal force at Pelican Bay is strikingly deficient,” and “It is clear to the Court that while the IAD [Internal Affairs Division] goes through the necessary motions, it is invariably a counterfeit investigation pursued with one outcome in mind: to avoid finding officer misconduct as often as possible. As described below, not only are all presumptions in favor of the officer, but evidence is routinely strained, twisted or ignored to reach the desired result.” The court held that the prison guards and officials engaged in unnecessary infliction of pain and use of excessive force, and violated the Eighth Amendment, among other things. According to testimony in Madrid, from 1989 to 1994 officers in California’s state prisons shot and killed more than 30 inmates. By contrast, in all other state and federal prisons nationally only 6 inmates were killed in the same period-and 5 of those were shot while attempting to escape.
Compounding this misconduct is the systemic lack of transparency preventing the public from knowing the full extent of the guards’ abuses. Union members, for example, employ a “code of silence” to squelch evidence of misconduct:
Even if the CDC were more thorough in its investigation of officer misconduct, it would have to overcome the membership’s last line of defense-a widely accepted code of silence. In the Madrid case, Judge Henderson referred to the "undeniable presence of a ‘code of silence’ … designed to encourage prison employees to remain silent regarding the improper behavior of their fellow employees, particularly where excessive force has been alleged." 889 F Supp at 1157. Novey, asked in the 1998 state Senate hearings if he would say such a code existed, replied, "I wouldn’t totally say that…. But I will attest that there are pockets [of the code], and our job’s to help weed out those pockets."
As the Madrid ruling chillingly observes, “Certainly, much has transpired at Pelican Bay California state prison of which the Court will never know."
Concurrent with the abuses described in Madrid, similar abuses were under investigation at Corcoran State Prison concerning guards using firearms to break up fist fights:
The investigations at Corcoran State Prison eventually led to the federal indictment of eight officers for allegedly staging "blood sport" fights between inmates that occurred in the security housing unit in 1994. Before the trial, the CCPOA financed an infomercial in 1999 about the tough working conditions at Corcoran. Thomas E. Quinn, a private investigator in Fresno who produced a documentary video showing some of the fights, says the union’s infomercial showed "prison guards as neighbors, and prisoners as the scum of the earth." Broadcast by local television stations prior to jury selection, the ad concluded with the tag line "Corcoran officers: They walk the toughest beat in the state."
Although prosecutors expressed concern about the ads to the trial judge, they didn’t attempt to stop the broad-casts. The jury eventually acquitted the eight guards of all charges. Immediately after the verdict, some jurors joined the defendants for an impromptu celebration.
Tame by comparison, the investigation earlier this year into prison guards who smuggled 10,000 cellphones to inmates in 2010—including one guard who obtained $150,000 through the illegal practice—hardly made a blip on anyone’s radar. Nor did this or the union’s many other abuses prevent it from successfully negotiating a vacation benefits package with Gov. Brown recently for, among other perks, eight weeks of vacation per year, additional time upon gaining seniority, and the right to cash out an unlimited amount of accrued vacation time upon retirement at final pay scale. Although the CCPOA insists the deal simply pays its members for the vacation days they were unable to take due to staffing shortages, the CCPOA itself is a significant contributor to the overcrowding and budgetary constraints that led to these shortages.
As a result of the overcrowding and dismal conditions in California’s prisons, the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Plata recently ordered the state to reduce its prison population to 137.5% of design capacity by releasing approximately 37,000 prisoners. For California to comply with the high Court’s order, however, it must contend with a prison guards union at the height of its power. The state, on the one hand, must negotiate under a strict time table set by the Supreme Court while observing the constitutional protections of its prisoners and the interests of the public. The CCPOA, on the other hand, has the power to oust those elected officials who fail to put the union’s interests first. It’s a dangerous stand off, set in motion in part by Gov. Brown himself with the Dills Act in 1978. There is some poetic justice that, more than three decades later, it is Brown who must confront the powerful special interest he helped create.
Tim Kowal is an attorney practicing in Orange County, California, Vice President of the Orange County Federalist Society, and contributor to UnionWatch. The views expressed on this blog are his own. You can follow this blog via RSS, Facebook, or Twitter. Email is welcome at timkowal at gmail.com. Previous posts are still available at the old blog.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Guarding Against Reform
CA's Corrections Officers Need to Let Some of Their Charges Go
by Joshua Page
California’s prisons provide an apt metaphor for the state’s broken politics. Almost everyone knows the $10 billion correctional system is unsustainable and must be cut, and yet the issue is so controlled by vested interests that nothing much changes. It’s a case study in how political disengagement – the “why bother” syndrome that afflicts Californians when confronted with any number of daunting issues – tends to carry the day.
Contracting the prison population requires shortening prison and parole terms, increasing alternatives to imprisonment, and reserving costly prison beds for the most serious offenders. Sophisticated research and the recent experiences of other states (like New York, which decreased its prison population by 20 percent) show that these measures can be implemented without jeopardizing public safety.
The time is ripe to downsize California’s correctional system. For starters, the state is over $26 billion in debt – it simply can’t afford its prison system. Moreover, federal judges have ruled that the Golden State must cut about 40,000 inmates from its overcrowded prisons. Public opinion polls indicate that Californians are tiring of their state’s über-tough approach to crime and drug addiction. So who stands in the way of the mighty alliance of fiscal necessity, the federal bench and public opinion?
Enter the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, known as CCPOA. Established in 1982, this prison officers’ union became an influential political player in the 1990s. Now, alongside crime victims’ groups it helped create and continues to fund, the CCPOA greatly influences the fate of major penal policy proposals. The union has defeated critical sentencing reform initiatives that might shrink California’s bloated correctional system.
In 2004, the CCPOA organized and helped finance the opposition to Proposition 66, which would have softened the edges of the state’s extremely sharp “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law. In 2008, it bankrolled the successful effort to defeat Proposition 5, a wide-ranging initiative meant to reduce the number of drug offenders behind bars. Most recently, the union helped torpedo a legislative initiative to establish an independent commission with the authority to change sentencing laws. When it comes to serious sentencing reform, the CCPOA and its allies remain major obstacles.
As odd as it might seem for prison officers to play a decisive role in shaping the criminal justice system of a state of some 35 million people, policymakers have no choice but to deal with the CCPOA. But they should do so in a more adept manner.
First, policymakers should address the union’s legitimate concerns. Prison officers understandably worry that downsizing the correctional system will put them out of work. Thanks largely to their effective union, these officers have solid, middle-class jobs with good pay, good benefits, and good retirement packages. California officers make between $45,000 and $73,000 a year before overtime and other incentives. As the manufacturing sector declines, “prison officer” is one of the few remaining occupations providing upward social mobility for people who lack advanced degrees. This is especially true in the rural areas in which many prisons are located. Officers and their families, then, are justified in thinking that major reforms might close one of the few remaining paths they have into the middle class.
Policymakers must make good faith efforts to protect these workers as they reshape the correctional system. Prison workforces should be decreased by natural attrition whenever possible; positions should be shed through retirement or voluntary termination. Because the prisons are currently understaffed, the closing of some facilities needn’t translate into widespread layoffs. The state might set up retraining programs to help officers find new work within or outside of the prison system. The CCPOA would be much more likely to support reform measures if it could protect its members’ jobs along the way, or at least be persuaded that its worst-case fears are unfounded.
Securing jobs won’t be enough. Another important point to consider is that the union’s support for laws like “Three Strikes” is not just about gaining members and job security. It’s also ideological. Union leaders and many members believe in these policies. Therefore, policymakers (particularly the governor) must negotiate aggressively but productively, not only on wages and benefits, but also on substantive issues. California’s leaders should make implicit or explicit deals, using wages, benefits, and work-related rules and practices as bargaining chips with the CCPOA during collective bargaining. Unless the union agrees not to oppose major sentencing and prison reforms (and that includes not financing its allied organizations’ efforts to quash the reforms), the state should not support the union’s contract or legislative proposals.
If the CCPOA refrains from opposing sentencing reforms, it should be rewarded with fair contracts that further professionalize prison officer work, improve wages and benefits, and strengthen job security. Put simply, there should be incentives for cooperation—not just disincentives for non-cooperation.
Evidently, the Brown administration used this strategy in its recent negotiations with the CCPOA. As has been widely reported, the governor and the union have reached a tentative contract agreement. Republican legislators and newspaper editorial boards have argued that this deal will not save enough money or return enough workplace control to management – some have even called it a “sweetheart deal.” In response to the criticism, Brown has claimed that he did not seek more drastic concessions from the union, at least in part, because the CCPOA did not actively oppose his criminal justice realignment plan to make counties (rather than the state) responsible for incarcerating low-level offenders and supervising most parolees. (The policy will not go into effect unless Brown gets his tax measures approved.) If implemented, the plan will decrease the number of prison officers and parole agents – hence, it’s not surprising that union leaders are taking heat for not opposing the plan. Nevertheless, the CCPOA finally has a contract, and, given the current economic environment, budget shortfalls, and rampant anti-union sentiment, it’s a solid one.
In a perfect world, taxpayers wouldn’t need to offer carrots to a public employee union to reform a state’s criminal justice system. But California politics, to put it mildly, is not quite a perfect world, and unless campaign financing and plenty of other structural matters are radically altered, the governor must get the CCPOA’s buy-in to downsize prisons.
Brown’s realignment proposal is projected to reduce the state prison population by upwards of 40,000. Although it would alleviate overcrowding and satisfy the federal courts, it would not necessarily shrink the overall correctional population (instead it would simply shift state prisoners to the counties). Truly shrinking the system still requires sentencing reform. Neither Brown nor the legislature has shown any willingness to shorten prison sentences or increase alternatives to imprisonment, but if they do take up serious sentencing reform, they will again have to deal with the CCPOA and its allies. By addressing union members’ fears, policymakers can soften their resistance. And while a smaller prison system will eventually lead to fewer officers (and union members), it will also benefit those who continue to toil on the tiers and on the yards.
Contracting the penal population will decrease tension, violence, and chaos behind the walls, making the prison beat less “tough” for officers and prisoners alike. Despite the zero-sum calculations of so many, cutting corrections and helping officers are necessary and compatible goals.
Joshua Page is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Minnesota. He is the author of The Toughest Beat: Politics, Punishment, and the Prison Officers Union in California (Oxford University Press, 2011).
*Photo courtesy of Dana Gonzales.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
The Drug War: A War on Women and Their Families | | AlterNet
Since 1977, the rate of female imprisonment has increased by nearly 800% and is still rising -- much of it attributable to the war on drugs.
April 5, 2010
The newest victims of the war on drugs are women and if Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske was sincere when he said that the war on drugs is not a war on the people of this country then it is time to evaluate how our policies affect the women of this country. Since 1977, the rate of female imprisonment has increased by nearly 800% and is still rising.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Prison report: The Early Release Scare
Editors note: Just A Guy was recently released after serving a sentence in a California state prison. He continues to comment on law-enforcement and public-safety issues.
Here we continue with the anti-release rhetoric, saying that all the people are “dangerous criminals” and the releases will cause a spike in crime.
Here’s Los Angeles Police Protection League President Paul M. Weber:
“We can expect crime to go up as a result of this massive release, considering California has the highest recidivism rate in the nation, with seven out of ten parolees reoffending then returning to the prison system.”
Of course you can expect an increase in crime -- most of the people sent to county jails and prisons (especially county jails) have been given absolutely no rehabilitative programs. What is the real reason that seven out of 10 parolees return to jail, though? Is it from new crimes or parole violations? Why does California have the highest recidivism rate?
Maybe it’s because, for a long time now, parolees have been violated and sent back to prison for “technical violations” like leaving the county without permission or having contact with their significant other when they weren’t supposed to.
While it is certainly each individual’s responsibility to abide by the rules of parole, some of the things that parolees get violated for the first time are overwhelmingly ridiculous. Personally, I believe that parole should be eradicated except for truly violent offenders; parole is really a joke anyway, and it has never stopped someone that has the intention of committing new crimes from doing so. You think some parolee is going tell his/her parole officer, “I am going to go use drugs today and burglarize someone.” And, do you think all the cops know every parolee on their beat now? Give me a break.
Let’s talk about parole anyway. What is it? Really, it’s just an extension of your sentence. If you are sentenced to 4 years in prison for possession of drugs (or anything else), it’s really a seven year sentence. You could do all four years, be released and still have three years of parole and if you get violated and sent back you can wind up doing, on the installment plan, 3 more years in prison/jail.
Now, I don’t see parole as particularly difficult (just annoying) if you are really trying to get your shit together, but most people that are released on parole get out with significantly less than they went in with -- i.e. no to live, no job, and a worse attitude. Then, they are released to 10% unemployment, have no real job training or life skills, have been tainted by the California Penal System and are ripe to come back. What difference does it make if they get out now or later? They’re all getting out eventually.
When are you Californians going to get tired of spending more on prisons than your kid’s higher education? But this is the progressive state that voted against gay marriage…
Finally, why don’t you seriously consider amending three strikes? There are people that were sentenced to 25 to life for possession of miniscule amounts of drugs and their previous offenses were many, years prior. Guys sentenced to life for stealing a pizza or a bike; that’s a reality.
And you want to reduce prison spending? Legalize drugs. Period.
By Tim Redmond: January 20, 2010 01:47 PM
Friday, January 15, 2010
Prison report: Jails v. Education
By Just A Guy
They're spending a lot on prisons, but not on lunch -- this is what CDCR serves
According to an article in the SFGate and the governor’s State of the State address the governor wants to increase spending on higher education and reduce spending on prisons. Personally, I don’t care if this is political wrangling or not, it’s about the most sensible thing to come out of the governor’s office in quite some time with respect to prisons and prison spending.
"It's a very simplistic solution to a very complex problem," said Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster. "I believe the first priority of state government is to keep people safe. To cap that certainly doesn't make any sense to me."
You know, sometimes simple solutions to complex problems are the only solutions that work. It seems as if California and its government have been over thinking the whole issue on prisons for quite a while. If more money is spent on higher education then maybe less people will go to prison? Simplistic, yes, but makes sense, right?
What’s so complex about the problem anyway? The complexity really lies in how, after many years of an increasing prison budget and a decreasing higher education budget, years of crying out how awful EVERY SINGLE PERSON in prison is, years of political maneuvering, the political folks will reduce costs while standing by their claims that less spending on prisons erodes public safety. That is the complex part.
There will be many detractors like Sen. George Runner, but they are not thinking long term or big picture. They appear to be concerned only with their political futures, either that or they are just idiots (maybe both). I have, in many past blogs, expressed the idea that if you educate you reduce public safety risk. If these politician’s are really concerned with public safety they will gladly make more funds available to higher education.
Meanwhile, take a look at the pictures in this blog and ask…who is really making money from CDCR. It ain’t the inmates!
CDCR celebrates the capture of inmate cell phones -- but who do you suppose smuggles them in an makes money off them?
Oh -- and they aren't spending much money on maintenance, either -- at least, not when it comes to the plumbing. Everything at CDCR seems to be in the shitter:
By Tim Redmond: January 13, 2010 11:47 AM
http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/2010/01/prison_report_jails_v_educatio.html