Introduction
San Joaquin County Probation Department Juvenile Detention Services provides a place where youth may be held while waiting to come before a judge of the Juvenile Court. It is divided into Community Field Services and Juvenile Hall/Camp and collaborates with more than 50 public agencies and community-based organizations (CBOs) to provide graduated levels of support for youth. Anyone under the age of 18 who commits a crime may be booked by a law enforcement agency into Juvenile Hall. Youth on probation may be arrested and booked by their probation officer (San Joaquin County Probation Department, n.d.). When they appear in juvenile court on charges of a crime, the judge may release them, detain them pending adjudication, or commit them to a juvenile hall, camp, or work project program without detention. In a bid to rehabilitate the teenagers, it offers passport programs that incorporate CBOs, behavioral health professionals, and therapy professionals.
The services are offered in three phases and include training on social and problem-solving skills, assessment tools to identify things such as aggression and drug addiction, and therapy programs. Generally, the programs are used to give the youths a second chance in life. An external evaluation found that clients who got more hours of the program had their recidivism rates (arrests and convictions) reduce by 20% (San Joaquin County Probation’s passport program, 2017). In this paper, the chosen jurisdiction is the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), which is in charge of San Joaquin County Probation Department Juvenile Detention Services. Therefore, this essay will evaluate the effectiveness of CDCR programs compared to those in other jurisdictions in terms of functions and different structures. Additionally, it will discuss issues limiting its success, preparation for reentry, and recommendations on how to improve it.
Effectiveness of Programs at CDCR
The programs that are efficient at reducing recidivism are those that give support and resources to probationers after they are released from custody. Such projects assist them in getting employment, housing, and other necessary services to reintegrate into communities, as well as offering supervision to ensure they stay on track and out of trouble. The effectiveness of rehabilitation programs at CDCR varied depending on the type of program, with some programs being more effective than others as well as the individual participant (Grattet & Bird, 2018). Programs such as the Education and Vocational Training Program, the Substance Abuse Treatment Program, the Mental Health Services Program, the Prison Industry Authority Program, and the Parole and Probation Department were effective. In contrast, the boot camp program, the three strikes program, the death penalty, the life without parole program, and the solitary confinement program were not efficient (Martin, 2021). Thus, the structure of all similar programs in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s jurisdiction is the same. In addition, CDCR offers all the projects that are currently available in other jurisdictions.
Despite the millions of dollars spent by CDCR on rehabilitation programs for inmates and the successes of education and vocational training, substance abuse treatment, mental health services, and parole and probation programs. Recidivism rates are still high, and it is estimated that about 50% of inmates will reoffend within three years (Boyd-Barrett, 2019). For example auditing analysis of cognitive behavioral therapy programs revealed no significant difference in recidivism rates between those who completed such programs and those who did not. Many of the inmates released had none of their rehabilitative needs met by most of the programs, partly due to the fact that they were placed in inappropriate programs.
Issues Facing Correctional Institution Rehabilitation at CDCR
Currently, the rehabilitative programs offered by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) do not satisfactorily reduce the state’s recidivism rate. The issues affecting these programs are overcrowding, understaffing, enrollment, and lack of resources, curriculum, and oversight (Bliss, 2020). Firstly, overcrowding has limited the effectiveness of the programs because there are not enough resources to go around. This potentially led to tension and conflict among the juveniles and made it difficult to provide adequate care and rehabilitation. Secondly, staffing was insufficient, and many of the contracted Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) vendors were not teaching an evidence-based curriculum (Bliss, 2020). In addition, there is a lack of enough personnel to oversee the inmates, which could lead to violence and other problems. Thus, these gaps limit the effectiveness of the programs in the CDCR’s jurisdiction. Consequently, poor rehabilitation services could result in the recidivism of the juveniles.
Thirdly, lack of resources has continuously constrained the successful implementation of the projects at CDCR. The department is deficient in terms of the money it requires to fund the programs adequately (Holmboe et al., 2016). As a result, it is understaffed, and incapable of providing sufficient training for the staff who work in the programs. Therefore, its service providers are inadequately prepared and incompetent to execute their mandate properly. Fourthly, oversight of the programs is equally weak because the CDCR team has not been evaluating the performance of its rehabilitation programs since 2012 (Bliss, 2020). Furthermore, the assessment tools used have not been validated for their precision for a long time, leading to some inmates being placed where they were not intended. These problems have necessitated a decrease in the quality of care and services that are provided to inmates and a reduction in the success rate of rehabilitation programs.
Preparation for Reentry
During the pre-release stage of those imprisoned who are about to be set free, they will normally meet with DAPO personnel. At this point, they are administered a COMPAS reentry assessment focused on the criminogenic needs of their post-incarceration. DAPO in-prison staff therefore will refer incarcerated individuals to programs that address any unmet criminogenic requirement directly following their jail terms (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2022). Once in society, DAPO parole officers work closely with DRP to get parolees into available community-based services such as treatment, employment, and transitional housing, among others necessary for successful reentry into the community.
Recommendations for Improvements
It is important that CDCR urgently and constantly reevaluate its assessment tools to determine their efficiency, accuracy and make improvements when there is a need to do so (Bliss, 2020). The department must make it a mandatory requirement to place juveniles on waiting lists, have those deemed to be at higher risk in classes, recruit enough personnel, and implement CBT requirements for evidence-based programs. CDCR must equally enlist the services of an independent external oversight consultant to monitor the performance progress of its programs (Bliss, 2020). Likewise, it is important that DCCR remodel its project structures to make them more responsive to the rehabilitative needs of each and every inmate. This new arrangement should include safety, skills, and resources they require to be able to get back to their communities without any difficulties. CDCR should consider mechanisms to use internet-based social media platforms to assist in solving employment, education, housing, health, and re-socialization needs for current and future juvenile individuals (Reed, 2022). It must prioritize research, policy, and drafting laws to support the use of innovative technology systems that will promote the effectiveness of its correctional programs
Conclusion
This essay evaluated the effectiveness of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation programs in comparison to those in other jurisdictions in terms of functions and different structures. Additionally, it discussed issues affecting and limiting its success, preparation for reentry, and recommendations on how to improve it. Firstly, programs such as the education, vocational training, the substance abuse treatment, the mental health services, the prison industry authority, and the parole and probation department were successful. However, recidivism rates are still high, and it is estimated that about one half of inmates usually reoffend within three years of their release. On the other hand, overcrowding, understaffing, enrollment, lack of resources, curriculum, and poor oversight are affecting the implementation of the programs.
CDCR therefore, must reevaluate its assessment tools to determine their efficiency, accuracy and make improvements. Further, it should recruit enough personnel, and implement CBT requirements for evidence-based programs as well as using an independent external oversight consultant to monitor the performance progress of its programs. CDCR must remodel its structure to include safety, skills, and resources inmates require to be able to get back to their communities without any difficulties. Lastly, should prioritize research, policy, and drafting laws to support the use of technology in its programs.
References
Boyd-Barrett, D. (2019). Despite Millions More in Funds, Quality of Prison Rehab Programs Questionable, Audit Finds. California Health Report. Web.
Bliss, K. (2020). California Prison Rehabilitation Programs Costly and Ineffective. Prison Legal News. Web.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (2022). Rehabilitative Process. Web.
Grattet, R., & Bird, M. (2018). Next steps in jail and prison downsizing. Criminology and Amp Public Policy, 17(3), 717–726. Web.
Holmboe, E. S., Edgar, L., & Hamstra, S. (2016). The milestones guidebook. Chicago, IL: Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.
Martin, K. L. (2021). California’s prisoner rehabilitation effort: Ex-Lifers’ perceptions on achieving sustainable social reintegration. Walden University.
Reed, K. A. (2022). Prison to parole: A push for alternatives in California. Lexipol. Web.
San Joaquin County Probation Department. (n.d.). Community Connections Bridging Resources. Web.
San Joaquin County Probation’s passport program. (2017). Chief Probation Officers of California. Web.