Why CDCR developed a Parole Violation Decision Making Instrument (PVDMI)

The PVDMI is part of an overall strategy designed to reduce risk of recidivism, enhance success on parole, and utilize resources in the most effective manner. Specifically, the PVDMI:

• Relies on the principles of evidence-based and effective interventions;
• Identifies the appropriate response to each violation based on the offender’s risk level and the severity of the violation;
• Ensures consistency and standard responses across the Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO); and
• Promotes transparency by enabling CDCR parole agents, Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) deputy commissioners, CDCR executive management, offenders, and the public to understand the rationale for violation responses and see them as part of CDCR’s public safety strategy.
• The PVDMI was developed with the full participation and support of BPH.
• The PVDMI was recommended by the California Independent Review Panel (2004), the Little Hoover Commission (2003), the Expert Panel on Adult Recidivism Reduction Programming (2007), and the Governor’s Rehabilitation Strike Team (2007).

Automation

• CDCR is working closely with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to create an automated download of every offender’s arrest history that is then entered into the California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA) tool to generate a risk score. All parolees will have a CSRA risk score based on their criminal history. The score will range from low to high.

How the PVDMI works

• When a parolee commits a violation of parole:

• The parole agent enters all violations into the PVDMI.
• The PVDMI assesses the parolee’s risk level (using the CSRA) and the severity of the violation (based on a severity index) to determine the appropriate response level.  For example:
• Low CSRA risk and a least severe violation = least intensive sanction
• Moderate CSRA risk and a moderately severe violation = moderately intensive sanction
• High CSRA risk and a most severe violation = referral for revocation (return to custody)
• Parole agents may recommend overriding the instrument based on stabilizing or destabilizing factors, including the lack of an appropriate program alternative in the community.
• Unit supervisors are required to approve the agent’s recommendation. If the unit supervisor disagrees, they may choose an alternative option which is more or less restrictive or, refer the case to a parole administrator for final determination.  Furthermore, if the unit supervisor disagrees with the parole agent’s recommendation, they will be required to document their reasons for disagreement.

Mandatory Referrals to BPH

• All mandatory referrals and any referral for revocation will be referred to BPH for review consistent with California law and State regulations. 
• Recommendations to “continue on parole” (i.e., a remedial sanction) subject to California Code of Regulations §2616 will be reviewed by BPH via a Return to Custody Assessment (RTCA). 
• Recommendations to “return to custody” will be forwarded to BPH for a Parole Consideration Hearing (PCH).
• BPH executive staff and deputy commissioners will be trained in the use of the PDVMI with DAPO staff.

Program Availability

• CDCR will appropriately use its existing program capacity, and will acquire or redirect resources as necessary in each of the regions.
• In the interim, the PVDMI allows for an override based on the lack of program availability.

Commissions, Panels and Special Investigations Recommend the PVDMI

Many commissions and reports in recent years have recommended CDCR adopt a structured decision making tool such as the PVDMI.  These recommendations have appeared in:

• December 2007 Rehabilitation Strike Team Report to the Governor included recommendations for parole reform, specifically recommending the use of a parole violation decision making matrix.

• June 2007 California Expert Panel Report strongly recommended that CDCR/DAPO develop a parole sanctions matrix that will provide parole agents with guidelines for determining sanctions of parole. 

• November 2003 Little Hoover Commission Report entitled; “Back to the Community: Safe and Sound Parole Policies” recommended that CDCR use structured decision making and alternative sanction in responding to parole violations.

The Experience of Other States

• Many other states have been successfully using a structured decision making process for parole revocation. 
• Since 1988, the Center for Evidence Based Public Policy (CEPP), who is assisting CDCR in the design and implementation of the PVDMI, has worked with many state and local jurisdictions across the country to develop policy driven responses to parole violations. 
• According to a 2001 National Institute of Corrections (NIC) study, none of the 29 jurisdictions studied reported an increase in new crimes among parolees and many actually experienced a reduction in parole revocations.

Implementation Schedule

• DAPO will pilot the use of the PDVMI at four units across the state, beginning in November 2008.  The pilot sites include: Stockton 3, Santa Maria, San Fernando Valley 2, and Chula Vista.

• Training of the “Master Trainers” will be conducted in October 2008.  DAPO field staff and BPH deputy commissioners will receive training in early November 2008.

• After reviewing the outcomes and effectiveness of the pilot process (see below), DAPO intends to roll-out implementation of the PVDMI statewide.  It is anticipated the PDVMI will be fully implemented by late summer 2009.   

Research and Evaluation

• CDCR Office of Research, in collaboration with the Center for Evidence Based Corrections, U.C. Irvine, will monitor and evaluate the outcomes and effectiveness of the PVDMI.

• Monthly management reports will track the following information  throughout the pilot phase: numbers and justification for overrides, characteristics of parolees, numbers and types of violations, numbers and types of sanctions imposed, availability of programs, and degree of concurrence between DAPO and BPH.
• Complete process evaluation data collection: January 2009
• Complete outcome evaluation data collection: March 2009
• Draft Report: May 2009
• Final Report: June 2009