skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 227879 Find in a Library
Title: Parole Violations and Revocations in California: Analysis and Suggestions for Action
Journal: Federal Probation  Volume:73  Issue:1  Dated:June 2009  Pages:2-11
Author(s): Ryken Grattet Ph.D.; Joan Petersilia Ph.D.; Jeffrey Lin Ph.D.; Marlene Beckman J.D.
Date Published: June 2009
Page Count: 10
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
Washington, DC 20531
Grant Number: 2005-IJ-CX-0026
Document: HTML
Dataset: DATASET 1
Type: Report (Study/Research)
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This report presents findings and recommendations from a 3-year study of the causes and consequences of parole violations and revocations in California.
Abstract: For 2003-2004, 66 percent of all parolees in California returned to prison within 3 years, 27 percent for a new criminal conviction and 39 percent for a technical or administrative violation, which can result from new crimes or violations of parole conditions. This compares with 40 percent for the national average. Part of the explanation for California's high return rate for parolees is its unique sentencing and parole system; for the most part, California has a mandatory parole release system. As a result, most offenders are released after they have served their original court-imposed sentence, less any accumulated good-time credit. For approximately 80 percent of inmates in California, there is no appearance before a parole board to determine whether they are fit to return to the community; instead, they are automatically released to formal parole supervision, usually for 3 years. California's parole population is now so large and its parole agents so overburdened that parolees who pose serious threats to public safety are often not closely monitored, and those motivated to "go straight" cannot get the help they need. Theses findings suggest a number of policy and research implications. First, parole supervision and services should concentrate on the first 6 months after release. Second, the use of early and earned discharge from parole should be expanded. Third, parolee risk for recidivism should be matched to supervision levels. Fourth, a parole-violation decisionmaking matrix should be used in order to ensure consistent responses to parole violations. Fifth, options for intermediate sanctions should be expanded in order to avoid the massive return of parolees to prison. Sixth, extralegal factors that influence revocation should be tracked. Seventh, substance abuse and mental health programs should be expanded. 22 notes
Main Term(s): Corrections policies
Index Term(s): California; NIJ grant-related documents; Parole board; Parole casework; Parole conditions; Parole supervision; Revocation
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.