Source: ACSOL
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has agreed in writing to stop their unwritten policy that required all registrants on parole to undergo treatment the entire time they are on parole. The agreement is the result of a lawsuit filed on behalf of registrants earlier this year.
“This agreement is significant because it will help almost 7,000 registrants currently on parole,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “This agreement will lead to early discharge for many of those registrants.”
In the settlement agreement, CDCR agreed that a parolee’s participation in treatment may be terminated before discharge from parole. CDCR also agreed to conduct individualized consultations with parolees every year to determine if additional treatment is required or can be terminated.
CDCR further agreed to explain in writing the reasons for their decision regarding whether additional treatment is required. Finally, CDCR agreed to provide a copy of that document to the parolee within 30 days.
“If CDCR makes an improper decision regarding whether additional treatment is required, the document stating the reason for that decision can be used as evidence in a legal action,” stated Bellucci. “The final decision regarding whether additional treatment is required will then be made by a Superior Court judge.”
Details regarding this process are to be published in regulations expected to be finalized as early as September. If the regulations are not published in a timely manner, a lawsuit will be filed to enforce the settlement agreement.
Wow! Fantastic! Thank you Janice and ACSOL!
Yeah the DA is going back and using statements from these treatments to deny people’s 290.5 petitions.
Congratulations! BRAVO ACSOL!
Know @ACSOL will be hard on CDCR for individual consultations standards and expectations so it is reasonable in the end to allow folks off if they truly are worthy of it and avoid the sh*tshow in CO (as an example we read about here in the forum) where the foxes guard the hen house of their system to pad their pockets. “We are the government and we’re here to help” are the scariest words especially when they have the power to enforce it with unreasonable standards and expectations. While the government wants to protect the citizens from each other, who is protecting the citizens from the government?
Grats to California.
I wish that were the case here in Oklahoma.
Maybe some day?
I’m eagerly awaiting the final wording on the revised regulation and thank Janice for her efforts to make it happen. During my last annual, my PO requested a lessening of services (maintenance). However, the treatment provider denied it with no reason given. So, in my case the CDCR was technically on my side, but the for-profit treatment provider was obviously not. I guess my question would be, what is stopping the treatment provider(s) from continuing to deny people and using an innocuous statement such as “needs more treatment” as a general reason for everyone?
It seems to me that they will continue to do so if the recourse for denials is taking the
issue to a Superior Court judge. How many parolees have the funds to do so? How
many want to deal with the trauma of going back to court? I’m guessing a
minority for sure. So, if the treatment providers lose a few
“clients” around the edges it really won’t be a big deal for them. I’m
hoping that there will eventually be a way to go after them directly which would cost them
money. Money is really all they care about and hitting them in the wallet would
potentially create the most change.
I would have an issue with whether or not more “treatment” is needed shouldn’t be a decision made by the CDCR because they’re not mental health professionals. Frankly, I think only 1 year of “treatment” should be mandatory and the provider should be required to justify if more is needed with specific reasons, not just mere claims of little or no “progress.”
Truth be told, most (if not all) “treatment” providers aren’t mental health professionals either. They’re substance abuse counselors, substituting sex and children for drugs and alcohol in their substance abuse programs, which aren’t very effective considering the same people are running in and out of the drug courts every year. The primary reason why they can consider their “sex offense treatment” so effective is because their clients were simply not inclined to repeat their offenses in the first place.
Fantastic dedication and hard work by Janice and team once again. Thank you!
This does nothing for us. Actually with San Bernardino this is making things worse. Was told flat out in my latest CTM by the unit supervisor that he was going to increase violations and was not going to terminate anyone’s treatment other than indecent exposure and if I didn’t like it take it to court.
Additionally the treatment provider (Opendoor) owner and supervisor have been intercepting quarterly progress reports from the counselors and changing information to reflect a negative view of the parolee. This happend to me and several others in the last month.
I’ve been on therapy 7 years. 1 year in maintenance. Now they want me to complete a 52 week battered program. My last year on parole.
Instead of wasting time and energy on fighting treatment time why not fight for people actually being granted early discharge from Parole. Why are 290’s the only group that needs BPH approval to be discharged early. I know of at least 5 people who had murder or manslaughter charges and did 12 months on parole and were discharged.
ACSOL does not mention this in any of the things they are trying to change. This should be at the top of the list!
Please help us folks on parole.
And PLEASE help us folks in San Bernardino. This Supervising Agent is out of control. Literally telling people if they have a nice car he is going to put extra eyes on them. And he is going to track peoples income and if it’s too high he is going to suspect illegal activity and Parole Hold you and investigate.
Can you give me any info on other ongoing litigation for ankle monitors, social media for parolees, early parole release for inmates with lengthy parole sentences changed after the fact. Also anything that might affect the adam walsh act
My probation officer told me that I cannot go to church because there are kids there.
Is this infringing on my freedom of religion?