Valley Interview : Parole System Still Makes a Cost-Effective Impact, Leader Says

The parole office had been in North Hollywood for a decade. When it moved to Sherman Oaks in April, neighbors there were up in arms. Now it’s moving back to its old home, and North Hollywood residents are the ones steaming. No one wants it.

Although this ruckus revolves around neighbors’ fear that a parole office in their neighborhood will increase crime, it calls to mind a widespread debate over sentencing laws, early release programs and parole. This fall, congressional candidate Richard Sybert proposed the abolition of parole in California. Several states have in fact abolished parole over the last decade, though some are regretting that decision.

“Any state that eliminates parole may one day look back and say, ‘What have we done to ourselves?’ ” Connecticut Corrections Commissioner Larry Meachum told the Boston Globe in 1990, the year that state re-enacted parole after a 10-year experiment.

After 25 years with the California Department of Corrections, Frank Marino said he still believes parole, despite flaws, plays a vital role in keeping society safe. The field parole administrator of the Sherman Oaks office spoke recently about the effectiveness, problems and future of parole in California.

Question: With the the recent ruckus over your parole office in mind, do residents have reason to worry over increased crime when a parole office moves into their neighborhood?

Answer: No. The parolees don’t want to be here. They come and do what they have to do. Once they’re done with their business, they want to get out of here. They don’t want their parole agent driving out of the garage and seeing them doing something. I’m sure something has happened around a parole office, but I haven’t heard of it in 25 years.

Q: What is the purpose of parole?

A: The manual interpretation is to take someone from his release from prison through to discharge. Obviously, the paramount purpose of parole is to protect the public while trying to integrate this person back into society.

Q: What happens when a convict leaves prison and first checks in with his parole agent?

A: First there is an interview. During that time the agents are supposed to come up with a parole plan. Rather than being on the streets, we’d like (the parolee) to become a productive, taxpaying individual. At the same time, if a person has registration issue, sex-offender registration or anti-narcotics testing, the agent has to make sure he complies with that. Also, there should be assessments made for short- and long-term goals.

Q: What kind of goals ? And how do you help parolees to meet those goals?

A: If it is someone who is borderline illiterate, we put them in one of our literacy labs. We find that 35% of our folks are below a third-grade level. If you have someone who can’t read and write well, their chances are limited. We’ve had people in three or four months jump five or six grade levels. We can’t mandate it, but when we suggest it, a great number are amenable and are willing to try it. We’ve also got live-in detox programs and run Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous groups.

I also created here seven years ago--and now it’s statewide--contracts with facilities where for $20, $25 a day they will provide a place and three meals a day. We have approximately 200 beds in this region. I also have a care facility for the severely mentally disordered.

There are also job-training programs. We try to get them better than minimum-wage jobs. If you were making $3,000 a week selling drugs and we give you a $200-a-week job, that’s not successful. We’ve had guys go out and get truck driver jobs making $17 a hour. Some go into computers and make even more money.

Q: If, during your field visits to a parolee, it becomes evident he is not complying with the terms of his release, what kind of authority do you have to bring him in.

A: As they go down, our social worker cap comes off and the police cap goes on. We have the right to search the residence of a parolee without a warrant. We can conduct surveillance. We can place a parole hold, from which they cannot bail. We can arrest. We take them here at the office as well. We are peace officers by the penal code, and most of our field parole agents are armed.

Q: Incarceration is a very expensive proposition. Does parole save taxpayers money?

A: If I send someone to the joint, it’s $20,000 a year, depending on who’s counting. If I keep someone on parole, it’s $2,500 a year.

Q: The high rate of recidivism is a point your critics pounce on. Is that rate improving?

A: Five or 10 years ago we had maybe a 55% recidivism rate. Lately we’re running around 37%. We’re not going to have no recidivism--that’s not realistic. But I think we can reach a reasonable rate.

Q: Some parolees commit heinous crimes while under supervision. How do you justify the system in light of such cases?

A: We have 85,234 parolees in the state. Yes, maybe 10 cases went awry, may 25, maybe 100. We’re here to try and do the best we can, to make educated guesses and surveil them and see that they don’t re-offend. You can’t bring down the system because things happen. That woman that put her kids in the drink, she wasn’t on parole. Things happen.

However, when we have these heinous crimes, like Polly Klaas, people become paranoid. Then it’s exacerbated by the press. People become indignant, and then politicians get on the bandwagon and make that part of their reelection. It’s a very emotional thing. Actually the parole agent that did the Polly Klaas guy was seeing him more than specifications required. You’d almost have to live with people day and night to prevent this kind of thing.

Q: Some people, including legislators, say a prisoner should serve 100% of his sentence and then walk away, that parole is a sort of reward for criminals. Does it work?

A: I should be jaded and pretty sarcastic about it, but I still think that we make an impact. My personal opinion is that parole has validity, that it is a cost-saving factor, and that if we do our job right, we can cut down on recidivism, break the cycle. Of states that have done away with parole, I think what you’ll find is the police workload will go up a great deal.

One former heroin addict was in my office yesterday who is applying for the directorship of a Hispanic drug program, a $34,000-a-year job. He came by to say hello.

But we make incremental progress. I sent a heroin addict back to prison who was using five spoons a day. He came out and was using one spoon a day. I told that story and people found that horrific. I said it’s progress.