The Auditor of the State of California (Auditor) undertook an investigation into CDCR’s efficacy in terms of reducing recidivism, in light of the fact that CDCR shows an unyieldingly high rate of recidivism that has hovered around an average of 50% for the past decade. [¹] The CDCR released a blueprint which intends to set benchmarks to increase the availability of rehabilitation programs, “expand cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), vocational education, and academic education to all of its 36 prisons, including a corresponding increase in its budget for in‑prison rehabilitation programs, from $234 million in fiscal year 2013–14 to $298 million in fiscal year 2018–19.” [²] Even though research shows that recidivism can be reduced by rehabilitation programs that change inmates’ behavior based on individual needs/risks, California’s inmate population recidivates “at about the same rate” regardless of whether or not the inmate in question has completed the rehabilitation program recommended to them by CDCR. [³]

One of the primary goals for rehabilitation programs is reducing recidivism, which relies on the development and tracking of the performance metrics that target recidivism, but the fact of the matter is that CDCR has not only neglected to create target goals, they are not tracking results due to “several historical barriers, which include statutory changes related to inmate sentencing.” [⁴] By analyzing two inmate groups—inmates who received four Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) treatment programs (substance abuse disorder, anger management, criminal thinking, and family relationships) and those who did not—the Auditor determined that CDCR needs to reevaluate the accuracy of the tools used to assess inmates’ needs as well as conducting appropriate oversight of the CBT programs used throughout the system. [⁵] The Deputy Director of CDCR agreed with the Auditor’s assessment that it would be not only useful but feasible for CDCR to develop appropriate and specific goals (including annual targets) for the reduction of recidivism. [⁶]

The Auditor analyzed inmate groups through an examination of whether completion of CBT classes effected rates of recidivism, finding that the inmate group with the largest drop in recidivism (16%) had “a high risk of committing violent crimes,” but had also completed their recommended CBT classes. [⁷] Another notable relationship between inmates completing CBT courses and recidivism was at the Kings County Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, whose inmates displayed recidivism at a rate 18% lower than all other prisons audited, potentially due to the immersive CBT environment they provide, which includes housing inmates (taking CBT classes) together, incentivizing inmates with privileges like individual cells, and peer mentoring programs in the CBT classes. [⁸]

One of the glaring deficiencies in the Auditor’s report was a significant percentage of CBT curriculum being taught at prisons even though that curriculum was not evidence based. [⁹] The Auditor found that in 10 out of 36 prisons, 17% of CBT curricula wasn’t designated as evidence based, either by Pew Research Center or other CDCR-provided sources. [¹⁰] Additional findings showed: three prisons used non‑evidence‑based CBT curricula in no less than 1/4 of classes, one prison used non‑evidence‑based CBT curricula in no less than 1/2 of classes, evidence-based CBT curricula varied widely among prisons, and CDCR lacking the ability to track if the CBT curricula an inmate received was or was not evidence‑based. [¹¹] The fact of the matter is that CDCR has not been monitoring the quality of the CBT programming that inmates have been receiving, although CDCR recently reconciled this issue. [¹²]

CDCR has policies that require prisons to assign CBT programs to inmates within two years (and academic/vocational programs within four years) of release, but even when these policies were followed, all inmates placed on waiting lists for rehabilitation classes were not consistently assigned to these programs before their release. [¹³] Of 60 inmate records the Auditor investigated, CDCR “failed to assign six inmates—10 percent—to the classes they needed to meet their rehabilitative needs,” and at the time of this review, that 10% did not have the time remaining in prison to complete this coursework. [¹⁴]

The Auditor recommended that the California State Legislature, CDCR, and California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB) should work together “to determine the extent to which rehabilitation programs are reducing recidivism and are cost‑effective,” while demurring to identify any specific laws/regulations that would require CDCR to establish program metrics, tracking, or analysis to investigate the efficacy of in‑prison rehabilitation programs on the reduction of recidivism. [¹⁵] The Auditor indicated that there exists “no executive branch oversight entity” that is mandated to or responsible for ensuring that CDCR undertake any of these recommendations, but that the California State Legislature does have the authority to mandate that CDCR not only conduct these oversight measures but to report its progress to the Legislature on an annual basis. [¹⁶]

The Auditor of the State of California produced a series of recommendations for both the California State Legislature and the CDCR. To make sure that CDCR’s programs have the ability to reduce recidivism, the Auditor recommends that, “the Legislature should require Corrections to establish performance targets, including ones for reducing recidivism and determining the programs’ cost‑effectiveness, and to partner with external researchers to evaluate the effectiveness of its rehabilitation programs.” [¹⁷] The Auditor’s recommendations for CDCR are actionable and easy to understand: reliable tools and metrics are needed to assess the needs of inmates; CBT classes need oversight in general and validation of evidence-based curricula in specific; development and implementation of plans to meet staffing rehabilitative services so CDCR can meet the rehabilitation needs of inmates; and partnership with a research organization to, “conduct a systematic evaluation” of CDCR’s rehabilitation programs, testing for efficacy and cost‑effectiveness, to help CDCR “effectively and efficiently” allocate resources to reduce recidivism. [¹⁸]

To read the report in its entirety, you can download or view the Auditor of the State of California’s report, “California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: Several Poor Administrative Practices Have Hindered Reductions in Recidivism and Denied Inmates Access to In‑Prison Rehabilitation Programs” in your browser, here.