40 yrs of Chicano Studies

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
AyatollahGondola
View Public Profile
Send a private message to AyatollahGondola
Send email to AyatollahGondola
Find all posts by AyatollahGondola
Add AyatollahGondola to Your Buddy List
#47 Report Post
Old 10-07-2009, 01:40 PM
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Enlistee

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 316
Default
Here is an editorial by the Press Enterprise. This is slightly off topic because it doesn't specifically mention drop outs or "Latino", whether the Latino is Mexican or American born, and however slight or great there is a cultural difference between those with different nationality of childhood and youth.

I include this because it talks about programs and budget cutting in overcrowded prisons, similar to the rhetoric coming out of overcrowded schools, the fact that Latinos are the least likely to finish high school, and drop outs are more inclined towards criminal activity.

Quote:
The Press-Enterprise

Prison miscue

Budgetary savings should not come at the expense of coherent corrections strategy. The state's efforts to trim corrections spending target the programs that stand the best chance of easing crowding in state prisons. The state should focus on cutting the number of ex-cons who reoffend, not continue setting muddled policy that perpetuates prison crowding.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation announced last month that it would trim $250 million from education, job training, counseling and other programs for adult prisoners. The cuts represent more than a third of the budget for such programs.

The move is part of the state's effort to pare $1.2 billion from the $10 billion the state spent on corrections last fiscal year. But trimming programs that help inmates avoid returning to prison is a bizarre strategy for a state that needs to reduce its inmate population. California will never fix its prisons by sacrificing long-term reforms for short-term savings.

The state's prisons are crowded to nearly double their intended capacity, and a panel of federal judges has ordered the state to shrink the inmate population by more than 40,000 in the next two years. The state has about 148,000 prisoners in 33 prisons, plus another 17,000 in camps and other facilities. Trimming the number of inmates would also cut corrections costs, which have more than doubled over the past decade.

A big part of the reason for the crowded conditions in prison is the dismal fact that two-thirds of California parolees end up back behind bars within three years. The causes for that record are complex, but a key factor is that many inmates lack education and job skills and struggle with addictions or mental health ills.

A prison system that makes little attempt to address those issues, and simply releases inmates with $200 and no prospects, can expect those people to return to incarceration. A variety of official reports on prisons over the past decade have highlighted the need for programs that can help inmates avoid trouble upon release.

Corrections officials plan to cope with the budget cuts by directing the remaining funding to the most effective programs. That would be a sensible strategy, if the department knew which programs met that benchmark. The state auditor reported last month that corrections spent $208 million on prison education in 2008-09, but had no way to tell if the courses were doing any good.

And the cuts work at cross-purposes with spending reductions approved by the Legislature last month. The legislative plan would save money by shortening prisoners' sentences if they finish education, drug treatment and other programs -- just as corrections officials slash those services.

Comprehensive reforms could save money and convince federal judges the state can responsibly oversee prisons. But that approach requires a consistent plan for change, not a bunch of conflicting ideas thrown together to relieve a budget meltdown.
This editorial by the Press Enterprise does not indicate endorsement of or affiliation to any organization or cause.

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Old 10-07-2009, 01:53 PM
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Enlistee

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 316
Default
Quote:
A big part of the reason for the crowded conditions in prison is the dismal fact that two-thirds of California parolees end up back behind bars within three years. The causes for that record are complex, but a key factor is that many inmates lack education and job skills and struggle with addictions or mental health ills.
Perhaps some of the reason is that society continues to punish the convicted long after sentence has been served, and few want to hire a convict. Making an honest living is therefore difficult for the sincere and repentant.

As well, there is often an attitude or presence carried out of prison which applies to criminal or prison society and does not mesh with the rules of civil society.

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Old 10-07-2009, 02:51 PM
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Enlistee

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 316
Default
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

INFORMATION ON POPULATION AND INMATE CHARACTERISTICS

AUGUST 15, 2006


• We currently have over 172,000 inmates as of August 9, 2006. Of
these, over 160,000 are males and almost 12,000 are females housed
in 33 institutions, 40 camps, and 12 community correctional centers
throughout the state.

• According to a recently released report by the Public Policy Institute
of California, our prison population is aging, with inmates under the
age of 25 representing a steadily declining share while the number of
prisoners in older age groups continues to grow.

• This most likely has a correlation with the fact that prisoners serving
time for violent crimes are now a majority of our population, and that
share is growing. In contrast, drug offenders are representing a
smaller share of the prison population and now comprises
approximately 20 percent of the prison population.

• Our male population is comprised of
38% Latino,
29% African American,
27% White,
6% Other.

Females are comprised of
39% White,
29% African American
28% Latina
5% Other.

• After California’s incarceration rate per 100,000 persons peaked in
1998 at 673, our rate has declined over the last eight years to its
current rate of 616. At the same time, the incarceration rate in the rest
of the United States has continued to increase slightly. Today,
California’s ranks 17th among all states for incarceration rates, with
our rate of 616 slightly above the national average of 573.

• In terms of the yearly admissions to California’s prisons, in 2005 we
had 70,573 admissions, and 61,999 parole violators.

• The next page puts our population into perspective. While we have
almost 62,000 parole violators returned during the year, this only
makes up a little over 11 percent of our total inmate population at any
given time. In addition, this percentage is projected to decrease over
time.

• The growth in our population over the last several years, and the
population that continues to grow at the greatest rate, as shown in our
chart, is the population of inmates who are serving life terms.

• What is the makeup of each of these groups of felons in prison?
Starting with felons serving a life term, these are people convicted of
first and second degree murder, certain acts of attempted murder,
kidnap for ransom and robbery, and “third-strike” felons.

• Parole Violators—there is a tendency to refer to any parolee returned
to prison without a new term as a “technical” parole violator. In
looking at the reasons why parolees return to prison over a year’s
period, however, the data show that 82% of parolees returned to
prison for these so-called “technical” violations were actually returned
for criminal conduct.

• Only 18% of the returns could truly be considered a technical or
“status” offense. In addition, of these returns, the majority of the 18%
of these returns were in cases where parolees had absconded while on
parole—these made up 65% of these cases—in which parole and local
law enforcement authorities had issued a warrant for the arrest of the
parolee for absconding while on parole. While this is not technically
a crime, parole absconders do pose a risk to public safety.

• Of the 18,508 parole violators in prison, a little over 3,000 are there
for “technical” parole violations. Factoring 65% of those for parole
absconders would leave you with a little over 2,000 parolees in for
technical violations.

• If the Department stopped returning technical parole violators to
prison, the inmate population would only be reduced by 2,000 to
3,000 inmates.

• Determinately-sentenced felons—Currently, this is the breakdown by
offense category of the felons housed in our facilities—over 85,000
were sentenced for crimes against a person, over 36,000 for property
offenses, over 35,000 for drug offenses, and almost 13,000 for other
crimes.

• Of our property offenders, almost 7,000 had one prior conviction for a
serious or violent felony, and another 6,000 had two or more
convictions.

• Of our drug offenders, almost 7,000 had one prior conviction for a
serious or violent felony, and another 5,000 had two or more
convictions.

• How many of our property and drug offenders are truly first time
offenders? Our data show that approximately two-thirds of these
offenders have at least one prior conviction.

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=c...O1-cO7Tqrh_fDw

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Old 10-07-2009, 08:00 PM
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Enlistee

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 316
Default
This is an ugly search. It reminds me of working in a back yard so full of dog shit that it is difficult to step between the piles of shit. This needs a rake, a shovel, and a wheel barrow. It's not pleasant to me.

There are a lot of directions concerning crimes, race and racism from and towards all directions, violence, victims, nationality, biased research, slanted journalism, opinion presented as fact, selective quotation of fact, apples and oranges, oxen to gore, propaganda, anything you want to hear to reinforce your preconceived notions. Loads of bullshit.

There are things which strike a common thread.

There is the information from the California Department Department of corrections above with a link to the whole document.

So far I have not been able to find verifiable demographic figures for county jails in California concerning demographics, charges, and convictions.

I'll wade through this a little more and provide a synopsis tomorrow or so.

Meanwhile, I'm going to go take a shower, maybe wash some of this off me.

[Jeanfromfillmore]

ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Enlistee

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 316
Default
High School Dropouts and The Economic Losses from Juvenile Crime in California.

Quote:
California Dropout Research Project Report #16, September 2009 http://cdrp.ucsb.edu/, By Clive R. Belfield Queens College, City University of New York and Henry M. Levin Teachers College, Columbia University [thanks to Dan Mitchel]

"California's juvenile crime rate is high. Juveniles commit one-in-six violent crimes and over one-quarter of all property crimes; they also commit crimes in school, victimizing one-quarter of all students and one-in-twelve teachers.

The economic loss from juvenile crime is substantial. In total, each juvenile cohort in California imposes an economic loss of $8.9 billion on the state's citizens. Part of the explanation for juvenile crime is poor education.

In this paper, we estimate the economic loss from juvenile crime associated with not completing high school before age 18. Using results from three separate studies and applying their results for California, we estimate the annual juvenile crime loss associated with high school dropouts at $1.1 billion.

Finally, we compare the losses from juvenile crime with the costs of improving the education system. We calculate that savings in juvenile crime alone will offset approximately 16% of the costs of providing these interventions."

http://www.bespacific.com/mt/archive...05.html#022405

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Old 10-08-2009, 07:02 AM
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Enlistee

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 316
Default
Conclusion of the essay Does State Policy Help or Hurt the Dropout Problem in California? From the California Drop Out Research Project study.


Quote:
The dropout problem will not be solved by more categorical programs or additional resources. The problem, as noted earlier, has to do with student disengagement from school. As also noted, the reasons for disengagement are multiple, overlapping, and complex. The issue of academic engagement can be addressed by improving the quality of the schooling experience for students.

Some causes of disengagement, however, lie beyond the schools’ control. Consequently, students may need a variety of coordinated social and health (both physical and mental) services that are not readily available or are now simply unavailable. When student behavior does trigger such services, it is often too late, as with the SARB interventions. Again, there is little known about how many districts provide such services and what difference such services may make. We know from the research that the key is early identification and support.

The key to an effective state role is to increase district capacity to identify at-risk students early and provide resources (both academic and social) to those students. The state also needs to find ways of improving district and school capacity to provide quality education services to students who have not been well served by the education system. Students who do not intend to go to college have few or no options for alternative education paths. For those students, there is little incentive to finish high school, particularly if they believe they cannot pass the high school exit exam or if they believe that a diploma is irrelevant. The state needs to provide technical assistance to schools that serve large numbers of at-risk students to develop curricula that is academically challenging and rigorous while it also prepares them for careers.

California currently spends substantial sums of money on various forms of dropout prevention programs; on supplemental instruction; on counseling, mentoring and outreach; career education such as the Regional Occupation Centers and Programs; adult education programs; and special programs for English language learners. Districts that serve students who might generally be referred to as “at-risk” benefit from a large number of categorical programs. The problem for state policy makers is that virtually nothing is known about the success of these various programs and why such programs seem to have so little impact on increasing school completion rates. To be sure, there are success stories, but there is nothing to suggest that any of those programs, either individually or in the aggregate, have a positive effect on student retention. More importantly, as this paper has emphasized throughout this discussion,there is no systematic, reliable data to inform policy makers of either the nature or magnitude of the problem.

Beyond data, it is clear that increasing school completion rates, especially among African American, Hispanic, and Native American students, should be a top priority for state policy makers.

There are, however, no ready answers. It is quite clear that adding more programs to the state’s dropout policy portfolio is not the answer. The answer lies in integrating existing programs and resources and creating greater accountability for those programs that target primarily at-risk students. Policy makers need to evaluate the role and efficacy of existing alternative education programs to understand better what kinds of state interventions are most helpful to those local officials—school and district administrators, counselors, teachers, other agency officials, social workers, and health care specialists—who are ultimately responsible for reducing the number of school dropouts. Curriculum reform certainly ought to figure prominently in the solution; so should mentoring, preschool, and continuing education.

Given the competition for state revenues, it is all the more important for policy makers to invest in those programs that use funds most efficiently and have the highest rates of success for dollars spent (Belfield & Levin, 2007).

To that end, state policy makers should evaluate the costs of various dropout prevention programs in relation to their effectiveness. In the absence of systematic evaluation, it appears that local dropout prevention programs operate idiosyncratically—the result of effort and commitment by individuals—rather than by program design. The question for policy makers is whether there are systematic policy design features of dropout prevention programs that show successful results across a large number of schools.

http://cdrp.ucsb.edu/dropouts/pubs_reports.htm

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Old 10-08-2009, 07:32 AM
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Enlistee

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 316
Default
Summary and Conclusions to the essay Why Students Drop Out of School: A Review of 25 Years of Research from The California Drop Out Research Project


Quote:
The longstanding and widespread interest in the issue of high school dropouts has generated a vast research literature, particularly over the last ten years. The purpose of this study was to identify and review this literature. Restricting our focus to research studies published in scholarly journals found in the nation’s largest scientific database yielded 203 studies that have been published over the last 25 years, involving 387 separate analyses. To organize our review, we developed a conceptual framework that identified all the key factors that the research has identified as salient to understanding how, when, and why students drop out of high school.

These factors had to do with characteristics of individual students—their educational performance, behaviors, attitudes, and backgrounds—as well as the characteristics of the families, schools, and communities where they live and go to school. The review verified that indeed, a number of salient factors within each of these domains are associated with whether students drop out or graduate from high school. Although most of the studies were unable to establish a strong causal connection between the various factors and dropping out, they nonetheless suggest such a connection.

We learned a number of things from this review. The first is that no single factor can completely account for a student’s decision to continue in school until graduation. Just as students themselves report a variety of reasons for quitting school, the research literature also identifies a number of salient factors that appear to influence the decision. Second, the decision to drop out is not simply a result of what happens in school.

Clearly, students’ behavior and performance in school influence their decision to stay or leave. But students’ activities and behaviors outside of school—particularly engaging in deviant and criminal behavior—also influence their likelihood of remaining in school.
http://cdrp.ucsb.edu/dropouts/pubs_reports.htm