default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Logout|My Dashboard

California taxpayers soaked for out-of-state parolees

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Friday, September 18, 2009 10:00 pm

For the past six years, more out-of-state parolees have come to California than have left for other states.

Each one, who committed a crime elsewhere but is allowed to come to this state, must be supervised by parole agents paid for by California taxpayers.

That's costing California millions of dollars, at a time when police officers are being laid off and prison inmates are being released early due to massive budget deficits.

Nobody seems to have noticed the discrepancy, which is currently on track to cost California $2.4 million this year alone - or more than $24 million over the next decade. That figure doesn't count the people who commit new crimes and are sent to California jails and prisons, where incarceration can cause costs to balloon.

"I'm mortified," San Joaquin County District Attorney Jim Willett said upon hearing of California's discrepancy. "I at least thought our import/export of felons would be an economic wash, not a loss."

It's a budget leak nobody seems to have noticed.

Local legislators and corrections officials haven't looked at the issue. And apparently nobody has suggested having each state pay for its own parolees' supervision, regardless of where they are living.

Meanwhile another big state, Texas, has significantly lower parole costs but still saved more than $1.7 million last fiscal year because more parolees left than entered the state, according to figures provided by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Two convicted kidnappers

Parolees are sometimes allowed to leave states where they committed an offense if they have family and ties elsewhere, where they can have financial and mental support. It's all coordinated through the Interstate Compact Program, which has been in place since 1937.

But sometimes, the arrangement can blow up and cause financial burden for the state willing to accept the parolees.

Charles Peck Jr. in a July photo at the San Joaquin County Jail. He is facing charges of torture, domestic violence and false imprisonment.

An older, undated Kansas prison photo of Charles Peck Jr. He spent 21 years in prison for kidnapping and robbery.

Consider the case of Charles Peck, who spent 21 years of a "life" sentence in Kansas for kidnapping and robbery. After being paroled in Kansas, he was allowed to move to his home state of California because he had family in Lodi.

Now he is facing felony charges of torture, false imprisonment and domestic violence against his girlfriend, who testified at a court hearing last month that he wrapped a chain around her neck and beat her in their Acampo home. She escaped after several days and flagged down a passing motorist.

Peck's previous convictions and the torture charge alone could send him to a California prison for life if he is convicted.

It currently costs $47,102 per year to house prison inmates, according to the California Legislative Analyst's Office. Peck is now 51; if he were to spend the next two decades in prison, he alone would cost taxpayers nearly $1 million in current dollars.

That doesn't include the costs associated with his prosecution and defense. Peck appeared in court Friday, and a trial date is tentatively scheduled for mid-October.

Phillip Garrido

And there is the matter of Phillip Garrido, who Californian parole agents supervised for 10 years, though he was convicted of a Nevada kidnapping and rape.

Garrido was convicted in 1977 of kidnapping a woman and taking her across the Nevada state line, and he was sentenced to federal prison. Upon his release, he was turned over to Nevada prison officials, because the same victim's rape had been handled by state prosecutors.

When he was released from Nevada state prison, Garrido was still under federal parole and was allowed to move to Antioch, where his mother owned a home. Then his federal parole ended in 1999 and he fell to Nevada's parole department, and California agreed to take over supervision.

At that point, investigators believe, young South Lake Tahoe kidnap victim Jaycee Lee Dugard had already been forced to live with Garrido for eight years.

Now, people can only speculate about what might have happened had California parole officials refused to accept Garrido's case and he had been forced to move his family out of Antioch.

It took another 10 years for Dugard to be eventually found.

The cost of supervision

What is not in question is the fact that California residents have paid for parole supervision of Peck and Garrido. Both were convicted of kidnappings in other states, and both were allowed to have their parole transferred to California.

"There may not be a solution for every problem, but (lawmakers and prison officials) should be looking at this kind of thing," said Kris Vosburgh with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Vosburgh, like every person contacted for this article, hadn't heard of the cost deficit for parolee supervisions.

"Is it our obligation in this state to supervise those parolees?" he asked.

At the time of Peck's July 5 arrest, he was one of 1,467 out-of-state parolees who were being supervised in California, according to weekly population statistics kept by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

The average parolee costs $4,500 a year to supervise, according to corrections spokeswoman Terry Thornton, which means those parolees cost an extra $6.6 million annually.

On the flip side, at that time 959 California parolees were being supervised in other states, reducing that figure by $4.3 million.

So it was costing California residents an extra $2.3 million.

But that's not the bottom line.

A News-Sentinel analysis of the corrections department's population reports shows that the cost discrepancy has been steadily growing since July 2003.

In November 2001, the earliest reports the CDCR has on its Web site, California was sending more parolees out of state than it was receiving - 1,753 left, while 1,383 entered - meaning that the state was saving money.

Those numbers began dropping, and by the week of July 30, 2003, six fewer parolees had left California than had entered. A year later, that difference was 100.

By Sept. 9, the most recent statistics available Friday, the spread had grown to a difference of 539.

If that number were to hold steady, it would cost taxpayers $24.2 million over the next decade. If the past six years are any indication of the rising cost deficit related to parolees, the actual dollar figure will be much higher.

Possible explanations, solutions

The largest factor in the parole price increase is the diminishing number of California parolees who are leaving the state.

One explanation is a change earlier this year regarding how long convicts remain on parole, said Thornton, the corrections spokeswoman.

Under state law, someone convicted of a non-violent crime may be discharged from parole after one year if no parole violations have been lodged. Parole officials are now following that law more closely than previously, and the number of parolees has dropped from 124,250 last September to 111,098 this month.

So, Thornton said, some of the parolees allowed to leave the state have since had their parole discharged while they were gone.

In other words, enforcing that law has saved other states some money.

One solution could be to simply make each state pay for their own parolees' supervision, regardless of where they are living.

That idea would likely be bogged down in bureaucratic wrangling, though, because the cost of parole varies from state to state.

In Texas, parole supervision costs $3.74 per day, according to Jason Clark, spokesman for that state's Department of Criminal Justice. California's rate is $12.33 per day.

A Pew Center study released in March showed that such daily rates range from $3.51 to $13.28 depending on the state - though those numbers sometimes include probation supervision if states don't separate parole from probation.

The system

As for the interstate parole transfer system itself, that has been in place for some seven decades.

"The whole point of parole is to reintegrate paroles into communities, and oftentimes they can do that with their own families," Thornton said.

If a parolee has no family around and has low odds of getting a job, there is less incentive to avoid committing crimes, said Gretl Plessinger, spokeswoman for Florida's Department of Corrections.

There is probably some peace of mind for victims who learn that the offender has moved out of state.

Under a newly passed California law, victims now have more rights and can have some input on whether an offender will be paroled back to the same area where the victim and family still live.

Compared to other budget woes in the state, the cost of out-of-state parolee supervision may not be a huge amount. But years ago, when Gov. Pete Wilson referred to a relatively low-cost matter as "peanuts," the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association pointed out that "there are boxcars of peanuts," spokesman Vosburgh recalled.

"The state needs to be more aggressive about all of it," he said. "Yes, they should set priorities, but they should set an example."

Contact reporter Layla Bohm at layla@lodinews.com.

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don't pretend you're someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don't insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.

Welcome to the discussion.


  • posted at 2:15 pm on Mon, Sep 21, 2009.


    DeputyChief- I have limited knowledge of the process, but I was told that the big hold up in out of state transfers is in California, they refuse to use the computerized ICOTs database. Paperwork is prepared & mailed to the Sac Interstate office where it is submitted to the federal system, the whole process taking 90-180 days. Once it is entered electronically, as is done in 49 states (all but Cali) it is instantly accessible to the other state. If you have other information, I would be interested in learning more.

  • posted at 9:58 am on Mon, Sep 21, 2009.


    Pixiedust,Your comment, "Interstate Compact simply administers the law, they do not supervise offenders, nor do they make any decision regarding the transfer of offenders."They are extremely slow as the intermediary in between two supervising law enforcement agencies (Probation/Parole) to facilitate the out of state transfer process. The two agencies (who both have extremely high caseloads) should be able to communicate directly for transfer, eliminating the need for the interstate compact mediation or all of the Out of State Transfers should be denied. Interstate Compact is nothing more than a middle man requiring a lot of unneccessary paperwork. In my opinion the State will not lose anything by eliminating Interstate Compact, and they will have money.

  • posted at 2:32 am on Mon, Sep 21, 2009.


    DeputyChief- you state that Interstate Compact is "ineffectual and not worth the money" What in the world are you talking about? Interstate Compact simply administers the law, they do not supervise offenders, nor do they make any decision regarding the transfer of offenders.Giovanina states"..they become anonymous then they are able to commit more crimes". Are you aware that in order to transfer their supervision a parolee must have a support system, i.e. wife/mom&dad/ etc in the receiving state, a stable place to live and job prospects? Do you think the public is safer if you throw them out in the street homeless after they get out of prison? Some of you people need to come to grips with the fact that about 90% of people who go to prison are going to be released from prison. If there is a reasonable mechanism in place for getting offenders transferred to an environment where they have a support system in place they are less likely to reoffend. As a result, the public is safer and the costs to society in terms of welfare/medicaid costs are reduced.

  • posted at 4:26 pm on Sun, Sep 20, 2009.


    My experience with Interstate Compact is that they are ineffectual in preforming their duties and are NOT worth their cost.

  • posted at 9:28 am on Sat, Sep 19, 2009.


    The state is going to Hell in a hand basket, unfortunately I am to old to move, however if I could I would. Welders are needed everywhere.To let over 20,000 non-violent prisoners out early or otherwise means that they will most likely do what got them put into prison in the first place, since what ever that was, was easier than an honest days work, even if they could, who wants to hire an ex-con over a person that has never been in trouble with the law. Talk about a revolving door.

  • posted at 4:55 am on Sat, Sep 19, 2009.


    What it does do is allow criminals to move into areas that fon't know them or their case. They become almost anonymous then they are able to commit more crimes.Repeat offenders should not be let out. Maybe the death penalty should start including repeat offenders of crimes.

  • posted at 2:06 am on Sat, Sep 19, 2009.


    Transferring parole supervision either into or out of California is a lengthy difficult process. The parolee must have a spouse, or immediate family, in the receiving state who have lived there for more than 6 months and can prove they can support the parolee. The home and the family members are screened by the receiving state before the parolee's transfer is granted.Under the interstate compact each state can charge fees both for the application for transfer and for offender supervision. California has not opted to charge any fees. Supervision costs more in California because parole agents earn more than in any other state. Bottom line is, statistics are great, but what is the solution? Should California drop out of the interstate compact in order to save two million dollars? If it does, then what happens to parolees who try to transfer out of California and will, as a result, be homeless and unemployed if forced to remain in California?Ms. Bohm's idea of dismantling the interstate compact in order to save two million dollars is a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face.



Popular Stories


Should graduations return to the Grape Bowl?

Lodi Unified leaders are moving Lodi and Tokay high school graduations from the Grape Bowl to the Spanos Center at UOP in Stockton. They cite limited seating, costs and unpredictable weather at the Grape Bowl. But others say graduations at the Grape Bowl are an important Lodi tradition, and one reason many supported renovating the stadium. What do you think?

Total Votes: 65


Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists