REPORT

OF THE
CITIZENS' ADVISORY PANEL

TO THE
GOVERNOR OF NEW MEXICO

September 1980
Date: September 26, 1980

To: Governor Bruce King and Attorney General Jeff Bingaman

From: Citizens' Advisory Panel

Re: Recommendations for Action by Various Individuals and Agencies of State Govern-
ment to Improve the New Mexico Department of Criminal Justice and Corrections

This report completes our assigned task of monitoring the activities and reports of the At-
torney General and his staff and of presenting recommendations for improving the corrections
system that grow out of our lengthy deliberations.

We are impressed with the impartiality and thoroughness of the Attorney General's inves-
tigation and with the objectivity and comprehensiveness of his reports.

We wish to stress by this letter of transmittal and by our report our continuing deep con-
cern that the citizens and their representatives not lose their sense of outrage as time dulls the
memory of the prison riot. In a sense, many generations share the blame for this occurrence,
but this generation has a unique role to address solutions that will produce not only change
but the model system advocated by the Governor. We need, in particular, new approaches that
will work. We believe that while significant increases in funds will be required to bring about
improvements, the costs will be modest compared with the probable eventual costs of the riot.

We recognize that corrections systems require immense technical know-how and dedicated
staff, and that patchwork can create unforeseen problems. We cannot second-guess those who
must manage day to day, but we can insist upon their accountability and their openness with
citizens and with those in their care. We especially remind all of us that an inmate does not
lose all rights when incarcerated, and that not only the state but the nation will evaluate the
system more by its positive results than by its repressive measures.

We commend these pages to your attention, to those who must enact the necessary legisla-
tion, and to all citizens who must ultimately support a system that could be to their benefit
rather than to their fruitless expense.

We stand ready to assist for some further time as needed with any further processes that
could produce results beyond this volume of paper.

Thank you for the challenge and for this once-in-a-generation opportunity to serve as
agents of eh g . WJ:!!J'e
that our report not be allowed to gather dust on a shelf.

ay . ~an
Ho orable Samuel Z. Montoya,
Mrs. Adele King
Mrs. Betty Perkins
Vice Chairman Rev. Claude McDonald
Mrs. Vera Cushman Mr. Roberto Samora
Mr. Gordon Greaves The Most Reverend Robert F. Sanchez
REPORT
OF THE
CITIZENS' ADVISORY PANEL

TO THE
GOVERNOR OF NEW MEXICO

September 1980

Abstract

The Citizens' Advisory Panel on the Penitentiary of New Mexico

reports its formation, activities, and philosophy. Recommendations
for action are grouped under topics of Corrections System, Programs,
Staffing, Facilities, and Philosophy. Appendices present position
papers on salary; education, training,and prison industry; alternatives
to incarceration; restitution; and determinate sentencing; a list
of known concerned organizations; and membership of this Panel and
several important committees.
Preface

The Panel members have critiqued both parts of the Attorney General's Report on the
Riot, and their suggestions have been incorporated to their satisfaction. The Panel felt, howev-
er, that additional statements, conclusions and recommendations should be separately issued so
that
Its independence and objectivity could be above suspicion

Additional emphases could strengthen legislative and executive awareness of

needs

More specific recommendations could pinpoint resolution of certain prob-

lem areas

Unique concerns could be voiced and alternative insights and options advo-
cated

Extensive and hard-won self-education could be consolidated, documented

and communicated

The Panel therefore issues this separate and complementary analysis, discussion and set
of recommendations.

II
Acknowledgements
After a considerable study of events during and after the riot of early February 1980, the
Citizens' Advisory Panel has not found it difficult to retain its first sense of shock and concern
over the outrage and its consequences. Many individuals and groups appeared before it to ex-
press dismay about the past and anxiety for the future. The reading of the Attorney General's
reports reconstructed gruesome details of the event and grim reminders of history repeating it-
self.

Reassuringly, however, the Panel finds that there are some strong indications that a tran-
sition in policy and practice may have been stimulated by the worst atrocity in the state's pris-
on history. The right climate seems to be growing to provide the opportunity of a generation to
bring about not only cosmetic change but substantive reform. It is therefore with pleasure that
the Panel records a number of significant actions have been taken place since the riot by many
state and private entities:

The legislature acted with exemplary dispatch in appropriating monies for renovation,
new constructicm and programmatic changes, passing House Bill 275, sponsored by the Speak-
er, Representative C. Gene Samberson. Under Representative George Fettinger's able leader-
ship and concern for marked and rapid improvement, the legislative Criminal Justice Study
Committee worked vigorously for many months on a thoughtful review of New Mexico's crimi-
nal justice system, and that committee in turn appointed subcommittees to analyze New Mexi-
co's problems and survey the successes and failures of other systems.

Out of his deep concern and dedication to establishing a model correctional system, the
Governor appointed aides to oversee day-to-day operations, lodged special investigatory powers
in the Attorney General, and with the Attorney General appointed this Panel as a monitor of
activities and ~eports of events, causes, and cures. The Attorney General and his staff conduct-
ed an exhaustive investigation that provided detailed descriptions of events and sound recom-
mendations for improvement, and negotiated a series of comprehensive Consent Decrees cover-
ing many phases of prison life. Mr. Reese Fullerton headed the special investigatory team and
served as conscientious and efficient Panel liaison.

The Department of Corrections hired consultants, began to recast the Master Plan com-
pleted in 1977, reorganized staff and programs, ran daily operations under extremely demand-
ing conditions, appointed a monitor to assure Consent Decree conformance, and did much soul
searching. The Panel wishes to express particular appreciation for the extraordinary contribu-
tions made by Mr. Belarmino Giron who served first as the Governor's aide and then as acting
Secretary of Corrections in overseeing and expediting all the details of implementing executive
and legislative directions, who generated confidence in operations and planning, and who
briefed the Panel about schedules, accomplishments, and management considerations.

The Panel has found Mr. Bud Richards, Chairman of the Corrections Commission to be
most cooperative. The Commission has its continuing and vital advisory role. The Panel, being
an ad hoc group, has made an independent review of the situation and its recommendations in
many instances underscore positions already taken by the Commission and by others.

Citizens, as individuals and as groups, expressed concern about public issues and per-
ceived injustices. National agencies provided guidelines and experts. Church groups gathered
forces to express spiritual principles and to commend corrective measures. The private sector
offered programs and alternatives as pragmatic solutions. The media kept the issues alive. (An
extensive list of known concerned organizations may be found in Appendix F.)

Ill
 The Panel acknowledges and expresses appreciation for all this concerted effort and feels
that the total effect can only be advantageous to the citizens of New Mexico, the Department
of Corrections, and the inmates. The Panel is particularly concerned that lessons learned will
not be repeated, and offers its recommendations in the spirit of helpfulness and consolidation.
We need to minimize our differences and strive together to achieve reasonable and timely im-
provements.

We are certain that the citizens we represent join with us in asserting that another tragedy
is unacceptable.

lV
Contents

Page

I. Executive Summary... ...... .... .......... ............................................. ... ....... .. ..... .......... ......... 1

II. The Event........ .... ............................................ .. ................ ............................................... 2

III. The Charge t o the Panel ...... ... ....... .... ....... .. .............. ... ........ ............. .... ............. ..... .. ..... 3

IV. The Panel 's Guiding Philosophy ..... ............................ ..... .... ..... ......... ........ ................... 3

V. Panel Activities ........ .............................................................. ... ... ............................... ... .. 5

VI. Recommendations for Action and Rationale for Each ....... ..... ..... .. ...... ... ..... .... .. ....... 6

VII. Suggestions for Actions by State Officials, Citizens, and Legislators........... ........... 15

VIII. Appendices

A. Position Paper on New Mexico Corrections Salaries,

Based on Six-State Salary Survey......... ....... ......... ....................................... ........... 17

B. Position Paper on Education, Training and Prison Industries ............... ........... 19

C. Position Paper on Alternatives to Incarceration,

Including Halfway Houses ........................................... ............................................ 23

D. Position Paper on Restitution. .......................................................... ...................... 26

E . Position Paper on Determinate Sentencing.................... .... ... ................................ 31

F. List of Known Concerned Organizations........ ........... ......... .... ................................ 37

G. Membership of Panel and Important Committees........................... .... ................ 38

v
I
Executive Summary
Following the riot at the New Mexico State Penitentiary in early February 1980, a citizens'
advisory panel was appointed jointly by the Governor and the Attorney General to monitor the
investigation and reports of the Attorney General, and to make its own report and recommen-
dations if deemed advisable.

After a series of ten public meetings, tours of facilities, and studies of records, the Panel
has made suggestions to the Attorney General's two reports outlining respectively the sequence
of events and the causes of the riot, has received input from corrections officials, national ex-
perts on corrections, and a broad range of concerned citizens and organizations, and has pre-
pared this report.

The Panel 's recommendations are based on a philosophy of corrections that stresses citi-
zen safety and the importance of inmate redirection.
Recommendations of highest priority:

• Practical long-range planning should characterize the Master plan.

• Inmate population projections must be realistic and take into consideration all relevant
factors. Prison size should be determined by realistic projections of inmate population.
Dormitories should be eliminated at medium and maximum security facilities. The
Penitentiary should be maintained as a maximum security incarceration unit, where in-
take and classification are handled, and where a psychiatric unit of sufficient size is
maintained. The facility at Los Lunas should be expanded to accommodate about 480
inmates in medium security, and with adequate facilities to house extensive prison in-
dustries. Should a new medium security unit be needed, it should be constructed in
phases at an appropriate location or locations, based on experience with the design of
the Los Lunas facility. The minimum security facility for women inmates at Radium
Springs should be improved or a new facility provided. A new facility near a large city
for both maximum and medium security women inmates should be constructed.

• The adult correction system should be an integrated whole. Recognized corrections

standards for institutional management must be followed and the negotiated consent
decrees observed.

• Staff quality and retention should be improved through refined job descriptions and re-
quirements to assist in recruiting, and through training and education; jobs must be de-
fined and assignments structured to provide opportunities for movement through recog-
nized multiple career ladders; competitive salaries need to be offered, in line with
qualifications and duties.

• Meaningful alternatives to incarceration should be sought, where appropriate , for both

juveniles and adults.

• Inmates must be classified with care and reclassified on a regular basis.

• Relevant education, vocational training, and prison industry programs must be expand-
ed or begun, so that inmates can have an opportunity to return to society with the
skills and attitudes necessary to obtain and hold a job.

1
 • Inmates cannot usually manage complete redirection of their lives solely in the prison
setting. They must have opportunities to practice coping with increased responsibilities
for actions in a secure halfway house program.

• To make optimum use of volunteer services, the Department should establish an office
to enf ourage and assist, statewide, the establishment of community-based plans, train-
ing programs and operations of volunteer programs affecting juveniles and adults at
various stages in the criminal justice system.

• Through increases in numbers of officers and in salary levels, probation and parole pro-
grams should be improved for both adults and juveniles.

• A statewide system of restitution for crime victims should be enacted by the Legisla-
ture and implemented by the courts and executive branch.

These and other recommendations for improvements or changes in the system require a
concerned executive, legislature and judiciary to demonstrate to citizens the importance and
value of the actions recommended, and their advantages. Improvements can be best sustained
through continuous monitoring temporarily by an independent citizen's committee until even-
tual assumption by a non-partisan Corrections Commission with professional qualifications.
(Detailed recommendations are presented in Section VI.)

II
The Event
On a chilly isolated mesa ten miles south of Santa Fe, for nearly 36 hours between 2:00
AM Saturday, February 2 and 1:30 PM Sunday, February 3, 1980, the cellblocks, dormitories
and hallways of New Mexico's State Penitentiary were controlled by men bent on destruction.

Within those few hours, 90 inmates suffered severe injuries, and 33 others (average age 27)
were killed--all at the hands of their fellow inmates, and 12 of the 25 correctional officers on
duty who were captured and held hostage were subjected to a variety of indignities and trau-
matized so severely as to be unable to return to duty. The facility was randomly damaged and
destroyed.
Immediate Consequences

The economic consequences include the immediate expenditure by the state of $4.5 mil-
lion for services, travel, supplies, operating costs and other items in support of investigations,
out-of-state housing of inmates, medical care, officer training, reconstruction of records, and so
forth. More significantly, the New Mexico Legislature passed House Bill 275, authorizing the
expenditure of $35 million for the reconstruction of the Penitentiary, immediate increases in
staffing, salaries, and pension programs; prosecution and defense; auditing; and other provi-
sions designed to meet emergency needs of the corrections system, and earmarked another $50
million for possible other needs, including new construction. The directly attributable cost of
the event reached almost exactly one million dollars an hour.

Filed to date are approximately 500 notices of claim for personal injury as well as eleven
civil law suits against the state for a total of six million dollars.

2
 Causes

For all such events, of course, there are both obvious and hidden causes--as well as diffi-
culty in assessing blame. The Panel acknowledges the gravity of the causes as reported in the
Attorney General's summations, but sees no value in repeating them here, except to state in
general that the blame must be shared by many. This Panel's purpose is to make positive rec-
ommendations for actions that will alleviate causes and minimize the chances for recurrence of
such incidents.

III
The Charge to the Panel
On March 14, 1980, following the riot, Governor King and Attorney General Bingaman
drew up a list of members for a Citizens' Advisory Panel. The Governor confirmed the ap-
pointment, noting that the "appointment ends at the pleasure of the Governor," and that the
work of the Panel is "important and necessary .. .for the benefit of our state."

At the Panel's first meeting, March 31, these officials appeared in person to voice a similar
message, with this expansion regarding specific duties:

The Panel is to serve as an avenue for the general public, and

as a monitor to assure that the procedures used and reports
issued by the Attorney General will be objective, complete,
independent and logical. In addition, the Panel can make its
own public report, recommending whatever it deems appropriate.

The Panel, in turn, agreed to avoid duplication of ongoing

efforts, but instead to complement and supplement those efforts.

At the July llth meeting, Mr. Giron requested that the Panel retain its composition and
direction through November 1980 so that it could contribute to the revised Master Plan's final
expression and to definition of programs, address broad issues that need to be presented to the
Legislature's upcoming session, and give advice on proposed legislation. He noted that Mr.
Powell had been appointed to the steering committee critiquing the Master Plan for the Ex-
ecutive.

All members of the Panel acceded to this further refinement of their original charter, ex-
pressing a wish to produce something more substantial for their efforts than a shelved report.

IV
The Panel's Guiding Philosophy
Without an over-all philosophy as a guide, various public attitudes about crime, the seri-
ousness of the acts during the riot at the Penitentiary, the complexities of the criminal justice
system, the opinions of instant and seasoned experts, the careful legislative process, and the
burdens of planning and budgeting would be quite overwhelming.

3
 Middle Ground and Realistic

The Panel has heard and has observed a variety of philosophies about corrections, some
complementary, some contradictory. This variety is a local reflection of national confusion
about criminal justice, with opponents and proponents straining toward extreme positions of
locking inmates up and throwing away the key, on the one hand and releasing them all , on the
other hand. The Panel adopted a middle-ground and hopefully realistic philosophy for correc-
tions in the state of New Mexico, and made its judgments and recommendations on that basis.
Protection for Society and the Inmate

To protect society and to impose justifiable punishment, those who commit crimes against
society need to be separated from that society for an appropriate time , as decreed by the jus-
tice system. Because some who commit crimes exhibit aggressive behavior harmful to people
anywhere, they need to be separated from the general prison population to protect other in-
mates. And because some small percentage of inmates are dangerous t o themselves as well as
others, they must be given professional attention in a special psychiatric unit.
Inmate Return to Society

One fact influences every corrections philosophy, and particularly this Panel's: Except for
a very few special cases, every person incarcerated is eventually returned to open society; even
under determinate sentencing, only the length of time varies. What are the implications in this
flow of people through the system? The Panel is concerned that the citizens of a state with
limited resources are undergoing undue public expense to maintain a criminal justice system
that returns repeat offenders at a high rate. The cost of constructing housing approaches for
each inmate $20,000-$30,000 for minimum security on a national average, $30,000-$35,000 for
medium security (based on New Mexico experience with Los Lunas), and $35,000-$70,000 for
maximum security on a national average. The cost to New Mexicans of maintaining each pris-
oner is now about $1575 monthly, for an annual cost of $18,900 (for a system obviously not op-
erating at optimum capability).

Wherever possible, we need to give inmates real opportunities to become productive citi-
zens who earn wages, pay taxes, support their families, and do not return to lives of crime and
repeated offenses.
The Panel therefore believes that the most practical guiding philosophy is that which fa cilitates
changing the attitude and conduct of every inmate who (a s predict ed by analysis) can redirect his life.
Such a course of action demands

• An effective classification system that couples factual data with professional judgment

• A committed prison staff that on bases of justice and consistency actively encourages
and supports appropriate inmate conduct, and recognizes that peop1e are more easily
led than driven.

• Effective education, training and prison industry programs that can provide opportuni-
ties for attaining marketable job skills and socially acceptable values, attitudes and
habits. (To reduce resentments, jealousies and program subversion by staff, opportuni-
ties for self-improvement and support should be offered to staff also.)

• A series of graduated opportunities for each inmate to assume more and more responsi-
bility for independent decision making prior to release

• An efficient post-release monitoring system making maximum use of trained profes-

sionals and volunteers to help with the maintenance of redirection.

4
 Based on these principles, the Panel makes a number of specific recommendations in Sec-
tion VI of this report. The Panel does not expect perfection. There will always be a number of
failures and misses of the mark to force re-examination of policy and practice. The Panel ac-
knowledges that whereas the corrections system can offer opportunities for redirection to in-
mates, it cannot guarantee results. But the system can aim at the attainment of human dignity
and justice.

The Panel is acutely aware of several factors that affect the operation of prisons: unwill-
ingness among inmates to work or cooperate; gangs as forces competing for control; the influ-
ence of older staff attitudes on new hires; the intrusion of more volunteers on behalf of inmates
than on behalf of administrators; the inconsistent roles of control and counseling often de-
manded of guards; the perception by inmates that guards are not professionally trained to as-
sume such roles--and many other factors that make the operation of a prison hazardous and
frustrating.

These factors must not paralyze attempts to proceed; they should simply act as challenges
for remedial action and to find new tools to address new situations. There is particular cause
for optimism in New Mexico, because a 1977 study by the Governor's Council for Criminal Jus-
tice Planning noted that the average inmate was younger, was less "hardened" than in other
states, had some job skills, and retained a strong attachment to traditional values of family, re-
ligion, and the work ethic.

The consequences of providing opportunities for improvement can be rewarding. If our

criminal justice system attains a significant reduction in repeated offenses or deters enough ju-
veniles, those will be signs of progress. More importantly, the hidden costs of the system that
have long gone unregarded may be reduced, and the long-range effects can benefit all citizens--
including those temporarily behind bars.

Benefits

Achievable benefits from realistic prison policies and programs include the following: a re-
duction in the occurrence of incidents, escapes and riots; reduction in the threat to citizens; a
prison population that does not increase out of proportion with the general population; a larger
number of inmates on parole or probation than in prison; fewer crime repeaters; efficient oper-
ation without constant attention of the Legislature and Executive; an opportunity for the spe-
cialists involved in management to perform their functions without "second guessing" by oth-
ers, but to be held accountable for results; a citizenry knowledgeable and supportive of the
state's criminal justice programs; a readiness among citizens to provide volunteer services and
monitoring; and opportunities for the press to publish factual and balanced stories, including
those that reflect positive changes.

v
Panel Activities
The Panel recognized that, if it were to be effective, it had to become knowledgeable
about corrections. And because time was short, members concluded that a saturation course
was appropriate.

Invited Presentations

Presentations were made to the Panel by secretaries of the Department of Corrections,

Corrections administrators and officers at many levels, chairpersons and staff of several Uni-
versity programs in criminal justice, psychiatric experts, visiting consultants, representatives of

5
citizen and religious groups, business leaders involved in inmate programs, the Attorney Gener-
al and his staff, former and current inmates, leaders on crime councils, wardens and former
wardens, parole and probation officers, and groups of and individual concerned citizens.
Review of Published Material

To gain further understanding, members read magazine and journal articles, books, guide-
lines and standards (both state and federal), reports and analyses, critiques and editorials,
news stories, minutes and proposals, project descriptions, master plans and investigatory tran-
scripts, and subcommittee reports and preliminary drafts.
Facility Visits

Members visited the Attorney General's offices, the State Penitentiary, and the Los Lunas
facility at length. By plane they were able to get a brief survey of facilities at Roswell, Radium
Springs, and Sierra Blanca. They visited La Pasada, and New Dawn, operational halfway
houses in Albuquerque. Mr. Powell and members of his staff, and other Panel members attend-
ed meetings of the Criminal Justice Study Committee chaired by Representative Fettinger, and
of that Committee's subcommittee sessions.
Panel Meetings

A typical meeting of the Panel members would begin at 9:30 AM, with members from
around the state convening in Santa Fe, and end at about 6 PM. The morning session might be
devoted to executive matters and liaison with the Attorney General and his staff, with visits to
facilities, and with organizational plans and procedures. The afternoon sessions were scheduled
for public testimony by the variety of persons cited above, either identified by the Panel, by
the Attorney General's office or by the Department of Corrections. There was also time set
aside at each meeting for presentations and comments by the general public. The Panel met in
this fashion for 11 meetings over 7 months.
Special Studies

Special subcommittees investigated corrections staff salaries, comparing them with those
in other states; education, training and prison industries; alternatives to incarceration; restitu-
tion; and determinate sentencing issues; and produced reports and recommendations. Those re-
ports are included as Appendices below.

VI
Recommendations for Action and the Rationale for
Each
The following recommendations often repeat recommendations that others have made and
are making, but they represent the reasoned unanimous expression of a Panel conscious of its
charter from the Governor, its own sense of responsibility, and the necessity for deliberateness.
The recommendations are based on philosophical considerations presented at the end of this
section. Each recommendation cites a rationale for its suggestion. An office, agency, or branch
of state government is suggested (in parentheses) for initiating action and for follow-up. The
Panel knows full well that all these changes cannot be implemented at one time, but a timeta-
ble for actions should be developed that will show honest measurable progress.
Recommendations on the Corrections System

I. Some means must be established to insulate the Department of Corrections from influences
of partisan politics. (Citizens, Legislature, Governor and Press)

6
The Department needs to establish and maintain a professional status that rises above the par-
tisan political arena. Unless this is done , the Panel sees little hope for consistent policy and
long-term success. Consideration needs to be given to restoring policy-making functions to the
Commission.

2. The criminal justice system must be treated as a close-knit set of integrated parts, not as a
patchwork of piecemeal programs and legislation. (All branches of state government)

Whenever significant changes are to be implemented, a thorough study of short- and long-
term consequences must be made to determine that all elements that will be affected can
accommodate the change.

3. All designs and programs should conform to state and federal standards for corrections,
and the Corrections Department should strive for accreditation. (Department)

This is the most advantageous time to attempt to meet these standards.

4. Funding for pilot research programs should be sought from private foundations, federal
agencies, and the state legislature. (Corrections Department)

The Department has an excellent opportunity to produce something positive. It is a time

for thoughtful experiment and change. When a program proves really effective as a result
of initial seed funding, steps must be taken to obtain continued state funding.

5. The provisions of the Consent Decrees must be continuously monitored by the Department
to avoid administration by the court. Appropriate funding to implement those Decrees must
be provided by the legislature. (Department and Legislature)

It is neither efficient nor desirable to have Federal courts monitor progress toward fulfill-
ment of the agreements, and it is impossible to comply without adequate funds.

6. The determinate sentencing act needs to be re-examined and changed to balance some of
the adverse effects apparently produced. (Governor, Legislature and Judiciary)

Judges might be required to explain their sentences in writing. Sentences should be

subject to appellate review, following American Bar Association standards, (but spe-
cial courts should not be established).
Significant vested credits in good time beyond that allowed for meritorious behavior
should be provided for participation in prison industries and for successful comple-
tion of vocational and educational programs.
The act should also require the judge to consider the record of prior convictions rath-
er than arrests in altering the basic sentence. (In this country an individual is still
considered innocent until proven guilty.)
There is a large body of opinion advocating repeal of the determinate sentencing act.
If the act is modified or repealed , any changes should be made retroactive to main-
tain equal treatment before the law. (For position paper, see Appendix E.)

7. The investigation that has been begun of wrongdoing by Penitentiary staff and administra-
tion should be concluded soon. (Department, Attorney General,and District Attorney)

The air must be cleared so that a new warden and a new Secretary of the Depart-
ment will not inherit elements that could jeopardize needed changes. The Depart-
ment must conduct its functions in a professional manner and be recognized for
doing so.

8. The Corrections Department should continue to conduct informative briefings for the per-
tinent legislative committee members as needed.

7
Recommendations on Programs

l. The State should develop well-supervised, economically sound alternatives to incarceration

for both juveniles and adults. (Department, Legislature, and Judiciary)

The Panel has heard much testimony that some inmates should not be imprisoned.
Wherever indicated, those convicted of certain crimes should be treated in communi-
ty-based facilities where expenses could be lower, treatments more readily available,
work and education releases arranged, family contacts maintained, and restitution to
crime victims provided. To prevent exposure to many of the negative influences of
prison life, juveniles especially should be provided alternative programs. Close coordi-
nation with volunteers in communities is needed to identify availability and extent of
resources and to assure realistic planning and goal setting.

2. To assure proper assignment of inmates to facilities and programs, the classification sys-
tem must combine an organized evaluation of the inmate's history with educated judgment.
(Department)

Classification must be an on-going process to monitor inmate progress through var-

ious levels of programs until release. Initial classification should be handled expedi-
tiously. It is more profitable for an inmate to become involved in a program and to be
reclassified as a result of his activities than to remain in the classification process for
several months.

Classification improvements already underway need to be completed immediately and

implemented effectively.

3. The existing data gathering and analysis processes for inmate records must be improved
and expanded to accommodate expected needs. (Department)

The effectiveness of the entire program of secure incarceration combined with poten-
tial redirection hinges upon the collection and maintenance of accurate and evaluated
data on each individual. Before any assignment of an inmate to a program in educa-
tion, vocational training, or prison industry, the classifier needs to have information
about security risk, capabilities, experience, handicaps, goals, motivations, and atti-
tudes--in addition to bare facts and figures.

4. Education programs should be expanded to meet remedial or advanced needs of inmates,

particularly the vocational educational offerings. (Department and Legislature)

For maximum transfer of learning, vocational education needs to be coordinated care-

fully with prison industries, job market and work release. (See Appendix B)

5. Prison industry programs must be expanded to accommodate at least ol)e-half of the total
inmate population. (Department and Legislature)

An advisory council with representatives of industry and labor should be formed to

assist with product, process evaluation and marketing. As suggested by the Criminal
Justice Interim Study Committee, administrators need to undertake (l) reasonable
enlargements in the agriculture program to include dairy, meat and vegetable produc-
tion for use by all state institutions, (2) reasonable expansion and diversification of
the furniture making operation, (3) expansion of the laundry and tailoring operation
to serve all state institutions, (4) sufficient programs to repair school buses and other
machines operated by public school districts, and (5) the establishment of new prod-
uct and service lines.

8
 Some increase in wages paid for work in prison industry should be approved by the
legislature to permit inmate support for families and partial restitution for crime vic-
tims. A substantial amount of vested good time should be provided for inmate par-
ticipation in the prison industry program. Good time is a powerful and desirable in-
centive.

Further detailed recommendations may be found in a position paper on this subject

(Appendix B ).

6. Education, vocational training, and prison industry programs for inmates must emphasize
attitude and behavior changes, gradual assumption of responsibility for actions, socially accept-
able values (such as quality of workmanship, honesty, punctuality), self-sufficiency and greater
independence, interviewing and other job pursuit skills. (Department)

Specific skills may be learned that are marketable, but without change in attitude or
values those skills will simply be applied to improve the sophistication of crime.

To improve group reinforcement and to offer incentives, the Department should ex-
periment with the apparent advantages of housing and feeding together those inmat es
who work and/or study as groups in various programs.

Enlargements in prison industry programs should never be justification for withhold-

ing inmates from releases.

Supervisory evaluations of inmate experience in prison industry (communicated to

the participant) should become part of the reclassification decision-making process
regarding program movement and eventual release.

Good time should be granted for successful participation in prison industry programs.

7. Those who are ineligible for redirection programs because of extreme security require-
ments need to be assigned tasks that will be useful to the institution and state and provide
outlet for the prisoner. (Department)

Only a sufficient number of inmates for the job should be assigned; no "make work"
should be allowed. There should be sufficient meaningful work details available for
everyone , including the maintenance and upgrading of existing facilities and the con-
struction of new facilities .

8. Opportunities must be available for spiritual counseling and worship service attendance a~
an inmate's faith may require. Inmates need to have available this significant source of values,
attitude change, and hope (Department and Chaplains)

To assure unbiased service to inmates, salaries of chaplains should perhaps not be

paid directly by the state. Chaplains' activities could be coordinated by a board au-
thorized by the New Mexico Interchurch Agency (NMICA) .

Organized church groups (for example, Prison Fellowship) can become focal centers
for community-based programs.

The spiritual needs of Native Americans should be met in the prison setting.

9. More use should be made of minimum facilities and programs. (Department and Commis-
sion)

9
 Out of an understandable fear of error and its consequences, the New Mexico system
often has empty beds in its minimum faci lities for men and women. Without jeopar-
dizing program acceptance in communities where work release programs exist, the
Department can carefully screen inmate classification data to identify additional in-
mates who can successfully participate.

10. Probation and parole programs should be strengthened to assure that individuals released
to those programs will receive necessary supervision and support and have a reasonable chance
for successfully re-entering society. (Department, Commission, Legislature and State Personnel
Office)

A number of sub-recommendations here would include: Staff pay scales should be

made competitive with neighboring states and reflect the professional education and
training levels required for these positions. (See Appendix A.) Case loads should be
maintained in view of such factors as complexity, number, and travel distance, but
not so light that a parolee is over-monitored and kept dependent.

Juvenile probation programs should continue to be separated from adult programs,

and the Interstate Compact on Juveniles should continue to be used.

ll. "Halfway houses" should be considered as possible alternative methods of dealing with
adult and juvenile offenders in both diversion and pre-release modes. (Department, Judiciary,
Prosecutorial authorities and Commission)

Experience in other states indicates that the halfway house alternative can be effec-
tive, both in economics of treatment and in lowered recidivism rates. Inmates are able
to adapt socially, meet with and support family, pay state and federal taxes, and pay
room and board as they gradually assume more and more responsibility and account-
ability. The state should set up and closely monitor pilot contracts in the private
non-profit sector for operation of such halfway houses. (For position paper, see Ap-
pendix C.)

12. Diagnostic processes, funding and staffing at the Youth Diagnostic Center need to be im-
proved. (Department)

To reintroduce youth to the value of an education, they need to be analyzed in depth

and given an effective one-semester sample of education while at the Center. A new
gymnasium is needed at YDC.

13. The Department should make maximum use of the broad range of volunteer workers and
agencies that offer useful services, and encourage the public to develop more volunteer pro-
grams for all phases of the Criminal Justice System. (Department and Private Agencies)

The Department should establish an office to assist, statewide, volunteer services and
staffed by a professional to assist communities in planning, training, and operating
aspects of volunteer programs for juveniles and adults in presentence, probation, pa-
role, incarceration, and post-release situations.

The Panel is aware of the tactics that some Department management

and staff have used in the past to discourage public contact with individual inmates.
Contacts and assistance from recognized groups and individuals provide an entry to
resocialization, job potentials for inmates, and avenues of communication. They
should be encouraged and included in a step program as rewards toward release.

14. Adequate grievance procedures for inmates, guaranteeing due process and prompt re-
sponse, need to be spelled out, posted and honored. (Department and Inmates)

10
 A careful revision of the 1977 inmate grievance policy could help restore confidence in
the fairness of staff and management. Inmate involvement and input are needed.
Such a policy and procedure should be introduced as quickly as possible into one in-
stitution at a time, should be monitored by citizens external to the Department, and
should be implemented by appropriate legislative funding. Ultimately, every facility
should follow an effective grievance procedure.
Recommendations for Staffing

l. There must be a continuing professional education program for all staff of the Department
to assure that American Corrections Association standards are attained and maintained, and
that the provisions of the Consent Decrees are observed. (Department)

These programs must include not only the standard courses in control methods, self-
defense, record keeping, report write-up, SW AT teams, and weapons, but also such
topics as appropriate behavior by a correctional officer, communication and diversion
tactics, to mention but a few.

Security procedures, especially those critical for daily operation of facilities, must be
emphasized. Post orders must be current and understandable, with responsibilities
detailed.

The correctional staff must also have opportunities of attending education courses
that will assist them in their careers. These opportunities must be encouraged. De-
partment mid and upper management must support the programs.

Wherever possible, career "ladders" should be identified so that correctional officers

can find opportunities to progress to the best of their abilities and training and not
necessarily be limited to administrative or supervisory jobs for promotion/recogni-
tion/compensation. Management will need to refine job descriptions and structure as-
signments to permit increased responsibilities among officer and administrative
staffs.

2. Adequate numbers of staff should be available to manage the day-to-day operations of the
institutions and agencies. (Department and Legislature)

There should be sufficient numbers to provide for emergency teams over and above
those on duty; to provide programmed relief from "pressure cooker" conditions; to
provide sufficient security coverage during head count, food lines, work details, custo-
dy movement, and so forth; and to permit a reasonable proportion of staff to be in
continuing education and training programs conducted both by staff within the De-
partment and by outside college specialists. The staff must feel and be supported
adequately if its confidence and morale are to be maintained and evident to inmates.
To upper management, a correctional officer should be provided a channel to file le-
gitimate complaints about mid-management dereliction of duty without fear of repri-
sal.

3. Every effort should be made to attain and maintain a qualified staff that will reflect the
racial balance among inmates. (Department)

Because ethnic association is so strong among inmates, a balanced ethnic distribution

among staff could minimize frictions and offer positive role models.

4. The professionalism of corrections management and staff must be improved at all levels
and sustained through training; compensation must be appropriate. (Department, Legislature,
State Personnel Office)

11
 The Legislature has begun the process of upgrading salaries of correctional officers.
Special attention now needs to be given to salaries of juvenile corrections officers,
probation and parole officers, classification officers, and clinical psychologists. In the
future the Department needs to review annually with the Personnel Office the work
conditions and salary levels to assure continuity of management and staff. Criteria
should be used in selecting new hires that are consistent with their duties and expo-
sure to high risk. (For policy paper, see Appendix A.)

Recommendations on Facilities

l. The Department should proceed as it has in providing temporary solutions to housing and
feeding problems without unduly jeopardizing long-range plans for facility construction. (De-
partment)

The Panel feels that decisions about facilities have to date been adequate to meet the
emergency conditions that resulted from the riot.

2. As a basis for long-range planning of construction of new facilities, realistic forecasts and
projections of total prison population need to be made and kept current. (Department and
Commission)

Projections need to consider interpretations of good time in prison industry under the
determinate sentencing act, growth in state population, the emergence of age groups
experiencing differing rates of crime, and of options in sentencing.

3. The Penitentiary should be maintained for incarceration of maximum security inmates,

for handling intake and classification, and for provision of a psychiatric unit with sufficient
beds. (Departments of Corrections and Healt h and Environment, and University of New Mexi-
co)

Consideration should be given to placing psychiatric treatment of inmates under the

jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections, and a professional staff should be in
residence and/or on contract, and have selective joint contracts with the University of
New Mexico School of Medicine.

An option would be to increase the beds at Las Vegas from the current number to 40-
60, retaining the more violent inmates at the Penitentiary.

4. The facility at Los Lunas should be expanded to accommodate about 480 inmates in me-
dium security. (Department, Commission, Legislature, and Master Plan Advisory Committee)

The services functions are sufficient to permit this expansion. Prison industries facili-
ties urgently need to be established there. Existing vocational educati:on facilities
should not be used for prison industries because they are needed for vocational train-
ing. A gymnasium and chapel also need to be added.

5. While it is hoped that judicious use of alternatives to incarceration and a careful in-
creased use of minimum security facilities and supervised parole will eliminate the need for an-
other medium security facility, projections may indicate that such a new facility or facilities
may need to be constructed in an appropriate location/sf.

The final size of any new medium security facility, preferably built in stages, should
not exceed 500. Should it prove efficient, the design of the Los Lunas facility should
be considered for duplication to minimize design, construction, and operational costs.
The location of any new facility should be such as to attract a competent staff from a
sufficiently large job skills market.

12
 Consideration should also be given to the use of smaller units of about 200 inmates
each, located near unserved larger cities to permit incarceration closer to the support
of family and friends of offenders and probably future habitation or jobs. (Depart-
ment, Commission, Legislature, and Master Plan Advisory Committee)

6. The Sierra Blanca facility should be expanded to a capacity of 100 with the addition of
more dormitory space. (Department, Commission, Legislature, and Master Plan Advisory Com-
mittee)

The furniture manufacturing operation, which shows considerable potential, should

be better equipped and funded to support the Penitentiary central operation.

This facility might eventually be re-used for juveniles from the southern tier of coun-
ties to make family visits and appropriate juvenile redirection activities easier.
In addition to work release, the inmates at this facility could be employed in mean-
ingful forestry work under state and federal arrangements.

7. The minimum security facility at Roswell should be used to maximum advantage without
jeopardizing its accomplishments and good community relations. (Department, Commission,
Legislature, and Master Plan Advisory Committee)

An expanded control center and warehouse are needed.

At every minimum facility, visiting procedures need to be given maximum flexibility

8. Unless the state can purchase the facility and improve it, the facility for minimum securi-
ty women inmates at Radium Springs should be replaced. (Department, Commission, Legisla-
ture, and Master Plan Advisory Committee)

If it is not feasible to continue this facility, then something akin to its life style
should be founded near a large urban center to provide appropriate and expanded
work experiences.

9. A new women's facility needs to be constructed for medium and maximum security in-
mates. (Department, Commission, Legislature, and Master Plan Advisory Committee)

Because of New Mexico's low population of women inmates, the cost of providing
equivalent training and work opportunities may well be prohibitive. Therefore, it may
be necessary to establish the facility as a satellite to one of the major facilities for
men. In such an event, a properly supervised co-correctional program for male and fe-
male inmates should be investigated for selected areas of education and prison indus-
try.

10. For medium and maximum security facilities, the use of dormitories should be discontin-
ued for inmate housing. (Department, Commission, Legislature, and Master Plan Advisory
Committee)

Privacy needs to be maximized, and opportunities for harassment and abuse by in-
mates minimized.

ll. The facility at Springer needs specific improvements. (Department, Commission, Legisla-
ture, and Master Plan Advisory Committee)

One more lodge is needed to allow a maximum population of 250.

13
 A new Butler building is needed to accommodate a new press for the print shop.

When greater capacity is needed, the Department should reconsider use of the Sierra
Blanca facility for juveniles.

Philosophical Considerations
l. A philosophy should be a guide to the Master Plan, to the operations of the Department
of Corrections, to the Corrections Commission, an'd to the development of pertinent legislation.
The philosophy should emphasize that a secure prison setting is necessary to protect society
from danger, that there are clear and consistent rewards and punishments for inmate conduct,
that an inmate can progress by definite steps through the prison programs to gain release, that
privileges carry responsibilities, and that opportunities will be provided for as many inmates as
reasonably possible to redirect their lives so that they may become socially adapted, self-suffi-
cient citizens. This philosophy is consistent with and enhances effective control of inmates to
prevent disorders such as riots and escapes. (Department, Commission, Legislature)

Without an explicit philosophy, planning cannot be coordinated or projected, pro-

grams don't have foundation, valid goals cannot be established, and day-to-day oper-
ations suffer.

2. The philosophy must emphasize realistic values and reasonable expectations, and should
guide the day-to-day activities of those in close contact with inmates. (Department and Com-
mission)

To redirect any life, one needs to get the subject's attention, gain trust, instruct with
good intent, serve as a model of conduct, develop responsibility and accountability,
and offer immediate as well as long-term rewards. The penalties for "backsliding"
must be obvious and enforced, and the staff must have a range of resources for deny-
ing privileges as well as providing rewards (for cause) by increments.

3. The inmate rules of conduct should be written to express the philosophy in positive
terms. (Department and Commission)

The typical rule book is a detailed list of "thou shalt nots," but it is difficult to speci-
fy all possible deviations of behavior in unbiased language and prescribe minute gra-
dations of punishment.

Besides the penalties, the rules need to mention rewards for meeting expectations,
and for positive change in attitude and acts.

The inmate rules should also specify inmate rights regarding nourishment, medical
care, and work and education opportunities consistent with Consent Decrees, and
with standards nationally accepted and set through the Master Plan process.

4. The philosophy should assure New Mexico citizens that it reflects their best interests.
(Department and Commission)

If the philosophy appears to adopt a position solely favoring the inmate, it will not
receive the support of the citizens. It is the Panel's belief that programs can be effec-
tive both to control inmates and to provide opportunities for redirection.

5. The state's fairly heavy reliance on incarceration must be reassessed. (Judiciary, Depart-
ment, Commission, Legislature, and Master Plan Advisory Committee)

New Mexico's prison population tripled between 1970 and 1977. Two-thirds of our in-
mates are aged thirty or younger, and sixty percent have either one or no prior con-
victions. In 1976, for every person in prison, New Mexico had only l.l persons on fel-
ony probation, ranking with 13 other states at that and lower levels. By contrast, 37
other states had a higher ratio on probation, the highest with a ratio of 8.5 to l.

, 14
 6. The prison system should place an emphasis on redirection within a secure setting. (De-
partment, Commission, and Master Plan Advisory Committee)

Some of the realities that contradict that emphasis are overcrowding, mixing of in -
mates from all security classifications, a snitch system, and an undertrained staff.

7. Staff of the Department of Corrections, Legislators, and members of the Executive and
Judiciary must make special efforts to inform citizens about the realities of the criminal justice
system. (All branches of state government and the press)

The Panel believes that if a consistent philosophy and pragmatic results of that phi-
losophy are presented honestly to the citizens, tax and political support will be forth -
coming. An "open press" policy accompanied by balanced reporting should be most
helpful in keeping the public fully informed.
Suggestions With Long-Range Implications

The Panel members feel that to the extant that the day-to-day operations of the Depart-
ment are on target, stress reduced, and programs functioning, opportunity is present for some
longer-range creative planning and gradual introduction of useful changes. For example, the
Panel suggests eventual consideration of these representative actions

• Persons outside the institutions should be encouraged to become available within the
prisons as models of attitude and behavior (for instance, volunteers, teachers, social
workers, employers, ex-convicts.) These people tend to have more influence than those
within the system whose motives and interests are often not respected by inmates.

• Inmates should be given opportunities to participate in activities that contribute to a

sense of self worth. For example, they could (as they once did) prepare toys for distri-
bution to children, present programs to junior high and other students to deglamorize
crime and deter delinquency, present exhibits of creative arts, and serve as para-profes-
sionals and as instructors.

• Inmates need to have a second and different issue of clothing for wear at occasions
such as visits, off-site education courses, and other appearances in public. A clothing
option is one other source of privilege to be rewarded or taken away.

• The use of standing committees should be explored to involve inmates serving in func-
tions to improve prison conditions.

VII
Suggestions for Action by State Officials, Citizens and
Legislators
The Panel has completed its principal mission. It notes that a report languishing on the
shelf solves no problems.

The Panel is pleased with the continuing efforts of the Corrections Master Plan Advisory
Committee to provide input to the long-range Master Plans for 1985 and 1990. But it is remind-
ed of a previous Master Plan and of a document on specific standards and goals that if imple-
mented might have prevented the riot. The members therefore feel that the work of the Crimi-
nal Justice Study Committee, the reports of the Attorney General and the recommendations of

15
this Panel should be implemented within the context and revisions of the master planning doc-
uments.

Officials of the Department of Corrections are encouraged to conduct the affairs of the
Department so that the citizens will reap the advantages of a system dedicated both to their
safety and to inmate redirection. It will be necessary to establish a practical set of goals and
standards that can be attained; and to create an atmosphere of competence and professional-
ism that will permeate all ranks.

The citizens of New Mexico are encouraged to accept the presence of corrections facilities
near their communities; to accept some volunteer responsibility for alternative programs that
will keep those expensive structures within reasonable sizes; to assist groups who operate pro-
grams to redirect inmates into profitable paths; to insist upon practical programs that produce
results to society's benefit; and to support financially this large "industry" that affects so many
lives in so many ways.

The legislature has demonstrated cognizance of its role and should continue its monitoring
of affairs until the crisis has settled (and then continue to give guidance); enact legislation as
necessary to implement major provisions of the Master Plan; express a philosophy that will
help guide policy and operations of the Department of Corrections, the Commission, and the
Parole Board; maintain the important and hard-working Criminal Justice Study committee to
oversee developments and to propose changes in legislation and appropriations; and determine
whether redirection could be eventually more practical and less costly in the long run than
simple warehousing, and whether programs are better avenues for control of inmates than
warehousing, which tends to leave inmates in positions of having nothing to lose.

Under the assumption that all these forces are at work, the Panel concludes its work. It
compliments those who have labored so effectively over the last nine months, and expresses ap-
preciation for those yet to become involved.

VIII
Appendices

A. Position Paper on New Mexico Corrections Salaries, Based on Six-State Salary Survey

B. Position Paper on Education, Training and Prison Industries

C. Position Paper on Alternatives to Incarceration, Including Halfway Houses

D. Position Paper on Restitution.

E. Position Paper on Determinate Sentencing

F. List of Known Concerned Organizations

G. Membership of Panel and Important Committees

16
Appendix A

Position Paper
on
New Mexico Corrections Salaries,
Based on Six-State Salary Survey

Abstract

A review of salaries paid by six states to incumbents in six job families in corrections reveals that
upward salary adjustments are indicated in five job families in the New Mexico Department of
Corrections.

Introduction
In May, 1980, the Chairman of the Citizens' PNM Advisory Panel, R. B. Powell, asked that a
salary survey of typical corrections positions be made in states surrounding New Mexico, and that
relevant recommendations be derived where the data indicated.

Subsequently, Mr. Harold Baxter, Wage and Salary Administrator, and Mr. Leo Griego,
Director, of the State of New Mexico Personnel Office sent a survey questionnaire to the states of
Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah. Each state was asked to identify its closest
match to each of 25 New Mexico corrections positions and to provide data on population, rate range,
average salary, and base rate adders. Responses were received covering 14,073 individuals.

The 25 positions and the response tabulations are grouped below by six job families--correctional
officer, juvenile correctional officer, probation/parole officer, corrections administrator, classification
officer, and clinical psychologist.

Analytical Technique
By telephone, questions about the data received were clarified, and information that had been
omitted was completed. All data were adjusted to obtain uniformity as of July 1980. Where the effective
date of the data supplied fell before July I, salary information was adjusted by the anticipated increase
to compute current rates.

Each job family was analyzed in detail , and data was organized to show the number of
participating states and the population for which salary data was provided for each individual position.

In those cases where the states pay adders to the base rate (such as longevity or hazard duty pay)
these factors were calculated under their formulas and under a presumed normal population
distribution for the positions. Summation of data by job classification used weighted simple averages
to avoid the distortion resulting from limited populations in certain job families and the undue impact
of large numbers supplied by some states.

In the table that follows, total dollar averages are weighted by individual population distribution
to show averages, both with the monthly Penitentiary bonus of $200 for correctional officers, and
without that bonus. Job family survey averages are weighted by New Mexico State job population
figures to achieve average equivalency of the survey to the New Mexico staffing levels.

17
Summary Table
Salary Averages Compared for Six Positions
New Mexico Versus all Others

New Mexico Survey of All Others

Average Average % Above ( + )
Monthly Monthly or below(-)
Job Family Pop. Salary Pop. Salary New Mexico

Without Salary Adders

Corrections Officer 267 $1083 11738 $1197 + 10.5

Juvenile Corrections Officer IOI 1084 1441 1264 + 16.6
Probation/Parole Officer 62 1280 669 1565 + 22.3
Corrections Administrator 22 1878 93 2104 + 12.0
Classification Officer 27 1163 91 1857 + 59.7
Clinical Psychologist 13 1654 41 1982 + 19.8

With Salary Adders (hazard pay, length of service, etc.)

Corrections Officer $1243 $1229 I.I

Juvenile Corrections Officer 1084* 1298 + 19.7
Probation/Parole Officer 1280* 1578 + 23.3
Corrections Administrator 1915 2105 + 9.9
Classification Officer 1259 1872 + 48.7
Clinical Psychologist 1746 1998 + 14.4

*Same as without adders

Recommendations

There is a wide variation among the states surveyed in their staffing patterns. While every
attempt was made to provide the closest match to New Mexico's positions, some gaps exist,
particularly at the upper levels of some job families. Variations in the education and experience
required by the states for filling supposedly "comparable" positions also influenced the data. Those
states that emphasize advanced education and extensive professional experience for such positions as
correction administrator and classification officer also pay higher.

Mindful of those observations, the Panel makes these recommendations:

1. As soon as practicable, those pay scales that are non-competitive with surrounding states
should be made comparable.

2. Because salary alone will not assure good morale and a low turnover rate, the administra-
tive staff at all levels of the Department needs to cooperate to identify levels of meaningful tasks,
relationships, and responsibilities so that stepped opportunities in dual ladders for correctional officer
and administrative career paths can be offered.

3. A detailed study of position specifications and characteristics should be made before any
job classifications are restructured in New Mexico corrections.

4. Any changes in salary ranges contemplated by the Corrections Department should be

made with the recognition of potential impact on other positions of similar responsibility and
qualifications in the New Mexico Personnel Systems.

18
 Appendix B

Position Paper
on
Inmate Educational, Vocational and Industry Programs

Abstract

To benefit New Mexico citizens,the Depart ment of Corrections, and inmates, improve ments are
mandatory in educational, vocational and prison industry policies, operations, and resul ts. S pecific
practical recommendations might be instrumental in increasing program successes and inmate control ,
and in reducing recidivism.

Summary

Educational, vocational , and industry programs in New Mexico's Department of Corrections

could be nefit

• all citize ns, in t hat employed ex-inmates cou ld contribute to taxes, to self- and fa mil y-
su pport, and restitution of crime victims;

• the Department, in that institutional stabi lity could be improved , individual inmate control
enhanced, and recidivism reduced ;

• and the inmate himse lf, in that he cou ld ac hieve an improved self-image and greate r success in
fi nding em ployment on release.

So that t he ent ire state can enjoy these benefits, the programs of basic education, vocati onal
t raining, prison industries, advanced study, and work release must have funding continuity; commit-
ted support from all levels of management and staff; accurate analysis through a classification system
that will identify those capable of profiting; profess ional staffi ng; and goal-oriented results--while
maintaining needed levels of securi ty.

It is incumbent upon leaders in t he executive, legislative, and judicial branches to assu re

taxpayers that those who can be redirected have opportunities to learn how to contribu te to society
instead of remaining wards of it.

Introduction

In May 1980, Mr. Powell invited a small group to address issues and formulate recommendat ions
t hat could assist the Department of Corrections in changing or expa nding programs involving inmate
work release, prison industries, vocational education, and basic education. Although each of t hese
programs differs in goals and approaches, all have been folded together fo r consideration in this
position paper. We have surveyed the copious literature on the subjects, have attended legislative
hearings and committee meetings held to discuss with consultants needed changes within the New
Mexico system , and have interviewed those who have administered and have been participants in New
Mexico programs.

The group has attempted to make its focus and recommendations relevant to New Mexico 's
cu ltural and economic situations, to the size of the inmate population , and to the state's limited
support capabilities. Some of the members of the group have designed and conducted inmate programs
in educational and vocational training in other states, others have consulted in and managed
educational and vocational programs in industry and schools, and others ha ve been involved in t he
development of manage ment systems.

Members of the group are aware of the prevai ling mood among state citizens (perhaps further
exacerbated by the riot) of punishment for inmates as the "best" treatment. While anyone can admit
that this is the approach that much of society endorses, there is little historical evidence that it
redirected ve ry many inmates, much less made up for life -long deficiencies in constructive attitudes
and occupational skills. T o base a corrections system on such a non-productive philosophy can lead to
continued riots and continued high taxes. Many citizens te nd to fo rget that most inmates are
eve ntually released back into society, that their negative attitudes te nd to be aggravated by punish-
ment alone, and that their non-existent or marginal skills are still further out-moded by neglect during
incarceration, making them continuing wards of the state.

19
 It is true that a relatively short-term need fo r securi ty exists. That is the most convenient
treatment to administer, involving but one program. If society is to enjoy a redu ced rate of recidivism ,
t he longer-term goal of providing opportunities for inmates to become productive citizens needs to be
addressed through programs in basic education, vocational training, and industry. Physical control can
be assured and is not inconsistent with programs; what we need is some results-oriented ap proach to
change the attitudes and behaviors of inmates and, to any extent necessary, corrections personnel
toward constructive ends. The group therefore fi rst makes these recommendatio ns:

I. Upper corrections management must convey a sense of stabi li ty. New Mexico's recent history
of management instability does not connote consistency.

2. All levels of institution management, down to the newest correctional officer on the rolls,
must assume a commitment to an appropriate treatment pattern, with an acute awareness that the
conduct of the staff serves as a model fo r inmate conduct, and that subversion of that pattern or
philosophy through small acts is magnified disproportionately.

3. Unless the personal security, basic health, and welfare conditions of inmates are maintained
at a reasonable level, there is little chance for success of education and training and industry programs.
The demands of physical and mental survival must not be allowed to dominate inmate priorities. As
long as inmates have to be preoccupied with matters of life and death, with such disorienting matters
as racism, cronyism, snitching, and abuse by staff and amongst themselves, the redirection program
will carry little weight or have little effect, and will be rightly regarded as empty exercises, or "busy
work"--or but another "front" for control.

4. The classification system must be used so that, as accurately as possible, we can ident ify
inmate experience, recorded and achieved education levels, acquired skills, intellectual capability,
mental competence, language understandings, physical powers and shortcomings, work attitudes, life
goals, and other factors so that each inmate who can profit from the experience can be placed in an
appropriate program that offers some realistic promise of success while maintaining needed security
levels.

5. Funding must be on a long-term and committed basis to assure planning, attai nment of
goals, and professional staffing.

Possible Organization and Format of Programs

Educational and vocational programs organized and conducted like those found in high schools
and other educational settings are not likely to meet the needs of most inmates. Such programs have
already failed to address inmate needs. The group therefore recommends:

• Programs that are highly skill-, attitude-, and job- oriented .

• Programs that are organized so that inmates can see demonstrable results, obvious ap plica-
tions, and quick pay-off in tangible rewards.

• Programs that are administered and taught by competent certified individuals with business
or industrial experience, but who can also cope with the complexities of teaching in a prison
environment and are aware of inmate behavior patterns and tactics.

It is this frequent relationship with people acting helpfully that will have most effect upon the
behavior changes in inmates. Lectures about how to behave in society do not convey much meaning.
Sitting alone at learning carrels and working through programmed materials does not help an inmate
relate with live people.

Practical Programs for 1980-81

Assuming that a start can be made in remedying managerial problems, the group recommends
that development of a Prison Industries Program take into account these considerations:

a. New Mexico inmates as a group probably do not have the typical work ethic of other citizens
in this state.

b. The total number of inmates who could most benefit may be enlarged by proper classifica-
ti on.

c. The amount of capital required to fund equipment and full-scale operations on a continuing
basis may be initially large, but a revolving fund might mitigate later costs. With only 2000 adults
projected for the entire adult population by 1985, it could still be cost-effective t o establish and
maintain programs that require intensive capital equipment investments.

20
 d. A good cost-accounting system must be established to determine the proportion of self-
support and legislative funding needed.

e. Studies and evaluations should be made of existing programs in furniture manufacture,

license plate and sign production, and upholstery to see if these should be expanded, or others adopted,
without materially jeopardizing the private sector. All departments of state government should be
required to give at least a first look to prison industries for furniture needs and any other services that
might be developed .

f. A phased program should be established which will (I) as rapidly as possible acquire more
prison industry expertise, and involve more and more inmates until all who have earned the right, or
wish to, are appropriately occupied, (2) operate prison industries to replicate the non-prison world,
including non-prison standards, (3) meet training needs of inmates and product requirements of
customers, and (4) cultivate customers at all levels of state and local government.

g. An advisory board should be appointed to monitor the prison industry program; private
sector consultants should analyze product lines and repair and manufacturing methods.

h. Industry supervisors should have experience in trades and not primarily as correctional
officers. The industry program supervisor should have the power to "hire and fire" program partici -
pants, using data from the classification program to assist judgment.

i. Modest pay bonus systems for both inmates and industry supervisors should be used to
provide incentive, on a shop-wide basis, to develop team work and peer pressure to produce, and basic
pay scales should be related to skill levels demanded.

j. Promptness, honesty, steadiness, punctuality, and good work habits should be emphasized.

k. Inmate performance in prison industry should be documented as references for future

employers.

I. A co-correctional program for women inmates should be established in appropriate industry

programs, avoiding stereotyped roles for women.

m. Visits, counseling sessions, and haircuts should be scheduled to prevent interruption of an

effective work day, and upper management must support an optimized time at work.

n. Salaries and other opportunities/amenities should be provided that will attract and hold
trade supervisors who must also counsel, watch over security, and possibly live in isolated locations.

o. The possibility of assistance from various agencies should be investigated to expand markets
to other states and to the private sector.

p. Existing legislation must be reviewed for areas of possible modification or liberalization in

areas of pricing, basic and bonus pay scales, private markets, good time earned, revolving funds,
salaries and pensions for staff, state "mandatory use" laws, and co-correction programs.

In regard to a practical program for 1980-81 in the educational and vocational training areas, we
suggest

a. That the Adult Basic Education program be continued to directly support skill- and
vocational-oriented programs. If simple reading, writing and mathematical skills are non-existent,
many ex-offenders are prevented from getting more than menial work.

b. That training in self-concept, emotional control, and other social transition skills be offered
so that ex-inmates can survive on the job and in other interrelationships on the outside.

c. That training be conducted in marketable job skills that have been identified by industrial
surveys within the state as needed occupations.

d. That as much as possible inmates perform operations work in prison settings (for example,
clerk, computer operator, repair and construction, instructor) , both to reduce operations costs and to
provide job-related experiences.

e. That after release, ex-inmates have access to vocational, family, and social counseling, and be
closely monitored (though at not such a level as to discourage the development of independence.)

21
 f. That the opportunities be available for those inmates who can pursue edu cationa l programs
at a n advanced level toward high school equ ivalency and college degrees, and that such programs
should be brought back to at least the pre-riot level.

Additional Major Programs That Should be Developed

Within the next two yea rs, investigation should proceed in the fo llowing a reas for possible
implementation:

l. Expansion of vocational training programs to include skills needed by industries considering

location in New Mexico. These a re often on the leading edges of electronic a nd mechanical technol-
ogies.

2. Continued cooperation with such agencies as the National Alliance of Businessmen and
manpower utilization agencies to identify skills needed by these new industries.

3. Provision of additional broad advanced educational curri cula inside the facilities or on a
facility-release basis, atte mpting to interest and reach all those inmates who may be feasibly safe to
release.

4. M ajor expansion of current work release programs to involve ad ditional inmates.

Conclusion

Our group is not nai ve enough to believe that a complete and sudden turnaround in inmate
education and vocational policy and practices can occur in New Mexico, but it is optimistic enough to
believe that with the proper emphases, support, and planning, a gradual progress can be made so that
what an inmate can do after he is released will receive as much attention as what he does while he is in
custody. In fact, if what he does while in custody is relat ed to what he can d o after release, then the
chance of recidivism is that much lessened .

We feel that if a practical look at the pure economics of the corrections situation were addressed,
more citizens would appreciate the value of making inmates productive pa rti cipants in society.

If more instructors in education and training programs were available to keep inmates construc-
ti vely occupied , the need for other control personnel would be either diminished or their tasks made
easier.

Some information from an operational halfway house in Albuquerque will suggest what kind of
return society could expect if inmates were able to find employment after release. Over a recent 18-
month period , the 38 inmates in that facility earned $208,000, paid $10,000 in taxes, contributed
$82,000 to support their families, and saved $1000 each. To prepare for the eventuality of participating
successfully in such a program , inmates would profit from relevant educational and vocational training
while serving their terms in New Mexico correctional institutions.

Last of all, we recommend that deliberate speed, not haste, cha racterize any planning for
changes in educational , vocational, and prison industry programs; that no limiting assumptions be
made that a particular program or mix of programs will inevitably provide marketable job skills; that
no ongoing program (no matter how successful) be transplated wholesale from another out-of-state
institution without specific modifications to suit the uniqueness of New Mexico's prison population
and operations; that a six- to twelve-month study by experienced consultants be authorized to
minimize new-start mistakes, misdirection, and wasted effort and d ollars; and that even though this
working paper emphasizes inmate programs, the Department must not lose sight of the equal
importance of correctional officer and other staff development and support on a co ntinuing basis.

Because of immediate needs, the programs now in being must be conducted as best we can while
we plan for necessary change . The current situation provides us an opportunity to organize a first-rate
program if we take the time and are thorough. Besides the current educational program staff, any
planning must involve key legislators, local experts like those at Albuquerque's Technical Vocational
Institute, outside experts for perspective, corrections officials , corrections officers, and inmate
representatives.

Four critical elements impinge: commitment to (I) continuity of funding, (2) program content
that addresses real needs of inmates in keeping with their abilities, (3) a staff that will provide models
of social conduct, of helpful attitude, and of learning methods, and (4) most crucially, the involvement
of officials and administrators in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches who can assure the
citizenry of the wisdom of acting positively in a tradition aimed at long-range benefits to society. The
day-to-day implementation and operation of programs are dependent upon a commitment to the
programs by program staff, correctional officers and inmates. Their early understanding and accep-
tance of program goals are important for success.

22
Appendix C

Position Paper on Alternatives to Incarceration, Including

Halfway Houses
Definition

Halfway houses are defined as residential facilities, located in a com munity, which provide
services to felons, ex-offenders, probationers and parolees. Such individuals are generally not legal
inmates at the time of their residence but rather have been "sentenced" to a halfway house as an
alternative to confinement in a prison. Such facilities may, however, include in the resident population
inmates who are near the end of institutional confinement. These individuals are transferred to the
halfway house for supervised work experience and counseling. When the population is exclusively the
about-to-be-released legal inmate, the facility is described as a Pre-Release Center.

The primary emphasis of halfway house and pre-release center programs is (I) locating and
maintaining a job for the inmate and (2) providing individual and group counseling. The number of
individuals in residence at any one time is usually between twenty and thirty. The typical individual is
in residence from two to four months.

Introduction

This outline is organized as follows:

Definition of Halfway Houses

Types of Offenders Who Are Eligible

Philosophical and Operational Underpinnings of the Halfway House Movement

Criticisms of the Halfway House Concept

Alternatives ...Shifting Attention and Effort from Fundamental Reform of Prisons

General Observation--Better Use of Existing Agencies

Summary Recommendation

Documents Reviewed

Types of Offenders Who Are Eligible

1. The probationer who is considered by the court to be too much of a risk to simply place on
probation to be supervised by an already overworked probation officer. Included in this group are
probationers who may have been placed on probation earlier but who are experiencing adjustment
problems in the community. Instead of revoking the probation , the judge places the individual in a
halfway house setting where there is greater supervision and guidance.

2. The pre- releasee who, under Federal and some state laws, is administratively transferred to a
halfway house prior to the time he or she would be eligible for mandatory release or parole.

3. The mandatory releasee or parolee who is in need of a transitional center and the range of services
it offers--the goal is to ease their transition back to a free society and to buffer the negative effects
of incarceration.

The literature suggests that halfway house efforts are generally (but not exclusively) directed to
serving adults who are guilty of property crimes and who are not considered dangerous or threatening
to the surrounding community.

Philosophical and Operational Underpinnings of the Halfway House Movement

The literature in this field provides several philosophical perspectives:

Eventual return to community life is the focus of all correctional processes.

Community residential programs provide a gradual, systematic reintroduction of the offender

into full community life.

23
 By providing alternatives to traditional sentencing, through structured superv1s10n in a
community setting, residential services eliminate the incarceration of individuals who can
function in a community setting.

About one-third of all offenders are in institutions, while two-thirds are already under
supervision in the community ... 95 3 of all offenders committed to penal instititions are
eventually released and returned to the community. Even though two-thirds are in the
community under supervision, the treatment afforded them may not be as comprehensive as
needed.

The late 1960's and 70's marked a period of increasing support for what is loosely described as
"community based corrections" which was defended on the basis that:

"Prisons do not deter crime. Instead of rehabilitating prisoners, they contribute to their future
criminality. Community alternatives will be more successful than prisons in rehabilitating
offenders" (1973 National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals)

"Community alternatives are less costly than prisons" (President's Commission on Law Enforce-
ment and the Administration of Justice, 1967)

"Community alternatives are more humane than prisons"

Success in Rehabilitation

D. F. Greenberg made an exhaustive analysis of the community based corrections movement.

The article entitled "Problems in Community Corrections" raises the following point:

• To be successful in any rehabilitative program (including probation), the offender must have
the necessary education, skills, and attitudinal factors to get and hold a job.

Cost Effectiveness

• It is argued that so long as recidivism is no higher for community alternatives than prison
confinement, the former should be preferred because it is not as costly. This is a cogent and
persuasive argument given the costs of prison construction and operation. Such arguments
can be misleading:

• Many of the costs of running prisons are fixed. Redirecting offenders to community programs
results in higher per capita prison costs and possibly higher overall budgets.

Humanitarianism Issue

The substitution of a halfway house for a prison 1s not "deinstitutionalization" but the
replacement of one institution by another.

• In many cases, community corrections may be more humane than prisons but this would not
necessarily be true were sentences much shorter and prison conditions improved.

Considerations for Implementing a Halfway House Program

The following considerations should be addressed before developing state supported halfway
houses and/or pre-release centers:

1. It is necessary to define the population that will best be served (parolees, probationers, pre-
releasees) . The variables which predict successful completion of a halfway house program
should be defined. A 1975 study by the State of Massachusetts found that halfway house
residents who were single, had a prior history of adult paroles and long periods of prior
incarceration did not complete halfway house programs as often as others who were married
and had not had long periods of previous incarceration.

2. Are services provided by the halfway house already provided by the community? For
example, the parolee and pre-release individual might (with a minimum of direction) take
advantage of the employment counseling and job finding services of the New Mexico

24
 Employment Security Commission. Extensive psychological counseling and mental health
services are provided (in the case of Bernalillo County) by the central BCMC facility as well as
the BCMC neighborhood mental health teams.

Summary Recommendation

The logic for halfway houses and pre-release centers is compelling and attractive- -lower costs,
more humane processes, and provision of needed transition services. Two things seem clear. At this
juncture, the arguments for corrections "alternatives" need to be heard in New Mexico. Further, there
are individuals whose "rehabilitation" is better met through a halfway house sort of mechanism as
opposed to incarceration in a penitentiary setting.

The best course certainly appears to be support of a limited number of halfway house programs
in New Mexico. At the same time, individuals who do not require residential supervision could be
directed to a strengthened parole and probation system which can link the offender to the community
services which he/she needs while maintaining minimum supervision and direction of the offender who
does not represent a serious threat to the community.

In 1973 the Task Force on Corrections of the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice
Standards and Goals recommended that each correctional system implement a range of alternatives to
institutionalization. The halfway house concept is an important ingredient of several of these.
Specifically cited were: 1) pre-trial and pre-sentence diversion programs; 2) nonresidential supervision
programs in addition to probation and parole; 3) residential alternatives to incarceration; 4) communi-
ty resources open to confined populations and institutional resources available to the entire communi-
ty; 5) pre -release programs; and 6) community facilities for release of offenders in the critical reentry
phase. Consideration of each of these appears particularly pertinent as we strengthen the efficiency
and effectiveness of handling the criminal offender in New Mexico.

Documents Reviewed
A Comparison Between Pre-Release Program Completers and N on-Completers at Massachusetts
Halfway Houses, Inc., J . Landolfi , Massachusetts Department of Correction, 10/75.

A Nation Without Prisons---Alternatiues to Incarceration , C. R. Dodge, Lexington Books, 1975

(Chapters 5 and 10).

Alternative House , Inc. Concept Paper, Proposal to Bill Giron, 7/15/80.

Cost Analysis of Correctional Standards: Halfway Houses, Volumes I and II, U.S. Department of
Justice, 1975.

Guidelines and Standards for Halfway Houses and Co mmunity Treatment Centers, J. M. McCartt,
T. J . Mangogna, May 1973, U. S. Dept. of Justice.

Manual of Standards for Adult Community Services Commission on Accreditation for Corrections,
1977.

Prison Without Walls ... Citizen Inquiry on Parole and Criminal Justice,Inc., R. Clark and D.
Rudenstine, Praeger Publishers, 1975 (Chapter 3).

Operations and Procedures Manual, La Pasada Halfway House, Albuquerque, New Mexico (1980?).

"Problems in Community Corrections," D. F. Greenberg, Issues in Criminology, Vol. 10, No. 1, Spring
1975.

"Work Release in the United States," S. E. Grupp, (source ?).

25
Appendix D

Position Paper on Restitution

Definition

Restitution is a sanction imposed by judges that requires an offender to make a money or service
payment either to the direct or substitute victims of crime. This paper presents restitution theory, an
overview, its relevance to juvenile justice, and a brief review of some recent programs.

Introduction
Sentencing alternatives have received considerable attention recently because of concerns about
the effect of traditional sanctions on juveniles and first-time offenders, rising cost of imprisonment,
and the realization that offenders frequently recidivate. One alternative currently implemented
throughout the country is restitution--a sanction that requires a money or service payment to the
victims of crime.

Restitution appeals to those who criticize our criminal justice system for forgetting the victim. In
many restitution programs the offender must compensate the victim for damage or loss suffered.
Proponents point to the dual benefits of offenders being made more responsible for their crimes and of
victims receiving some attention and relief. Whether the reparations are financial or in the form of
services, the victim feels that a wrong is being righted by the offender who is literally paying for the
crime.

When restitution involves community service, society as a whole receives reparations. Sentences
to community service are limited only by the judge's imagination, offender's willingness to participate,
and cooperation of recipient agencies. Restitition can be imposed as an alternate or as a supplemental
sentence, but all such programs require the offender to "make whole" the victim and "pay his debt to
society. "

Restitution Theory

Proponents of restitution believe that the typical example of criminal justice--punishment--is in

crisis, not only because of its uncertain moral and practical effect, but because the criminal may be
perceived as the victim. Also prison terms, and associated conditions, may be out of proportion to the
offense.

Restitution would call for a complete refocusing of the image of crime. What is now seen as an
offense against society in general, must be seen as an offense against an individual. Two types of
restitution have been proposed: A punitive type and a "pure" type. The punitive type simply adds a
restitution provision to punishment. The restitution comes from the offender's own work (in prison or
out), or from a fine that is proportional to the earning power of the criminal, so that both poor and rich
offenders would feel the effects, the amount determined not by the harm done but by the ability to pay.
The "pure" type, on the other hand, requires compensation for actual damages. If, upon trial, an
offender is found guilty, he may make restitution immediately, may be allowed to work and make
periodic payments from wages, or may be confined to an employment project from which partial
earnings could be set aside for restitution.

Some theoretical advantages claimed for restitution are that it

• Assists crime victims

• Encourages crime reporting and trial appearances

• Aids redirection of criminals

• Provides a "self-determinate" sentence

• Saves court costs and maintenance during incarceration

26
Overview

The history of restitution as a practice goes back to probation statutes in 1910, but compensation
schemes do not appear in any numbers until the early 1960's and remained discretionary and
unsystematic until the 1970's. About half the states now have legislation on some form of restitution,
but most programs have extensive restrictions on meeting the needs of victims. Typically excluded are
nonviolent crimes (thus leaving out 90 percent of all crime victims) . The benefits for violent crime
victims are also restricted, because, for example, they exclude mental injury, and set up minimum
financial loss standards. Restitution is limited as to the number of victims it can reach because few
offenders are caught and when convicted they are not often sentenced to a restitution alternative when
traditional goals of punishment, deterrence, and redirection receive higher priorities.

As it has evolved , restitution as a sanction encompasses several types:

Monetary payments to the victim, either directly by the offender or through an intermediary
(most prevalent)

Monetary payments to some community agency, usually a charitable organization

Personal service to the victim (infrequently used)

Service to the community (often required as a condition of probation)

Restitution appeals to some (because it provides repayment) and to others (because it makes
offenders pay for crime and helps victims). It can play a definite role in the criminal justice sanction
system because

It provides an alternative punishment that can be used in place of or as a supplement to

traditional sanctions

It has the potential for reconciling victim and offender

• It provides a vehicle for including the victim in the criminal justice process

Its procedures usually can be integrated into current organizational structures without the
need for adding expensive programs or bureaucracies

Relevance to Juvenile Justice

In a national survey of the use of restitution in juvenile courts (1 33 responses), 86 percent

reported its use, with programs having been in existence for an average of 17 years. In those programs
which feature restitution options, restitition has been found to reduce recidivism and improve
attitudes of victims toward the criminal justice system. Most courts report good compliance with
restitution offenders, irrespective of socioeconomic factors. The greatest compliance risk appeared to
be the requirement that a juvenile obtain and hold a job to make monetary restitution.

There are several stages in juvenile justice systems in which restitution might be adjudicated:

• The preadministrative stage (payments by parents or juvenile to avoid prosecution)

• The administrative stage (informal decision by police or intake officers)

• The adjudication stage and the postadjudication stage

Some advocate restitution because it increases the effectiveness of the juvenile justice process by
keeping young offenders out of potentially harmful prison environments.

Programmatic issues and problems sometimes complicate the use of this sanction for juveniles.
The role of the victim is not defined in many programs, few guidelines and procedures exist for
structuring restitution, few ways have been identified to inform the public that restitution is being
used, and enforcement is difficult. The most common reason for not using restitution is lack of legal
authority.

To be safe from legal attack, restitution programs should require a finding by a neutral and
detached judicial officer that the youth has committed the alleged acts before the youth can be eligible
for court-sponsored restitution. The court must also be the agency to order the final amount, type, and
method of payment meeting the restitution requirement. The interests of the state must consider the
property rights of the offender in the monies he earns to apply to restitution. States with no restitution
laws might require payment only for losses directly resulting from the crime; injured victims could
recover their losses in civil rather than criminal proceedings. If offenders are able to pay but fail to do
so, they can be incarcerated.

27
Restitution Programs

The literature contains several examples of operational restitution programs. The fo llowing is a
sample . The Georgia program is given extensive coverage . It appears to be t he most operationally
developed program. Some of the programs in other states are briefly summari zed to give scope to the
extent of restitution programs. While New Mexico has had some grou ps concerned with implementing
restitution programs in the cou rts, the resul ts of their efforts are sti ll tentative.

Georgia

The Georgia Residential Restitution Center has been prominently featured in the literature.

The original goals for Georgia's residential restitution center program were to:

(1) Reduce the projected increase in prison popula tion by diverting eligible offenders to the
restitution program.

(2) Involve citizen volunteers in the rehabilitation of offenders from their local community.

(3) Demonstrate various effective methods of offender restitution , and

(4) Determine the cost benefit factors associated with a residential restitution program.

To a considerable extent, these objectives have been met. Over two-thirds of the admissions to
the restitution centers successfull y avoided prison incarceration. Although the prison population
was not reduced, it would have increased even more without the centers. Highlights of the
Georgia program are as follows:

The Georgia restitution centers are offender-focused and restitution is money or services
provided to the victim by the offender. In Georgia, 10 restitution cen te rs se rve designated
judicial districts. The district court judge decides to place an offender in a restitution center
rather than a prison. Because centers are an alternative to prison incarceration, Georgia's
restitution centers have relieved prison overcrowding.

After offenders have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment, restitution center staff members
interview them in the county jail while they await transportation to the state prison. If the
offenders and center staff members believe a restitution center program would be appropriate, a
recommendation is made to the sentencing judge who may then modify the original sente nce to
placement in a residential restitution center as a condition of probation.

Offenders are employed and relinquish their paychecks to cente r staff members fo r division
according to a contract. Restitution includes monetary payment for da mages and public service
activities.

Once accepted in a restitution center, the offender enters a two-week orientation period. During
this time a contract is negotiated between the staff and the resident. Rarely does a resident have
a job prior to admittance to the restitution center. During orientation, obtaining a job is the
primary task. Each center has access to daily job listings issued by the Georgia Department of
Labor.

After paychecks are turned over to center staff, the amou nt of restitution collected is t hen
submitted to the court for t ransfer to the victim.

Another aspect of the contract is public service restitution. The resident agrees to serve a
specified number of hours in public service in addition to the monetary res.titution. During fiscal
year 1977, more than 8,000 hours were spent in public service restitution activities.

Some examples of community service activities in which offenders part icipate include: helping in
mental hospitals and health centers, repairing the houses of elderly pensioners to prevent
condemnation, and maintaining the grounds for youth recreation groups.

Major Findings From The Georgia Experience

Restitution --Not A Substit ute For Probation

The Georgia experience has illustrated that the best safeguard against inappropriate intake into
restitution centers is an intake decision which is made after the judge has already sentenced the
offender to a period of time of imprisonment. Restitution should not be used as a substitute for
probation.

28
 Cost Savings

One of the major cost savings of Georgia's restitution centers is the short-term leasing of facilities
in contrast to capital cost outlays in purchasing or constructing a community residential facility.
Uneconomical tourist courts located on state highways now bypassed by interstate highways are
to be found in most communities of any size. The Georgia experience has demonstrated high
utility of these tourist courts as well as downtown hotels.

Although per diem costs in Georgia between prisons and restitution centers are about the same,
the shorter turnaround time of an individ;.ial offender in a restitution center also represents a
cost savings in contrast to the longer amount of time an incarcerated offender spends in prison.

Focus For Other Funding/Resources

The Georgia restitution centers have been successful in attracting resources from other state and
federal programs for both core services and supplemental resources supported by state appropri-
ations. VISTA volunteers, CETA employees, and library services are just a few examples of some
of these resources. Volunteers are valuable in the program. Service clubs are attracted to sponsor
certain aspects of the restitution program. These resources also exist in other states.

Enabling Legislation

Obviously, a state interested in establishing restitution centers must determine if enabling

legislation is required or if existing statutes allow for establishment of restitution centers. In
recent years, most states reviewing their criminal codes specifically have listed restitution as a
legitimate sanction.

Tazewell County, Illinois

The Tazewell County, Illinois, Deferred Prosecution Program provides an alternative to formal
criminal proceedings for selected first offenders. It provides intensive individualized supervi-
sion, service delivery, and victim compensation.

Eligibility criteria include age (the individual must be at least 13 years, with no maximum age
limit), residency (the individual must live in Tazewell County or the surrounding area), nature of
the offense (eligible offenses include all criminal and delinquent offenses, both felonies and
misdemeanors, except all class X felonies, violent crimes, and sale of controlled substances), and
prior arrest record (no offender with a pattern of criminal history or antisocial behavior is
admitted).

If there is a victim, the primary concern is for the alleged offender to make restitution to the
victim. From 1974 to 1978, almost $47,000 was paid to victims. About half of those in the
program are 17 to 20 years old. Two-thirds of the participants are male. Less than half of the
cases referred to the program were accepted. The program is considered successful, with a
recidivism rate of only 2.6 percent.

Pima County, Arizona

A Pima County, Arizona, program provides selected probationers the opportunity to repay the
community for costs incurred as a result of their law violations. The Community Restitution In-
Service Program (CRISP) served 129 probationers (4 percent of the total probation population)
between January 1, 1976, and June 30, 1977. CRISP sentences are directed by the court (75
percent of the cases) or by probation officers. Sometimes an effort is made to assign the
probationer to a CRISP activity directly related to the crime (e.g., requiring young men
convicted of arson to donate service to the fire department). Some CRISP probationers have
obtained permanent employment as a result of their community service.

Evaluation studies found satisfaction with CRISP probationers ' performance. Of 129 probation-
ers, 3 failed to comply with the CRISP activity requirement and had their probation revoked.

Minnesota

The Minnesota Restitution Center is a community-based correctional program operated by the

Minnesota Department of Corrections. The program is offered to selected property offenders
who have been sentenced to the Minnesota State Prison or the State Reformatory for Men. The
program's focus is for the individual offender, as opposed to the State, to make restitution to the
victim.

29
 With the closing of the Minnesota Resitution Center in 1976 due to lack of residents, the focus on
restitution within the Minnesota Department of Corrections changed. The number of restitution
program staff was reduced and the responsibility changed from developing restitution agree-
ments and supervising offenders on parole to developing restitution agreements , with responsi-
bility for parole supervision left to the assigned parole officer.

The offender population eligible for the .restitution program expanded from property offenders
in a 7-county metropolitan area to property offenders in State prisons or reformatories anywhere
in Minnesota. The victim-offender involvement in reaching restitution agreements was dropped,
and inmates who developed agreements in cooperation with program staff now are released on
conventional parole.

Oklahoma

A monetary restitution program provides Oklahoma judges with a probationary sentencing

alternative.

The majority of program participants are young (median age of 25), white males earning between
$4,000 and $8,000 per year. Most of the participants are property offenders.

A department of corrections restitution unit implements restitution schedules developed by

prosecutors and included in probationers' dispositions. All money received from offenders is
posted to a checking account, and disbursements are made to victims on a pro rata basis.

The restitution unit is involved in only one decision in the entire process: that regarding
delinquency of court-ordered payments. Victim involvement is not required.

The only major problem has been the courts' failure to forward some types of information to the ·
restitution unit. The program has collected $175,000 in restitution for victims.

References

Barnett, R. E. , and J . Hagel, Eds. , Assessing the Criminal: Res titution, Retribution, and the Legal
Process. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Ballinger Publishing Company, 1977.

Galaway, B., and J . Hudson, Eds., Offender Restitution in Theory and Action. Lexington, Massachu-
setts, Heath Lexington Books, 1978.

Gonigam , G. E., Taz ewell County: Deferred Prosecution--A Comprehensive Study ,1974-1978. Chica-
go, Illinois, Law Enforcement Commission, 1979.

Harland, A. T. , Compensating the Victims of Crime, Criminal Law Bulletin, V. 14, N. 3: 203-224, May-
June 1978.

Minnesota Restitution Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota Department of Corrections, 1976.

Minnesota Restitution Unit, St. Paul, Minnesota Department of Corrections, 1978.

Schneider, P. R., et al, Restitution Requirements for Juvenile Offenders: A Survey of Practices in
American Juvenile Courts. Juvenile Justice, V. 28, N. 4: 43-56. November 1977.

Weber, J. R., Georgia's Residential Restitution Centers, Council of State Governments, Lexington ,
Kentucky, May 1978.

30
 Appendix E

·Position Paper
on
Determinate Sentencing in New Mexico

Abstract

This paper reviews origins, rationale, and general provisions of determinate sentencing, and compares
them with those of indeterminate sentencing, New Mexico's 1977 Criminal Sentencing Act is analyzed
for impact upon the distribution of discretionary powers throughout the criminal justice system. That
analysis suggests that useful modifications of the Act are possible: 1) in allowing judges to consider the
record of prior convictions in altering the basic sentence, 2) in readjustment of penalties between 1st
and 2nd degree murder, 3) in appellate review of sentences, and 4) in vested credits for good time for
work in prison industry and successful completion of educational programs.

Acknowledgement

This position paper prepared by staff of the Public Law Institute of the University of New
Mexico is included as a reference document which gives historical background of the determinate
sentencing act and analyzes its provisions, Its inclusion does not indicate the Panel's endorsement of
the determinate sentencing approach , As a matter of fact, recognizing that over 95 % of inmates will be
released back to our communities and that punishment alone usually leads to embitterment rather
than to redirection of a life, inmates must be given reasonable opportunities to become law-abiding,
self-supporting citizens.

Introduction

The dramatic increase in rates for both violent and property crimes during the 1970's is
exemplified in New Mexico where the over-all crime rate increased by ll6 percent between 1970 and
1978 and the violent crime rate went up ll5 percent Partly as a consequence of these increases, from
1970 through 1977 the number of admissions to New Mexico prisons nearly tripled (463 to 1360) , and
continued to remain high (in excess of llOO) during the next two years.

In view of this increase in the crime rate it is not surprising that New Mexico would be in the
vanguard of states to adopt determinate sentencing, Previously, indeterminate sentencing was based
on a rehabilitative model which allowed a parole board to release offenders from prison as soon as they
were judged to be rehabilitated, This approach began to be widely regarded as a failure, so the broadly
discretionary system of indeterminate sentencing came under concentrated attack from legislators,
criminal justice system officials, and the public.

Two perceptions underlie concerns with indeterminate sentencing, The first is a growing public
apprehension about the rapid increase in crime, especially violent crime. The indeterminate sentencing
structure molds this perception in two ways, Many feel that the lack of sentencing certainty
undermines the sentence as a deterrent to crime, thereby contributing to recidivism and high crime
rates. Many feel also that the sentences handed out under the discretionary system in conjunction with
the release decisions of the parole boards have not kept the criminals "off the street" for sufficient
period.s of time to protect society adequately, The second perception generating discontent with the
indeterminate sentence is that the system is riddled with inequity and arbitrariness, Unwarranted
disparities in sentence lengths as well as substantial discrimination against the poor and minorities
have been alleged ,

Determinate sentencing is an attempt to remedy these perceived deficiencies. It is aimed at

fairness and at tying the length of imprisonment to the severity of the crime. Thus, the determinate
sentence, based largely on the seriousness of the crime committed (and with a goal of punishment) is
diametrically opposed to the indeterminate sentence which is based primarily on the individual
circumstances of the person who committed the crime, with the goal of rehabilitation.

In addition to New Mexico, the states of California, Arizona, Alaska, New Jersey, and North
Carolina, among other states, have adopted determinate sentencing, The basic model involves the
enactment of a fixed sentence for each class of offense. Whether the range of terms set by the
legislature is too harsh or too lenient is subject to debate. If the judge decides to se ntence, the statutory
basic sentence must be imposed unles.s aggravating or mitigating factors are found which may be used

31
to increase or decrease the base term within a legislatively prescribed range. The discretionary latitude
typically averages about 20 to 25 percent in either direction. Enhancements to the basic sentence
typically are also available.

Determinate sentencing statutes usually provide for the discounting of prison terms through the
use of "good time." For example, if good time is awarded on a day-for-day basis, an inmate can reduce
his prison term by one day for each day of discipline -free behavior. With liberal good time provisions,
substantial incentives exist for good behavior on the part of the inmate.

Another feature common to determinate sentencing statutes is the abolishment of parole as a

discretionary release mechanism. In its place, a formal post-release supervision period is provided for
that typically varies according to the severity of the offense and length of incarceration. For parole
revocations, limits are placed on the period of reconfinement; generally, a parole violator cannot be
reconfined beyond the remaining time in his parole supervision period.

Determinate Sentencing in New Mexico

In 1977 the New Mexico legislature enacted the Criminal Sentencing Act (31-18-12 to 38-18-21
NMSA 1980), effective July 1 1979. With this act, a determinate sentencing structure replaced an
indeterminate sentencing system that had been in effect for a number of years. The most obvious effect
was to alter the type and length of sentences for the several classes of offenses. The basic thrust of the
Criminal Sentencing Act is that an individual convicted of a capital, first, second, third, or fourth
degree felony is to be sentenced to a basic term of imprisonment, unless the sentence is altered under
one of the provisions of enhancement dependent upon aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The
basic sentence for each class of noncapital felony offense is shown in the table below:

Type of Basic Sentence

Felony Offense Sentence Under Prior Law

Capital Felony Death or Life Death or Life

(30 years min) (JO years min)
!st Degree 18 years Life (10 years min)
2nd Degree 9 years 10-15 years
3rd Degree 3 years 2-10 years
4th Degree 18 months 1-5 years

In the case of capital felony, the basic sentence is life imprisonment or death (under prior law, death) .
Life imprisonment is prescribed if the defendant had not reached majority at the time the capital
crime was committed.

The basic sentence may be altered by as much as one-third in either direction on the basis of
aggravating or mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense or concerning the offender. Use of a
firearm or prior felony convictions cannot be used as aggravating circumstances for the purpose of
altering the basic sentence. The maximum possible range in sentence for each class of offense is shown
in the table below:

Type of Maximum Range Sentence

Felony Offense in Sentence Under Prior Law
Capital Felony Death, or 30 Death or Life
years to Life (JO years min)
!st Degree 12-24 years Life (JO years min)
2nd Degree 6-12 ye·a rs 10-50 years
3rd Degree 2-4 years 2-10 years
4th Degree 1-2 years 1-5 years

While the judge must impose a sentence within the statutory ranges, he may suspend or defer all or any
portion of a sentence so imposed.

The Criminal Sentencing Act also provides for mandatory enhancements to the basic sentence
under three specific circumstances. (Any enhancement must be served first and cannot be suspended
or deferred.)

First, the Act contains a firearm enhancement provision. If, in a separate finding of fact, the
court or jury shows that a firearm was used in the commission of a noncapital felony, the basic sentence
is increased by one year. For a second or subsequent offense in which a firearm is used, the basic
sentence is increased by three years. Whereas the firearm enhancement existing under prior law could
not be suspended, the statute was silent as to whether it could be deferred. As a consequence, trial
courts were deferring the enhancement and the appellate courts were upholding their actions. This
loophole has been closed under the new law.

32
 A penalty enhancement for habitual offenders is also provided . If a person is convicted of a
noncapital felony and has incurred one prior felony conviction which was part of a separate transaction
or occurrence, the basic sentence is increased by one year. If the person has incurred two prior felony
convictions, his se ntence is increased by four years; for three or more prior felony convictions, the
sentence is increased by eight years. The habitual offender enhancements are in line with the basic
philosophy of the Criminal Sentencing Act that definite terms of imprisonment should be imposed for
ce rtain kinds of conduct.

Finally, a penalty enhancement is mandatory when a person aged 60 or older is injured during
the commission of a noncapital felony. The basic sentence is increased by one or two years depending
on the extent of injury. This enhancement must be served concu rrently with any other enhancement
penalty. No parallel provision existed in the prior law.

Once the basic sentence and any enhancements have been imposed, the only way available to the
executive branch of government to reduce the sentence is through the inmate's accumulation of
meritorious good time. The device has been retained from the prior law and provides for a deduction of
12 days of meritorious good time per month for exemplary conduct, outstanding work and continuing
effort toward self-improvement and rehabilitation. In addition, an inmate may earn a lump-sum good
time award not to exceed one yea r. The deduction for meritorious good time applies to both the basic
sentence and any enhancements. The statutory or automatic good time provision in the prior law was
repealed when the Criminal Sentencing Act was enacted.

Under the indeterminate sentencing system, parole served as a discretionary release mechanism,
and release decisions of the parole board often became a principal target of political attack and
legislative action. In view of this, the discretionary nature of parole has been largely removed under the
new law. For noncapital felon y cases the court must include, in both judgment and sentence, authority
for a period of parole to be served after completion of the basic sentence. The parole period is two years
for first, second , and third degree felony convictions, and one year for a fourth degree felony
conviction. Only in the capital felony, non-death penalty case does the inmate qualify for parole in the
traditional discretionary sense. The capital felon must serve thirty years to become eligible for parole ,
and must undergo a minimum parole period of five years.

Analysis of the Criminal Sentencing Act

The 1977 Act was a legislative response to a perception that the public wanted to take a hard line
on crime and criminals. Toward this end, the Act was framed so as to require longer terms of
imprisonment. The objective of harsher sentences is two-fold: First, to incapacitate criminals by
removing them from society for longer times, and second , to deter future criminal behavior with the
prospect of more severe punishment. There is no mention of rehabilitation in the Act, and other than
the "good time" provision there is no modification of sentence for participation in rehabilitative
programs. This is in keeping with the generally accepted view of determinate sentencing advocates that
rehabilitation does not work. Rather, the purpose of imprisonment for crime is purely punishment.

Whether the objective of longer prison terms under determinate sentencing has been realized
cannot be ascertained at this time. Sentencing procedures under the Act apply to crimes committed
only on or after July I, 1979. Since the effective date, there has not been a sufficient number of
commitments on which to base reliable statements regarding effects of actual time served . There is a
widely held presumption that longer sentences will result, if for no other reason than the inclusion of
mandatory sentencing provisions under the Act.

For six selected offenses, the following table compares the average sentence imposed and the
time served to parole under the prior act with the expected basic se ntence whi ch would be imposed
under the 1977 Act:
Average Sentence
(in years) Average Time Basic Sentence
Offense Min Max Served to Parole Under 1977 Act

Auto Theft I.I 5.0 18.5 mos. 18 mos.

Aggravated Assault 1.6 5.5 14.9 mos. 18 mos.
Sexual Penetration 3d 2.8 13.9 1.5 years 3 years
Armed Robbery 7.9 36.3 4.3 years 9 years
Murder 2nd I0.6 48.0 5.0 years 9 years
Murder 1st Life (10 years min) 11.5 years Life (30 yrs min)

A comparison of the last three columns in this table suggests, at least intuitively, that longer
terms of imprisonment can be expected under the Act, especially for the more serious crimes. However,
except for the first degree murder case, the availability of meritorious good time can work to reduce
basic sentences by as much as one-third, and if on balance cou rts alter the basic sentence in the
downward direction through disproportionate reliance on mitigati ng circumstances, the expectation
for longer se ntences becomes tenuous.

33
 The most important aspect of the Criminal Sentencing Act is the attempt to increase sentence
lengths by abolishing the Parole Board 's authority to release inmates prior to the completion of their
sentences. Under prior law, once an individual was sent to a penal institution , the Parole Board had the
power to determine the length of imprisonment. Further, it had control over the length of the parole
period. Under the 1977 Act, parole is served after the completion of the basic sentence imposed by the
court. The determinate sentence cannot be shortened by parole. Nor does the Parole Board have the
power to vary the length of parole (except in the special capital felony case).

The termination of the Parole Board's release authority impacts the manner in which discretion
is exercised in the sentencing system. The discretion which the Parole Board lost may have been
channeled in some degree to other actors in the system.

It appears that judges have not gained discretion with the implementation of the Act. Although
judges have the authority to alter the legislatively prescribed basic sentence by as much as one-third ,
the mandatory sentences (i.e. the enhancements) have reduced the judge's discretion . The court has
the authority to decide whether to incarcerate a defendant, since it retains from the prior law the
judicial discretion to suspend or defer sentencing.

Prosecutors probably enjoy greater discretion under the new Act because they decide what
charges to bring before the court. Prosecutors also exert influence on sentences through their extensive
involvement in plea bargaining. The prospect of a harsher sentence under the Act may induce a
defendant to plead guilty to a lesser charge rather than risk the possibility of a stiff prison term if the
case goes to trial. To the extent that the prosecutor's plea bargaining power is enhanced, his control
over sentencing is increased.

Additionally, the existence of diversion programs in some judicial districts gives both prosecu-
tors and judges in those districts more discretion.

Prison officials also should possess greater discretion over sentences under the 1977 Act. Since
the Parole Board is no longer authorized to reduce sentences and there is no provision in New Mexico
for appellate review of sentences, prison officials will have the sole power to reduce sentences after
imposition by the judiciary. The meritorious good time statute is the basis for this authority. It allows
prison authorities to shorten sentences by nearly 40 percent for good behavior. However, meritorious
good time is discretionary since it may be withdrawn at any time. Statutory good time, which was
automatic, was repealed at the time the 1977 Act was passed.

Rehabilitation

The Criminal Sentencing Act does not focus on rehabilitation as a goal of incarceration. As
previously mentioned, determinate sentencing advocates generally feel that rehabilitation does not
work, and therefore, retribution or punishment should be the major aim of imprisonment. While
prison rehabilitation programs typically have not been successful throughout the United States, an
analysis of the characteristics and background of inmates in New Mexico indicates that the probability
of a successful rehabilitation program may be good here.

In a 1977 report to the Governor's Council for Criminal Justice Planning, it was noted that

A composite picture of the statistically "average" inmate in New Mexico's state

correctional institutions would show a man in his mid-twenties, who has a
criminal record but is serving his first term in the state prison system after
having committed a property crime or a crime involving some form of fraud or
forgery .... He would have some high school education and some job skills,
probably in a field with a relatively unstable demand for labor.

Further, the consultants who prepared the report believed that

...the State of New Mexico has an unusually high potential for successful
rehabilitation and community-based programming. The data suggests that
New Mexico prisoners are "less criminally sophisticated" or hardened" than in
many other states, and our impression is that inmates also retain a stronger
attachment to traditional values of family, religion, and the work ethic than
prisoners in some of the more urbanized states.

Department of Corrections statistics for FY 1980 show that nearly two-thirds of New Mexico
inmates are thirty years of age or younger and that almost 60 percent of inmates have either one or no
prior convictions.

34
 In view of these facts, industrial and vocational programs should be organized to support a
rehabilitative and reintegrative purpose . Prison industries should be di versified and job specifications
defined to fit work assignments to offender's needs . Jobs should be genuine: work assignments should
afford inmates an opportunity to learn marketable job skills and to develop good work habits. Most
importantly, a training program should have provision for an ince ntive syste m for working inmates to
reinforce positive behavior.

The mechanism of industrial good time could se rve the incenti ve fun ction. Inmates who are
enrolled in industrial or vocational programs and who show satisfactory progress in the acquisition of
marketable job skills could earn good time credits. If such a program is properly administered ,
reductions in time served through the use of industrial good time credits should reflect an inmate 's
capacity for successful reintegration. T o further enhance the incentive value of industrial good time,
credits should be "bankable" or vested rather than discretionary as in the case of meritorious good
time. Also, the implementation of an indust rial good time system will provide additional discretion to
the executive department.

Sentencing Review and Recommendations

The consequences of committing a crime should be clear and consistently applied. The
likelihood of less disparity in sentencing is a putative benefit of determinate sentencing. However ,
under the 1977 Act, the court enjoys broad discretion in sentencing. Judges have the authority to alter
the basic sentence by as much as one-third in either direction , and they retain the power to either
suspend or defer a sentence. To demonstrate the latitude in punishment existing under the Act,
consider the case of a defendant convicted of a second degree felony. The sentence could vary from a
six-year suspended sentence to a prison term of twelve years. In a nd of itself, the authority to alter
sentences by one-third generates maximum determinate sentences which are double the minimum
determinate sentences for each class of fel ony offense .

Prosecutorial discretion , including the use of plea bargaining and diversion programs, creates
further inequities in penalties for the "same" offense committed in different judicial districts.

There are valid reasons for vesting the prosecutor a nd trial court with some discretion in
prosecution and sentencing. The trial judge enjoys optimal access to the spectrum of information
relevant to sentencing. He has heard evidence of a mitigating or aggravating nature; he has access to
documents such as the pre-sentence report; and he has been in a favored position to observe the
offender. Theoretically, the opportunity to know and evaluate a broad range of factors combined with
latitude in determining punishment allows the judge to a rrive at a sentence appropriate as much to the
individual defendant as to the crime . Further, District Attorney diversion programs have worked well
in some jurisdictions.

H owever, prosecutors and judges are individuals with different dispositions and perspectives.
Two judges may have recourse to the same information on which to base a sentence, but each may rely
on a nd be influenced by different factors and prescribe different sentences.

T o mitigate problems of disparity in sentencing which may arise under the Criminal Sentencing
Act, it is suggested that judges should be required to explain their sentences in writing. The 1977 Act
requires that if a judge alters the basic sentence on the basis of aggravating or mitigating circumstances
he must issue a brief statement of reasons for the alteration and incorporate that statement in the
record of the case. Having to explain a sentence makes the judge more accountable for his decision, and
hence more likely to examine carefully the criteria on which he relies. Further, required explanations
can be compared and analyzed, a necessary step in the establishment of consistent standards in
sentencing.

Another mechanism which could serve to reduce disparity in sentencing is appellate review of
sentences. While New Mexico has no statutory provision for sentence review (except in the capital
felony death penalty case), about one-third of the states do have such statutes. The American Bar
Association has promulgated standards relating to appellate review of sentences.

~The ABA Advisory Committee on Sentencing and Review issued s pecific recommendations
dealing with the major issues which must be faced by a legislature contemplating a system of appellate
review of sentences. The recommendations address the following major issues: availability of review,
nature of reviewing court, materials before reviewing court, and powers of reviewing court.

The Advisory Committee proposes that review of the sentence should be available in every case
in which review of a trial leading to conviction would be available. This is mea nt to include review of
sentences imposed after a guilty plea. If a limitation on the availability of review is necessary, it should
be related to the seriousness of the offense and to the length and kind of sen te nce imposed. The limit
should not be keyed to the type of proceeding by which guilt or the se ntence was determined. Further,
the reviewing court should be authorized to review a re-sentence imposed on a remand after the initial
sentence has been set aside. The question of whether there should be an appeal as of right or by leave of
the court was left open ; however, it was noted that the leave device could be used to control volume and
prevent the court from being ove rburdened with frivolous a ppeals.

35
 Regarding the nature of the review court, the Advisory Committee advises against the creation of
specialized courts to review the sentence only. It is recommended that each court which is empowered
to review the conviction should also be empowered to review the sentence. Giving review authority to
the appellate courts is premised on the belief that the long-run solution to protecting the integrity of
the trial proceeding is not to be found by splitting off isolated problems and creating specialized courts
to handle them.

The Advisory Committee suggests that there should be available for inclusion in the record on
appeal all of the information that was before the sentencing court. This would include a verbatim
record of the entire sentencing proceeding, a verbatim record of such parts of the trial on the issue of
guilt or the proceedings leading to the acceptance of a plea, and all documents available to the
sentencing court as an aid in passing sentence. In addition, the trial judge should be required to include
in the record the reasons for his sentence.

Regarding the scope of the reviewing court's powers, sentence review authority should extend to
review of the excessiveness of the sentence, considering the nature of the offense, the character of the
offender and the protection of the public interest. Also, review authority should address the manner in
which the sentence was imposed, including the sufficiency and accuracy of the information on which it
was based.

The disposition available to the reviewing court should include the power to affirm the sentence
under review, substitute for the sentence under review any other disposition that was open to the
sentencing court, or remand the case for further proceedings and re-sentencing at the trial level. The
Advisory Committee proposes two limitations on available dispositions: The review court should not
be empowered to increase a sentence, and a remand for re-sentencing should not be allowed to result in
a higher sentence. Finally, a state should not be permitted an appeal that could result in an increase in
the sentence.

A provision for appellate review of sentences in New Mexico deserves serious consideration. Such
a provision should allow a defendant who is sentenced under the provisions of the Criminal Sentencing
Act to petition the Court of Appeals to review the sentence. In the case of a first-time offender
convicted of a fourth degree felony, appeal should be automatic. The Court of Appeals may, in its
discretion, deny the petition, or grant the petition and review the sentence to determine whether it is
excessive, and reduce or order re-sentencing in cases where excessiveness is found. Neither the petition
for review nor any review shall effect a stay of sentence. Further, an offender may petition the Supreme
Court for certiorari to review any decision of the Court of Appeals made after a review, except a decison
to deny a petition for review. Finally, the Supreme Court may adopt rules of procedure and evidence to
govern and implement the petition and review process.

Other Areas of Legislative Review

There are other aspects of New Mexico's sentencing law which should be reviewed by the
legislature. First, in altering the basic sentence, a judge may now look only to prior arrests of the
defendant but not prior convictions.

Second, although second degree murder is, for most practical purposes to the layman, almost the
same as the crime of first degree murder, the minimum penalty for first degree murder is thirty years'
imprisonment, whereas the minimum penalty for second degree murder is only six years, less good
time. Either the penalty for second degree murder should be increased or the penalty for first degree
murder reduced, or both penalties should be modified to more nearly reflect the sometimes fine line of
distinction between the two offenses.

36
Appendix F

List of Known Concerned Organizations

To document the degree of local and national interest stimulated by the riot, we list here those
organizations that have been established or that have taken new action and expressed concern about
prison conditions and the need for prison reform: Albuquerque Friends Church, Alternative House,
Inc., Chaparral Christian Outreach, Coalition for Alternatives to Incarceration, American Association
of University Women, Citizens for Prison Change, Coalition for Prisoners' Rights, Concerned Citizens
for Community and Prison Reform, Light and Liberty Ministries, Law Students' Civil Rights Research
Council, Mexican-American Law Students Association, Inc., National Council of Negro Women,
National Interreligious Task Force on Criminal Justice, National Lawyers Guild, National Moratori-
um on Prison Construction, New Dawn, New HopeNictory Outreach, New Mexico Association of
Women in Criminal Justice, New Mexico Civil Liberties Union, New Mexico Council on Crime and
Delinquency, New Mexico Correctional Association, New Mexico Crime Victims Assistance Organiza-
tion, New Mexico Interchurch Agency, New Mexico Juvenile Probation Officers Association, New
Mexico Lawyers Guild, Padres of New Mexico, Presbytery of Santa Fe, Prison Fellowship, Radium
Springs Citizens Group, Santa Fe County Mental Health Association, Pat Thomas, All Indian Pueblo
Council, American G.I.Forum, American Civil Liberties Union--Prison Project, Black Communication
Forum , B'Nai Israel, Christian Response of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, College of Santa Fe
Criminal Justice Program, Commission for Racial Justice, Common Cause of New Mexico, Concerned
Convicts for Youth, Corrections Study Committee of Women 's Unity, La Clinica de la Gente, La Raza
Legal Alliance, League of United Latin American Citizens, National Alliance Against Racist and
Political Repression , National Coalition for Jail Reform, National Conference of Black Lawyers,
National Indian Youth Council, New Mexico Bar Association, New Mexico Commission on the Status
of Women, New Mexico Council of Community Mental Health Services, New Mexico Municipal
League, New Mexico NAACP, New Mexico Religious Society of Friends, New Mexico Trial Lawyers
Association, New Mexico Women 's Political Caucus , Pre-Prosecution Diversion Program, and the
Criminal Justice Department of the University of Albuquerque .

37
 Appendix G Membership of Important Committees
Citizens' Advisory Panel

Mrs. Adele King

Mr. Ray Powell, Chairman P .O. Box 831
Sandia ·National Laboratories Shiprock, NM 87420
P.O: Box 5800
Albuquerque , NM 87185 Mrs. Betty Perkins
1725 Notre Dame NE
. Honorable Samuel Z. Montoya Albuquerque, NM 87106
.Vice· Chairman
216 Sombrio:Drive Rev. Claude McDonald
Santa Fe, NM 87105 645 Webber Street
Santa Fe, NM 87105
Mrs: Vera Cushman
1606' ABW.-CAO Mr. Roberto Samora
· KAFB New Mexico 87117 329 East Alameda
Santa Fe, NM 87105
Mr. Gordon Greaves
· 620 South Main The Most Reverend Robert F . Sanchez
Portales, NM 88130 ·Archbishop of Santa Fe
202 Morningside SE
Albuquerque , NM 87108

Volunteer Staff: W. H : Chandler and W. L: Garner

The lists of members of important committees that follow are provided for information and
· appreciation purposes only; there is no implication that any have seen or approve of this report.

Interim Criminal Justice Study.Committee

Rep. George Fettinger, Chairman Rep. James Martin

P : 0. Box Drawer M Box 1006
Alamogordo, NM 88310 Socorro, NM 87801

Sen Caleb Chandler, Vice Chairman Senator Joseph Mercer

1919 Miller 3127 Carolina NE
Clovis, NM 88101 Albuquerque , NM 87110

Senator Manny Aragon Rep. William O'Donnell

Drawer Z 190 Townsend Terrace
Albuquerque, NM · 87103 Las Cruces, NM 88001

Senator Wyatt Atkins Rep. George Banister

Box 228 3608 Linkwood
Alamogordo, NM 88310 Clovis, NM 88101

· Rep. Thomas· Foy Senator Edmund Lang

· Box 2615 Box 1966
Silver City, NM 88061 Albuquerque, NM 88130

Senator Les· Houston R~p . Ga.ry Robbins

2917 Carlisle NE 124-A Yucca Drive
Albuquerque, NM 87110 Portales, NM 88130

Rep. Paul Kelly Bert Allen

713 N. Lea Legislative Council Service
Roswell,'·NM 88201 Room 334, State Capitol
Santa Fe, NM 87503

38
Corrections Commission:
Stephen T. Richards, Chairman
1001 N. Armijo
P.O. Box 1287
Las Cruces, NM 88001

Marian T. Vigil
710 Garfield
P.O. Box 13
Springer, NM 87747
Gail J. Casey
P.O. Box 2436
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Nancy B. McCorkle
4313 Sunningdale NE
Albuquerque, NM 87110

Herman E. Sanchez
519 Vera Drive
Santa Fe, NM 87501

Edwin B. Tatum
P.O. Drawer 1270
Clovis, NM 88101
Andrew Wall
P.O. Box 4188
Las Cruces, NM 88001

39
Corrections Master Plan Advisory Committee:
Governor Bruce King
Governor's Office
Executive Legislative Building
Santa Fe, NM 87501

Chief Justice Dan Sosa

New Mexico Supreme Court
Supreme Court Building
Santa Fe, NM 87501

Jeff Bingaman, Attorney General

Attorney General's Office
P .O. Drawer 1508
Santa Fe, NM 87501

Maralyn Budke, Director

Legislative Finance Committee
Executive Legislative Building
#231
Santa Fe, NM 87501

Rep. George Fettinger, Chairman,

Interim Criminal Justice Study Committee
P.O. Drawer M
Alamagordo, NM 88310

Belarmino Giron
Acting Secretary
Department of Corrections and Criminal Justice
113 Washington Avenue
Santa Fe, NM 87501

Dr. George Goldstein

Secretary
Department of Health and Environment
P.O. Box 968
Santa Fe, NM 87501

Mrs. Alice King

Governor's Office
Executive Legislative Building

Kay Marr, Secretary

Department of Finance and Administration
Executive Legislative Building
#421
Santa Fe, NM 87501

Mr. Ray B. Powell, Chairman

Citizens' Advisory Panel
Sandia National Laboratories
P .O. Box 5800
Albuquerque, NM 87185

Mr. Stephen T. Richards, Chairman

Corrections Commission
PO Box 1287
Las Cruces, NM 88001

40
Governor's Juvenile Task Force:

Rep. Frank Horan, Chairman

P.O. Box 1634
Albuquerque , NM 87103

Senator Caleb Chandler, Vice Chairman

1919 Miller
Clovis, NM 88101

Quincy Panteah
P .O. Box 171
Zuni , NM 87327

Jeanne Stover
P.O. Box 777
Frost Road
Sandia Peak, NM 87047

Peter Campos
P .O. Box 451
Santa Rosa, NM 88435

Mary Martinez
P.O. Box 1287
Taos, NM 87571

Tommy Jewell
912 Utah NE
Albuquerque, NM 87108

Sally Evans
Route 8, Box 331-Q
Santa Fe, NM 87501

Judge Lorenzo F . Garcia

District Judge, Division 3
First Judicial District
Santa Fe, NM 87105

Coordinator: Rosemary Sciami, Department of Corrections.

(Mrs. Alice King, who is not an official member, attends all meetings and monitors the work of the
Task Force. The Task Force was originally formed to revised the Children's Code; their work was
extended from their original period, and they will be requesting legislation in the upcoming session to
amend the Children 's Code.)

41