BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Elaine K. Alquist, Chair A
2005-2006 Regular Session B
3
2
4
AB 324 (Mountjoy)
As Amended June 7, 2005
Hearing date: June 21, 2005
Uncodified Law
SH:mc
LOCAL AND STATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES :
FAITH-AND MORALS-BASED PROGRAMS
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: AB 519 (Strickland) - 2003; never heard in
Assembly Public Safety Committee
Support: California Catholic Conference; Traditional Values
Coalition; California Attorneys for Criminal Justice;
California State Sheriffs' Association
Opposition:Americans United for Separation of Church and State;
American Civil Liberties Union (unless amended);
Anti-Defamation League
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 77 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD UNCODIFIED LEGISATIVE FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS BE ENACTED
REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE OF FAITH-BASED AND MORALS-BASED PROGRAMS
AND OTHER SECULAR VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS TO INCARCERATED PERSONS AND
ENCOURAGING LOCAL ENTITIES AND THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS (CDC) TO (1) ALLOW FAITH- AND MORALS-BASED PROGRAMS,
EDUCATIONAL AND REHABILITATION PROGRAMS, AND OTHER SECULAR VOLUNTEER
(More)
AB 324 (Mountjoy)
Page 2
PROGRAMS THAT WILL BENEFIT BOTH THE PRISONERS AND OUR COMMUNITIES
UPON THE INMATES' RELEASES AND (2) PROVIDE INMATES WITH REASONABLE
ACCESS TO CLERGY MEMBERS AND SPIRITUAL ADVISERS, VOLUNTEER RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATIONS, FAITH- AND MORALS-BASED PROGRAMS, AND OTHER SECULAR
VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS THAT ALSO PROVIDE BENEFICIAL SERVICES, AS
SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to enact uncodified legislative
findings and declarations that inmates in jails and other local
detention facilities and prisoners benefit from participation
in faith-based programs and morals-based programs - as well as
education and rehabilitation programs and other secular
programs, as specified.
Existing law provides the following:
Prisoners may be deprived of such rights, and only such
rights, as is reasonably related to legitimate penological
interests. (Penal Code 2600; In re Arias , 42 Cal.3d 667,
675 (1986).)
Declares that all prisoners, including prisoners confined in
county facilities and in California Youth Authority
facilities, shall be afforded reasonable opportunities to
exercise religious freedom. (Penal Code 4027 and 5009;
Welfare and Institutions Code 1705.)
Provides legislative intent that all prisoners shall be
afforded reasonable opportunities to exercise religious
freedom. (Penal Code 5009.)
Provides that visitation by members of the clergy or spiritual
advisers shall be subject to the same rules, regulations, and
policies relating to general visitation applicable at the
institution to which an inmate is transferred. (Penal Code
5009.)
(More)
AB 324 (Mountjoy)
Page 3
Provides that, except in extraordinary circumstances, upon
the transfer of an inmate to another state prison
institution, any member of the clergy or spiritual adviser
previously authorized by the CDC to visit that inmate shall
be granted visitation privileges at the institution to which
the inmate is transferred within 72 hours of the transfer.
(Penal Code 5009.)
Provides that visitation by members of the clergy or spiritual
advisers shall be subject to the same rules, regulations, and
policies relating to general visitation applicable at the
institution to which an inmate is transferred. (Penal Code
5009.)
Provides that visitation by members of the clergy or spiritual
advisers shall be subject to the same rules, regulations, and
policies relating to general visitation applicable at the
institution to which an inmate is transferred. (Penal Code
5009.)
Authorizes the CDC Director to prescribe and amend rules and
regulations for the administration of the prisons. (Penal
Code 5058.)
Authorizes the Board of Corrections (BOC) to establish minimum
standards for local detention facilities, including county
facilities. (Penal Code 6030.)
Authorizes the BOC to establish minimum standards for local
detention facilities, including county facilities. (Penal
Code 6030(a).)
Authorizes the county facility administrator to develop
written policies and procedures for inmate visitation which
shall provide for as many visits and visitors as facility
schedules, space, and number of personnel will allow. (BOC
Regulations, Title 15, 1062.)
Existing regulations of the Department of Corrections provide
that:
(More)
AB 324 (Mountjoy)
Page 4
Institution heads shall make every reasonable effort to
provide for the religious and spiritual welfare of all
interested inmates. Depending upon the number of inmates of
the various faiths, chaplains may be employed or their
services may be accepted on a nonpaid volunteer basis. . . .
Reasonable time shall be allowed for religious services in
keeping with facility security and other necessary operations
and activities. Insofar as possible, other facility
activities shall be planned so as not to conflict with or
disrupt scheduled religious services. (Title 15, California
Code of Regulations, 3210(a) and (b).)
This bill enacts uncodified legislative findings and
declarations that inmates in jails and other local detention
facilities and prisoners benefit from participation in
faith-based and morals-based programs - as well as education and
rehabilitation programs and other secular volunteer programs, as
specified, including the following legislative encouragement to
cities, counties, and other local entities (and the Department
of Corrections in an identical separate section in this bill):
Cities, counties, and other local entities that operate
Detention facilities [and the Department of Corrections] are
encouraged to (1) allow faith- and morals-based programs,
educational and rehabilitation programs, and other secular
volunteer programs that will benefit both the prisoners and
our communities upon the inmates' releases, and, (2)
provide inmates with reasonable access to clergy members and
spiritual advisers, volunteer religious organizations,
faith- and morals-based programs, and other secular
volunteer programs that also provide beneficial services, as
specified.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
(More)
AB 324 (Mountjoy)
Page 5
Faith can help inmates change their lives for the better.
This bill encourages faith-based programs in jails and
prisons and encourages reasonable access for clergy,
spiritual advisors, and religious volunteers. Faith-based
programs are an important component of the overall effort to
reduce inmate recidivism.
2. Legislative Findings and Declarations in This Bill
This bill contains the following uncodified legislative findings
and declarations in two sections, the first pertaining to local
corrections and the second pertaining to the Department of
Corrections (underlining in Comments #2 and #3 indicates
additional language added by the June 7, 2005, amendments):
(a) The Legislature finds and declares that inmates in
jails and other local detention facilities benefit from
participation in faith- and morals-based programs, as well
as education and rehabilitation programs and other secular
volunteer programs.
(b) Chaplains, faith- and morals-based groups, and other
spiritual advisers can play an important role in causing
inmates to reevaluate their lives, develop empathy for
their victims, and abandon antisocial attitudes and
criminal lifestyles.
(c) Access to clergy members and spiritual advisers is an
important element in permitting inmates to change their
lives for the better.
(d) Faith- and morals-based programs, including the
participation of volunteer religious organizations, are an
important component of an overall strategy, along with
volunteer
secular programs , to reduce inmate recidivism through
improved treatment programs.
(e) Education and rehabilitation programs as well as other
secular volunteer programs equip the inmates with the tools
necessary to function as they move back into our
communities. If they can read and write and overcome drug
and alcohol dependency, their chances of reentering our
correctional institutions are greatly reduced.
(More)
AB 324 (Mountjoy)
Page 6
(f) To the extent that the expanded use of faith- and
morals-based programs reduce inmate recidivism and
violations of detention facility rules, they will greatly
reduce property loss, harm to victims, and costs associated
with incarceration and other aspects of the criminal
justice system.
(g) Inmates who wish to turn their lives around through
participation in faith- and morals-based programs should be
given reasonable opportunities to do so.
(h) Cities, counties, and other local entities that operate
detention facilities [and the Department of Corrections]
are encouraged to allow faith- and morals-based programs,
educational and rehabilitation programs, and other secular
volunteer programs that will benefit both the prisoners and
our communities upon the inmates' releases in those
facilities consistent with the safety and security of the
facilities and other legitimate penological interests, and,
as provided in Section 4027 [and Section 50009] of the
Penal Code, should provide inmates with reasonable access
to clergy members and spiritual advisers, volunteer
religious organizations, faith- and morals-based programs,
and other secular volunteer programs that also provide
beneficial services .
3. What Does This Bill Do?
If signed into law, this bill would enact uncodified statutory
legislative findings and declarations about the benefits of
faith-based programs in local and state correctional settings
and would state that those entities "are encouraged to develop
and implement faith- and morals-based programs, and other
secular volunteer programs that will benefit both the prisoners
and our communities upon the inmates' releases in those
facilities consistent with the safety and security of the
facilities and other legitimate penological interests" as
specified. This bill also states that those facilities "should
provide inmates with reasonable access to clergy members and
spiritual advisers, volunteer religious organizations, faith-
and morals-based programs, and other secular volunteer programs
that also provide beneficial services ." There are two identical
(More)
AB 324 (Mountjoy)
Page 7
uncodified sections in this bill, one with regard to local
facilities and one with regard to the Department of Corrections,
thus references in this analysis to a finding is intended to
include the findings in both sections.
One of the findings about faith-based programs states "including
the participation of volunteer religious organizations" and the
recent amendments add " along with volunteer secular programs ."
Two references are made to "access" to clergy members and
spiritual advisors, with one of those references in the last
provision in which the local entities and the Department of
Corrections are "encouraged" to provide more access to both
persons and programs.
These legislative findings and declarations, if enacted, would
not bind any correctional entity to do anything. However, if
this language is intended to have some effect, for example, as
intent to be cited locally and at the state level, it may be
unclear whether or not that language is directed at volunteer
programs, state and locally funded programs, or both. (See
Comment #5, below, which cites support for this bill from the
Traditional Values Coalition which mentions services "at no cost
to the state".) While even volunteer programs may entail some
cost, given the need to administratively implement and control
any such program and to move and control inmates, funded
programs would appear more likely to significantly compete for
public dollars with other programs. However, Committee staff's
understanding of this bill is that it encourages the
implementation of volunteer programs and not publicly funded
programs. The June 7 amendments include references to
"volunteer secular programs."
For example, if faith-based programs were funded in lieu of
other more "traditional" programs, then it might be foreseeable
that access to other programs could become more limited. Since
a review of literature and articles on-line at accessible
websites indicates that faith-based programs do, to some extent,
involve at least some degree of exposure to the tenants of the
faith involved with the program. While that may be beneficial
and desirable for some, there may be other inmates and prisoners
(More)
AB 324 (Mountjoy)
Page 8
who would choose to have access to programs which are not faith
based.
Regardless, while this bill would make findings and encourage
the development and implementation of faith-based and morals
programs, it would not bind or obligate a future legislature,
local government - or the Governor - to actually fund any
programs at any level. As is oft noted in Legislative Counsel
Opinions:
The acts of one legislative body cannot limit or restrict
its own power or that of subsequent Legislatures by
enacting legislation, and the act of one Legislature cannot
bind its successors (City and County of San Francisco v.
Cooper (1975) 13 Cal.3d 898, 929; In re Collie (1952) 38
Cal.2d 396, 398; County Mobilehome Positive Action Com.,
Inc. v. County of San Diego (1998) 62 Cal.App 4th 727,
734).
4. State Budget Actions Regarding Faith-Based Programs - Other
Related Legislation
The state budget acts and trailer bills have included funding or
directions for funding faith-based programs although not in
prisons. For example, AB 1752 (Committee on State Budget) -
Chapter 225, Statutes of 2003 - is a budget trailer bill
pertaining to human service and contained the following language
in the Legislative Counsel's Digest:
This bill would also require that all grants or contracts
awarded under that act [federal Workforce Investment Act],
or any other state or federally funded workforce development
program comply with state constitutional provisions relating
to religious liberty and the prohibited use of public funds
to aid religious organizations or purposes, state and
federal civil rights laws, and the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution relating to pervasively sectarian
organizations. This bill would also require that an
organization be a separate nonprofit entity or affiliate
that is tax exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
(More)
AB 324 (Mountjoy)
Page 9
Revenue Code, to be eligible for workforce development funds
awarded under the California Community and Faith Based
Initiative.
AB 425 (Oropeza) - Chapter 379, Statutes of 2003 - is the
2002-03 State Budget Act and contains the following language
pertaining to faith-based organizations and the Employment
Development Department and includes restrictions on funding
which may be inappropriate with regard to inmate programs which
have as one of their goals to provide religious structure for
inmates in order to reduce recidivism:
. . . grants to community organizations, including
faith-based and secular organizations that are not owned or
operated as pervasively sectarian institutions, and that
have been limited in their ability to take advantage of this
funding due to limited resources and a lack of experience in
dealing with the competitive contracting process and the
allocation processes currently in place at the local level,
but which reach and serve the most difficult to serve and
hardest to employ individuals. No pervasively sectarian
religious organization is eligible for funds under this
item, but a separate nonprofit entity or affiliate that is a
tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the
federal Internal Revenue Code may apply for and receive
grants under its own auspices. In awarding grants, the
Employment Development Department shall use a competitive
bidding process that includes grants that shall be awarded
using a process that shall include provisions regarding
existing constitutional protections. Grants or contracts
awarded under this section shall comply with Section 4 of
Article I and Section 5 of Article XVI of the California
Constitution, state and federal civil rights laws, and the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution in regard
to pervasively sectarian organizations. These legal
constraints include prohibitions on discrimination against
beneficiaries and staff based on protected categories and
the promoting of religious doctrine to advance sectarian
beliefs. It is the intent in funding these grants that the
Employment Development Department assist recipient
(More)
AB 324 (Mountjoy)
Page 10
organizations in competing for ongoing funding from other
public and private sources. (Page 344, Item 5100-001-0869.)
The Senate Judiciary Committee April 20, 2004, analysis of SB
1268 (Morrow), a bill pertaining to faith-based organizations
and state contracts and grants includes the following general
background:
California has long contracted with faith-based
organizations to provide certain services to its population
as long as the contractor met regulatory criteria pertaining
to the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the
State Constitution. Current law permits the state to
contract with faith-based organizations as long as these
religiously affiliated organizations establish divisions
between their publicly funded services and their sectarian
programs, and establish a separate private nonprofit
organization to receive the funds and operate the program.
These nonprofits are generally known as tax-exempt 501(c)(3)
organizations under the Internal Revenue Service rules. As
501(c)(3) organizations, therefore, entities like the
Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services, Jewish
Federation and Salvation Army have received government
funding to operate a variety of social service programs.
These separately incorporated, religiously affiliated
organizations have played an essential role in combating
poverty and providing housing, education and health care
services to the poor, elderly, homeless, and other people in
need. These organizations have established separately
incorporated agencies, offer services to all without regard
to religious belief, hire qualified staff without regard to
their faith, and do not require clients to participate in
religious activities.
AB 2876 (Aroner, Chapter 108, Statutes of 2000) funded the
Faith-Based Employment Initiative through the Health and
Human Services Agency, to assist faith-based organizations
to develop the organizational capacity to establish private
nonprofit entities and to effectively compete for state and
local public assistance contracts or grants. The initiative
(More)
AB 324 (Mountjoy)
Page 11
received $5 million in FY 2000-01, and grantees received
capacity-building grants and intensive technical assistance
including training in the area of data reporting and
invoicing, program evaluation, etc., from the Employment
Development Department. $4 million was appropriated in FY
2001-02 and $9.3 million in FY 2002-03. Staff is informed
that in 2003-04, this number went back down to $3.4 million.
What is available in 2004-05 is yet undetermined.
Several bills were introduced in recent years very similar
or identical to SB 1268, to prohibit the state from
discriminating against religious organizations in the
awarding of contracts or grants to provide welfare services
and from requiring that these religious organizations alter
their internal governance in order to do so. SB 1509
(Haynes, et al., 2000), which failed passage in the Health
and Human Services Committee, was almost identical to SB
1268. SB 1280 (Haynes, 2002), was very similar, and that
bill failed in that same committee. SB 1280 (Haynes, 2002),
identical to SB 1268, was held in this Committee. [SB 1268
failed in the Senate Judiciary Committee.]
5. Efficacy of Such Programs
The Assembly Committee on Public Safety analysis of this bill
includes the following which is in the background materials
provided by the author:
Study on Effectiveness of Prison Ministries : The Wilson
Daily Times reported on December 1, 1990, "Prisoners who
come under religious influence while they're behind the
walls do better once they're back on the outside and in
society than those who lack the religious influence,
researchers say. 'The results are phenomenal,' said John
Gartner of Baltimore, a clinical psychologist who headed the
five-member research team. 'There haven't been any findings
of effectiveness that were this strong.' It was found that
prisoners who received religious instruction while in prison
(More)
AB 324 (Mountjoy)
Page 12
had a lower rate of recidivism - return to crime - after
being freed than did those who had no such instruction.
Results show that religion 'may be a powerful, and until now
neglected, method of rehabilitation,' the report states,
adding that the previous scant clues about it make the
results very encouraging. The group's study involved 190
prisoners who between 1975 and 1979 had taken part in
Christian discipleship training, and a similar number who
had not, matched by age, race, gender and other factors.
Both groups had been released from prison eight to 14 years
prior to the study. It found that the religion trained ones
had an 11% lower recidivism rate than the control group.
Forty percent of the religion-schooled group committed new
offenses, while 51 percent of the others did so. The
religiously trained group also had a longer crime-free
period following release, and when they did commit new
crimes, the crimes were less severe compared to past
offenses. The control group had increased crime severity.
The recidivism rate for women who took religious training
was even lower, only 19%, compared to 47% among the control
group of women.
A more recent report includes: "A recent study showed that
faith-based prison programs result in a significantly lower rate
of re-arrest (recidivism) than vocation-based programs - 16
percent versus 36 percent - with a national recidivism rate of
nearly 70 percent (Assessing the Impact of Religious Programs
and Prison Industry on Recidivism, Texas Journal of Corrections,
February 2002). (From May 30, 2005, Prison Fellowship Newsroom
at: http://www.demossnewspond.com/pf/ )
In turn, the following is from an article by Mark A.R. Kleiman,
Professor at U.C.L.A., posted Tuesday, Aug. 5, 2003, at 9:35 AM
PT at the Slate website about that Texas Journal of Corrections
published study from February 2002:
Now comes a study from the University of Pennsylvania's
Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society
reporting that InnerChange graduates have been rearrested
(More)
AB 324 (Mountjoy)
Page 13
and reimprisoned at dramatically lower rates than a matched
control group. . . . But when you look carefully at the
Penn study, it's clear that the program didn't work. The
InnerChange participants did somewhat worse than the
controls: They were slightly more likely to be rearrested
and noticeably more likely (24 percent versus 20 percent) to
be reimprisoned. If faith is, as Paul told the Hebrews, the
evidence of things not seen, then InnerChange is an
opportunity to cultivate faith; we certainly haven't seen
any results.
So, how did the Penn study get perverted into evidence that
InnerChange worked? Through one of the oldest tricks in the
book, one almost guaranteed to make a success of any
program: counting the winners and ignoring the losers. The
technical term for this in statistics is "selection bias";
program managers know it as "creaming." Harvard public
policy professor Anne Piehl, who reviewed the study before
it was published, calls this instance of it "cooking the
books."
In addition, a recent ACLU press release announcing a lawsuit
includes the following:
The only vocational training program available at a
Pennsylvania county jail forces prisoners to participate in
religious discussions, religious lectures and prayer, the
American Civil Liberties Union charged today in a complaint
filed in federal court.
Today's complaint, filed by the ACLU of Pennsylvania and
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, details
how the publicly funded Firm Foundation in Bradford County,
improperly uses tax dollars in its Christian-centered job
training program by pressuring prisoners to engage in prayer
and listen to staff proselytizing. The complaint also
charges that program administrators discriminate in hiring
workers based on their religious beliefs and affiliation.
(February 17, 2005, press release from the following
(More)
AB 324 (Mountjoy)
Page 14
website:
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.
cfm?ID=17512&c=37 )
These items are offered here not to prove, disprove, or dispute
the benefits of faith-based programs or the effect of religion
in helping prevent recidivism. However, they are offered to
show the on-going discussion which appears to be taking place
about such programs, whether "volunteer" or publicly funded.
The California Youth and Adult Correctional Agency "Strategic
Plan - January 2005" includes the following:
We have also redefined our Agency mission: "To improve
public safety through evidence-based crime prevention and
recidivism reduction strategies."
[Goal 6]? We define our success as preventing crime,
violence, victimization and increasing the rate of
successful reintegration of parolees into our communities.
We have given limited attention to developing full
partnerships with community groups willing to help us (e.g.,
with law enforcement, community/faith-based organizations,
crime victim advocacy groups, and academia). We have not had
the "will" to foster successful community partnerships. We
must build community collaboration.
Strategy 6.1 Establish collaborations with external entities
to support successful integration of offenders into our
communities by January 2006.
NOTE: AB 519 (Strickland) from 2003 was never heard in the
Assembly Committee on Public Safety. It would have done the
following:
(a) The Director of Corrections shall develop and implement
a pilot program establishing a faith-based or morals-based
rehabilitation program in the California prison system. The
(More)
AB 324 (Mountjoy)
Page 15
program shall allow inmates to choose between religious or
secular options. (b) The director shall compile and
maintain data regarding rates of recidivism among program
participants, and other data relevant to prisoner
rehabilitation.
6. Support for This Bill
The California Catholic Conference letter in support of this
bill includes:
Prison officials should encourage inmates to seek spiritual
formation and to participate in worship. Attempts to limit
prisoner's expression of their religious beliefs are not
only counterproductive to rehabilitation efforts, but also
unconstitutional. The denial of and onerous restrictions on
religious presence in prisons are a violation of religious
liberty. Every indication is that genuine religious
participation and formation is a road to renewal and
rehabilitation for those who have committed crimes.
Programs in jails and prisons that offer offenders
education, life skills, religious expression, and recovery
from substance abuse greatly reduce recidivism, benefit
society, and help the offenders when they reintegrate into
the community.
The Traditional Values Coalition letter in support includes:
It is of great benefit to society for clergy and faith-based
programs to have access to inmates and prisons if we truly
are of the belief and in the practice of rehabilitation
those who are capable, recognizing the power that clergy and
faith can have in that regard.
The state must realize that clergy members and faith-based
programs provide a service that compliments rehabilitation
programs through their respective ministries. The
counseling, direction and services clergy members provide is
done at no cost to the state.
(More)
AB 324 (Mountjoy)
Page 16
The California Attorneys for Criminal Justice June 15, 2005,
letter in support includes:
Our organization believes that inmates need to be
rehabilitated and efforts by clergy members and secular
volunteers are often a key component to those efforts.
Volunteers who regularly visit with inmates in correctional
facilities often feel frustrated by the bureaucracy - and,
those volunteers or clergy members are often the ones who
feel obliged to confront officials whose arcane rules can
sometimes get in the way of providing spiritual or personal
guidance to people in prison. Literacy, education, job
training and counseling are clearly integral components to
the state's efforts to reduce recidivism.
7.O pposition to This Bill
The Americans United for Separation of Church and State letter
dated June 12 includes:
? Americans United has no objection to providing inmates
with access to clergy or an equal opportunity to exercise
their religion. However, Americans United opposes
pervasively sectarian faith-based prison programs where
there are no safeguards to ensure the religious liberty of
inmates and to ensure compliance with the federal and
California constitutions.
In its current form, AB 324 contemplates the implementation
of faith-based programs that lack any safeguards to prevent
constitutional violations. As part of the rationale for
offering this legislation, the author has stated that
"[f]aith can help inmates change their lives for the
better." In addition, given the submissions by the bill's
author regarding the efficacy of programs that provide
"religious instruction" to inmates and the use of religion
as a rehabilitative tool, we have grave concerns that AB
324 will lead to violations of the federal Establishment
(More)
AB 324 (Mountjoy)
Page 17
Clause and Article I, Section 4 of the California
Constitution.
Americans United has brought suit against two faith-based
prison related programs. In Iowa, InnerChange, a partially
state-funded program cited by the author of AB 324, allows
participants to receive substantial benefits that
non-participants are not eligible for, and face fewer
restrictions on their activities than non-participating
inmates. Though the program claims that it is open to
inmates of all faiths, it is clear that the InnerChange
program discriminates among inmates based on religion and
the program is available only to inmates who subscribe to
or are willing to actively cooperate in being converted to
a fundamentalist, evangelical form of Protestant
Christianity. Non-Christian inmates are eligible only if
they are "willing to actively participate in a
Christ-centered, biblically based program." Furthermore,
InnerChange has a publicly announced policy of employing
only Christians. Volunteers also must be Christian. Staff
and volunteers are required to abide by its Statement of
Faith. Americans United also has brought suit against the
Firm Foundation, an overtly religious program which
provides the only vocational training available to inmates
of the Bradford County Correctional Facility in
Pennsylvania. The Firm Foundation receives nearly all of
its funding from state and federal sources. One of the
plaintiffs, a released inmate, dropped out of the program
after he was pressured to become "born again." In
addition, the Firm Foundation discriminates in their
employment based on religion.
Both the Iowa and Pennsylvania cases illustrate the dangers
of directly funding faith-based prison programs where there
is an absence of clear guidance on the safeguards required
to protect the intended beneficiaries as well as those who
choose not to participate in a faith-based program.
Although the goal of reducing recidivism is indeed a worthy
goal, it cannot be at the expense of fundamental
constitutional protections.
(More)
AB 324 (Mountjoy)
Page 18
The ACLU May 31, 2005, letter to the author stating an "oppose
unless amended" position includes the following (and the ACLU
remains opposed after the June 7 amendments):
(More)
Section 1(g) of AB 324 encourages local entities that
operate detention facilities "to develop and implement
faith-based or morals-based programs." It would not be
Constitutional for a local governmental entity to implement
a "faith-based" program. Section 1(g) should be amended to
state that if a local government were to fund other
organizations to operate programs in its facilities, those
programs must comply with the following requirements: (1)
that no pervasively sectarian organization receive the
funding, but rather a separate non profit organization
receive the funds, (2) the funds shall be used in compliance
with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and
California Constitution (Ca Con. Article I, Section 4, and
Art. XVI, Sec. 5), (3) the organization must comply with the
state and federal civil rights laws, (4) discrimination
against beneficiaries and staff based on protected
categories must be prohibited, and (5) promotion of
religious doctrine to advance sectarian beliefs must be
prohibited.
In addition, we recommend that AB 324 be amended throughout
to add "and non sectarian programs" and "other individuals
committed to working with people who are incarcerated" to
make it clear that the state is not favoring or preferring
faith-based programs.
The Anti-Defamation League letter of June 10, 2005, includes the
following:
In our previous letter to you dated May 31, 2005, we
expressed our strong opposition to AB 324. While the
bill's author added amendments in response to suggestions
in our letter and the letters and comments of other
concerned groups, these amendments do not go far enough. ?
For instance, AB 324 contains no constitutional safeguards
to ensure that inmates are not subjected to unwanted
proselytizing and religious activity. Without such
assurances, inmates' religious liberty is jeopardized and
(More)
AB 324 (Mountjoy)
Page 20
the government may appear to be endorsing religion - a
clear violation of state and federal law. Additionally,
there is no language assuring those inmates who do not want
to participate in religious programs that they will be
treated equally. Without these guarantees, inmates may
feel compelled to participate in religious programs either;
1) for fear of reprisal from the prison authorities for
non-participation or; 2) because they believe that those
who do participate will receive preferential treatment.
Finally, stronger language is needed to clarify that
inmates must have equal access to secular program
alternatives that are comparable in quality to religious
programming.
As we stated in our prior letter, AB 324's aim - to reduce
the rate of criminal recidivism - is laudable. But this
goal cannot be achieved at the expense of established
constitutional principles. Even as amended, AB 324
threatens to undermine the religious liberty of inmates,
and we urge you to vote against it.
8. Somewhat Related Legislation This Session
AB 627 (Leslie) was heard by this Committee on June 7. It
authorizes a member of the clergy who has ministered to/advised
an inmate while incarcerated to continue to minister to/advise
the inmate while he or she is on parole, as long as the clergy
member notifies the CDC, as specified.
AB 161 (Vargas) was held on the Assembly Committee on
Appropriations suspense file. That measure would require the
Department of Corrections to employ one clergy member, as
defined, for each 500 inmates, to be allocated accordingly to
each of the facilities under its jurisdiction, including
facilities with which it has a contract to house inmates, as
specified.
**************
AB 324 (Mountjoy)
Page 21