BILL ANALYSIS
AB 3064
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 18, 2006
Counsel: Kimberly Horiuchi
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Mark Leno, Chair
AB 3064 (Committee on Public Safety) - As Amended: March 9,
2006
SUMMARY : Establishes a committee to advise the Secretary of
the Department of Corrections-Rehabilitation (CDC-R) on policies
and procedures for parole. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the Secretary of CDC-R to establish a Reentry
Advisory Committee.
2)States that the Advisory Committee shall report to the
Secretary, who shall serve as Chair of the committee.
3)Provides that the Committee shall include representation from
all stakeholders in the successful administration of reentry
programming, including, but not limited to:
a) Cities.
b) Counties.
c) Law enforcement.
d) Probation.
e) Courts.
f) Department staff involved in providing reentry services,
such as teachers and parole officers.
g) Substance abuse treatment providers.
h) Education providers.
i) Job preparation providers.
j) Business and employers.
AB 3064
Page 2
aa) Victims.
bb) Ex-offenders.
cc) Restorative justice advocates.
dd) Inmate family members.
ee) Religious leaders in the community.
ff) Housing providers.
gg) Vocational training providers.
hh) Workforce Investment Act providers.
ii) Medical providers.
jj) Mental health providers.
aaa) Program evaluators.
4)States that the Reentry Advisory Committee (RAC) shall meet at
least quarterly at a time and place determined by the
Secretary. Committee members shall receive compensation for
travel expenses, as specified in existing law, but no other
compensation.
5)States that the RAC shall advise the Secretary on all matters
related to the successful statewide planning, implementation
and outcomes of all reentry programs and services provided by
the department, with the goal of reducing recidivism of all
persons under the jurisdiction of the department. The
committee shall consider and advise the secretary on the
following issues:
a) Encouraging collaboration among key stakeholders at the
state and local levels.
b) Developing a knowledge base of what people need to
successfully return to their communities from prison and
what resources communities need to successfully provide for
these needs.
AB 3064
Page 3
c) Incorporating reentry outcomes into department
organizational missions and work plans as priorities.
d) Funding of reentry programs.
e) Promoting systems of integration and coordination.
f) Measuring outcomes and evaluating the impact of reentry
programs.
g) Educating the public about reentry programs and their
role in public safety.
6)Provides that the Secretary shall regularly forward minutes of
all RAC meetings to each member of the Assembly Public Safety
Committee, the Assembly Select Committee on Prison
Construction and Operations, the Senate Committee on Public
Safety, and the Senate Select Committee on the California
Correctional System.
EXISTING LAW
1)States that commencing July 1, 2005, all powers and duties
previously granted to and imposed upon the Department of
Corrections shall be exercised by the Secretary of the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, except where
those powers and duties are expressly vested by law in the
Board of Parole Hearings. Whenever a power is granted to the
secretary or a duty is imposed upon the secretary, the power
may be exercised or the duty performed by a subordinate
officer to the secretary or by a person authorized pursuant to
law by the secretary. (Penal Code Section 5055).
2)Provides each state prison under the jurisdiction of the
department shall have a citizens' advisory committee except
that one committee may serve every prison located in the same
city or community. Each committee shall consist of not more
than 15 members appointed by the institution's warden, nine of
whom shall be appointed from a list of nominations submitted
to him or her as follows:
a) Two persons from nominations submitted by the Assembly
Member in whose district the prison is located.
AB 3064
Page 4
b) Two persons from nominations submitted by the Senator in
whose district the prison is located.
c) Two persons from nominations submitted by the city
council of the city containing or nearest to the
institution.
d) Two persons from nominations submitted by the county
board of supervisors of the county containing the
institution.
e) One person from nominations submitted by the chief of
police of the city containing or nearest to the institution
and the county sheriff of the county containing the
institution. [Penal Code Section 5056(a)(1 to 5)]
3)Specifies where a citizens' advisory committee serves more
than one prison, the warden of each prison served by this
committee shall collaborate with every other warden of a
prison served by the committee for the purpose of appointing
committee members. [Penal Code Section 5056(b)]
4)Provides each committee shall select its own chairperson by a
majority vote of its members. The term of office of all
members shall be two years. In the event of a vacancy due to
resignation, death, or absence from three consecutive
meetings, the appointing power shall fill the vacancy
following receipt of written notification that a vacancy has
occurred. [Penal Code Section 5056(c)]
5)States each committee shall meet at least once every two
months or as often, on the call of the chairperson, as
necessary to carry out the purposes and duties of the
committee. Meetings of the committee shall be open to the
public. The warden of each institution shall meet with the
committee at least four times each year. The advisory
committees of the several institutions shall have the power of
visitation of prison facilities and personnel in furtherance
of the goals of this section. [Penal Code Section 5056(d)]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "
AB 3064
Page 5
2)California's Parole Problems : According to the Little Hoover
Commission Report, Back to the Community: Safe and Sound
Parole Policies, November 2003, "California's parole system is
a billion-dollar failure. As the State built and filled
prisons over the last 20 years, the number of felons who serve
their time and are given a bus ticket home has swelled to
125,000 a year. But the real problem is that a growing
percentage of those 125,000 parolees are unprepared to get a
job, steer clear of drugs and alcohol and find a home. Not
surprisingly, before long most of those parolees are back on a
bus to prison. There are four fundamental problems:
a) The time in prison is not being used to prepare inmates
for their eventual release.
b) Available resources - particularly those in communities
- are not being used to help parolees who with some
assistance could get a job and stay out of trouble.
c) And when inmates do get into trouble, the vast majority
of them go back to prison - even if drug treatment, short
jail stays or some other intervention would cost less and
do more to help them straighten up.
d) Thousands of times each year, parole revocation is used
in lieu of prosecution for parolees who are suspected of
committing new serious crimes."
"Parolees are a challenge for all states. But California's
parole policies are simply out of sync with the rest of the
nation. California puts a greater percentage of felons on
parole. The State offers little assistance to parolees. And
then it sends parolees back to prison for violations that in
other states would land a parolee in drug treatment, work
furlough or some other "intermediate" sanction. The numbers
bear that out: nationally one in three parolees end up back in
prison before completing parole. In California two out of
three parolees return to prison. Criminologists say
California's parolees are no more dangerous than those in
others states. Rather California has created a revolving door
that does not adequately distinguish between parolees who
should be able to make it on the outside, and those who should
go back to prison for a longer period of time. California
puts more offenders on parole: California averages 95% and the
AB 3064
Page 6
national Average is 82%. More prison commitments are
returning parolees; California averages 67% and the national
Average is 35%. Fewer parolees successfully complete parole;
in California the average is 21% and the national Average is
42%."
"California is not even doing as well on this score as it once
did. Returning prisoners are less prepared than ever before to
get a job, stay sober and successfully reunite with family and
community. In 1980, about one in four parolees ended up back
in prison. And now, with two out of three coming back, prisons
are overcrowded and constantly churning with inmates -
frustrating the efforts that do exist to teach and counsel
inmates, as well as punish them. Also caught up in this
recycling of parole violators are scores of serious criminals,
who are blamed but never formally prosecuted for murder,
assault and rape. Without another trial - or the long
sentences they would receive - many of these criminals are
imprisoned for a few months, and then given another bus ticket
home. The bottom line: California's correctional system costs
more than it should and it does not provide the public safety
that it could. Incarcerating parole violators costs $900
million a year. The State spends another $465 million on
parole, the bulk of which is for parole agents, who spend much
of their time filling out paperwork to send parolees back to
prison. Another $660 million is spent incarcerating parolees
convicted of committing new crimes."
3)Repairing California's Parole Problems : The Little Hoover
Commission also stated in its report, "Reforms should begin
with - and be faithfully guided by - a commitment to align
policies, programs and resources to improving public safety as
defined by both the incapacitation of serious criminals, and
the successful reintegration of offenders who serve their time
and come back home. Prisons have excelled at what they have
been asked to do: manage more and more inmates without escapes
or riots. But eventually, all felons are released. Prison
time also must be used to help inmates learn basic skills,
kick drug habits, and plan for their release. Communities
also must do more. As the prison system expanded, the link
between state correctional and local law enforcement agencies
has weakened. Frustrated with a parole system they describe as
"broken," some local law enforcement officials have stepped in
to provide the supervision and assistance that most felons
need to go from cellblock to neighborhood. But all community
AB 3064
Page 7
assets - from community police to the pulpits - need to help
willing parolees obey the law and become self-sufficient.
Workforce investment boards, community colleges, adult
schools, alcoholics' anonymous, local charities and labor
unions all have a role."
This bill seeks to create a reentry advisory panel within the
Department of Corrections-Rehabilitation so that the relevant
stakeholders may discuss how parole is working the State of
California and how best to implement policies and procedures.
According to the California Department of
Corrections-Rehabilitation, Division of Adult Parole
Operations in a briefing on parole programs, there are several
programs available for parolees. However, many programs are
grossly under funded and only available in a few counties. A
few of those programs include: substance abuse treatment and
recovery; computerized literacy learning; management for
mentally ill parolees, and; parolee employment and job
programs. Despite the laudable goals of these programs, most
are not funded to a level that would allow all or even most
inmates to participate.
4)Arguments in Support :
5)Arguments in Opposition :
6)Related Legislation :
7)Prior Legislation :
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
>
Opposition
>
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744