BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair A
2009-2010 Regular Session B
3
2
0
AB 320 (Solorio)
As Amended June 1, 2009
Hearing date: July 2, 2009
Government Code
AA:br
PRISON AND JAIL CONSTRUCTION :
REENTRY FACILITIES; FUNDING PREFERENCES FOR COUNTIES
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: AB 900 (Solorio) - Ch. 7, Stats. 2007
Support: AFSCME, AFL-CIO; Orange County Board of Supervisors;
Orange County Sheriff-Coroner; California Peace
Officers' Association; California Police Chiefs
Association; Los Angeles County Sheriff; California
State Sheriffs' Association
Opposition:City of Irvine
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 76 - Noes 1
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD COUNTIES THAT PROVIDE EXISTING COUNTY JAIL BEDS FOR USE AS
STATE PRISON REENTRY BEDS BE GIVEN THE SAME FUNDING PREFERENCE FOR
(More)
AB 320 (Solorio)
PageB
JAIL FINANCING UNDER AB 900 AS COUNTIES THAT ASSIST THE STATE IN
SITING A PRISON REENTRY FACILITY?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to give counties that provide
existing county jail beds for use as state prison reentry beds
the same funding preference for jail financing under AB 900 as
counties that assist the state in siting a prison reentry
facility.
Current law , as enacted in 2007 by AB 900 (Solorio, Statutes of
2007), generally authorizes $6.2 billion in lease-revenue bond
financing for construction of 40,000 new state prison beds and
$1.2 billion for an estimated 13,000 new county jail beds,
phased-in over time and contingent upon a series of
construction and rehabilitation program implementation
benchmarks. (Government Code 15819.40 et seq.)
Current law , as enacted in 2007 by AB 900, provides for the
construction, establishment and operation of reentry facilities
throughout the state, as specified. (Penal Code 6270 et seq.)
Current law , as enacted by AB 900, provides for the financing of
county jail facilities. The Corrections Standards Authority
("CSA') is required to approve or disapprove jail facilities
under these provisions, as specified. (Government Code
15820.906; 15820.911.)
Current law specifies county matching funds required for
projects funded by these provisions, and expressly requires that
the "The CDCR and CSA shall give funding preference to counties
that assist the state in siting reentry facilities, . . . ."
(Government Code 15820.917.)
This bill would revise this preference to give "coequal"
preference to counties which either assist the state in siting
(More)
AB 320 (Solorio)
PageC
reentry facilities, as is required in current law, or "providing
existing beds and program space in county jails for use as
reentry facilities . . . ."
This bill also would provide that a "county interested in
providing reentry services to state inmates shall be required to
enter into a long-term agreement with the CDCR to provide those
services and the CDCR shall certify that the proposed reentry
services meet their approval."
This bill would provide that the "amendments made to this
section in the 2009-10 Regular Session by the act that added
this subdivision are prospective only and not intended to affect
any Phase 1 grant awards that were made prior to the enactment
of this act."
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
California continues to face a severe prison overcrowding
crisis. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
currently has about 170,000 inmates under its jurisdiction. Due
to a lack of traditional housing space available, the department
houses roughly 15,000 inmates in gyms and dayrooms.
California's prison population has increased by 125% (an average
of 4% annually) over the past 20 years, growing from 76,000
inmates to 171,000 inmates, far outpacing the state's population
growth rate for the age cohort with the highest risk of
incarceration.<1>
In December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against
CDCR sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population
pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On
---------------------------
<1> "Between 1987 and 2007, California's population of ages 15
through 44 - the age cohort with the highest risk for
incarceration - grew by an average of less than 1% annually,
which is a pace much slower than the growth in prison
admissions." (2009-2010 Budget Analysis Series, Judicial and
Criminal Justice, Legislative Analyst's Office (January 30,
2009).)
(More)
AB 320 (Solorio)
PageD
February 9, 2009, the three-judge federal court panel issued a
tentative ruling that included the following conclusions with
respect to overcrowding:
No party contests that California's prisons are
overcrowded, however measured, and whether considered
in comparison to prisons in other states or jails
within this state. There are simply too many
prisoners for the existing capacity. The Governor,
the principal defendant, declared a state of emergency
in 2006 because of the "severe overcrowding" in
California's prisons, which has caused "substantial
risk to the health and safety of the men and women who
work inside these prisons and the inmates housed in
them." . . . A state appellate court upheld the
Governor's proclamation, holding that the evidence
supported the existence of conditions of "extreme
peril to the safety of persons and property."
(citation omitted) The Governor's declaration of the
state of emergency remains in effect to this day.
. . . the evidence is compelling that there is no
relief other than a prisoner release order that will
remedy the unconstitutional prison conditions.
. . .
Although the evidence may be less than perfectly
clear, it appears to the Court that in order to
alleviate the constitutional violations California's
inmate population must be reduced to at most 120% to
145% of design capacity, with some institutions or
clinical programs at or below 100%. We caution the
parties, however, that these are not firm figures and
that the Court reserves the right - until its final
ruling - to determine that a higher or lower figure is
appropriate in general or in particular types of
facilities.
. . .
(More)
AB 320 (Solorio)
PageE
Under the PLRA, any prisoner release order that we
issue will be narrowly drawn, extend no further than
necessary to correct the violation of constitutional
rights, and be the least intrusive means necessary to
correct the violation of those rights. For this
reason, it is our present intention to adopt an order
requiring the State to develop a plan to reduce the
prison population to 120% or 145% of the prison's
design capacity (or somewhere in between) within a
period of two or three years.<2>
The final outcome of the panel's tentative decision, as well as
any appeal that may be in response to the panel's final
decision, is unknown at the time of this writing.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis outlined above.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
According to information provided by the author's office:
This bill is a follow-up to the Public Safety and
Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007 (AB 900). .
. .
Many counties in the state have been unable to receive
bond construction funding due to some of the requirements
or restrictions tied to the eligibility process. As of
January, 2009 eleven counties (San Bernardino, San
Joaquin, Kern, Santa Barbara, San Diego, San Luis Obispo,
------------------------
<2> Three Judge Court Tentative Ruling, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the
Northern District of California United States District Court
composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28
United States Code (Feb. 9, 2009).
(More)
AB 320 (Solorio)
PageF
Yolo, Madera, Calaveras, Amador and San Benito) have been
awarded bond money for jail construction. However, there
is still more that $164 million in bond money that has
not been awarded because many counties were not able to
comply with all the eligibility requirements. The
biggest obstacle for many of these counties was that they
were not able to site a re-entry facility in their county
and, therefore, did not receive the preference points
needed to enhance their chances of receiving bond money.
. . .
AB 320 would create another incentive for counties that
apply or re-apply for AB 900 bond money by granting
co-equal preference to counties that provide re-entry
beds in their community by using existing beds. Not only
would AB 320 help more counties receive AB 900 jail
construction funding, but it will help the state achieve
its' goal of providing up to 6,000 new re-entry beds. It
is important to note that AB 320 is intended to be
prospective and will not have any impact on any existing
awards for jail construction bond financing prior to the
enactment of this Act.
2. Background
As explained in the Assembly Appropriations Committee April 29,
2009 analysis of this bill:
AB 900 . . . authorized $6.2 billion in lease-revenue
bond financing for construction of 40,000 new state
prison beds and $1.2 billion for an estimated 13,000
new county jail beds, phased-in over time and
contingent upon a series of construction and
rehabilitation program implementation benchmarks.
AB 900 required CDCR to enhance existing programs to
reduce recidivism and implement new ones, including
substance abuse treatment, mental health care and
academic and vocational services. The two-pronged
approach was designed to provide new prison beds,
(More)
AB 320 (Solorio)
PageG
while establishing stronger rehabilitation and reentry
efforts.
AB 900 has stalled. No prison or jail beds have been
constructed.
(More)
. . . (N)umerous counties have been unable to offer
sites to CDCR for reentry facilities. $586 million in
jail construction awards is currently recommended by
the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) for 11
counties (for a 5,300 net gain in jail beds) who have
been able to offer reentry sites to the state . . . .
Thirteen additional counties requested awards, but were
unable to provide the state a suitable reentry site,
often due to community opposition: Orange, Monterey,
L.A., San Mateo, Butte, Placer, Stanislaus, Merced,
Kings, Tuolumne, Shasta, El Dorado, and Sutter.
3. Reentry Requirements; Suggested Amendments
Current law, as enacted by AB 900, contains the following
codified legislative findings and declarations relevant to
reentry facilities:
The continuity of services provided both before
and after an inmate's release on parole will
improve the parolee's opportunity for successful
reintegration into society.
Placing an inmate in a secure correctional
facility within the community prior to parole into
that community provides the opportunity for both
parole officers and local law enforcement
personnel to better coordinate supervision of that
parolee. (Penal Code 6270.)
Current law requires the following with respect to prison
reentry facilities funded under AB 900:
Reentry program facilities shall provide
programming to inmates and parole violators
tailored to the specific problems faced by this
population when reintegrating into society.
Persons housed in these facilities shall receive
risk and needs assessments, case management
(More)
AB 320 (Solorio)
PageI
services, and wraparound services that provide a
continuity of support services between custody and
parole. (Penal Code 6272.)
In the locations where a reentry program facility
is established, the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation shall develop a collaborative
partnership with local government, local law
enforcement, and community service providers.
(Penal Code 6273.)
The author and/or the Committee may wish to consider whether
this bill should be amended to specifically provide that
existing county beds being employed as prison reentry beds
provide the same programming required of reentry facilities
under AB 900.
SHOULD THIS BILL BE AMENDED TO ENSURE THAT ANY COUNTY BEDS USED
AS PRISON REENTRY BEDS PROVIDE THE SAME PROGRAMMING REQUIRED OF
REENTRY FACILITIES UNDER AB 900?
In addition, the bill currently does not specify how many
reentry beds a county would be required to provide in order to
qualify for the funding preference. In theory, a county could
provide a very small number of reentry beds that would entitled
the county to a funding preference for building a much greater
number of jail beds. Members may wish to consider whether this
bill should require counties to provide a number of reentry beds
at least equal to the number of jail beds the AB 900 funding
would allow them to build in order to qualify for the funding
preference.
SHOULD THIS BILL BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE THAT A COUNTY PROVIDE A
NUMBER OF REENTRY BEDS AT LEAST EQUAL TO THE NUMBER OF JAIL BEDS
THE AB 900 FUNDING WOULD HELP THEM BUILD IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR
THE AB 900 FUNDING PREFERENCE?
***************
AB 320 (Solorio)
PageJ