BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair A
2009-2010 Regular Session B
1
2
3
AB 1239 (Solorio) 9
As Amended June 7, 2010
Hearing date: June 15, 2010
Penal Code
SM:dl
CORRECTIONS: ACADEMIC AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS
HISTORY
Source: SEIU Local 1000
Prior Legislation: ABX4 - 1 (Evans) - Ch. 1, Stats. of 2009-10
AB 900 (Solorio) - Ch. 7, Stats. of 2007
Support: California Communities United Institute; Taxpayers for
Improving Public Safety; California Public Defenders
Association
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 68 - Noes 2
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION BE REQUIRED
TO IMPLEMENT ANY FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS TO INMATE ACADEMIC AND
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH SPECIFIED
PRIORITIES?
(More)
AB 1239 (Solorio)
PageB
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to require CDCR to implement any
funding adjustments to inmate academic and vocational education
programs in a manner consistent with specified priorities.
Existing law requires the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to appoint a Superintendent of
Correctional Education to oversee and administer all prison
education programs. The Superintendent of Correctional
Education sets short-term and long-term goals for inmate
literacy and testing, and prioritizes prison education programs.
(Penal Code Section 2053.4.)
Existing law finds and declares that there is a correlation
between prisoner literacy and successful reintegration into
society upon release, and that it is the intent of the
Legislature in enacting "The Prisoner Literacy Act" to raise the
prisoners' functional literacy rates in order to provide for a
corresponding reduction in the recidivism rate. (Penal Code
Section 2053(a).)
Existing law requires CDCR to determine the reading level of
each prisoner upon commitment. (Penal Code Section 2053(b).)
Existing law provides that the Secretary of CDCR shall implement
in every state prison literacy programs designed to ensure that
upon parole inmates are able to achieve a ninth-grade reading
level. CDCR shall give strong consideration to
computer-assisted training and other innovations which have
(More)
AB 1239 (Solorio)
PageC
proven to be effective in reducing illiteracy of disadvantaged
adults. (Penal Code Section 2053.1.)
Existing law authorizes the Secretary of CDCR to establish and
maintain classes for inmates by utilizing CDCR personnel or by
entering into an agreement with the governing board of a school
district or private school. (Penal Code Section 2054.)
Existing law requires CDCR to regularly provide operational and
fiscal information to the Legislature to allow it to better
assess CDCR's performance in critical areas of operations,
including to both evaluate the effectiveness of department
programs and activities, as well as assess how efficiently the
department is using state resources. (Penal Code Section
2063(a).)
This bill makes the following uncodified findings and
declarations:
Approximately 95 percent of inmates in the custody of
the (CDCR) will be released and returned to their original
communities. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office,
only 14 percent of those released will have received any
education or vocational training while incarcerated.
Lack of academic and vocational education programs
creates significant risk and safety issues in the prisons
for staff and inmates. The top five CDCR facilities with
the highest percentages of inmates in academic programs had
an average in-prison violence rate of 4.9 incidents per 100
inmates. The bottom five facilities with the lowest
percentages of inmates in academic programs had an average
in-prison violence rate of 8.2 incidents per 100 inmates,
nearly double the average for facilities with high
percentages of inmates in academic programs. The facilities
with the highest rates of academic programs for inmates
exhibited an average violence rate of 3.9 incidents per 100
inmates. The average number of incidents was more than
(More)
AB 1239 (Solorio)
PageD
twice as high, 8.6 incidents per 100 inmates, in CDCR
facilities with the lowest rate of academic programs for
inmates.
Attending school behind bars reduces the likelihood of
reincarceration by 29 percent. Translated into savings,
every $1 spent on inmate education has a return of more
than $2 in reduced prison costs which can then go back to
the General Fund.
California has one of the lowest rates of inmate
participation in academic programs of any state. Nineteen
percent of inmates are completely illiterate and 40 percent
of inmates are functionally illiterate, rates that far
exceed the general population. California has the dubious
distinction of having one of the highest rates of
recidivism in the country. According to the Legislative
Analyst's Office, the number of slots for academic programs
has actually decreased from 37,000 in 1998 to 27,000 in
2007.
This bill would require CDCR to implement any funding
adjustments to inmate academic and vocational education programs
consistent with all of the following:
The Department shall prioritize the preservation of
programs that are effective at reducing recidivism based on
evidence in studies of the programs operated by the
department or in the national literature.
The Department shall seek to achieve savings through
more efficient operations in the delivery of these programs
and shall take into account cost avoidance for the state.
The Department shall seek to place inmates and parolees
into programs for which they are best suited, who
demonstrate a significant need for the services provided by
a particular program, and who have a sufficient amount of
time left to serve in prison to reasonably complete the
program or, at a minimum, make a reasonable amount of
progress so that it is possible that the program will have
an impact on their likelihood of recidivating.
The Department shall seek to prioritize the elimination
of vacant positions over the laying off of existing staff.
(More)
AB 1239 (Solorio)
PageE
The Department shall seek to use available resources to
maximize the quality of educational programs for inmates
and parolees who access and complete programs.
The Department shall seek to maximize the use of federal
or other funds to maintain or enhance inmate and parolee
programs.
This bill would require that no later than September 1 of each
year, CDCR report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee a
detailed plan as to how it is meeting the requirements imposed
on CDCR by Sections 2054.2 and 2062 to increase participation
and completion rates for academic and vocational education
programs, as determined by the assessments performed pursuant to
Section 3020. This report shall include, but not be limited to,
information on the success of participants at achieving a
literacy level, as specified, a high school diploma or
equivalent, or a particular job skill. This provision will
become inoperative on September 1, 2015.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
The severe prison overcrowding problem California has
experienced for the last several years has not been solved. In
December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the state to
reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity
-- a reduction of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years.
In a prior, related 184-page Opinion and Order dated August 4,
2009, that court stated in part:
"California's correctional system is in a tailspin,"
the state's independent oversight agency has reported.
. . . (Jan. 2007 Little Hoover Commission Report,
"Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time Is
Running Out"). Tough-on-crime politics have increased
the population of California's prisons dramatically
(More)
AB 1239 (Solorio)
PageF
while making necessary reforms impossible. . . . As a
result, the state's prisons have become places "of
extreme peril to the safety of persons" they house, .
. . (Governor Schwarzenegger's Oct. 4, 2006 Prison
Overcrowding State of Emergency Declaration), while
contributing little to the safety of California's
residents, . . . . California "spends more on
corrections than most countries in the world," but the
state "reaps fewer public safety benefits." . . . .
Although California's existing prison system serves
neither the public nor the inmates well, the state has
for years been unable or unwilling to implement the
reforms necessary to reverse its continuing
deterioration. (Some citations omitted.)
. . .
The massive 750% increase in the California prison
population since the mid-1970s is the result of
political decisions made over three decades, including
the shift to inflexible determinate sentencing and the
passage of harsh mandatory minimum and three-strikes
laws, as well as the state's counterproductive parole
system. Unfortunately, as California's prison
population has grown, California's political
decision-makers have failed to provide the resources
and facilities required to meet the additional need
for space and for other necessities of prison
existence. Likewise, although state-appointed experts
have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the
state could safely reduce its prison population, their
recommendations have been ignored, underfunded, or
postponed indefinitely. The convergence of
tough-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to expend
the necessary funds to support the population growth
has brought California's prisons to the breaking
point. The
state of emergency declared by Governor Schwarzenegger
almost three years ago continues to this day,
California's prisons remain severely overcrowded, and
(More)
AB 1239 (Solorio)
PageG
inmates in the California prison system continue to
languish without constitutionally adequate medical and
mental health care.<1>
The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010 ruling
pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme
Court. That appeal, and the final outcome of this litigation,
is not anticipated until later this year or 2011.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author,
Senate Bill 18 x3 (Ducheny, Chapter 28, Statutes of
2009-10 Third Extraordinary Session), the prison
reform budget bill, drastically cut academic and
education vocational programs within CDCR by more than
in half of its operating budget. This significant cut
sliced a $428 million program budget to $178 million -
resulting in an overall reduction of $250 million.
Teachers were significantly impacted. Nearly 700
teachers received layoff notices and entire programs
were eliminated.
According to a 2004 study conducted by the UCLA School
of Public Policy and Social Research titled
Correctional Education as a Crime Control Program,
----------------------
<1> Three Judge Court Opinion and Order, 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 (August 4, 2009).
(More)
AB 1239 (Solorio)
PageH
once correctional education participants are released,
they are about 10 to 20 percent less likely to
re-offend than the average released prisoner.
Additionally, correctional education may actually
create long-run net cost savings. Inmates who
participate in education programs are less likely to
return to prison. For each re-incarceration prevented
by education, the state saves approximately $50,000,
which is the average yearly cost per prison inmate
according to CDCR. One million dollars invested in
education would prevent 26 re-incarcerations, for net
future savings of $600,000. Cutting academic and
vocational educational programs within the state's
prison system is likely to have long-term negative
consequences and have a greater impact on General Fund
obligations.
According to a 2008 report by the Legislative
Analyst's Office titled From Cellblocks to Classrooms:
Reforming Inmate Education To Improve Public Safety,
academic and vocational programs can significantly
reduce the likelihood that offenders will commit new
offenses and return to prison. The report also
provided recommendations to the Legislature to take
several steps to improve adult prison education
programs in the near term. In particular, the LAO
recommended that the state fund these programs based
on attendance rather than enrollment, develop
incentives for inmate participation in programs, and
develop routine case management and program evaluation
systems. These recommendations would better leverage
the state's existing investment in prison education
programs to increase the number of inmates who
participate as well as improve the quality of the
programs provided.
2. The Value of Prison Education
In February 2008 the Legislative Analyst's Office issued a
report entitled, "From Cellblocks to Classrooms: Reforming
(More)
AB 1239 (Solorio)
PageI
Inmate Education To Improve Public Safety." That report stated:
Prison Education Benefits Public Safety. Correctional
researchers and administrators have long been aware of
the strong correlation between low educational
attainment and the likelihood of being incarcerated.
Recent research indicates that correctional education
programs can significantly reduce the rate of
reoffending for inmates when they are subsequently
returned to the community.
* * * * * *
Inmate Education Improves Prison Management. In
addition, many corrections officials from California
and other states have advised us that prison programs,
including education, make it easier for prison
administrators to safely manage the inmate population.
According to these officials, inmates are less likely
to engage in disruptive and violent incidents when
they are actively engaged in a program instead of
being idle. Importantly, this can result in improved
safety for state employees, as well as inmates, and
result in lower prison security, medical, and workers'
compensation costs.
Other Fiscal Benefits for State and Local Governments.
To the extent that inmate education programs reduce
rates of reoffending as the research indicates, these
programs can also result in direct and indirect fiscal
benefits to state and local governments. The direct
fiscal benefits primarily include reduced state court
and incarceration costs, as well as a reduction in
local costs for criminal investigations and jail
operations. The indirect fiscal benefits can include
reduced costs for assistance to crime victims, less
reliance on public assistance by families of inmates,
and greater income and sales tax revenues paid by
(More)
AB 1239 (Solorio)
PageJ
former inmates who successfully remain in the
community
( http://www.lao.ca.gov/2008/crim/inmate_education/inmate_educatio
n_021208.aspx , pages )
The LAO report contained the following recommendations:
We recommend the Legislature take several steps to
improve adult prison education programs in the near
term. In particular, we recommend that the state fund
these programs based on attendance rather than
enrollment, develop incentives for inmate
participation in programs, and develop routine case
management and program evaluation systems. These
recommendations would better leverage the state's
existing investment in prison education programs to
increase the number of inmates who participate as well
as improve the quality of the programs provided. In
addition, we recommend that after the state has
improved the structure of its existing programs, it
consider some alternatives to expand the capacity of
correctional education programs. The single most
significant way to expand capacity at little or no
cost to the state would be to place inmates in
education and work programs for half days, thereby
maximizing participation through utilizing existing
resources.(Id.)
3. Mandating Spending Priorities in Prison Rehabilitation
Programming
The cuts to prison programming in the 09-10 budget, the budget
bill language and the implementation of those cuts are detailed
in the March 15, 2010 report of the California Rehabilitation
Oversight Board (C-ROB):
SUMMARY OF BUDGET CUTS TO ADULT PROGRAMMING
BUDGET CUTS
(More)
AB 1239 (Solorio)
PageK
The $1.2 billion budget reduction, which included a
$250 million cut to Adult Programs, came with specific
guidelines as part of the Budget Act:
prioritize the preservation of rehabilitative
programs based on evidence that they are effective in
reducing recidivism;
prioritize the elimination of vacancies;
maximize the use of federal or other funds;
achieve savings through more efficient operation;
maximize the number of offenders who have access to
programs;
prioritize program placement based on risk, need,
and time left to serve. The latter adheres to the
California Logic Model target population:
moderate-to-high risk to reoffend, 7-36 months to
serve, and a moderate-to-high criminogenic need in
that program area. According to the latest data
provided by Corrections, there are 36,714 inmates who
are now in the target population.
Corrections used the guidelines to make the $250
million reduction by adult program area:
Education 30%
reduction
Office of Substance Abuse and Treatment Services
40% reduction
Assessments 40%
reduction
Headquarters 63%
reduction
For current year, Adult Programs takes a $100 million
budget cut with the remainder of the reduction coming
from the Female Offender Program and Services and the
Division of Adult Parole Operations. The total dollar
reduction for Adult Programs in fiscal year 2010/2011
is projected to be $200 million with the remaining $50
million cut to come from the Division of Adult Parole
Services and the Female Offender Program and Services.
(More)
AB 1239 (Solorio)
PageL
(Bi-Annual Report, March 15, 2010, California
Rehabilitation Oversight Board, pages 11-13,
http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/crob/reports/C-ROB%20Biannual%20
Report%20March%2015%202010.pdf.)
The report states that these budget cuts came just as CDCR "had
transitioned from more than two years of intense planning to
implementation of the demonstration project at California State
Prison, Solano. In effect, this meant Corrections was forced to
completely restructure the rehabilitative programming model it
created in response to Assembly Bill (AB) 900." (Id at page 1.)
The report goes on to detail the changes CDCR made to its
educational programming.
TARGET POPULATIONS FOR NEW PROGRAMMING MODELS
To stay within the revised current year budget, meet
the Budget Act reduction guidelines, and maintain the
principles of the California Logic Model, Corrections'
staff have developed five new education models,
reduced the number of vocational programs, redesigned
the in-prison substance abuse programs, and eliminated
approximately 800 teaching positions.
The target populations for the revised programming
models have changed while remaining consistent with
the California Logic Model target population.
Priority placement within each program requires a
moderate-to-high risk to reoffend.
For education programs, an inmate also must have a
Test for Adult Basic Education (TABE) score indicating
a need for an education assignment or be without a GED
and have 12-48 months left to serve. Lifers must be
within 24 months of a parole suitability hearing.
Priority enrollment in vocational programs requires
a high school diploma/GED and 12-48 months left to
serve. Lifers must be within 24 months of a parole
suitability hearing.
Substance abuse treatment programs require a
(More)
AB 1239 (Solorio)
PageM
moderate-to-high need on COMPAS or the Addiction
Severity Index and 5-6 months left to serve. Lifers
must be within 5-12 months of a parole suitability
hearing.
(More)
Inmates who do not meet the target criteria would be
lowest on the priority lists and depending on capacity
could be assigned to programming.
While the report states that CDCR's new rehabilitation models
attempt to comply with the directive to make some programming
available to the largest number of inmates possible, it also
questions the value of programming whose content is so
dramatically reduced. Regarding the new rehabilitative
programming model for education, the report states:
Corrections has developed five education models to
stay within its budget and maximize program
availability to as many inmates as possible. In
addition to these models, according to Corrections,
institutions with high school diploma programs will be
allowed to retain them. The human cost to the new
models is the hundreds of teachers who have lost their
jobs. The practical question is whether the new models
are enough to ultimately contribute to a reduction in
recidivism.
Unlike the other five areas of inmate needs identified
by the Expert Panel, there is little evidence-based
research specific to education in prison and therefore
little guidance for curriculum, dosage, and staffing
for prison education programs. In creating the new
education models Corrections used adult education best
practices and those evidence-based elements that do
exist. There is evidence that shows that a minimum
amount of programming must exist for employment
outcomes to be different between an inmate who
participates in educational programs and one who does
not. Outcomes are also better when program
participation is not interrupted for any length of
time. Under the new models these principles will be
tested because some inmates will only receive minimum
classroom time of three hours per week. (Id at page
11-13, emphasis added.)
(More)
AB 1239 (Solorio)
PageO
As this report makes clear, CDCR designed the new rehabilitative
programming models to "stay within its budget and maximize
program availability to as many inmates as possible." This is
consistent with the directives in the 09-10 budget to "maximize
the number of offenders who have access to programs" while
absorbing a $250 million cut in adult program funding. Members
may wish to consider whether mandated priorities for program
spending which are based on the current budget crisis will be
the most appropriate policy in future years. In particular,
while maximizing the number of inmates who have access to
programming is an important goal, in light of the drastic cuts
to the funding for these programs, could mandating that the
"Department [] seek to use available resources to maximize the
number of inmates and parolees who have access to and complete
programs," have the effect of requiring the Department to spread
its limited programming resources so thin as to dilute their
effectiveness? Alternatively, should the Department be allowed
to retaining the option to concentrate what limited resources
remain in the budget for prison education in a smaller number of
programs to ensure their quality and effectiveness?
After noting the department's existing inability to measure the
quality and effectiveness of its current programming efforts<2>
the C-ROB report observed, " The reduction of rehabilitative
programs may have a positive effect on fidelity by enabling
Corrections to direct its scarce resources to fewer programs to
ensure that they are implemented properly, staff is adequately
trained, materials are proper, and the desired outcomes of the
specific program are being achieved ." (C-ROB Report, supra,
---------------------------
<2> A September 2009 report by the Bureau of State Audits
stated that, "...Corrections acknowledged that it is unable to
adequately track the overall success of its education programs
or to quantify the number of inmates who complete programs,
their improvements in reading scores, or the relationship
between recidivism rates and enrollment in education and
vocational programs."
( http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2009-107.1.pdf , page 59.)
AB 1239 (Solorio)
PageP
page 18, emphasis added.)
AB 1239 has recently been amended to require CDCR prioritize
spending on rehabilitation programs in favor of quality over
quantity. This represents a shift from the language of last
year's budget bill and the Department's attempts, through the
New Programming Model to maximize the number of inmates who
receive at least some programming. Unlike the language of last
year's budget bill, this bill would place its directives for
spending priorities into the Penal Code and these would
therefore become permanent policy directives beyond the current
fiscal year.
SHOULD CDCR BE DIRECTED TO PRIORITIZE SPENDING ON REHABILITATION
PROGRAMS TO EMPHASIZE QUALITY OVER QUANTITY?
WOULD THE SPENDING PRIORITIES APPROPRIATE IN TODAY'S BUDGET
CLIMATE NECESSARILY BE APPROPRIATE AT ALL TIMES?
***************