BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
1266 (Liu)
Hearing Date: 05/17/2010 Amended: 05/11/2010
Consultant: Jacqueline Wong-HernandezPolicy Vote: Public Safety
5-2
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: SB 1266 authorizes the Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to establish an "alternative custody"
program under which eligible female inmates and inmates who were
the primary caregivers of dependent children immediately
previous to incarceration would be allowed to participate in
lieu of their confinement in state prison, as specified. This
bill also provides that CDCR shall be allocated in its budget,
50 percent of the savings created by the alternative custody to
administer evidence-based recidivism reduction practices to
program participants.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2010-11 2011-12
2012-13 Fund
Alternative custody Potentially substantial prison
cost reduction General
50% allocation to CDCR Potentially significant cost
pressure General
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: This bill may meet the criteria for referral to
the Suspense File.
This bill would authorize the secretary of CDCR to create an
alternative custody arrangement for female inmates, pregnant
inmates, and inmates who were primary caregivers of dependent
children immediately prior to incarceration, as specified and
limited. The alternative custody arrangement would include
living in a residential home, and CDCR would be authorized to
determine exact conditions of confinement and treatment. CDCR
would also be allowed to determine participation within
prescribed eligibility guidelines; participation would not be
automatic, and CDCR would have the discretion to disallow
participation.
This bill simply authorizes CDCR to develop and implement an
alternative custody program. There is no cost or savings to the
authorization provided by the bill but, to the extent that CDCR
implements an alternative custody program, the optional program
could result in substantial savings. The direct savings from
this bill would result from individuals living in the community,
rather than in secure custody. There would be some cost to
monitoring participants, but it would not be as expensive as
secure custody in a prison. Additionally, while CDCR would still
be responsible for participants' medical and mental health
services, it would no longer be responsible for otherwise
supporting the individual. This bill specifies that the
participant is allowed to work, and access available services in
the community for which he or she may be eligible. Even if there
is a cost to accessing services in the community, such as
CalWORKs or food stamps, the overall state cost for this aid
would be less than housing and securing an inmate in prison.
Page 2
SB 1266 (Liu)
Implementing an alternative custody program would also likely
result in savings to various child welfare services agencies.
This bill would provide that "primary caregivers of dependent
children" are those who were primarily responsible for the care
and upbringing of one or more children. The population eligible
for the program is inmates who were the primary parents or
guardians of children, as defined. To the extent that the
children who were cared for prior to the inmate's incarceration
would otherwise be in some form of foster care, this bill would
result in significant savings to local, state and federal foster
care funds. Savings would be most substantial for children who
were placed in group homes (which can cost thousands of dollars
per month) or with foster families (typically up to $900 per
month). There would still be significant savings for children
who were placed with other relatives (not including the child's
other parent), because of their eligibility for special foster
care funding and programs.
This bill provides that "it is the intent of the Legislature
that the department shall be allocated in its budget 50 percent
of the savings created by the enactment of this section, once
savings are achieved." The bill does not, however, indicate how
savings will be proven, or who will determine the calculation
factors. It is unclear whether potential costs to other state or
local agencies incurred by serving this population will be
considered in determining CDCR's "savings".It is also unclear
how the cost of incarceration (as a comparative cost for
calculating savings) would be determined. The department often
indicates that the state incarceration cost is $49,000 per
inmate, but that is an average cost that does not account for
the vast differences in services required by individual inmates,
including a specific inmate's medical and mental health care
needs (which CDCR would continue to pay for in this program).
Additionally, removing from prison a small number of inmates,
would likely only result in a residual cost savings; residual
cost is approximately $23,000 per inmate. Even the residual cost
savings is an average not specific to the particular inmates
being moved. Many of the inmates likely to qualify for this
program will be women, and the cost figures identified are
primarily based on men's incarceration costs because men
comprise the vast majority of prison inmates. Many of those
eligible are also likely to be in lower security facilities, and
their incarceration currently costs less than the highest
security prisons.
If the cost of the program is simply calculated as an average
cost per participating inmate and is compared to a prison-wide
average incarceration cost, the savings reflected might not be
accurate for the specific individuals being diverted to the
program. If the savings is overestimated, the 50% of that
calculated number would also be overestimated and allocated back
to CDCR. In that situation, the actual General Fund savings
would be substantially eroded. The inmate average cost is
$26,000 more than residual cost. In combination with potential
cost shifts to other state funded social services, the
possibility exists that the program could result in a net cost
to the state if the costs and savings factors are not accurately
assessed. Additionally, because this language provides
legislative intent, and not an appropriation, the actual
allocation of savings would have to be made in a future bill,
which further confuses the issue of how the ultimate savings
determination will be made.
Staff recommends that the savings allocation intent language be
removed from the bill.