BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  AB 175
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   March 15, 2011
          Counsel:        Milena Nelson


                         ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
                                 Tom Ammiano, Chair

                 AB 175 (Donnelly) - As Introduced:  January 24, 2011
           

          SUMMARY  :   Removes the sunset date from the provision allowing 
          the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 
          (CDCR) to transfer an inmate to an out-of-state facility without 
          the consent of that inmate, except in specified instances.  
          Additionally, in instances where the inmate did consent to 
          transfer to an out-of-state facility, the inmate is prohibited 
          from revoking his or her consent to the transfer.   

           EXISTING LAW  :

          1)Allows CDCR to transfer an inmate to another in-state or 
            out-of-state facility without the consent of the inmate.  

             a)   Inmates who are determined to have a serious medical or 
               mental health condition may not be transferred or committed 
               to an out-of-state facility without the consent of that 
               inmate.  

             b)   Inmates may consult with an attorney of their choice, or 
               an public defender if he or she cannot afford counsel, 
               concerning his or her rights and obligations under this 
               section and shall be informed of those rights prior to 
               transfer or, where appropriate, prior to executing written 
               consent to an out of state transfer.

             c)   This section is to remain in effect until July 1, 2011 
               or until CDCR has replaced temporary beds, as specified, 
               whichever occurs first.  (Penal Code Section 11191.)

          2)Enacts the Interstate Corrections Compact, which allows any 
            party state to the Compact to contract with another party 
            state for the confinement of inmates on behalf of the sending 
            state in institutions in the receiving state.  (Penal Code 
            Section 11190.)









                                                                  AB 175
                                                                 Page  2

          3)States that inmates imprisoned in another state, pursuant to 
            the Interstate Corrections Compact, are entitled to all 
            hearings, within 120 days of the time and under the same 
            standards, which are normally accorded to persons similarly 
            sentenced who are confined in institutions in California.  The 
            inmate may consent in writing to hearings conducted by the 
            corresponding agencies or officials of the other jurisdiction. 
             (Penal Code Section 11193.)

          4)Empowers the Director of CDCR to enter into contracts 
            consistent with the Interstate Corrections Compact

           FISCAL EFFECT  :   Unknown

           COMMENTS  :   

           1)Author's Statement  :  According to the author, "CDCR stated 
            that they spend $52,363 per year to incarcerate a prisoner.  
            Much of this inflated cost is due to the major overcrowding 
            issue the State is currently facing.  Prisoners are being 
            housed on cots in gym or cafeteria like facilities because 
            there are not enough beds for the increasing population."

           2)Reduced Funding for Out-of-State Inmate Transfers  :  On January 
            10, 2011, the Governor released his 2011-12 budget, which 
            included a budget reduction from $409.7 million in the current 
            budget year to $224.3 million in the 2011-12 budget year for 
            CDCR contracted facilities.  Ý2011-12 Governor's Budget, 
            Corrections and Rehabilitation (January 10, 2011) p. 58.]  
            This trend, expected to continue, will eliminate much of the 
            funding for out-of-state transfers.

           3)Argument in Support  :  None submitted.

           4)Arguments in Opposition  : 

             a)   According to the  California Correctional Peace Officers 
               Association  , "Costs.  Both the Legislative Analyst, in a 
               letter to Senator Romero in 2007, and the Department of 
               Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), in testimony before 
               the Senate Budget Subcommittee in 2010, indicated that the 
               use of out-of-state beds increased CDCR's costs compared to 
               housing these inmates in-state.  CDCR incurs substantial 
               costs to screen these inmates before transfer, to transport 
               the inmates to out-of-state locations (and back), and to 








                                                                  AB 175
                                                                  Page  3

               manage and oversee the contracts.  In addition, as a result 
               of the screening process, inmates with significant medical 
               and mental health needs are not sent out of state, but are 
               retained in California.  As a result of this process, any 
               comparison of costs between in-state custody and for-profit 
               private custody out-of-state is skewed in favor of the 
               out-of-state contracts.  Nevertheless, both the Legislative 
               Analyst and the Department found the out-of-state costs 
               were higher, even without any adjustment for medical costs.

             "Economic Development.  As we all know, job growth is a 
               challenge for California.  Yet, this program develops jobs 
               in other states at the expense of California taxpayers.  
               That simply makes no sense in these economic times.  
               Rather, the monies now sent out of state should be used to 
               develop jobs in California and to support suppliers in our 
               state."

             b)   According to the  California Public Defenders 
               Association  , "Prisoners should not be housed so far away as 
               to impede meaningful family visitations and legal 
               consultation.  The former aids rehabilitation and ultimate 
               reintegration into society.  The later aids completion of 
               pending appeals and/or habeas corpus, and ensures that 
               challenges to conditions of incarceration are speedily and 
               effectively handled."

           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :   

           Support 
           
          None

           Opposition 
           
          California Correctional Peace Officers Association
          California Public Defenders Association
          Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

           
          Analysis Prepared by  :    Milena Nelson / PUB. S. / (916) 
          319-3957 











                                                                  AB 175
                                                                  Page  4