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