BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
7
5
2
AB 752 (Jones-Sawyer)
As Introduced February 21, 2013
Hearing date: May 14, 2013
Penal Code
AA:mc
WORK FURLOUGH: FELONS
HISTORY
Source: Chief Probation Officers of California; California
Attorneys for Criminal Justice;
Californians for Safety and Justice
Prior Legislation: AB 148 (Rainey) - Ch. 787, Stats. 1993
SB 266 (Deddeh) - Ch. 48, Stats. 1989
Support: California Catholic Conference, Inc.; California
Probation, Parole and Correctional Association;
California Public Defenders Association; California State
Sheriffs' Association; Drug
Policy Alliance; Friends Committee on Legislation of California;
Golden State Bail Agents Association; Legal Services for
Prisoners with Children; Los
Angeles Regional Reentry Partnership; Women's Foundation
Opposition:California District Attorneys Association; Taxpayers
for Improving Public Safety
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 45 - Noes 26
(More)
AB 752 (Jones-Sawyer)
Page 2
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD WORK FURLOUGH PROGRAMS AVAILABLE FOR CERTAIN JAIL INMATES
BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE FELONS SENTENCED TO JAIL, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to expand eligibility for jail work
furlough programs, currently limited to persons imprisoned in
the county jail for a misdemeanor, nonpayment of a fine,
contempt, or as a condition of probation for any criminal
offense, to include felons sentenced to county jail.
Current law allows a county, upon approval by the board of
supervisors, to establish a work furlough program, as specified.
(Penal Code § 1208(a).)
Current law allows qualifying screened offenders to maintain
employment, attend school, or participate in a job training
program while serving a custody commitment. (Penal Code
§ 1208(b).)
Current law allows the work furlough administrator to determine
whether a particular prisoner is a fit subject for work
furlough, job training and/or education, unless the court at the
time of sentencing has ordered that the person not be granted
work furloughs. (Penal Code § 1208(b).)
Current law allows the court to recommend a person for work
furlough. (Penal Code § 1208(i).)
Current law provides that when the inmate is not employed,
trained, or educated, he or she shall be confined in the work
furlough confinement facility. (Penal Code § 1208(d).)
(More)
AB 752 (Jones-Sawyer)
Page 3
Current law awards a defendant good-time and work-time credits
for participation in a work furlough program. (Penal Code §
1208(f).)
Current law permits the work furlough administrator to collect
the inmate's earning in order to pay for the inmate's board and
personal expenses, and administrative costs. (Penal Code
§ 1208(e).)
Current law limits participation in a work furlough program to
misdemeanants sentenced to county jail, or those imprisoned in
the county jail as a condition of probation, for failure to pay
a fine, or for contempt. (Penal Code § 1208(b).)
This bill would authorize a person sentenced to county jail for
a felony to participate in a work furlough program.
This bill also would make technical, non-substantive changes to
this section.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
(More)
AB 752 (Jones-Sawyer)
Page 4
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which
stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the
Committee held measures which created a new felony, expanded the
scope or penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increased
the application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate
the prison overcrowding crisis. Under these principles, ROCA
was applied as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary
to ensure that the Legislature did not erode progress towards
reducing prison overcrowding by passing legislation which would
increase the prison population. ROCA necessitated many hard and
difficult decisions for the Committee.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order issued by the Three-Judge Court three years
earlier to reduce the state's prison population to 137.5 percent
of design capacity. The State submitted in part that the, ". .
. population in the State's 33 prisons has been reduced by over
24,000 inmates since October 2011 when public safety realignment
went into effect, by more than 36,000 inmates compared to the
2008 population . . . , and by nearly 42,000 inmates since 2006
. . . ." Plaintiffs, who opposed the state's motion, argue in
part that, "California prisons, which currently average 150% of
capacity, and reach as high as 185% of capacity at one prison,
continue to deliver health care that is constitutionally
deficient." In an order dated January 29, 2013, the federal
court granted the state a six-month extension to achieve the
137.5 % prisoner population cap by December 31st of this year.
In an order dated April 11, 2013, the Three-Judge Court denied
the state's motions, and ordered the state of California to
"immediately take all steps necessary to comply with this
Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to reduce overall
prison population to 137.5% design capacity by December 31,
2013."
The ongoing litigation indicates that prison capacity and
related issues concerning conditions of confinement remain
(More)
AB 752 (Jones-Sawyer)
Page 5
unresolved. However, in light of the real gains in reducing the
prison population that have been made, although even greater
reductions are required by the court, the Committee will review
each ROCA bill with more flexible consideration. The following
questions will inform this consideration:
whether a measure erodes realignment;
whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and
whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
Work furlough programs allow an inmate to maintain
employment while serving a custody commitment.
Appropriately screened offenders will be allowed to
maintain or secure employment, attend school, or
participate in a job training program as well as other
evidence-based programs that may be offered by a Work
Furlough program.
Casework for offenders in a Work Furlough program may
begin at an earlier stage compared to being
incarcerated in a local jail and will assist them in
their transition back into the community, thus helping
to reduce recidivism. The removal of these offenders
(More)
AB 752 (Jones-Sawyer)
Page 6
from the county jail will also help alleviate
over-crowding and free jail space for other offenders.
AB 752 will allow those sentences that were changed to
local supervision under Realignment to be served in a
Work Furlough Program if the person is deemed suitable
by the Work Furlough Administrator.
2. Background: Work Furlough Programs
Work furlough is an alternative form of punishment which allows
criminal offenders to pursue legitimate day-time activities
while submitting to nightly incarceration. Although commonly
referred to as "work furlough," this alternative sentencing
program also encompasses job training and school furlough. The
program allows offenders to continue to work to support
themselves while completing a jail sentence ordered by the
court. The program also allows defendants to attend school or
to receive job training while serving a sentence.
A court cannot order a person to be accepted for work furlough;
the ultimate determination rests with the administrator of the
program. However, the court's recommendation that a person be
placed in the program must be given great weight. (People v.
Superior Court (1992) 12 Cal.App.4th 16, 25.)
(More)
Work furlough programs are distinguishable from work release
programs, which allow lower risk offenders to discharge their
sentences through supervised public service work as an
alternative to confinement. (See Penal Code § 4024.2.)
3. Criminal Justice Realignment
The criminal justice realignment of 2011 created two
classifications of felonies: those punishable in county jail,
and those punishable in state prison. Realignment limited which
felons can be sent to state prison, thus requiring that some
felons serve their sentences in county jails. The new law
applies to qualified defendants who commit qualifying offenses
and who were sentenced on or after October 1, 2011.
Specifically, sentences to state prison generally are limited to
individuals with a current or prior serious or violent offense
and registered sex offenders. In addition to the serious,
violent, registerable offenses eligible for state prison
incarceration, there are approximately 70 felonies which have be
specifically excluded from eligibility for local custody (i.e.,
the sentence must be served in state prison).
4. Argument in Support
According to the Chief Probation Officers of California, one of
the sponsors of this bill, AB 752 would allow those sentences
that were changed to local supervision under Realignment to be
served in a Work Furlough Program if the person is deemed
suitable by the Work Furlough Administrator.
Work furlough programs allow an inmate to maintain
employment while serving a custody commitment.
Appropriately screened offenders will be allowed to
maintain or secure employment, attend school, or
participate in a job training program as well as other
evidence-based programs that may be offered by a Work
Furlough program. These programs are in important
tool to assist eligible inmates in their transition
back into the community, thereby helping reduce
(More)
AB 752 (Jones-Sawyer)
Page 8
recidivism.
5. Argument in Opposition
The California District Attorneys Association, which opposes
this bill, submits:
Our concern with this bill lies in the fact that it is
a further attempt to blur the line between persons
sentenced to county jail after a felony conviction
because of realignment and misdemeanants sentenced to
county jail. PC 1170(h) convictions that result in
jail sentences are identical to non-PC 1170(h)
convictions that result in state prison sentences with
regard to the defendant actually being sentenced (as
opposed to having the imposition of sentence suspended
when probation is granted) and with regard to both PC
1170(h) jail terms and state prison terms qualifying
as prison priors under PC 667.5(b).
Felons sentenced to county jails under realignment are
similarly situated to felons sentenced to prison, with
the main difference being where they are incarcerated.
As such, the simple change to where a sentenced felon
is housed effectuated by realignment is not
appropriate grounds to treat that felon in the same
manner in which a county jail misdemeanant is treated.
***************