BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2013-2014 Regular Session B
2
8
7
SB 287 (Walters)
As Amended April 11, 2013
Hearing date: April 23, 2013
Penal Code
AA:mc
POST-PRISON SUPERVISION:
SHIFTING CERTAIN OFFENDERS FROM THE COUNTIES TO THE STATE
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: AB 109 (Committee on Budget) - Ch. 15, Stats.
2011
AB 117 (Committee on Budget) - Ch. 39, Stats. 2011
ABx1 17 (Blumenfield) - Ch. 12, Stats. 2011
AB 116 (Committee on Budget) - Ch. 136, Stats. 2011
Support: Golden State Bail Agents Association; Office of the
San Bernardino County Sheriff; California Correctional
Peace Officers Association; Los Angeles County Board
of Supervisors; Crime Victims Action Alliance;
California District Attorneys Association
Opposition:California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California
Public Defenders Association; American Civil Liberties
Union; Legal Services for Prisoners with Children;
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety; Friends
Committee on Legislation
(More)
SB 287 (Walters)
PageB
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE SCOPE OF INMATES SUBJECT TO PAROLE SUPERVISION INSTEAD OF
PROBATION SUPERVISION UPON RELEASE FROM PRISON BE INCREASED, AS
SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to expand the scope of inmates
subject to parole supervision instead of probation supervision
upon release from prison to include persons with prior
convictions for 1) a serious felony, as defined; 2) a violent
felony, as defined; 3) any crime for which the person was
classified as a high risk sex offender at the time he or she was
eligible for release from prison; and 4) any crime for which the
person was required, as a condition of parole, to undergo
treatment by the State Department of State Hospitals as a
mentally disordered offender.
Current law generally provides for a period of post-prison
supervision immediately following a period of incarceration in
state prison. (Penal Code § 3000 et seq.)
Current law generally provides that persons released from state
prison for any of the following crimes are subject to parole
supervision by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR):
1) A serious felony as described in subdivision (c) of
Section 1192.7.
2) A violent felony as described in subdivision (c) of
Section 667.5.
3) A crime for which the person has been sentenced to a
life term under the 3-strikes law.
4) Any crime where the person eligible for release from
prison is classified as a high risk sex offender.
5) Any crime where the person is required, as a condition
of parole, to undergo treatment by the Department of Mental
(More)
SB 287 (Walters)
PageC
Health as a mentally ill offender.
6) Any felony committed while the person was on
parole for a period exceeding three years where the
person was required to register as a sex offender or was
subject to parole for life, as specified. ( Penal Code §
3000.08; see also Penal Code § 3451(b).)
This bill would expand the category of persons subject to parole
supervision to include persons released from prison on or after
January 1, 2014, who have a prior conviction for any of the
following, as specified:
(1) A serious felony described in subdivision (c) of Section
1192.7.
(2) A violent felony described in subdivision (c) of Section
667.5.
(3) Any crime for which the person was classified as a high
risk sex offender at the time he or she was eligible for
release from prison.
(4) Any crime for which the person was required, as a
condition of parole, to undergo treatment by the State
Department of State Hospitals as a mentally disordered
offender.
This bill would specify that these persons would be subject to
the jurisdiction of the court in the county in which the parolee
is released or resides for the purpose of hearing petitions to
revoke parole and impose a term of custody.
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
(More)
SB 287 (Walters)
PageD
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
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
(More)
SB 287 (Walters)
PageE
related issues concerning conditions of confinement remain
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:
In 2011, California began to implement "prison
realignment" to reduce the state's prison population
and shift many responsibilities from the state to the
counties. As of October 1, 2011, more inmates are now
being considered for Post-Release Community
(county-level) Supervision instead of state parole
upon release.
Unlike parole, which is administered by the state and
generally provides a greater level of supervision,
county-level supervision varies in quality depending
on funding and departmental workloads. In many cases,
a minimal level of supervision is used to monitor
these recently released individuals.
(More)
SB 287 (Walters)
PageF
Existing law provides that those being considered for
Post-Release Community Supervision not apply to a
person if their most current offense includes a
serious or violent felony, a third strike violation, a
crime where the person was classified as a High Risk
Sex Offender, or any crime where the person is
required to undergo treatment by the State Department
of State Hospitals as a condition of parole. These
inmates would be released to the parole supervision of
the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Under current law, only a prisoner's most recent crime
is used in determining if that individual is eligible
for Post-Release Community Supervision. The decision
is not based on a review of the person's entire
criminal record. Therefore, an individual with a
history of serious or violent crime could be eligible
for this lower level of supervision if they are being
released after serving a sentence for a non-violent or
non-serious offense (which includes certain sex
offenders).
A recent report by the State Attorney General noted
that in the fourth quarter of 2011, immediately after
realignment was first implemented, California
experienced a 4.5 percent year over year increase in
property crimes even after the first three quarters of
the same year showed a 2.4 percent decrease. This
news was followed in January with the release of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation's preliminary crime
statistics for the first six months of 2012, the first
full year since realignment was enacted. During that
period, nine of California's largest law enforcement
agencies reported increases in murder, rape, robbery,
and theft.
To ensure public safety and consistency when
considering a prisoner for Post-Release Community
Supervision, it is vital that the inmate's entire
criminal history be reviewed.
(More)
SB 287 (Walters)
PageG
SB 287 would make the provisions for Post-Release
Community Supervision inapplicable to any person
released from prison who has a prior conviction for a
serious or violent felony, a crime for which the
person received a third strike, or a crime that
resulted in the person being classified as a High Risk
Sex Offender. These individuals would be required to
go on state parole and be supervised by the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
2. What This Bill Would Do
The statutory framework for whether someone coming out of prison
is subject to parole or postrelease community supervision
("PRCS") currently is based on the current crime for which the
person is being released from prison, and not prior convictions.
This bill would change this by also including priors in this
determination.
Thus, this bill would expand the scope of inmates subject to
parole supervision instead of probation supervision upon release
from prison to include persons with prior convictions for 1) a
serious felony, as defined; 2) a violent felony, as defined; 3)
any crime for which the person was classified as a high risk sex
offender at the time he or she was eligible for release from
prison; and 4) any crime for which the person was required, as a
condition of parole, to undergo treatment by the State
Department of State Hospitals as a mentally disordered offender.
3. Parole Population; Parole and Probation Supervision
In its analysis of the Governor's proposed 2013-14 budget the
Legislative Analyst's Office states in part:
The average daily parole population is projected to be
about 43,000 parolees in the budget year, a decline of
about 15,000 parolees (25 percent) from the estimated
current-year level. This decline is also largely a
result of the 2011 realignment, which shifted from the
(More)
SB 287 (Walters)
PageH
state to the counties the responsibility for
supervising certain offenders following their release
from prison. The average daily population projected
for 2013-14 is about 4,500 parolees lower than was
initially projected by the department in spring 2012.
According to CDCR, this is due to more parolees being
discharged from supervision than expected in the first
six months of 2012. In addition, CDCR projections
show that the decline in the parole population is
expected to slow down and even increase in coming
years.
. . .
The current-year net reduction in costs is primarily
due to savings from the larger than expected decline
in the 2012-13 parolee population, . . .<1>
In its 2013 "primer" on California's criminal justice system,
LAO noted in part:
In 2010, the probation "failure" rate-measured as
the percent of the probation population that committed
violations resulting in incarceration or absconded
from supervision-in California was somewhat lower than
in other states. California parolees, on the other
hand, failed at a much higher rate than parolees in
other
states.
Some differences among states are likely due to
factors such as policy differences regarding who goes
onto probation and parole, the amount of supervision
provided, revocation decisions, and the availability
of treatment services.
. . .
----------------------
<1> The Legislative Analyst's Office, The 2013-14 Budget:
Governor's Criminal Justice Proposals.
(More)
SB 287 (Walters)
PageI
One Goal of Realignment Was a More Cost-Effective
Correctional System. As described above, the state
enacted several bills in 2011 to realign to county
governments the responsibility for managing and
supervising certain lower level
offenders. In adopting this realignment, the
Legislature had multiple goals, including reducing the
prison population to meet a federal court-ordered cap
(in a case related to inmate health care that we
discuss in more detail below) and to reduce state
correctional costs. Another stated goal of
realignment was to improve public safety outcomes by
keeping lower-level offenders in local communities
where treatment services exist and where local
criminal justice agencies can coordinate efforts to
ensure that offenders get the appropriate combination
of incarceration, community supervision, and
treatment. The expectation was that counties would be
more effective and efficient than the state at
managing these offenders and could reduce the high
recidivism rates experienced by state parolees.<2>
Ten years ago, the Little Hoover Commission called California's
parole system "a billion dollar failure."<3> In its support of
this measure, the California Correctional Peace Officers
Association submits in part that, "state parole is best prepared
to supervise these most serious cases, whether or not the
instant offense meets the existing criteria for state
supervision. . . . SB 287 would
(More)
---------------------------
<2> Legislative Analyst's Office, California's Criminal
Justice System: A Primer (Jan. 2013).
<3> Little Hoover Commission, Back to the Community: Safe and
Sound Parole Policies (Nov. 2003).
allow local officials to concentrate their resources on those
cases they are best suited to handle by way of experience."
In its Winter 2012 issue brief, the Chief Probation Officers of
California stated in part:
Probation has reduced caseload sizes of high risk
offenders to ensure proper levels of supervision by
officers; implemented tools for assessing risks and
needs; and trained officers in techniques proven to
increase chances of successful supervision, and reduce
recidivism. These investments have led to probation's
demonstrated success in supervising California's
felony offenders. California Probation Departments
have made a commitment to the use of evidence based
practices to match offender's actual needs with
appropriate services and structure supervision around
an offenders risk to reoffend. These improvements and
techniques should also be successful with the new
realigned populations, but the entire justice system
must be addressed in order to make the system
successful and our communities safer.<4>
Members may wish to discuss whether this bill is premised on the
assumption that parole supervision is more effective than
probation supervision and, if so, if that assumption is correct.
WOULD PAROLE SUPERVISION OF THE OFFENDERS IDENTIFIED BY THIS
BILL BE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN PROBATION SUPERVISION?
IS PAROLE "BETTER" THAN PROBATION IN TERMS OF ACHIEVING PUBLIC
SAFETY OUTCOMES FROM AN OFFENDER POPULATION SUPERVISED IN THE
COMMUNITY?
4. Realignment Funding Shift
As part of realignment, the state shifted certain revenues to
---------------------------
<4> Chief Probation Officers of California, Mandatory
Supervision: The Benefits of Evidence Based Supervision
under Public Safety Realignment (Winter 2012.)
(More)
SB 287 (Walters)
PageK
local governments. As explained by the LAO:
. . . (T)he 2011-12 budget package included statutory
changes to realign several criminal justice and other
programs from state responsibility to local
governments, primarily counties. Along with the
shift-or realignment-of programs, state law realigned
revenues to locals. Specifically, current law shifts
a share of the state sales tax, as well as Vehicle
License Fee revenue, to local governments. The
passage of Proposition 30 by voters in November 2012,
among other changes, guaranteed these revenues to
local governments in the future. The Governor's
budget includes an estimate of revenues projected to
go to local governments over the next few years.
These estimates are generally in line with prior
estimates. . . . (T)otal funding for the criminal
justice programs realigned is expected to increase
from $1.4 billion in 2011-12 to $2.2 billion in
2013-14.<5>
This bill does not make any changes to the funding realigned
pursuant to realignment and guaranteed to local governments by
Proposition 30. Members may wish to discuss the fiscal
implications of this bill, including:
What are the implications of this bill with respect to
the fiscal guarantees assured in Proposition 30, passed
last November?
What are the implications of this bill with respect to
the state's General Fund?
IF OFFENDERS ARE SHIFTED FROM COUNTY PROBATION SUPERVISION TO
STATE SUPERVISION, WOULD THE STATE ESSENTIALLY "PAY TWICE" FOR
THE SUPERVISION OF THESE OFFENDERS?
IS PROBATION LIMITED IN SOME COUNTIES BECAUSE OF THE
DISTRIBUTION OF REALIGNMENT FUNDING? IF SO, IS THAT CONCERN
BEST ADDRESSED BY SHIFTING SOME OF PROBATION'S "PRCS" POPULATION
---------------------------
<5> Id.
SB 287 (Walters)
PageL
BACK TO THE STATE?
WOULD THIS BILL ERODE REALIGNMENT?
***************