BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 926
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 7, 2015
Counsel: Sandra Uribe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Bill Quirk, Chair
AB
926 (Jones-Sawyer) - As Amended April 6, 2015
SUMMARY: Implements an earned-compliance-credit program which
provides eligible parolees with the opportunity to reduce the
length of parole and direct the savings to job training and
housing support for parolees. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) to establish rules and regulations for
implementing an earned compliance credit program that provides
eligible parolees with the opportunity to reduce their period
of parole supervision upon compliance with their parole
conditions.
2)Authorizes CDCR to award earned compliance credits to eligible
parolees who are in compliance with the terms and conditions
of parole, but who are not subject to lifetime parole.
3)Provides that for each full calendar month of compliance with
parole conditions, earned compliance credits equal to the
number of days in that month shall be deducted from the
parolee's parole discharge date.
4)Provides that earned compliance credits begin to accrue after
AB 926
Page 2
the first full calendar month of compliance with
parole-supervision conditions.
5)Requires earned compliance credits to be applied to the parole
discharge date within 30 days of the end of the month in which
the credits were earned.
6)Requires CDCR or the supervising parole agent to notify the
parole authority in the impending discharge with 60 days
before the date of final discharge.
7)Specifies that if the time served on parole combined with the
earned compliance credits satisfies the terms of parole, the
parole authority shall order the final discharge of the
parolee.
8)States that a parolee is deemed to be in compliance with the
conditions of parole supervision if a citation was not issued
to the parolee and the parolee was not arrested as a result of
a violation of the conditions of parole supervision.
9)Deems the following persons eligible to participate in the
earned compliance credit program:
a) A person paroled under Penal Code sections 3000 or
3000.08; or
b) A person serving a California sentence for an eligible
offense in any jurisdiction under the Interstate Compact
for adult Offender Supervision.
10)Disallows the accrual of earned compliance credits in any
month during which any of the following circumstances apply:
a) The parolee has absconded from supervision;
b) The parolee has been arrested for a new offense.
Credits shall not accrue for months between the arrest and
the final outcome of the arrest. If the charges are
dropped, dismissed, or the parolee is otherwise absolved,
the parolee shall be deemed compliant and shall have the
lost credits restored, beginning on the first day of the
AB 926
Page 3
month in which the arrest occurred.
c) The parolee is serving a term of incarceration for a
parole violation or a new conviction.
11)Requires CDCR to annually provide the following information
to the Director of the Department of Finance and the
Legislative Analyst's Office:
a) The number and percentage of qualifying parolees;
b) The total amount of credits earned by parolees within
the year; and
c) The average amount of credits earned by parolees within
the year.
12)Creates the Safe Communities Grant Program Fund within the
state treasury and specifies that it is continuously
appropriated without regard to fiscal year to carry out its
purpose.
13)Requires the Director of Finance to calculate the savings
accrued to the state from the implementation of the earned
compliance credit program beginning on or before July 31,
2017, and annually thereafter.
14)Requires the Controller to transfer the total amount of
savings accrued from the General Fund to the Safe Communities
Grant Program Fund before August 31, 2017, and annually
thereafter.
15)Establishes the Safe Communities Grant Program to be
administered by CDCR in consultation with specified agencies.
16)Requires CDCR to hold a minimum of two public meetings in the
process of developing the program in order allow for public
comment and input.
17)Requires CDCR to allocate monies deposited in the Fund to the
counties to provide employment and housing support for
AB 926
Page 4
parolees.
18)Defines the following terms:
a) "Department" means the California "Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation."
b) "Parole authority" means the "Board of Parole."
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides, generally, for a period of post-prison supervision
immediately following a period of incarceration in state
prison. (Pen. Code, § 3000 et seq.)
2)Provides for varying lengths of parole, depending on the
commitment offense and the date of commitment. (Pen. Code, §
3000, subd. (b).)
3)Requires all persons paroled before October 1, 2011 to remain
under the supervision of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) until jurisdiction is
terminated by operation of law or until parole is discharged.
(Pen. Code, § 3000.09.)
4)Requires the following persons released from prison on or
after July 1, 2013, be subject to parole under the supervision
of CDCR:
a) A person who committed a serious felony listed in Penal
Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c);
b) A person who committed a violent felony listed in Penal
Code section 667.5, subdivision (c);
c) A person serving a Three-Strikes sentence;
d) A high risk sex offender;
e) A mentally disordered offender (Pen. Code, §3000.08,
subd. (a));
AB 926
Page 5
f) A person required to register as a sex offender and
subject to a parole term exceeding three years at the time
of the commission of the offense for which he or she is
being released; and,
g) A person subject to lifetime parole at the time of the
commission of the offense for which he or she is being
released. (Pen. Code, § 3000.08, subds. (a) and (c).)
5)Authorizes parole officials to "impose additional and
appropriate conditions of supervision," upon a finding of good
cause that the parolee has committed a violation of law or
violated his or her conditions of parole; those may include
"rehabilitation and treatment services and appropriate
incentives for compliance, and impose immediate, structured,
and intermediate sanctions for parole violations, including
flash [short term] incarceration in a county jail." (Pen.
Code, § 3000.08, subd. (d).)
6)Provides that the parole agent or peace officer may bring a
parolee before the court for a violation of the conditions of
parole. If the court finds that the parolee has violated a
condition of parole, the court may impose any of the following
sanctions for parole violations, as specified:
a) Return the person to parole supervision with
modifications of conditions, if appropriate, including a
period of incarceration in county jail;
b) Revoke parole and order the person to confinement in the
county jail;
c) Refer the person to a reentry court pursuant to Section
3015 or other evidence-based program in the court's
discretion; and (Pen. Code, § 3000.08, subd. (f).)
d) States that confinement for parole violation shall not
exceed a period of 180 days in the county jail. (Pen.Code,
§ 3000.08, subd. (f).)
7)Authorizes the early discharge of a parolee from parole upon
successful completion of a certain amount of parole time,
AB 926
Page 6
known as continuous parole. The eligible discharge date is
based on the commitment offense and the statutorily-required
length of parole. (Pen. Code, § 3001.)
8)Authorizes CDCR to recommend to the parole board that a parole
be retained on parole for good cause. (Pen. Code, § 3001.)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "There is a
growing momentum among states seeking to safely reduce
corrections costs and reduce recidivism. California has the
opportunity to take this policy one step further by
reinvesting resources to ensure greater reductions in
recidivism and improve outcomes for individuals, families and
communities.
This bill creates an earned compliance credit program that
provides eligible parolees with the opportunity to reduce
their period of parole supervision upon compliance with their
parole conditions. Savings from the reduced parole
supervision shall be reinvested into job training and housing
support for state parolees to reduce recidivism."
2)Changes to Parole As a Result of Criminal Justice Realignment:
Prior to realignment, individuals released from prison were
placed on parole and supervised in the community by parole
agents of CDCR. If it was alleged that a parolee had violated
a condition of parole, he or she would have a revocation
proceeding before the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH). If
parole was revoked, the offender would be returned to state
prison for violating parole.
Realignment shifted the supervision of some released prison
inmates from CDCR parole agents to local probation
departments. Parole under the jurisdiction of CDCR for
inmates released from prison on or after October 1, 2011 is
limited to those defendants whose term was for a serious or
violent felony; were serving a Three-Strikes sentence; are
classified as high-risk sex offenders; who are required to
AB 926
Page 7
undergo treatment as mentally disordered offenders; or who,
while on certain paroles, commit new offenses. (Pen. Code, §§
3000.08, subds. (a) & (c), and 3451, subd. (b).) All other
inmates released from prison are subject to up to three years
of Post Release Community Supervision under local supervision.
(Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subd. (b), and 3451, subd. (a).)
Realignment also changed where an offender is incarcerated for
violating parole. Most individuals can no longer be returned
to state prison for violating a term of supervision; offenders
serve the revocation term in county jail. (Pen. Code, §§
3056, subd. (a), and 3458.) There is a 180-day limit to
incarceration. (Pen. Code, §§ 3056, subd. (a), and 3455,
subd. (c).) The only offenders who are eligible for return to
prison for violating parole are life-term inmates paroled
pursuant to Penal Code section 3000.1 (e.g., murderers,
specific life term sex offenses).
Additionally, realignment changed the process for revocation
hearings. As of July 1, 2013, the trial courts assumed
responsibility for holding all revocation hearings for those
individuals who remain under the jurisdiction of CDCR.
Moreover, intermediate sanctions, including flash
incarceration, also became available for state parolees on
July 1, 2013. (Pen. Code, § 3000.08, subd. (d).) Despite the
new authority to impose terms of flash incarceration upon
state-supervised parolees, the Division of Adult Parole
Operations (DAPO) has made a policy decision not to utilize
flash incarceration. (See Valdivia v. Brown, Response to May
6 Order, filed 05/28/13, p. 17.) CDCR has informed this
committee that at this time DAPO is still not utilizing flash
incarceration.
3)Discharge after certain periods of continuous parole: "The
granting of parole is an essential part of our criminal
justice system and is intended to assist those convicted of
crime to integrate into society as constructive individuals as
soon as possible and alleviate the cost of maintaining them in
custodial facilities." (In Re Vasquez (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th
370, 379-380, citations omitted.)
Under current law, most parolees can be discharged from parole
AB 926
Page 8
early if they successfully complete a certain period of parole
and there is not good cause to retain them. When a parolee
serves a period of time on continuous parole (i.e. without
violations, revocations, or absconding), the parole board must
conduct a discharge review. Depending on the underlying
commitment offense and the statutorily-imposed length of
parole, different time periods apply in determining the
presumptive discharge date. For example, if a parolee has a
three-year parole term, he or she is eligible for discharge
after one year, assuming the parolee has had successful
continuing parole. Likewise, a parolee with a five-year
parole term can be discharged after three years if the parolee
has been on parole continuously. Unless the board acts to
retain the parolee after the presumptive discharge date, the
parolee is discharged from parole.
The earned compliance credits proposed by this bill will
presumably advance the possible discharge dates.
4)Argument in Support: The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights,
the sponsor of this bill, writes, "There is a growing momentum
among states to safely reduce correction costs and reduce
recidivism. Gone are the days of increasing penalties and
building supermax prisons - states are now engaging in reforms
that downsize the prison apparatus and incentivize and reward
positive behavior and participation. According to a report by
the Association of State Correctional Administrators, 6 out of
7 state respondents who implemented an earned compliance
credit program stated that public opinion on the reduction of
community supervision has not been a problem in managing the
program. Further, 6 out of 7 states that have an earned
compliance credit program for parolees or probationers have
seen reductions in costs for supervision. Similar to these
efforts, AB 926 will help save the state be reducing the costs
associated with parole supervision and the costs associated
with returns to prison.
"In the last decade, more than a dozen states have implemented
earned credit mechanisms for people on parole or probation.
The impact of these policies has yielded substantial savings
without harming public safety. California has the opportunity
to take this policy one step further by reinvesting resources
AB 926
Page 9
to ensure greater reductions in recidivism and improve
outcomes for individuals, families, and communities."
5)Argument in Opposition: The California District Attorneys
Association states, "Requiring the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation and Board of Parole Hearings to
establish a credit program may sound better than proposing to
cut supervision periods in half, but, in reality, that's
exactly what AB 926 does.
"Although this bill seeks to allow parolees to 'earn' credits by
complying with the conditions of their release, the practical
effect is a 50 percent reduction in the length of every grant
of supervision. This bill does not require parolees to do
anything other than what they're already supposed to be doing.
In order for someone not to earn credits, he or she would
have to abscond from supervision, violate the conditions of
his or her release, or commit a new offense. At that point,
supervision would be revoked anyway.
"At a time when California is putting more offenders back into
the community soon, the last thing we need is less
supervision. This jeopardizes public safety, and runs counter
to the goals of using community-based supervision and
treatment in lieu of incarceration to rehabilitate offenders.
To do so in the name of 'Safe Communities' is a particularly
tragic irony.
"While we certainly recognize the connection between employment,
stable housing, and a decreased likelihood of recidivating, we
disagree with the wisdom of funding those programs by reducing
community supervision of parolees. Additionally, much of the
savings generated by this proposal would likely be consumed by
the additional costs of administering the new credits scheme,
further depriving our communities of any potential benefit."
6)Related Legislation: AB 512 (Stone), would increase the
number of weeks of additional program credit reductions that
may be awarded to a prisoner. AB 512 is pending hearing in
this committee today.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
AB 926
Page 10
Support
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights (Co-Sponsor)
Friends Committee on Legislation of California (Co-Sponsor)
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Catholic Conference
California Public Defenders Association
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Center of Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Drug Policy Alliance
Fair Chance Project
Forward Together
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
National Association of Social Workers - California Chapter
Prison Activist Resource Center
Prison Law Office
Western Regional Advocacy Project
Opposition
California District Attorneys Association
Analysis Prepared
by: Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744