BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 171 Hearing Date: May 12, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Gaines |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 15, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |Yes |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|AA |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: County Jail Inmates: Involuntary Transfer
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation:AB 1512 (Stone) - Chapter 44, Statutes of 2014
SB 1021 (Comm. on Budget and Fisc. Rev.)-Chapter
41, Statutes of 2012
AB 109 (Committee on Budget) - Chapter 15,
Statutes of 2011
Support: Unknown
Opposition:AllCare Alliance; American Civil Liberties Union;
Californians United for a Responsible Budget;
California Public Defenders Association; California
Attorneys for Criminal Justice; Courage Campaign; Ella
Baker; Friends Committee on Legislation of California;
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to authorize sheriffs with
SB 171 (Gaines ) PageB
of?
overcrowded jails to transfer sentenced inmates to another
state, county or private facility with or without the consent of
the inmate, and for the state to reimburse the county for all
costs to house and transport these transferred inmates, as
specified.
Existing law authorizes the "board of supervisors of a county
where, in the opinion of the sheriff or the director of the
county department of corrections, adequate facilities are not
available for prisoners who would otherwise be confined in its
county adult detention facilities, . . . (to) enter into an
agreement with the board or boards of supervisors of one or more
counties whose county adult detention facilities are adequate
for and accessible to the first county to permit commitment of
sentenced misdemeanants, persons sentenced pursuant to
subdivision (h) of Section 1170, and any persons required to
serve a term of imprisonment in county adult detention
facilities as a condition of probation, with the concurrence of
that county's sheriff or director of its county department of
corrections. When the agreement is in effect, commitments may
be made by the court." (Penal Code § 4115.5(a).)
Existing law provides that a county entering into an agreement
with another county pursuant to this section "shall report
annually to the Board of State and Community Corrections on the
number of offenders who otherwise would be under that county's
jurisdiction but who are now being housed in another county's
facility pursuant to (this section) and the reason for needing
to house the offenders outside the county." (Penal Code §
4115.5(b).)
Existing law sunsets these provisions on July 1, 2018.
This bill would provide that, with "the approval of the county
board of supervisors, the sheriff of a county may, if the county
jail is over 80 percent capacity, contract with any state,
county, or private jail or prison system in the United States
for the confinement of inmates on behalf of the county."
This bill would authorize a sheriff to "transfer any person
committed to the county jail upon conviction for a public
offense to a facility with which the county has a contract,
SB 171 (Gaines ) PageC
of?
pursuant to the provisions of this bill) . . . with or without
the inmate's consent. Transfers shall be at the discretion of
the county sheriff."
This bill would authorize the county to "submit to the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation an invoice showing
the actual cost of housing and transportation of the inmates,
including, but not limited to, personnel costs. The department
shall reimburse the county for all costs incurred to house and
transport inmates who are relocated pursuant to this section.
This bill would appropriate an unspecified amount from the
General Fund to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
to pay the cost of housing and transportation of inmates
incurred pursuant to its provisions.
Existing law provides that a "prisoner committed to the county
jail for examination, or upon conviction for a public offense,
must be actually confined in the jail until legally discharged;
and if the prisoner is permitted to go at large out of the jail,
except by virtue of a legal order or process, it is an escape;
provided, however, that during the pendency of a criminal
proceeding, the court before which said proceeding is pending
may make a legal order, good cause appearing therefor, for the
removal of the prisoner from the county jail in custody of the
sheriff. In courts where there is a marshal, the marshal shall
maintain custody of such prisoner while the prisoner is in the
court facility pursuant to such court order. The superior court
of the county may make a legal order, good cause appearing
therefor, for the removal of prisoners confined in the county
jail, after conviction, in the custody of the sheriff." (Penal
Code § 4004.)
Existing law provides that "if facilities are no longer
available in the county jail due to crowded conditions, a
sheriff may transfer a person committed to the county jail upon
conviction for a public offense to facilities which are
available in the city jail," as specified. (Id.)
This bill would revise this section to include a cross-reference
to its provisions.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
SB 171 (Gaines ) PageD
of?
For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
In February of this year the administration reported that as "of
February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed
capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. This current population is now below the
court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity."(
Defendants' February 2015 Status Report In Response To February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state now must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed
to reducing the prison population;
SB 171 (Gaines ) PageE
of?
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1.Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
As a result of the prisoner lawsuit, Plata v. Brown,
and a further ruling that California's prison
overcrowding directly led to cruel and unusual
punishment of CDCR inmates, California is under a
federal mandate to reduce its prison population to
137.5-percent of design capacity.
As part of the solution to this mandate, California
implemented a "realignment" plan. Due to this plan,
thousands of what would have been CDCR inmates have
been effectively transferred to county jails.
Much like the prisons themselves, though, the county
jails were overcrowded and could not absorb the
increased caseload engendered by realignment. In
practice, this has led to more criminals being out on
the street and communities seeing an increase in
crime.
SB 171 (Gaines ) PageF
of?
Although increased jail space would mitigate this
problem, it is not a solution that provides immediate
relief for crime-plagued communities, due to long
timelines for new jail construction and the difficulty
of securing funding.
2.Current Law; What This Bill Would Do
Current law authorizes counties facing jail capacity problems to
enter into contracts with other California counties that have
jail space to house their inmates. Prior to the enactment of SB
1021 in 2012, counties were allowed to contract with nearby
counties for the housing of committed misdemeanants and any
persons required to serve a term of imprisonment in a county
jail as a condition of probation. SB 1021 expanded this
authority by removing the requirement that the receiving county
must be a nearby county, and authorizing any inmate confined to
the county jail to be transferred through a county-to-county
contract. By authorizing any inmate confined in a county jail
to be transferred to another county, SB 1021 authorized the
transfer of inmates sentenced under realignment as well as
inmates who are awaiting trial.
AB 1512 (Stone), from last year, which was sponsored by the
California State Sheriffs' Association, allowed counties to
continue to transfer inmates by extending the sunset date
established in SB 1021 from July 1, 2015 to July 1, 2018. On
July 1, 2018, the law will revert back to the statute that
existed prior to the version passed by SB 1021. AB 1512,
additionally, excluded pre-trial inmates from being transferred
through county-to-county transfers.
This bill would authorize sheriffs with overcrowded jails to
transfer sentenced jail inmates to a far broader array of
custodial facilities than is authorized under current law.
Specifically, this bill would do the following:
With the approval of the county board of supervisors and
if the county jail is over 80 percent capacity, authorize
the sheriff to contract with any state, county, or private
jail or prison system in the United States for the
confinement of inmates on behalf of the county;
SB 171 (Gaines ) PageG
of?
Authorize the sheriff, at his or her discretion, to
transfer any person committed to the county jail upon
conviction for a public offense to a facility with or
without the inmate's consent;
Authorize the county to submit to the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") an invoice showing
the actual cost of housing and transportation of the
inmates, including, but not limited to, personnel costs;
Require CDCR to reimburse the county for all costs
incurred to house and transport inmates who are relocated
under this provision; and
Appropriate an unspecified amount from the General Fund
to CDCR to pay these costs.
1.Jail Overcrowding and the State's Response
Some counties have faced jail overcrowding challenges for many
years. These issues pre-dated the public safety realignment of
2011, and increased immediately after realignment became law in
October of 2011. The passage of Proposition 47 in November of
2014 may reverse this trend and reduce jail populations in some
counties.<1>
Since 2007, the Legislature has approved over $2 billion in
lease-revenue bonds to fund jail construction and modification,
which is estimated to have added more than 14,000 jail beds
---------------------------
<1> Los Angeles County Jail Population Plummets After Passage
of Prop. 47 (January 25, 2015)(California County News)(
http://californiacountynews.org/news/2015/01/los-angeles-county-j
ail-population-plummets-after-passage-prop-47.)
SB 171 (Gaines ) PageH
of?
across the state.<2> In February of 2014 (before the passage of
Proposition 47) the Legislative Analyst's Office noted:
(T)he statewide jail population has increased by
11,000 inmates since 2011, nearing the peak population
of 82,000 inmates that occurred in 2007. Realignment
is responsible for most of this increase.
As of June 2013, 56 jail facilities in 25 counties had
average daily populations that exceeded their rated
capacities. In total, these facilities had 11,500 more
inmates than their rated capacity. However, other
jails had more capacity than inmates. Specifically,
65 jail facilities in 45 counties had an average daily
population below rated capacity. In total, these
facilities had 6,000 inmates less than their rated
capacity. We note that there are some counties with
multiple facilities where one facility may exceed its
capacity while another may have available bed space.
This typically occurs where the facilities serve
different populations (by gender or security need for
example) and the counties cannot move inmates between
facilities.
We also note that many county jail facilities are
under self-imposed or court-imposed population caps.
As of June 2013, 39 facilities in 19 counties were
operating under either self-imposed caps or
court-imposed caps. When such facilities exceed their
population caps, they release inmates early. For
example, in the first half of 2013, an average of
about 13,000 inmates per month were released early.<3>
A growing number of alternatives to jail custody are becoming
---------------------------
<2> The 2014-15 Budget: A Review of the 2014 California
Five-Year Infrastructure Plan (Legislative Analyst's Office
(http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2014/budget/infrastructure/infrast
ructure-plan-021014.pdf.); Corrections Infrastructure Spending
in California , Brandon Martin, PPIC, (March 2015)
(http://www.ppic.org/ main/publication_show.asp?i=1142.)
<3> The 2014-15 Budget: Governor's Criminal Justice Proposals
(Legislative Analyst's Office) February 19, 2014
(http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2014/budget/criminal-justice/crimi
nal-justice-021914.pdf.)
SB 171 (Gaines ) PageI
of?
employed to manage local offenders. A policy brief released
this month by the Public Policy Institute of California
explains:
. . . (T)he overall number of individuals under
correctional supervision has decreased in recent
years. Although the shares of offenders in prison or
jail versus parole or probation are unchanged, there
has been a substantial increase in the percentage of
offenders managed by the counties. These shifts have
led many to consider how the state and its counties
can make the best use of the scarcest and most
expensive resource in the system: a jail or prison
bed. . . .
Counties appear to use a greater range of
alternatives. Each county board of supervisors can
authorize county correctional administrators to
operate voluntary and involuntary alternative custody
programs (ACP). Two of the most common programs,
specifically mentioned in state law, are home
detention and work release. Home detention programs
require offenders to serve sentences in specific
residential locations. Most home detention programs
require participants to be monitored by electronic or
GPS devices. Counties can develop their own program
rules and criteria, including charging application and
daily fees.
Counties also run work release programs that allow
offenders sentenced to county jail to spend time on
community service projects, including picking up
roadside trash and repairing public buildings.
Program participants receive one day of sentence
credit for every day (8 to 10 hours) served in a work
program. As with home detention, each county develops
its own rules and criteria for participation in the
program, including application and daily fees. . . .
County alternative custody programs can now include
newly realigned offenders - non-serious, non-violent,
non-sexual (1170h) felons who previously were eligible
for prison but now serve all or part of their
sentences in county jail. Counties now have the
SB 171 (Gaines ) PageJ
of?
option of placing these 1170h offenders in work
release programs, home detention, or electronic
monitoring programs at any point during their
sentences. Offenders serving local sentences have been
eligible for placement in alternative custody programs
for years.<4>
Research suggests that incarceration is an expensive sanction
which for many offenders may not be the most effective way of
reducing recidivism. As explained by the PPIC report:
Would relying less heavily on incarceration have an
effect on recidivism? Studies generally find little to
no difference in recidivism when comparing outcomes
for incarcerated offenders with offenders sentenced to
the community. A few studies show better outcomes for
individuals placed in custody, but the effects are
surprisingly small.
Several studies show worse recidivism outcomes for
incarcerated offenders, although this does not emerge
as clearly in studies that make extensive adjustments
for different groups of offenders. This holds true in
recent research that factors the length of
incarceration into the calculation of recidivism,
which suggests that incarceration may be less
beneficial than we might assume. Given that custodial
placements are substantially more expensive than
placements in the community, the implication is that
widening the use of community-based punishments can
conserve resources without necessarily worsening
recidivism. . .
Would relying less heavily on incarceration have an
effect on recidivism? Studies generally find little to
no difference in recidivism when comparing outcomes
for incarcerated offenders with offenders sentenced to
the community. A few studies show better outcomes for
individuals placed in custody, but the effects are
----------------------
<4> Alternatives to Incarceration in California (Brandon
Martin and Ryken Grattet) (PPIC), April 2016
(http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_415BMR.pdf)
(footnotes omitted).
SB 171 (Gaines ) PageK
of?
surprisingly small. Several studies show worse
recidivism outcomes for incarcerated offenders,
although this does not emerge as clearly in studies
that make extensive adjustments for different groups
of offenders. This holds true in recent research that
factors the length of incarceration into the
calculation of recidivism, which suggests that
incarceration may be less beneficial than we might
assume.
Given that custodial placements are substantially more
expensive than placements in the community, the
implication is that widening the use of
community-based punishments can conserve resources
without necessarily worsening recidivism.<5>
The enactment of the 2011 public safety realignment included
legislative findings and declarations that included the
following:
California must reinvest its criminal justice resources
to support community-based corrections programs and
evidence-based practices that will achieve improved public
safety returns on this state's substantial investment in
its criminal justice system.
Realigning the postrelease supervision of certain felons
reentering the community after serving a prison term to
local community corrections programs, which are
strengthened through community-based punishment,
evidence-based practices, and improved supervision
strategies, will improve public safety outcomes among adult
felon parolees and will facilitate their successful
reintegration back into society.<6>
Members may wish to discuss a number of issues concerning the
impact and effectiveness of this bill.
WOULD THIS BILL IMPROVE OUTCOMES AMONG OFFENDERS SENTENCED TO
JAIL?
---------------------------
<5> Id. (footnotes omitted).
<6> Penal Code §§ 17.5, 3450.
SB 171 (Gaines ) PageL
of?
WOULD THE COSTS OF THIS BILL OUTWEIGH ITS PUBLIC SAFETY
BENEFITS?
WOULD THIS BILL PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR COUNTIES FACING
OVERCROWDED JAILS?
HOW WOULD THIS BILL IMPACT AND COMPARE TO THE STATE'S NEED TO
CONTRACT FOR OUT-OF-STATE AND PRIVATE CUSTODIAL BEDS FOR PRISON
INMATES, AND HOW WOULD THIS IMPACT THE STATE'S ABILITY TO MEET
THE PRISON CAPACITY REDUCTIONS ORDERED BY THE FEDERAL COURT?
-- END -