BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
SB 219 (Liu) - Prisons: alternative custody program
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: March 26, 2015 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 5 - 2 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: May 28, 2015 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUSPENSE FILE. AS AMENDED.
Bill
Summary: SB 219 would prohibit the Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (CDCR) from excluding a female inmate from
eligibility for the alternative custody program (ACP) on the
basis of an existing psychiatric or medical condition, as
specified. This bill would require the CDCR to meet prescribed
timeframes for the processing of ACP applications, the
development of individualized treatment and rehabilitation plans
(ITRPs), the provision of written notifications, and the
transition of inmates to ACP. This bill would also require the
CDCR to assist ACP participants in obtaining health care
coverage, as specified.
Fiscal Impact (as approved May 28,
2015):
CDCR administration : increase in administrative costs likely
less than $100,000 (General Fund) to meet the specified
timelines prescribed for processing applications, completing
ITRPs, and transitioning inmates to ACP within five business
SB 219 (Liu) Page 1 of
?
days of acceptance to the program.
ACP caseload impact : potential future cost savings (General
Fund) to the extent the number of ACP participants increases
as a result of the prohibition on denial due to
psychiatric/medical conditions and/or to the extent inmates
are transitioned to ACP more expeditiously under the
prescribed timeframes. While the caseload impact is not
estimated to be significant, additional inmates transitioned
to ACP would result in net cost savings in incarceration,
medical, dental, and mental health care costs.
Background: Existing law authorizes the Secretary of the CDCR to offer a
program under which female inmates who meet specified
eligibility requirements may be allowed to participate in a
voluntary ACP in lieu of confinement in state prison. Under
existing law, eligible inmates may be permitted to serve the
remainder of their sentences (24 months or less) in a
residential home, a residential drug treatment program, or a
transitional care facility that offers appropriate services.
(Penal Code (PC) § 1170.05.)
The following exclusionary criteria preclude an inmate from
participation in the ACP:
The person has a current conviction for a serious or
violent felony.
The person has a current or prior conviction for an
offense requiring registration as a sex offender.
The person was screened by the CDCR using a validated
risk assessment tool and determined to pose a high risk to
commit a violent offense.
The person has a history, within the last 10 years, of
escape from a facility while under juvenile or adult
custody, as specified.
An ACP participant must comply with all rules and regulations as
prescribed by the CDCR, including participation in an ITRP,
supervision by a parole agent, and electronic monitoring at all
times. ACP participants are eligible for sentence reduction
credits that they would have received had they served their
SB 219 (Liu) Page 2 of
?
sentences in state prison. Failure to comply with ACP rules or
regulations may result in return to custody to complete the
remainder of the original sentence.
The Three-Judge Court, in its February 10, 2014, order granting
a two-year extension to reduce the in-state adult inmate
population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, ordered the CDCR
to immediately implement several population reduction measures,
including the implementation of an expanded ACP (EACP) for
female inmates. According to the CDCR April 2015 Status and
Benchmark Report to the Three-Judge Court, "The State's
alternative custody program for females, Custody to Community
Transitional Reentry Program (CCTRP), provides female inmates
with a range of rehabilitative services that assist with alcohol
and drug recovery, employment, education, housing, family
reunification, and social support. Female inmates in the CCTRP
program are housed at one of two facilities located in San Diego
and Southern California. The San Diego facility, which is an
82-bed facility, is currently at full capacity. The Southern
California facility, which opened on April 9, 2015, and is also
an 82-bed facility, had 10 beds filled as of April 14, 2015. The
State continues to transfer inmates into the Southern California
facility at a rate of 5-7 inmates per week."
The CDCR has indicated that since the inception of the ACP in
September 2011, approximately 7,200 applications (including
duplications, resubmittals, and EACP applications) have been
received, of which 460 offenders have been approved and
transferred to ACP status.
The ACP is currently being challenged in federal court (Sassman
v. Brown, 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN). On July 16, 2014, a male
prisoner in the custody of the CDCR filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California. The
plaintiff asked for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming
that California's blanket exclusion of male prisoners from the
ACP violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. See Staff Comments for
additional information.
Proposed
Law: This bill would modify the existing eligibility criteria
and application process of the ACP as follows:
SB 219 (Liu) Page 3 of
?
Prohibits the CDCR from excluding an inmate from
eligibility to participate in ACP due to an inmate's
existing psychiatric or medical condition that requires
ongoing care.
Requires the CDCR to establish a timeline for the ACP
application process, as follows:
o Requires a response to an applicant within two
weeks of application receipt.
o Requires notification to the inmate of the
ineligibility criteria of the ACP.
o Requires an ITRP to be developed during two
weeks following notice of receipt of application, in
consultation with the inmate, during which time the
decision whether to accept the inmate in the ACP shall
be made.
o A written notice must be provided to the
inmate of acceptance or denial.
o The inmate must be released to the ACP no
later than five business days following notice of
acceptance into the program.
o The notice of denial must specify the reason
for the denial.
o CDCR must maintain records of all ACP
applications and denial notices.
o Authorizes an inmate to reapply to the ACP 30
days after notice of denial, or the decision may be
appealed through normal grievance procedures.
Requires the CDCR to assist an ACP participant in
obtaining health care coverage, including but not limited
to assistance with having suspended Medi-Cal benefits
reinstated, applying for Medi-Cal benefits, or obtaining
health care coverage under a private health plan or policy.
SB 219 (Liu) Page 4 of
?
Specifies that to the extent not covered by a
participant's health care coverage, the state retains
responsibility for the medical, dental, and mental health
needs of individuals participating in the ACP.
Prior
Legislation: SB 1266 (Liu) Chapter 644/2010 established the ACP
within the CDCR under which eligible female inmates, pregnant
inmates, or inmates (male or female) who were the primary
caregivers of dependent children would be allowed to participate
in lieu of their confinement in state prison, as specified.
SB 1021 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) Chapter 41/2012
modified the ACP to specify that only female inmates are
eligible for the program. The bill also required that case
management services be provided to support rehabilitation and to
track the progress and ITRP compliance of the inmate.
Staff
Comments: The CDCR has indicated the provisions of this measure
would result in increased administrative workload but does not
anticipate an impact on participation in the ACP. While the
timeframes may be achievable for many cases, the CDCR has
indicated concern with the ability to meet the strict timeframes
in every case, specifically with the provisions requiring
completion of the ITRP and the requirement that the inmate be
released into the program within five business days of
acceptance to the program.
The CDCR has indicated the typical ACP application process takes
approximately 55 days from initiation to completion, and an
inmate is typically placed into the program within 14 days of
being accepted. While additional staff would better enable the
CDCR to meet the timeframes imposed by the bill, the CDCR has
indicated in specified circumstances it may not be possible to
adhere to the specified timeframes, regardless of staff or
resources.
The provisions of this bill also require the CDCR to develop an
ITRP for all applicants, irrespective of acceptance or denial to
the ACP, which would create additional workload, as under
existing law ITRPs are developed only for applicants that have
been screened as eligible and accepted into the program. To the
SB 219 (Liu) Page 5 of
?
extent the additional administrative workload is not absorbable,
increased staffing costs in excess of $50,000 to $100,000
(General Fund) per year could be incurred.
The CDCR does not anticipate that the expanded criteria in the
bill will impact the number of individuals released onto ACP.
According to the CDCR, individuals with a psychiatric or medical
condition requiring ongoing care are not currently excluded from
eligibility, but are considered on a case-by-case basis.
Additionally, the CDCR currently provides participating inmates
with insurance and Medi-Cal assistance. As a result, no change
to current procedures is anticipated. While the caseload impact
is not estimated to be significant, to the extent the number of
ACP participants increases and/or inmates are transitioned to
ACP more expeditiously under the prescribed timeframes in the
bill would result in net cost savings (General Fund) in
incarceration, as well as medical, dental, and mental health
care costs.
Staff notes that the ACP is currently being challenged in
federal court (Sassman v. Brown, 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN). On July
16, 2014, a male prisoner in the custody of the CDCR filed a
lawsuit requesting declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming
that California's blanket exclusion of male prisoners from the
ACP violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiff is a male
prisoner with two children and an ailing mother with Stage IV
colon cancer whom he wished to care for. He filed the lawsuit
and requested a preliminary injunction due to his rejection by
CDCR from participating in the program for no other reason than
that he is a man. While the court has not yet ruled on the
motions for summary judgment, the court, in ruling on
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, stated:
Defendants claim that Plaintiff cannot succeed on the
merits of his Equal Protection claim because he is not
similarly situated to those female inmates applying
for and being approved to participate in the ACP.
Plaintiff, on the other hand, claims that he is
similarly situated to female inmates for purposes of
the ACP by referencing the gender-neutral exclusionary
criteria contained within the implementing regulations
that ensure only low-risk, low-level offenders
participate in the program. More specifically,
SB 219 (Liu) Page 6 of
?
Plaintiff contends that because he qualifies to submit
an application to the ACP with reference to those
criteria, he is similarly situated to females who
qualify as well. Plaintiff's argument is well taken.
CDCR has repeatedly made clear that the primary
objectives of the ACP are family reunification and
community reintegration. However, since all women are
permitted to participate in the ACP, not just women
with children, it is unclear how the statute furthers
those goals. Moreover, this Court still cannot see how
either goal is advanced by excluding male prisoners.
To the contrary, it seems that permitting men to
participate in the program would actually serve the
State's objectives. Defendants have thus failed to
show how the ACP can be substantially related to the
State's interests of family reunification and
community reintegration when, to apply, women need not
be mothers, nor must they show a need for
rehabilitation or recovery services aimed at substance
abuse or domestic violence, but men, even if they show
all of the foregoing, may not apply at all. Absent a
closer connection between the statute and the goals it
is intended to serve, Plaintiff is likely to succeed
on the merits of his claim.
Author amendments (as adopted May 28, 2015):
Reduce CDCR administrative workload by requiring
development of the ITRP after the applicant has been found
eligible for participation in the program, as specified.
Make other technical changes.
-- END --