BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
SB 224 (Liu) - Elderly Parole Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: March 19, 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 224 would codify the court-ordered Elderly Parole
Program, to be administered by the Board of Parole Hearings
(BPH). This bill would expand inmate eligibility for the
existing program by reducing the minimum age requirement from 60
years to 50 years of age or older and time served from at least
25 years to 15 years of continued incarceration, as specified.
Fiscal Impact (as approved May 28,
2015): No near-term fiscal impact, as the provisions of this
bill codify existing practice. To the extent the CDCR would
otherwise not continue to administer the program once federal
receivership is lifted, could potentially result in significant
ongoing future operational costs and offsetting cost savings for
releases to parole.
Background: The Three-Judge Court, in its February 10, 2014, order
granting a two-year extension to reduce the in-state adult
SB 224 (Liu) Page 1 of
?
inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, ordered
the CDCR to implement several population reduction measures,
including finalizing and implementing an Elderly Parole Program,
whereby inmates who are 60 years of age or older and have served
at least 25 years on their current sentence will be referred to
the BPH to determine suitability for parole. The BPH implemented
the program on October 1, 2014.
According to the CDCR report, April 2015 Status and Benchmark
Report to the Three-Judge Court, "The Board continues to
schedule eligible inmates for hearings who were not already in
the Board's hearing cycle, including inmates sentenced to
determinate terms. From February 11, 2014 through March 31,
2015, the Board has held 577 hearings for inmates eligible for
elderly parole, resulting in 166 grants, 371 denials, 38
stipulations to unsuitability, and 2 split votes that required
referral to the full Board. An additional 211 hearings were
scheduled during this time period but were waived, postponed,
continued, or cancelled."
Proposed
Law: This bill would establish the Elderly Parole Program, to
be administered by the BPH. To be considered for parole, an
inmate must be 50 years of age or older and have served 15 years
of continued incarceration on his or her sentence including time
served prior to sentencing. In addition, this bill:
Requires the BPH, when considering the release of a prisoner,
to give special consideration to whether age, time served, and
diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the
elderly prisoner's risk for future violence.
Requires the BPH to consider whether the prisoner meets or
will meet the criteria for elderly parole eligibility when
scheduling a parole suitability hearing or when considering a
request for an advance hearing.
Specifies the Elderly Parole Program does not apply to
prisoners sentenced to death or to imprisonment for life
without the possibility of parole.
Specifies numerous uncodified legislative findings and
declarations.
SB 224 (Liu) Page 2 of
?
Related
Legislation: None applicable.
Staff
Comments: The CDCR has indicated the provisions of this bill
would have a significant fiscal impact on the BPH. It is
estimated that more than 6,100 inmates would immediately be
eligible for a parole suitability hearing if the expanded
criteria of this bill are applied to the existing Elderly Parole
hearing process.
In calendar year 2014, the BPH scheduled slightly more than
4,700 parole suitability hearings and was budgeted approximately
$4 million for costs associated with transcripts and inmate
counsel for those hearings. Based on the average cost of $850
per hearing, the transcript and attorney costs alone for the
additional 6,100 hearings would be $5.2 million (General Fund),
assuming the existing parole suitability procedures would apply.
These costs would be incurred over the period in which the
hearings are conducted.
While the increase in eligible inmates would create an immediate
backlog for hearings, the CDCR has indicated it would also
create a continued need for more hearings prospectively,
resulting in a potential need for additional BPH staff,
Commissioners, and Deputy Commissioners. If risk assessments are
required for these additional hearings, as are currently
required for parole consideration hearings, the BPH would
potentially need to increase the number of clinical forensic
psychologists and senior psychologists that it currently
employs, also at significant cost. Staff notes the level of need
for additional staffing would be dependent on the rate at which
the BPH schedules and conducts the suitability hearings for
eligible inmates. In the absence of prescribed timeframes within
which the hearings must be scheduled and held, resource needs
could vary widely.
The CDCR would also generally incur additional costs related to
preparing for the hearings, including additional workload for
case records staff, correctional counselors, and custody staff
to facilitate a variety of necessary functions associated with
parole consideration hearings, such as audits of inmate records
SB 224 (Liu) Page 3 of
?
to confirm eligibility, security at hearings, review of the
inmate's central file by the inmate, his or her counsel, and
district attorneys prior to the hearing, arranging
inmate/attorney visits, and interviews by the BPH's forensic
clinical psychologists. While the CDCR is currently working on a
more detailed analysis of the resources that would potentially
be required under the provisions of this bill, the CDCR
estimates that total costs associated with this bill could
exceed $10 million. As noted previously, the level of resources
required to address the workload generated by the expanded
population of inmates would be dependent on the rate at which
the CDCR and BPH schedule and conduct the hearings.
To the extent the expanded Elderly Parole program results in
additional inmates being released earlier to parole would result
in potentially significant future cost savings in reduced
incarceration, including medical, dental, and mental health cost
savings, offset in small part by an increase in parole costs.
The magnitude of cost savings would be dependent on the number
of inmates released to parole, the net cost to otherwise
incarcerate and provide healthcare to the inmates, and the terms
the inmates would have otherwise served. While the number of
inmates impacted on an annual basis cannot be estimated with
certainty, for every 50 inmates released to parole, first-year
net cost savings could range from a minimum of $300,000 to over
$1.5 million (General Fund), depending on the facility in which
the inmates would have otherwise been incarcerated (state prison
or in-state contract bed). Cumulative savings after three years
could range from $950,000 to $4.6 million, assuming the inmates
would have otherwise served that term in prison.
Relatedly, to the extent a greater number of inmates are
released earlier to parole under the provisions of this bill
would potentially result in additional individuals being newly
eligible or reinstated for Medi-Cal program benefits. Increases
in Medi-Cal program costs would be funded with both General Fund
and federal funds. While the federal share of costs for
childless adults is currently 100 percent, this reimbursement
rate is temporary, and the ongoing federal share of Medi-Cal
program costs would range from 50 percent to 90 percent.
Committee amendments (as adopted May 28, 2015): Revise program
eligibility to 60 years of age or older and at least 25 years
served, as specified.
SB 224 (Liu) Page 4 of
?
-- END --