BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 356 Hearing Date: April 28, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Hancock |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |February 24, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|AA |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Opportunity Yard Pilot Project
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation:None
Support: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California
Public Defenders Association
Opposition:None Known
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to create an "Opportunity Yard Pilot
Project" in 5 prisons, emphasizing promising and evidence-based
practices and programming in a separate, special purpose prison
housing unit setting designed to strengthen the ability of
younger inmates to successfully reenter society upon completion
of their prison sentence, as specified.
Current law creates in state government the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), to be
headed by a secretary, who shall be appointed by the Governor,
subject to Senate confirmation, and shall serve at the pleasure
of the Governor. (Government Code § 12838.) CDCR shall consist
SB 356 (Hancock ) PageB
of?
of Adult Operations, Adult Programs, Health Care Services,
Juvenile Justice, the Board of Parole Hearings, the State
Commission on Juvenile Justice, the Prison Industry Authority,
and the Prison Industry Board. (Id.) As explained in the
Legislative Analyst's Office Analysis of the Governor's 2015-16
Proposed Budget:
The CDCR is responsible for the incarceration of adult
felons, including the provision of training,
education, and health care services. As of February
4, 2015, CDCR housed about 132,000 adult inmates in
the state's prison system. Most of these inmates are
housed in the state's 34 prisons and 43 conservation
camps. About 15,000 inmates are housed in either
in-state or out-of-state contracted prisons. The
department also supervises and treats about 44,000
adult parolees
and is responsible for the apprehension of those
parolees who commit new offenses or parole violations.
In addition, about 700 juvenile offenders are housed
in facilities operated by CDCR's Division of Juvenile
Justice, which includes three facilities and one
conservation camp.
The Governor's budget proposes total expenditures of
$10.3 billion ($10 billion General Fund) for CDCR
operations in 2015-16.
This bill would require CDCR to "establish the Opportunity Yard
Pilot Project for offenders under the jurisdiction of the
department who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment
under Section 1170 and are likely to benefit from placement in a
program designed to provide comprehensive educational and
rehabilitative programming based on current best practices
consistent with the purposes and requirements of this section."
This bill would provide that the mission of this pilot would be
to "implement promising and evidence-based practices and
programming in a separate, special purpose prison housing unit
setting designed to strengthen the ability of eligible inmates
to successfully reenter society upon completion of their prison
sentence. The pilot program shall integrate evidence-based
practices of supervision, treatment, and rehabilitation in a
SB 356 (Hancock ) PageC
of?
positive, safe, and purposeful correctional environment."
This bill would require that this pilot "be initiated in at
least five prisons, as selected by the secretary, for at least
three years. At least two of the prisons chosen shall be Level
III general population facilities. At least two of the prisons
shall be Level IV general population facilities."
This bill would require CDCR to "develop and implement criteria
for selecting inmates appropriate for housing in the opportunity
yards that shall be consistent with all of the following:
(1) Inmate placement in the program shall be voluntary;
(2) To the extent feasible based upon a prison site's
population and eligible inmates, the program shall be
comprised of at least a majority of offenders between 18
and 26 years of age, inclusive, with a parole consideration
hearing date not exceeding five years from the date of
their placement in the program;
(3) Placement in the program shall be limited to inmates who
demonstrate a commitment to strive daily for
self-improvement, succeed in correctional programming, and
achieve permanent life change; and
(4) Participation in the program may be limited to inmates
who agree to be free from disciplinary action; who agree to
enroll, participate in, and complete a high school diploma,
Associate of Arts, or Bachelor of Arts college degree, or
vocational trade school; and who agree to complete
job-training curriculum, maintain a job on the opportunity
yard campus, and to serve as a peer mentor."
This bill would require CDCR to "develop and implement
appropriate selection criteria and training to ensure that staff
assigned to an Opportunity Yard are highly motivated and skilled
in fulfilling the mission of the program."
This bill would require CDCR to "develop and implement
programming and curriculum for the program consistent with this
section."
This bill would require CDCR to "develop and implement a plan
for evaluating the program and identifying outcome measures for
SB 356 (Hancock ) PageD
of?
program participants."
This bill would authorize CDCR to "adopt emergency regulations
to implement this section initially, and shall subsequently
adopt permanent regulations that make appropriate changes in
policies and procedures to implement this section."
This bill would sunset these provisions on January 1, 2021.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
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
SB 356 (Hancock ) PageE
of?
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;
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:
Rehabilitation is one the foundations of the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's stated
purpose. Not only will rehabilitative efforts lead to
reduced recidivism once inmates return to our
communities, but they will also ensure safer prisons
for both inmates and custodial staff.
However, in many cases, rehabilitation is hard to
achieve unless there is a voluntary decision on the
part of the inmate; a conscious choice to better
himself or herself. But scarcity of resources is also
SB 356 (Hancock ) PageF
of?
a concern. In my cases, inmates who wish to receive
programming to rehabilitate cannot because of security
concerns or lack of programming availability due to
funding or the geographical location of the prison.
SB 356 is meant to address both concerns. It creates
an "Opportunity Yard" Pilot Project in at least five
prisons. The Opportunity Yard program, which provides
additional education and programming opportunities, is
only open to inmates who voluntarily which to
participate. But it also creates a separate facility
that seeks to provide inmates the programming they
desire in an environment that is devoted primarily to
that mission. There will also be dividends in
increased security situation in providing a separate
facility with inmates who wish to eschew the politics
of the general population yard.
2.Prison Population; Prison Housing Placement
In its February analysis of the Governor's criminal justice
proposals for the 2015-16 fiscal year, the Legislative
Analyst's Office stated:
The CDCR is responsible for the incarceration of adult
felons, including the provision of training,
education, and health care services. As of February 4,
2015, CDCR housed about 132,000 adult inmates in the
state's prison system. Most of these inmates are
housed in the state's 34 prisons and 43 conservation
camps. About 15,000 inmates are housed in either
in-state or out-of-state contracted prisons. The
department also supervises and treats about 44,000
adult parolees and is responsible for the apprehension
of those parolees who commit new offenses or parole
violations. In addition, about 700 juvenile offenders
are housed in facilities operated by CDCR's Division
of Juvenile Justice, which includes three facilities
and one conservation camp.
This month, in its status report to the federal Three-Judge
Court referenced above, CDCR reported that as of April 8, 2015,
111,863 inmates were housed in the State's 34 adult
institutions, which amounts to 135.3% of design bed capacity,
and 8,394 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
SB 356 (Hancock ) PageG
of?
CDCR inmates generally are placed in housing facilities
with a security level that corresponds to the inmate's
placement score range:
(1) An inmate with a placement score of 0 through 18
shall be placed in a Level I facility.
(2) An inmate with a placement score of 19 through 35
shall be placed in a Level II facility.
(3) An inmate with a placement score of 36 through 59
shall be placed in a Level III facility.
(4) An inmate with a placement score of 60 and above
shall be placed in a Level IV facility.
CDCR's website provides the following description of these
facilities:
Level I - Facilities and Camps consist primarily of
open dormitories with a low security perimeter.
Level II - Facilities consist primarily of open
dormitories with a secure perimeter, which may include
armed coverage.
Level III - Facilities primarily have a secure
perimeter with armed coverage and housing units with
cells adjacent to exterior walls.
Level IV - Facilities have a secure perimeter with
internal and external armed coverage and housing units
or cell block housing with cells non-adjacent to
exterior walls.
In its most recent report, September 14, 2014, the
California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB) noted:
The department designated and activated enhanced
programming yards to incentivize positive behavior at
seven institutions. Program enhancements provide
primarily volunteer-based and self-help options and
may include access to college degree programs,
additional self-help groups, and hobby craft programs.
SB 356 (Hancock ) PageH
of?
The implementation process did not require mass
transfers of inmates from or to designated facilities.
Inmates residing in an enhanced programming yard were
allowed to remain, provided they were willing to meet
the program's expectations. Inmates who did not wish
to participate were able to transfer to a
non-enhanced-programming yard while inmates who had
been identified as possible participants were
evaluated during the classification process at their
annual or program review. Placement in enhanced
programming yards is based on an inmate's behavior and
willingness to meet programming expectations. . . .
The department designated 13 institutions as reentry
hubs to concentrate program resources in pre-release
programs to prepare inmates about to return to their
communities. Reentry hubs increase access to
rehabilitative programs that will reduce recidivism by
better preparing inmates to be productive members of
society. In doing so, they should help lower the
long-term prison population and save the State money.
Reentry hubs provide substance abuse treatment,
cognitive behavioral treatment, and transitions
programs to inmates who are within four years of
release and demonstrate a willingness to maintain
appropriate behavior to take advantage of such
programming.
The department has met its target for activating 13
reentry hubs with substance abuse treatment programs,
cognitive behavioral treatment, and transitions
programs. Five of the reentry hubs are still awaiting
activation of transitions programs. One reentry hub
does not yet have qualified counselors to deliver its
substance abuse treatment program, and another reentry
hub is in the process of hiring facilitators for its
cognitive behavioral treatment program. . . .
Program outcomes will be closely monitored to
determine the effectiveness of the reentry hubs and
the enhanced programming yards in comparison with the
results prior to realignment. Key performance
indicators include program enrollment,
SB 356 (Hancock ) PageI
of?
attendance, and completion, as well as regression,
which the department currently has available only for
substance abuse programs but anticipates eventually
being available for education and other programs in
future reports. Key performance `indicators are
reviewed monthly by executive staff, and results are
shared with wardens and institutional program staff.
Quarterly meetings are conducted with institution
staff to discuss performance in all of these areas.
Significant improvement, especially in degree
completions, has been made as a result of these
reviews.<1>
As explained above, this bill would pilot intensive programming
yards for younger inmates expected to parole within 5 years of
placement in the program. Younger felons have been demonstrated
to have the highest recidivism rates, with inmates released at
age 24 or younger returning to prison at a rate of 67.2
percent.<2> In addition, researchers have noted that, "An
abundance of research shows positive effects of
cognitive-behavioral approaches with offenders. At the same
time that cognitive-behavioral treatments have become dominant
in clinical psychology, many studies report that recidivism has
been decreased by cognitive-behavioral interventions."<3> This
bill appears intended to include these kinds of treatment in the
pilot it proposes.
WOULD THIS BILL COMPLEMENT AND ENHANCE THE EXISTING PROGRAMS IN
CDCR PRISONS?
---------------------------
<1> September 15, 2014 Report, C-ROB
(http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/crob/reports/C-ROB_Annual_Report_
September_15_2014.pdf.)
<2> CDCR 2013 Outcome Evaluation Report (January 2014)
(http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_
Branch/Research_Documents/ARB_FY_0809_Recidivism_Report_02.10.14.
pdf.
<3> Milkman and Wanberg, Cognitive Behavioral Treatment A
Review and Discussion for Corrections Professionals (May 2007)
(National Institute of Corrections, DOJ)( http://static.nicic
.gov/Library /021657.pdf.)
SB 356 (Hancock ) PageJ
of?
-- END -