BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ķ



          SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
                             Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
                                2015 - 2016  Regular 

          Bill No:    SB 759        Hearing Date:    April 28, 2015    
          
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Author:    |Anderson                                             |
          |-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
          |Version:   |April 14, 2015                                       |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Urgency:   |No                     |Fiscal:    |Yes              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Consultant:|JRD                                                  |
          |           |                                                     |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


                     Subject:  Prisoners:  Secured Housing Units



          HISTORY

          Source:   Friends Committee on Legislation of California

          Prior Legislation:SB 892 (Hancock)-2014, died on Assembly Floor

          Support:  American Friends Service Committee; California  
                    Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California Public  
                    Defenders Association; Californians United for a  
                    Responsible Budget; Ella Baker Center for Human  
                    Rights; Legal Services for Prisoners with Children;  
                    National Religious Campaign Against Torture; Youth  
                    Justice Coalition

          Opposition:None known

            
          PURPOSE

          The purpose of this legislation is to ensure accountability and  
          transparency in the use of solitary confinement in California,  
          as specified. 

          Current law creates in state government the California  
          Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), to be  








          SB 759  (Anderson )                                       PageB  
          of?
          
          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  
          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.

          Current regulations allow CDCR to place an inmate in the SHU if  
          the inmate has been deemed a threat to the safety of others or  
          the security of the institution.  (15 CCR 3341.5.)  Under  
          existing regulations, inmates can be assigned to the Security  
          Housing Unit (SHU) for a determinate or indeterminate term.   
          (Id.)   An inmate who has been validated as a gang member can be  
          placed in the SHU for an indeterminate term.  (Id.)
          
          Data Collection
           
           Current law creates the independent Office of the Inspector  
          General (OIG).  (Penal Code § 6125.)  The Inspector General is  
          responsible for contemporaneous oversight of internal affairs  
          investigations and the disciplinary process of the Department of  
          Corrections and Rehabilitation.  (Penal Code § 6126.)  
           









          SB 759  (Anderson )                                       PageC  
          of?
          
           This bill would require CDCR to collect a variety of data  
          relating to the security threat group validation process and the  
          SHU, as specified. 

          This bill would require, beginning January 1, 2018, the OIG to  
          prepare a biennial report utilizing the information collected by  
          CDCR, as specified. 
           

           Credit Earning 


          Under existing law  a person who is placed in a Security Housing  
          Unit, Psychiatric Services Unit, Behavioral Management Unit, or  
          an Administrative Segregation Unit for misconduct described in  
          subdivision (b) or upon validation as a prison gang member or  
          associate is ineligible to earn credits pursuant to Section 2933  
          or 2933.05 during the time he or she is in the Security Housing  
          Unit, Psychiatric Services Unit, Behavioral Management Unit, or  
          the Administrative Segregation Unit for that misconduct, as  
          specified.  (Penal Code § 2933.6.)

          This bill would repeal those provisions and instead authorize  
          CDCR to establish regulations to allow specified inmates placed  
          in a Security Housing Unit, Psychiatric Services Unit,  
          Behavioral Management Unit, or an Administrative Segregation  
          Unit to earn credits during the time he or she is in the  
          Security Housing Unit, Psychiatric Services Unit, Behavioral  
          Management Unit, or the Administrative Segregation Unit.

                    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  









          SB 759  (Anderson )                                       PageD  
          of?
          
          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;
              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.











          SB 759  (Anderson )                                       PageE  
          of?
          
          COMMENTS

             1.   Need for This Legislation
          
          According to the Author: 

            Good government starts with good information.  Governor  
            Brown is requesting over $10 billion for corrections in  
            2015-2016.  Lawmakers can only make prudent budget  
            decisions when they have the necessary information.  SB  
            759 is a modest step toward accountability and  
            transparency that will give the Legislature the data it  
            needs to exercise sound oversight over CDCR. 

          2.   Solitary Confinement: The National Discussion  
          
           In recent years, solitary confinement practices in the United  
          States have come under increased scrutiny, which has resulted in  
          a movement to significantly limit its use.  



          On June 19, 2012, Senator Dick Durbin chaired the first  
          Congressional hearing on solitary confinement.  (First  
          Congressional Hearing on Solitary Confinement to Be Held June  
          19, James 



          Ridgeway and Jean Casella, June 8, 2012.  
          http://solitarywatch.com/2012/06/08/first-congressional-hearing-o 
          n-solitary-confinement-to-be-held-june-19/)   The hearing  
          focused on the human rights, fiscal and public safety  
          consequences of solitary confinement in U.S. prisons, jails, and  
          detention centers.  (Id.)  The hearing also explored the  
          psychological and psychiatric impact on inmates during and after  
          their imprisonment, the higher costs of running solitary housing  
          units, the human rights issues surrounding the use of isolation,  
          and successful state reforms in this area. (Id.) 



          In February of last year, these psychological effects were  
          experienced firsthand by the Executive Director of Colorado's  









          SB 759  (Anderson )                                       PageF  
          of?
          
          Department of Corrections, Rick Raemisch.  Raemisch recounts:



               I was delivered to a Colorado state penitentiary,  
               where I was issued an inmate uniform and a mesh bag  
               with my toiletries and bedding.  My arms were  
               handcuffed behind my back, my legs were shackled and I  
               was deposited in Administrative Segregation - solitary  
               confinement. 



               I hadn't committed a crime.  Instead, as the new head  
               of the state's corrections department, I wanted to  
               learn more about what we call Ad Seg. 



               Most states now agree that solitary confinement is  
               overused, and many - like New York, which just agreed  
               to a powerful set of reforms this week - are beginning  
               to act.  When I was appointed, Gov. John Hickenlooper  
               charged me with three goals: limiting or eliminating  
               the use of solitary confinement for mentally ill  
               inmates; addressing the needs of those who have been  
               in solitary for long periods; and reducing the number  
               of offenders released directly from solitary back into  
               their communities.  If I was going to accomplish  
               these, I needed a better sense of what solitary  
               confinement was like, and what it did to the prisoners  
               who were housed there, sometimes for years. 



               My cell, No. 22, was on the second floor, at the end  
               of what seemed like a very long walk.  At the cell,  
               the officers removed my shackles.  The door closed and  
               the feed tray door opened.  I was told to put my hands  
               through it so the cuffs could be removed. And then I  
               was alone - classified as an R.F.P., or "Removed From  
               Population."











          SB 759  (Anderson )                                       PageG  
          of?
          

               In regular Ad Seg, inmates can have books or TVs. But  
               in R.F.P. Ad Seg, no personal property is allowed.   
               The room is about 7 by 13 feet.  What little there is  
               inside - bed, toilet, sink - is steel and screwed to  
               the floor. 



               First thing you notice is that it's anything but  
               quiet.  You're immersed in a drone of garbled noise -  
               other inmates' blaring TVs, distant conversations,  
               shouted arguments.  I couldn't make sense of any of  
               it, and was left feeling twitchy and paranoid.  I kept  
               waiting for the lights to turn off, to signal the end  
               of the day.  But the lights did not shut off.  I began  
               to count the small holes carved in the walls. Tiny  
               grooves made by inmates who'd chipped away at the cell  
               as the cell chipped away at them. 



               For a sound mind, those are daunting circumstances.   
               But every prison in America has become a dumping  
               ground for the mentally ill, and often the "worst of  
               the worst" - some of society's most unsound minds -  
               are dumped in Ad Seg.



               If an inmate acts up, we slam a steel door on him. Ad  
               Seg allows a prison to run more efficiently for a  
               period of time, but by placing a difficult offender in  
               isolation you have not solved the problem - only  
               delayed or more likely exacerbated it, not only for  
               the prison, but ultimately for the public.  Our job in  
               corrections is to protect the community, not to  
               release people who are worse than they were when they  
               came in. 



           (My Night in Solitary, Rick Raemisch, New York Times, February  
          20, 2014.  









          SB 759  (Anderson )                                       PageH  
          of?
          
          http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/opinion/my-night-in-solitary.ht 
          ml)
          David Brooks, New York Times Op-Ed columnist, echoed the notion  
          that the use of solitary confinement should be reduced.  He  
          wrote, in part: 

               We don't flog people in our prison system, or put them  
               in thumbscrews or stretch them on the rack.  We do,  
               however, lock prisoners away in social isolation for  
               23 hours a day, often for months, years or decades at  
               a time.


               We prohibit the former and permit the latter because  
               we make a distinction between physical and social  
               pain.  But, at the level of the brain where pain  
               really resides, this is a distinction without a  
               difference.  Matthew Lieberman of the University of  
               California, Los Angeles, compared the brain activities  
               of people suffering physical pain with people  
               suffering from social pain.  As he writes in his book,  
               "Social," "Looking at the screens side by side ... you  
               wouldn't have been able to tell the difference."


               The brain processes both kinds of pain in similar  
               ways.  Moreover, at the level of human experience,  
               social pain is, if anything, more traumatic, more  
               destabilizing and inflicts more cruel and long-lasting  
               effects than physical pain.  What we're doing to  
               prisoners in extreme isolation, in other words, is  
               arguably more inhumane than flogging.


               Yet inflicting extreme social pain is more or less  
               standard procedure in America's prisons.  Something  
               like 80,000 prisoners are put in solitary confinement  
               every year.  Prisoners isolated in super maximum  
               facilities are often locked away in a 6-by-9-foot or  
               8-by-10-foot barren room. They may be completely  
               isolated in that room for two days a week.  For the  
               remaining five, they may be locked away for 23 hours a  
               day and permitted an hour of solitary exercise in a  
               fenced-in area. 









          SB 759  (Anderson )                                       PageI  
          of?
          

          (The Archipelago of Pain, David Brooks, New York Times, March 6,  
          2014.   
          http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/07/opinion/brooks-the-archipelago- 
          of-pain.html?_r=0) 

          On March 23, 2015, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy stated  
          during a budget hearing: 

               California, my home state, had 187,000 people in jail  
               at a cost of over $30,000 a prisoner.  Compare the  
               amount they gave to school children; it was about 3500  
               a year.  Now, this is 24-hour care and so this is  
               apples and oranges in a way.  And this idea of total  
               incarceration just isn't working.  And it's not  
               humane. The federal government built -- what do they  
               call them -- super max prisons with isolation cells.   
               Prisoners, we had a case come before our court a few  
               weeks ago.  The 
               prisoner had been in an isolation cell, according to  
               the attorney.  I haven't checked it out.  For 25  
               years.  Solitary confinement literally drives men mad.  
               Even Dr. Minett had his cobbler's tools and he lost  
               his mind.  We have to simply look at the system we  
               have.  The Europeans have systems for difficult rekal  
               strant prisoners in which they have them in a group of  
               three or four.  And they can stay together for three  
               and four.  And they have human contact.  And it seems  
               to work -- it seems to work much better. 

          (http://www.c-span.org/video/?324970-1/supreme-court-budget- 
          fiscal-year-2016; the transcript for this program was  
          compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.)

          3.   California Legislature's Joint Informational Hearings on  
          Solitary Confinement  

           On October 9, 2013, the Assembly and Senate Public Safety  
          Committees held an informational hearing on California's prison  
          segregation policies.  The committees heard from representatives  
          from CDCR and the OIG, experts, advocates and even individuals  
          who had been housed in the SHU.  Among the experts was Margaret  
          Winter, the head of the ACLU prison project, she: 










          SB 759  (Anderson )                                       PageJ  
          of?
          

               [T]old lawmakers the tide is turning nationally when  
               it comes to use of isolation in prisons. 


               "Every reputable study has found negative effects,"  
               Winter said, noting that when she helped the  
               Mississippi Department of Corrections reduce its use  
               of isolation, prison violence actually went down.

               Asked for alternative methods for dealing with inmates  
               who pose a danger to other inmates or staff, Winter  
               said segregation can be an effective short-term tool,  
               if paired with incentives to change behavior.  Most  
               prison systems simply let inmates languish in  
               isolation without even determining if they're still a  
               threat, Winter said.

          (Legislators Hear Testimony on California Prison Conditions in  
          Isolation, Rina Palta, Southern California Public Radio, October  
          9, 2013.   
          http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/10/09/39735/ca-legislature-to-hold- 
          hearing-on-conditions-in-pr/.) 

          On February 11, 2014, another joint informational hearing was  
          held to discuss CDCR's new Security Threat Group Policy  
          (discussed below) and the impact that the policy has had on the  
          SHU population.  Committee members heard from CDCR  
          representatives, experts and attorneys who represent SHU  
          inmates.  Hope Metcalf, Associate Research Scholar in Law,  
          Director of Arthur Liman Program, and Lecturer in Law, Yale Law  
          School, stated in the hearing: 

               [T]he basic bottom line is that staff and inmates must  
               feel safe and prisons do need tools to shape behavior.  
                I don't think that there's much dispute about that.  
               And in fact, some forms of short-term segregation may  
               be necessary and there may indeed be some portions of  
               the population for whom placement in the general  
               population is not appropriate.  However, that does not  
               translate in any sense to the fact that long-term  
               isolation of the ilk that we see at Pelican Bay is in  
               fact serving sound, public policy. 










          SB 759  (Anderson )                                       PageK  
          of?
          
               So given the overreliance on isolation, many prisons  
               are at best delaying problems, and, in fact, may be  
               aggravating them.  So I do not wish to say that most  
               people released from long-term isolation are  
               dangerous.  I have many, many clients who have left  
               isolation and they have gone on to do well.  However,  
               I do think that if we're talking about public safety,  
               thinking about outcomes, including recidivism is  
               important.  Equally important of course in terms of  
               outcomes is not just whether or not someone is  
               violent, but whether they are able to flourish and  
               become independent once they leave.  So the fear  
               is-one fear I've had-is even where outcomes don't show  
               for example violence, is that person able to hold a  
               job or are they now so debilitated that they are  
               reduced to relying on state support once they leave  
               prison?
                
          (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's  
          Proposed New Policies on Inmate Segregation: The Promise and  
          Imperative of Real Reform, Hearing Transcript, Assembly and  
          Senate Public Safety Committees Joint Informational Hearing,  
          February 11, 2014.  
          http://spsf.senate.ca.gov/sites/spsf.senate.ca.gov/files/Jt.%20He 
          aring%20Transcript%202-11-14.pdf.)

          These hearings highlighted the fact that, while short term  
          segregation is an important tool, long term segregation can have  
          a detrimental impact on not only the inmates but also on public  
          safety.  
          
          4.   CDCR Security Threat Group Policies 
          
          On July 1, 2011, inmates in the Pelican Bay State Prison's  
          Security Housing Unit initiated a hunger strike.  (Background:  
          Hunger Strike in California Prisons, California Department of  
          Corrections and Rehabilitation, October 2013.  
          http://cdcr.ca.gov/stg/docs/Fact%20Sheet-hunger%20strikes%20in%20 
          CA%20prisons.pdf).  Approximately 5,300 inmates began refusing  
          state-issued meals.  The number of inmates peaked at more than  
          6,500 two days later and then gradually decreased until the  
          strike concluded on July 20, 2011. (Id.)

          In September 2011, a second hunger strike began.  After three  









          SB 759  (Anderson )                                       PageL  
          of?
               
          days, 4,252 inmates had missed nine consecutive meals.<1>  By  
          October 13, 2011, the number of inmates participating had  
          dropped to 580.  CDCR officials in Sacramento were contacted by  
          Pelican Bay State Prison inmates by letter and agreed to meet  
          with inmate representatives to discuss CDCR's ongoing review of  
          and revisions to its SHU policies.  All inmates had resumed  
          eating by Sunday, October 16, 2011.  (Id.) 

          A third hunger strike began on July 8, 2013, when more than  
          30,000 inmates refused to eat state-issued food until the SHU  
          polices were changed.  By July 11, 2013, 12,421 inmates had  
          missed nine consecutive meals.  By September 4, 2013, there were  
          100 inmates on a hunger strike; 40 of them had been on a hunger  
          strike continuously since July 8.  All inmates resumed eating on  
          September 5, 2013. (Id.)
           
           Last year CDCR updated its Security Threat Group policies.  
          (http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/  
          Regulations/Adult_Operations/Pending_Rules_Page.html#STG.)   
          These policies include, in part: 


           
               Security Threat Groups

                       The new policy replaces the word "gang" with  
                  the more nationally accepted term "security threat  
                  group."  The Security Threat Group (STG) program  
                  does not take a "one size fits all approach," but  
                  better identifies, assesses and prioritizes  
                  security threat groups (prison gangs, street  
                  gangs, disruptive groups) based on behavior and on  
                  the level of threat the group and its affiliates  
                  present to the safety and security of prisons and  
                  the public. 

                       CDCR categorizes criminal gangs into STGs  
                  based on a threat assessment conducted by the  
                  department's Office of Correctional Safety.  STG  
                  behavior is defined as documented behavior that  
                  promotes, furthers or assists a security threat  
                  group.


                ---------------------
          <1> CDCR considers an inmate to be on hunger strike if he or she  
          misses nine consecutive meals.  








          SB 759  (Anderson )                                       PageM  
          of?
          

                       An STG-I designation is used for criminal  
                  gangs that pose a greater threat.  It includes  
                  traditional prison gangs and disruptive groups  
                  with a history of violence or influence over  
                  subservient groups.  These STG groups include, but  
                  may not be limited to, traditional prison gangs  
                  like the Aryan Brotherhood, the Black Guerilla  
                  Family, the Mexican Mafia, the Nazi Low Riders,  
                  the Northern Structure, and the Nuestra Familia.   
                  An STG-I
                  designation may also include a gang with a history  
                  and propensity for violence and/or influence over  
                  subservient STGs.  CDCR will review STG-I  
                  designations at least every two years.

                       An STG-II designation may be used for  
                  traditional disruptive groups and street gangs.   
                  These can include the Crips, the Bloods, the 2-5s,  
                  the Northern Riders, MS 13, the Norteņos, the  
                  Sureņos, Florencia 13 and white supremacist  
                  groups. 

               Validation

                       The validation process is a strategy for  
                  identifying and documenting criminal gang member,  
                  associates and suspects.

                       STG associates - the majority of inmates  
                  housed in SHUs - are no longer placed in a SHU  
                  based solely upon their validation to an STG unless  
                  there is a nexus to confirmed gang activity.

                       CDCR added an objective point-based component  
                  in the offender validation process and enhanced  
                  considerations of due process.  Each source item is  
                  now given a weighted point value between two and  
                  seven points, and individual validation must  
                  include three independent sources with a cumulative  
                  total of 10 points or more.

                       Unsubstantiated confidential information from  
                  a single source will not establish a foundation for  









          SB 759  (Anderson )                                       PageN  
          of?
          
                  confirming the existence of STG-related behavior.



               Step-Down Program

                       The Step-Down Program enables an inmate  
                  serving an indeterminate SHU term to ultimately  
                  earn his way back to a general population or  
                  sensitive needs yard.  The revised policy reduces  
                  the six-year inactive review policy for release to  
                  a general population to a four-year program.   
                  Additionally, inmates demonstrating positive  
                  behavior and participation may have their length of  
                  participation further reduced to three years.  

                       The Step-Down Program is an incentive-based,  
                  multi-step process for STG offenders who choose to  
                  discontinue criminal and/or gang activity.   
                  Offenders can always choose to drop out of a gang;  
                  however, in the Step-Down Program, inmates are not  
                  required to drop out of their gang.

                       The five-step program supports, educates and  
                  increases privileges for SHU inmates who refrain  
                  from gang behavior and are disciplinary-free.  Each  
                  step is progressive and requires the willingness of  
                  the inmate to participate.  Each offender is  
                  responsible for demonstrating he can be released to  
                  a less restrictive environment while abstaining  
                  from criminal behavior.

                       In the fifth step, inmates are observed and  
                  monitored in a general population facility.

          (Security Threat Group Prevention, Identification and Management  
          Strategy, California Department of Corrections and  
          Rehabilitation, October 2013.  http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/stg/  
          docs/Fact-Sheet-STG-reforms.pdf) 

          The Office of the Inspector General recently reviewed CDCR's  
          Step-Down Program: 

               The new gang management policy requires an offender in  









          SB 759  (Anderson )                                       PageO  
          of?
          
               step 1 through 4 to participate in inmate programming  
               or journaling before progressing to the next step.   
               Inmates placed in steps 1 and 2 are to have program  
               assessments initiated, such as TABE (Test of Adult  
               Basic Education) and COMPAS assessments. Inmates  
               placed in step 3 can participate in self-directed  
               journals that are intended to develop a system of  
               values and strategies leading to responsible thinking  
               and behavior. Step 4 inmates may have programming that  
               includes education, violence prevention programs, and  
               gang diversion programs.  If an inmate refuses to  
               participate in the SDP, including inmate programming  
               or journaling, the inmate will return to a previous  
               step or regress further. 

               The OIG's fieldwork reviewed the current status of 65  
               inmates who were assigned to the SDP (steps 1 through  
               4) for at least 12 months to identify the result of  
               the ICC review.20,21.  As summarized on the next page,  
               the OIG found that 31 of the 65 inmates (48 percent)  
               successfully progressed to the next step; 27 inmates  
               (41 percent) were retained in their current step; and  
               7 inmates (11 percent) had regressed to a prior step.

               The percentage of inmates who progressed (48 percent)  
               based on active participation in the SDP remained  
               stable; it decreased by only 1 percent since the last  
               OIG report.  The inmates retained in their current  
               step increased by 14 percent, while the inmates who  
               regressed decreased by 11 percent from the last OIG  
               report.  As shown in the preceding diagram, the OIG  
               found that 27 of the 34 inmates (79 percent) from the  
               "retain" and "regress" categories refused to  
               participate in the SDP.  For the inmates who were  
               unable to progress, it was due to "refusing to  
               participate" (27 inmates), "other reasons" (four  
               inmates), and "will not participate in journaling"  
               (three inmates, one each from steps 1, 2, and 3).  The  
               "other reasons" typically involved inmates who were  
               indecisive on choosing to participate, which caused  
               more assessment time before an ICC decision was made.  
               . .

               . . .[T]he OIG's fieldwork noted an increasing  









          SB 759  (Anderson )                                       PageP  
          of?
          
               percentage of inmates progressing (or transitioning)  
               to the next step as they move closer to being released  
               to general population (step 5).  The OIG found seven  
               of the eight inmates reviewed were initially assigned  
               to step 4 at California Correctional Institution and  
               all progressed to the next step.  Also, over half (54  
               percent) of the inmates assigned to step 3 were able  
               to progress to step 4.  Each inmate in the SDP is  
               assigned ratings in various categories during the  
               annual program review or ICC reviews (at 90 or 180  
               days).  Most inmates who progressed received the  
               highest rating of "exceptional" in the following  
               categories: "attitude toward staff," "attitude toward  
               fellow inmates and workers," and "teamwork and  
               participation."  This confirms that inmates  
               demonstrating a willingness and commitment to  
               discontinue gang activity may progress through the SDP  
               to their eventual release from the SHU.

          (Fifth Report on the California Department of Corrections and  
          Rehabilitation's Progress Implementing its Future of California  
          Corrections Blueprint, Office of the Inspector General, March  
          2015; http://oig.ca.gov/media/reports/BPMR/  
          Fifth_Report_on_the_CDCRs_Progress_  
          Implementing_its_Future_of_California_Corrections_Blueprint.pdf)

          5.   Effect of This Legislation
           
           According to the author, transparency is a key feature of Senate  
          Bill 759.  Specifically, the legislation would increase  
          accountability by requiring CDCR to collect a variety of data  
          and the OIG to utilize that data to prepare a biennial report to  
          the legislature.  This legislation, additionally, would allow  
          CDCR to promulgate regulations to provide inmates in segregated  
          housing the opportunity to earn credits. 


                                      -- END -





          









          SB 759  (Anderson )                                       PageQ  
          of?