BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 759| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- UNFINISHED BUSINESS Bill No: SB 759 Author: Anderson (R) and Hancock (D), et al. Amended: 8/1/16 Vote: 21 SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-1, 4/28/15 AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Leno, Liu, McGuire, Monning NOES: Stone SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 5/28/15 AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza NOES: Nielsen NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates SENATE FLOOR: 29-7, 6/3/15 AYES: Allen, Anderson, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Block, De León, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Monning, Moorlach, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Wieckowski, Wolk NOES: Fuller, Huff, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Stone, Vidak NO VOTE RECORDED: Cannella, Hueso, Mitchell, Runner ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 41-31, 8/4/16 - See last page for vote SUBJECT: Prisoners: segregation housing SOURCE: Friends Committee on Legislation of California DIGEST: This bill requires the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to establish regulations to allow specified inmates placed in segregated housing to earn credits, as specified. SB 759 Page 2 Assembly Amendments deleted reference to "Security Housing Unit, Psychiatric Services Unit, Behavioral Management Unit, or an Administrative Segregation Unit" and, instead refers to the units as "segregation housing". ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1)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 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.) 2)Allows CDCR to place an inmate in the Security Housing Unit (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 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.) 3)States that a person who is placed in a SHU, Psychiatric Services Unit (PSU), Behavioral Management Unit (BMU), or an Administrative Segregation Unit for specified misconduct 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 SHU, Psychiatric Services Unit, Behavioral Management Unit, or the Administrative Segregation Unit for that misconduct, as specified. (Penal Code § 2933.6.) This bill repeals the existing credit provisions and instead authorizes CDCR to establish regulations to allow specified SB 759 Page 3 inmates placed in segregation housing to earn credits during the time he or she is in segregation housing. Background 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 Office of the Inspector General, experts, advocates and even individuals who had been housed in the SHU. Among the experts was Margaret Winter, the head of the American Civil Liberties Union prison project, she: [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-condition s-in-pr/.) On February 11, 2014, another joint informational hearing was held to discuss CDCR's new policies 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, SB 759 Page 4 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. 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.%20Hearing%20Transcript%202-11-14.pd f.) In summary, this hearing highlighted the widely held principle that while short term segregation is an important tool, long SB 759 Page 5 term segregation can have a detrimental impact not only on inmates but also on overall public safety. Under existing law, a person who is placed in segregation housing is ineligible to earn credits. This bill seeks to allow these inmates to earn good time credits. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:YesLocal: No According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis, the fiscal impact includes: 1)One-time costs to CDCR in the $100,000 (GF) range to promulgate regulations. 2)Unknown GF savings to the extent earned credits reduce time served by individuals formerly unable to earn credits. SUPPORT: (Verified8/4/16) Friends Committee on Legislation of California (source) American Civil Liberties Union of California 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 1 Individual OPPOSITION: (Verified8/4/16) None received SB 759 Page 6 ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 41-31, 8/4/16 AYES: Achadjian, Atkins, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Dababneh, Dodd, Eggman, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lopez, Low, McCarty, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Wood, Rendon NOES: Travis Allen, Arambula, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chang, Cooper, Dahle, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Kim, Lackey, Linder, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Medina, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Salas, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk, Williams NO VOTE RECORDED: Alejo, Chávez, Cooley, Daly, Roger Hernández, Jones, Olsen, Rodriguez Prepared by:Jessica Devencenzi / PUB. S. / 8/5/16 10:20:14 **** END ****