BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 1157 (Mitchell) - Incarcerated persons: visitation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: April 6, 2016 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 5 - 1 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: May 2, 2016 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: SB 1157 would prohibit local correctional facilities
and juvenile facilities from replacing in-person visits with
video or other types of electronic visitation, as specified.
This bill would specify the minimum number and duration of
in-person visits to be provided at these facilities. This bill
would prohibit, on or after January 1, 2017, a local entity from
entering into, renewing, extending, or amending a contract with
a private prison corporation that does not provide at least two
in-person visits totaling at least one hour per detainee each
week at local detention facilities.
Fiscal
Impact:
Prohibition from video visitation replacing in-person
visitation : Potentially significant to major one-time costs
for the few local facilities that have replaced in-person
visitation with visitation by video and require capital
improvements and incur increased operational costs to adhere
SB 1157 (Mitchell) Page 1 of
?
to the in-person visitation requirements in the bill. To the
extent local agencies submit claims for reimbursement and the
Commission on State Mandates (CSM) determines the costs to
local agencies constitute a reimbursable state mandate, the
state could be required to provide funding for these costs
(General Fund). Staff notes any increase in overall costs to
local jails could potentially be subject to the provisions of
Proposition 30* in lieu of mandate reimbursement.
Mandated in-person visits : Potentially significant to major
ongoing costs, potentially state-reimbursable (General Fund)
for the mandate on all local facilities to provide in-person
visits as specified in the bill. Existing statute does not
specifically mandate visits for all detainees, but rather
regulations require local facilities to develop policies to
allow for visits as space and personnel allow, and specifies
the number and duration of visits in Types I-IV facilities. To
the extent local agencies submit claims for reimbursement and
the CSM determines the costs to local agencies constitute a
reimbursable state mandate, the state could be required to
provide funding for these costs (General Fund). Staff notes
any increase in overall costs to local jails could potentially
be subject to the provisions of Proposition 30* in lieu of
mandate reimbursement.
*Proposition 30 (2012) : Exempts the State from mandate
reimbursement for realigned responsibilities for "public
safety services" including the managing of local jails and the
provision of services and supervision of juvenile and adult
offenders. However, legislation enacted after September 30,
2012, that has an overall effect of increasing the costs
already borne by a local agency for public safety services
apply to local agencies only to the extent that the State
provides annual funding for the cost increase. The provisions
of Proposition 30 have not been interpreted through the formal
court process to date, however, to the extent the local agency
costs resulting from this measure are determined to be
applicable under the provisions of Proposition 30, local
agencies would not be obligated to provide the level of
service required by the bill above the level for which funding
is provided by the State.
Background: As described in the Prison Policy Initiative article,
"Screening Out Family Time: The for-profit video visitation
industry in prisons and jails," (January 2015):
SB 1157 (Mitchell) Page 2 of
?
Increasing the options that incarcerated people and
their families have to stay in touch benefits
incarcerated individuals, their families, and society
at large. Family contact is one of the surest ways to
reduce the likelihood that an individual will
re-offend after release, the technical term for which
is "recidivism." A rigorous study by the Minnesota
Department of Corrections found that even a single
visit reduced recidivism by 13% for new crimes and 25%
for technical violations. More contact between
incarcerated people and their loved ones - whether
in-person, by phone, by correspondence, or via video
visitation - is clearly better for individuals, better
for society, and even better for the facilities. As
one Indiana prison official told a major correctional
news service: "When they (prisoners) have that contact
with the outside family they actually behave better
here at the facility."
Without a doubt, video visitation has some benefits:
Most prisons and some jails are located far
away from incarcerated people's home communities
and loved ones.
Prisons and jails sometimes have
restrictive visitation hours and policies that
can prevent working individuals, school-age
children, the elderly, and people with
disabilities from visiting.
It can be less disruptive for children to
visit from a more familiar setting like home.
It may be easier for facilities to
eliminate the need to move incarcerated people
from their cells to central visitation rooms.
It is not possible to transmit contraband
via computer screen.
But video visitation also has some serious drawbacks:
Visiting someone via a computer screen is
not the same as visiting someone in-person.
Onsite video visitation is even less intimate and
personal than through-the-glass visits, which
families already find less preferable to contact
SB 1157 (Mitchell) Page 3 of
?
visits.
In jails, the implementation of video
visitation often means the end of traditional,
through-the-glass visitation in order to drive
people to use paid, remote video visitation.
Video visitation can be expensive, and the
families of incarcerated people are some of the
poorest families in the country.
The people most likely to use prison and
jail video visitation services are also the least
likely to have access to a computer with a webcam
and the necessary bandwidth.
The technology is poorly designed and
implemented. It is clear that video visitation
industry leaders have not been listening to their
customers and have not responded to consistent
complaints about camera placement, the way that
seating is bolted into the ground, the placement
of video visitation terminals in pods of cells,
etc.
Technological glitches can be even more
challenging for lawyers and other non-family
advocates that need to build trust with
incarcerated people in order to assist with
personal and legal affairs.
Existing state regulations require a correctional facility
administrator to develop written policies and procedures for
inmate visiting which provides for as many visits and visitors
as facility schedules, space, and number of personnel will
allow. For sentenced inmates in Type I facilities and all
inmates in Type II facilities there shall be allowed no fewer
than two visits totaling at least one hour per inmate each week.
In Type III and Type IV facilities there shall be allowed one or
more visits, totaling at least one hour, per week. (15 CCR
1062.)
This bill seeks to ensure the use of video visitation does not
replace the use of in-person visitation. Additionally, this bill
places a statutory requirement on local detention facilities,
juvenile halls, ranches and camps to provide in-person visits,
as specified.
SB 1157 (Mitchell) Page 4 of
?
Proposed Law:
This bill would prohibit local detention facilities and
juvenile halls, ranches, camps, and forestry camps from
utilizing video or other types of electronic visitation to
replace in-person visitation. Additionally, this bill would
require local detention facilities to comply with the following
guidelines with respect to in-person visitation:
Requires sentenced incarcerated persons in a Type I facility
and all incarcerated persons in a Type II facility to be
allowed no fewer than two in-person visits totaling at least
one hour per incarcerated person each week.
Requires incarcerated persons in a Type III facility or a Type
IV facility to be allowed no fewer than one in-person visit
totaling at least one hour per incarcerated person each week.
Defines "in-person visit" or "in-person visitation" as a visit
or visitation during which an incarcerated person has contact
with a visitor, is able to see a visitor through glass, or is
otherwise in an open room without contact with a visitor.
Provides definitions for Type I, II, III, and IV facilities,
as specified.
On and after January 1, 2017, requires a city, county, city
and county, or other local entity shall not enter into, renew,
extend, or amend a contract with a private prison corporation
that does not provide persons to be incarcerated or detained
at the private prison corporation's facility, at a minimum,
the same amount of in-person visitation required in local
detention facilities.
This bill requires juvenile halls for the confinement of
minors to comply with the following guidelines with respect to
in-person visitation:
Incarcerated minors shall be allowed to receive
in-person visits by parents, guardians, or persons
standing in loco parentis, at reasonable times, subject
only to the limitations necessary to maintain order and
security.
SB 1157 (Mitchell) Page 5 of
?
Opportunity for in-person visitation shall be a
minimum of two hours per week.
In-person visits may be supervised, but conversations
shall not be monitored unless there is a security or
safety need.
This bill requires juvenile ranches, camps, or forestry camps
to comply with all of the following with respect to in-person
visitation:
Minors shall be allowed to receive in-person visits by
parents, guardians, or persons standing in loco parentis,
at reasonable times, subject only to the limitations
necessary to maintain order and security.
Opportunity for in-person visitation shall be a
minimum of two hours per week.
In-person visits may be supervised, but conversations
shall not be monitored unless there is a security or
safety need.
Staff
Comments: See Fiscal Impact section. At the time of this
analysis, it was estimated that only two county facilities have
fully replaced in-person visitation with video visitation in its
facilities. The potential costs of this measure are
unquantifiable at this time, however, as it is unknown how many
SB 1157 (Mitchell) Page 6 of
?
additional facilities have begun or plan to adopt video
visitation in lieu of in-person visitation prior to the
effective date of this bill should it be enacted. The potential
costs for each facility to comply with the bill's provisions
will also vary, depending on its existing policy of visitation
and the available space and personnel specific to each facility.
Recommended
Amendments: To remove the direct mandate imposed on local
facilities, staff recommends the following amendments to Section
2 of the bill, with conforming amendments to Sections 3 and 4 of
the bill:
Penal Code § 4032.
(a) A local detention facility shall not that elects to utilize
video or other types of electronic visitation to replace
in-person visitation .
(b) A local detention facility shall also comply with both of
the following:
(1) Sentenced incarcerated persons in a Type I facility and all
incarcerated persons in a Type II facility shall be allowed no
fewer than two in-person visits totaling at least one hour per
incarcerated person each week.
(2) Incarcerated persons in a Type III facility or a Type IV
facility shall be allowed no fewer than one in-person visit
totaling at least one hour per incarcerated person each week.
(c) For purposes of this section, all of the following
definitions apply:
(1) "In-person visit" or "in-person visitation" means a visit or
visitation during which an incarcerated person has contact with
a visitor, is able to see a visitor through glass, or is
otherwise in an open room without contact with a visitor.
(2) "Local detention facility" has the same meaning as defined
in Section 6031.4.
(3) "Type I facility" means a local detention facility used for
the detention of persons for not more than 96 hours, excluding
holidays, after booking. "Type I facility" also includes a local
detention facility that detains a person on court order for his
SB 1157 (Mitchell) Page 7 of
?
or her own safekeeping or a person sentenced to a city jail as
an incarcerated person worker, or that houses incarcerated
person workers sentenced to the county jail, provided the
placement in the facility is made on a voluntary basis on the
part of the incarcerated person. As used in this paragraph,
"incarcerated person worker" means a person assigned to perform
designated tasks outside of his or her cell or dormitory,
pursuant to the written policy of the facility, for a minimum of
four hours each day on a five-day scheduled work week.
(4) "Type II facility" means a local detention facility used for
the detention of persons pending arraignment, during trial, and
upon a sentence of commitment.
(5) "Type III facility" means a local detention facility used
only for the detention of convicted and sentenced persons.
(6) "Type IV facility" means a local detention facility or
portion of the facility designated for the housing of
incarcerated persons eligible pursuant to Section 1208 for work
furlough, education furlough, or other programs involving
incarcerated person access into the community.
-- END --