BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1157|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1157
Author: Mitchell (D), et al.
Amended: 5/31/16
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-1, 4/12/16
AYES: Hancock, Glazer, Leno, Liu, Monning
NOES: Stone
NO VOTE RECORDED: Anderson
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-1, 5/27/16
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza
NOES: Nielsen
SUBJECT: Incarcerated persons: visitation
SOURCE: A New Way of Life Re-Entry Program
CIVIC
Ella Baker Center
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Legal Service for Prisoners with Children
Prison Law Office
Project WHAT!
Women's Foundation of California
Women's Policy Institute
DIGEST: This bill ensures that local correctional facilities
and juvenile facilities that elect to utilize video or
electronic visitation do not eliminate in-person visitation, as
specified.
ANALYSIS:
SB 1157
Page 2
Existing law:
1)Requires, through regulations, 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.)
2)Defines in regulations:
a) "Type I facility" as a local detention facility used for
the detention of persons for not more than 96 hours
excluding holidays after booking. Such a Type I facility
may also detain persons on court order either for their own
safekeeping or sentenced to a city jail as an inmate
worker, and may house inmate workers sentenced to the
county jail provided such placement in the facility is made
on a voluntary basis on the part of the inmate. As used in
this section, an inmate worker is defined as a person
assigned to perform designated tasks outside of his/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.
b) "Type II facility" as a local detention facility used
for the detention of persons pending arraignment, during
trial, and upon a sentence of commitment.
c) "Type III facility" as a local detention facility used
only for the detention of convicted and sentenced persons.
SB 1157
Page 3
d) "Type IV facility" as a local detention facility or
portion thereof designated for the housing of inmates
eligible under Penal Code Section 1208 for work/education
furlough and/or other programs involving inmate access into
the community. (15 CCR 1006.)
This bill:
1)Requires a local detention facility that elects to utilize
video or other types of electronic visitation to comply with
both of the following:
a) 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.
b) 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.
2)Provides the following definitions:
a) "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.
b) "Local Detention facility" has the same meaning as
defined in Section 6031.4.
SB 1157
Page 4
c) "Type I facility" as a local detention facility used for
the detention of persons for not more than 96 hours
excluding holidays after booking. Such a Type I facility
may also detain persons on court order either for their own
safekeeping or sentenced to a city jail as an inmate
worker, and may house inmate workers sentenced to the
county jail provided such placement in the facility is made
on a voluntary basis on the part of the inmate. As used in
this section, an inmate worker is defined as a person
assigned to perform designated tasks outside of his/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.
d) "Type II facility" as a local detention facility used
for the detention of persons pending arraignment, during
trial, and upon a sentence of commitment.
e) "Type III facility" as a local detention facility used
only for the detention of convicted and sentenced persons.
f) "Type IV facility" as a local detention facility or
portion thereof designated for the housing of inmates
eligible under Penal Code Section 1208 for work/education
furlough and/or other programs involving inmate access into
the community.
3)Prohibits, on or after January 1, 2017, a city, county, or
other local entity from entering into, renewing, extending, or
amending a contract with a private prison corporation that
does not provide persons to be incarcerated or detained at the
private corporation's facility, at a minimum, the no fewer
than two in-person visits totaling at least one hour per
incarcerated person each week.
4)Requires juvenile halls, ranches, camps or forestry camps
that elect to utilize video or other types of electronic
SB 1157
Page 5
visitation to comply with the following:
a) Incarcerated minors 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.
b) A minimum of two-hours of in-person visitation per week.
c) In-person visits may be supervised, but conversations
cannot be monitored unless there is a security or safety
need.
Background
The California Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC)
is responsible for promulgating regulations for adult and
juvenile detention facilities. For purposes of updating and
promulgating regulations, the BSCC utilizes the 2015 Adult
Titles 15 and 24 Regulation Revision Executive Steering
Committee (ESC). This ESC, which is responsible for regulations
relating to visitation, requested that one of its working groups
discuss the current visitation regulations as they relate to
video visitation. The working group, which was comprised of only
law enforcement representatives, stated, in part:
The workgroup engaged in a lengthy discussion regarding video
visitation versus in-person visits. Several members of the
group reported that their county is planning or building new
facilities with space for video visiting only (no space for
in-person visits). They felt that if Title 24 required space
for in-person visits, then their new facilities would be
noncompliant the day the facility opened. Some of the members
cited some potential negative impacts of in-person visits
such as exposing children to the inside of a jail, the staff
SB 1157
Page 6
time it can take to move inmates and the security concerns of
moving high-security inmates.
(http://www.bscc.ca.gov/downloads/
Programs%20and%20Services%20Worksheets%20For%20ESC%20Review.pd
f)
The working group recommended, "Regarding video visitation,
counties need to be legally defensible in its use." The
workgroup revised the visitation regulation to require one hour
per week of on-site (in-person or video) visiting be provided
free of charge.
On March 30, 2016, the ESC adopted the working group's
recommendation not require in-person visitation and to, instead,
provide one free hour of visitation, whether it be in-person or
via video. The recommendation of the ESC will proceed to the
BSCC for a final decision.
Comments
"Currently, more than 500 facilities in 43 states and the
District of Columbia are experimenting with video visitation."
(Screening Out Family Time: The For-Profit Video Visitation
Industry in Prisons and Jails, Bernadette Rabuy and Peter
Wagner, January 2015, http://www.prisonpolicy.org/
visitation/report.html.)
This article additionally notes:
While virtually no state prisons ban in-person visitation, we
found that 74% of jails banned in-person visits when they
implemented video visitation. Though abolishing in-person
visits is common in the jail video visitation context,
Securus is the only company that explicitly requires this
harmful practice in its contracts. The record is not always
clear about whether the jails or the companies drive this
SB 1157
Page 7
change, but by banning in-person visits, it is clear that the
jails are abandoning their commitment to correctional best
practices. (Id.)
The Securus Web site states that it currently provides services
to California Jails, including Butte County Jail, Napa County
Jail, San Diego County Jail- Facility 8, and San Diego County
Jail- Las Colinas Detention & Reentry Facility. (https://
securustech.net/facilities-and-pricing.) According to
information provided by the author, Napa, San Diego and Butte
counties are not the only counties that have eliminated
in-person visitation:
At least five California counties (Kings, Napa, San
Bernardino, San Diego, and Solano) have eliminated in-person
visitation in at least one of their jails, meaning families
there can only see their loved ones through a computer
screen. Two counties (Imperial and Placer) have severely
restricted in person visitation since adopting video visits.
Three additional counties (Orange, San Mateo, and Tulare)
intend to renovate or build new facilities that have no space
for in-person visits. Families with loved ones in these
facilities will only be able to see their loved ones through
a computer screen. At least six other California counties
(Butte, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Plumas, Riverside and San
Luis Obispo) use video visits in at least one of their jails
and at least seven other counties (Merced, Sacramento, San
Joaquin, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Sutter, and Yolo) plan to
adopt a video visitation system.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriation Committee:
Prohibition from video visitation replacing in-person
SB 1157
Page 8
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
to the in-person visitation requirements in the bill. While
this bill does not impose a mandate on local agencies,
Appropriations Committee 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.
In-person visits: Potentially significant ongoing costs.
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. While the bill does not impose a
mandate on local agencies, 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.
SUPPORT: (Verified5/31/16)
SB 1157
Page 9
A New Way of Life Re-Entry Program (co-source)
CIVIC (co-source)
Ella Baker Center (co-source)
Friends Committee on Legislation of California (co-source)
Legal Service for Prisoners with Children (co-source)
Prison Law Office (co-source)
Project WHAT! (co-source)
Women's Foundation of California, Women's Policy Institute
(co-source)
All of Us or None
American Civil Liberties Union
American Friends Service Committee
Architects/Designers/Planners for Social Responsibility
Asian Americans Advancing Justice-California
Bautistas por la Paz'
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Catholic Conference, Inc.
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Public Defenders Association
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Cares for Youth
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Central American Resource Center
City and County of San Francisco Office of the District Attorney
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice
Community Coalition
Drug Policy Alliance
Essie Justice Group
Familia: Trans Queer Liberation Movement
Forward Together
Friends Outside
Grassroots Leadership
Healing Dialog and Action
Human Rights of the Incarcerated Coalition at UC Berkeley
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice
Justice for Families
Justice Not Jails
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay
Area
Media Alliance
Nation Inside
SB 1157
Page 10
National Center for Youth Law
National Compadres Network
National Immigration Law Center
Opening Door
Pacific Juvenile Defender Center
Pangea Legal Services
Prison Policy Initiative
Public Counsel
Returning Home Foundation
San Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents
San Francisco Public Defender
San Francisco Youth Commission
Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
Starting Over, Inc.
The Young Women's Freedom Center
W. Haywood Burns Institute
Several Individuals
OPPOSITION: (Verified5/31/16)
California State Sheriff's Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to Californians United for a
Responsible Budget:
Numerous counties in California have started replacing
in-person visitation with video visitation. Video
"visitation" is a form of videoconferencing in which visitors
are viewed on a screen, rather than face-to-face, taking away
meaningful ways for families to connect with their loved ones
held in correctional facilities across the state. Twenty-four
California counties have adopted or plan to adopt video
visitation and 10 counties in the state have eliminated,
planned to eliminate, or severely restricted in-person
visitation. The increased use of video visitation in
California is part of a nationwide trend. A 2015 Prison
Policy Initiative report found that 74% of county jails
across the country that implemented video visitation
SB 1157
Page 11
ultimately eliminated in-person visitation altogether.
In-person visitation is essential to a person's successful
reentry into their community - it is proven to improve
behavior inside correctional facilities, reduce recidivism,
and increase chances of obtaining employment post-release.
In-person visitation is also important for family members and
loved ones on the outside, especially children, who also
struggle with the incarceration of their loved ones. Video
visits, however, have not been shown to increase family
connectivity and likely have a negative effect on young
children who struggle to understand that the person on the
screen is their parent. Remote video visits are expensive for
families, costing as much as $1 per minute, even when the
software malfunctions, as is frequent.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:According to the California State
Sheriff's Association:
We do not disagree that in-person visitation can bring
positive outcomes. That said, we are opposed to a prohibition
on the exclusive use of video visitation. Some facilities are
switching to video visitation because it can be more
efficient, often allows more frequent visitation, and can
significantly reduce the introduction of contraband into
correctional facilities.
Video visitation has beneficial aspects and we have concerns
about this legislative directive that attempts to
over-regulate jail operations.
Prepared by:Jessica Devencenzi / PUB. S. /
5/31/16 21:31:38
**** END ****
SB 1157
Page 12