BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1157
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 21, 2016
Counsel: Stella Choe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair
SB
1157 (Mitchell) - As Amended May 31, 2016
SUMMARY: Prohibits local correctional facilities and juvenile
facilities from replacing in-person visits with video or other
types of electronic visitation, as specified. Specifically,
this bill:
1)States that a local detention facility that elects to utilize
video or other types of electronic visitation shall comply
with the following:
SB 1157
Page 2
a) Sentenced incarcerated persons in a Type I facility, as
defined, and all incarcerated persons in a Type II
facility, as defined, 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, as defined,
or a Type IV facility, as defined, shall be allowed no
fewer than one in-person visit totaling at least one hour
per incarcerated person each week.
2)Prohibits, on or after January 1, 2017, a city, county, city
and 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 prison corporation's
facility, at a minimum, no fewer than two in-person visits
totaling at least one hour per incarcerated person each week.
3)Provides that a juvenile facility, including juvenile hall,
camp, ranch, or forestry camp that elects to utilize video or
other types of electronic visitation shall comply with all of
the following with respect to in-person visitation:
a) Incarcerated minors shall be allowed to receive
in-person visits by parents, guardians, or persons standing
in loco parentis (in place of the parent), at reasonable
times, subject only to the limitations necessary to
maintain order and security;
b) Opportunity for in-person visitation shall be a minimum
of two hours per week; and,
SB 1157
Page 3
c) In-person visits may be supervised, but conversations
shall not be monitored unless there is a security or safety
need.
4)States the finding of the Legislature that opportunities for
in-person visitation in local correctional facilities,
juvenile halls, juvenile homes, ranches, and camps are
essential for persons who are incarcerated and detained to
maintain family stability, reduce disciplinary infractions and
violence while incarcerated, reduce recidivism, increase the
chances of obtaining employment postrelease, and facilitate
successful reentry. Other types of visitation shall only be
used to supplement in-person visitation to further promote the
above-mentioned goals. This act does not interfere with the
ability of the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC)
to issue regulations with regards to visitation.
5)Provides that it is the intent of the Legislature to
strengthen family connections by facilitating in-person
visitation.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Requires each county jail to contain a sufficient number of
rooms to allow certain persons belonging to specified classes
to be confined separately and distinctly from persons
belonging to other specified classes. (Pen. Code, § 4001.)
2)Requires a correctional facility administrator to develop
SB 1157
Page 4
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 Cal. Code
Regs. § 1062.)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS:
1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "SB 1157 will
prohibit California jails from eliminating in-person
visitation rights by clarifying that video technology cannot
be used to replace in-person visits. At least eleven counties
in California have eliminated, plan to eliminate, or severely
restrict in-person visitation in at least one of their jails.
"Since the implementation of public safety realignment in
California, more people are serving time in county jails and
for longer periods of time than ever before. Eliminating
in-person visitation has a drastic and negative impact on
families, particularly for children.
"A 2014 Department of Justice report found that when a person
is incarcerated, even for a short period of time, family
contact and in-person visits are crucial to maintaining family
stability, reducing disciplinary infractions and violence,
SB 1157
Page 5
reducing recidivism, increasing the chances of obtaining
employment post-release, and facilitating successful re-entry.
One study found that even a single visit reduces recidivism by
13% for new crimes. Video visitation can be an extremely
positive supplement to in-person visitation, particularly when
people are imprisoned far from their families and networks of
support.
"What SB 1157 does not do is prevent sheriffs' departments
from adopting video visitation. SB 1157 simply makes it clear
that 'video visitations are not a replacement for
opportunities for in person contact.'
"This bill clarifies that California county jails, juvenile
facilities, and private facilities cannot replace in-person
visitation with video visitation. This is important as remote
video visits are cost-prohibitive for many families, and many
low-income families do not have access to computers or
high-speed internet. And in facilities that have already
replaced in-person visitation with video visitation, families
who cannot afford video visitations from home, are left with
one option: travel to the correctional facility and 'visit'
with their loved one at no cost from video kiosks in the
lobby.
"Without passage of SB 1157, more California families will be
unable to see their loved ones while incarcerated."
2)Background: According to the background materials provided by
the author, "Since the implementation of public safety
realignment, more people are serving time in county jails and
for longer period of time than ever before. Eliminating
in-person visitation would have a drastic and negative impact
on families, particularly children, the wellbeing of
incarcerated people, and the institutional environment.
"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
SB 1157
Page 6
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."
3)Regulations on Visitation: Existing 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 Cal. Code Regs. § 1062.)
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. 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
justification offered for these changes was:
SB 1157
Page 7
"As currently written, the second sentence of the regulation
does not provide sufficient flexibility to facility operators
because it seems to require visits on two separate days
totaling one hour. Removing 'facilities there shall be allowed
no fewer than two visits totaling at least one hour per inmate
each week' in the second sentence clarifies that the required
visitation time of one hour may be provided in two half-hour
visiting periods or one one-hour period.
"Subsection (d) was added because some facilities use video
visitation in lieu of the in-person visits between the inmate
and family and friends. If providers of video visitation
charge for the mandated one-hour of visitation, it could be a
fiscal hardship to the inmate, family and friends." (Programs
and Services Worksheets For ESC Review (March 30,2016)
http://www.bscc.ca.gov/downloads/Programs%20and%20Services%20Wo
rksheets%20For%20ESC%20Review.pdf.)
The recommendation of the ESC has been sent to the BSCC for a
final decision. This Committee has been informed that BSCC is
awaiting the result of this bill before deciding whether to
adopt the ESC's proposed change.
4)Argument in Support: According to the Los Angeles County
Board of Supervisors, "SB 1157 would require that local
correctional facilities that provide for video visitation also
provide for in-person visitation.
"The Los Angeles County Public Defender supports the
opportunity for in-person visitation for their clients who are
in custody, because many inmates could miss out on the
positive benefits that in-person visits with loved ones
provides. The County's Department of Mental Health (DMH)
reports that in-person visits with family members are
therapeutic for inmates. DMH also notes that for those
inmates who are unable to have in-person visits with their
family members or friends, an alternate visitation, such as
video conferencing, would provide therapeutic benefits. These
SB 1157
Page 8
benefits are generally in line with the County's goals to
reduce recidivism and to improve reentry opportunities."
5)Argument in Opposition: According to San Bernardino County
Sheriff's Department, "San Bernardino County Sheriff's High
Desert Detention Center was designed to us video visitation
exclusively. The design of the facility prevents in-person
visits without major reconstruction as there is no way for
visitors to access the secured areas of the facility. This
reconstruction, if mandated, would likely be in the tens of
millions of dollars to accommodate in-person visits.
Moreover, our most recent addition did not account for
in-person visits; we use video visiting that does not require
the inmate to leave his housing unit. Increase in staff would
also be required to control movement of inmates after an
in-person visit."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Community Initiatives for Visiting Immigrants in Confinement
(Co-Sponsor)
Community Works - Project WHAT! (Co-Sponsor)
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights (Co-Sponsor)
Essie Justice Group (Co-Sponsor)
Friends Committee on Legislation of California (Co-Sponsor)
SB 1157
Page 9
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children (Co-Sponsor)
Prison Law Office (Co-Sponsor)
Women's Foundation of California, Women's Policy Institute
(Co-Sponsor)
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Abriendo Puertas - Opening Doors
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
American Friends Service Committee
American Civil Liberties Union of California
Architects, Designers, Planners for Social Responsibility
Asian Americans Advancing Justice - California
BPRNA - Bautistas por la Paz
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Catholic Conference
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Public Defenders Association
SB 1157
Page 10
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
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice
Community Coalition
Drug Policy Alliance
Familia: Trans Queer Liberation Movement
Fathers and Families of San Joaquin
Forward Together
Friends Outside
Grassroots Leadership
SB 1157
Page 11
Healing Dialogue and Action
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
Immigrant Youth Coalition
Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice
Justice for Families
Justice Not Jails
Justice Now
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay
Area
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Los Angeles Board of Supervisors
Media Alliance
Nation Inside
National Center for Youth Law
SB 1157
Page 12
National Compadres Network
National Immigration Law Center
Pacific Juvenile Defender Center
Pangea Legal Services
Prison Policy Initiative
Public Counsel
Returning Home Foundation
Root & Rebound
Rubicon Programs
Sarah Webster Fabio Center for Social Justice
San Francisco Public Defender
San Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents
San Francisco United School District
SB 1157
Page 13
SF Youth Commission
Sin Barras
Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network
Starting Over, Inc.
W. Haywood Burns Institute
Young Women's Freedom Center
Opposition
California State Sheriffs' Association
Madera County Board of Supervisors
San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department
Urban Counties of California
SB 1157
Page 14
Analysis Prepared by:Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744