BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1157|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1157
Author: Mitchell (D), et al.
Amended: 8/19/16
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
SENATE FLOOR: 32-6, 6/1/16
AYES: Allen, Anderson, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Block,
Cannella, De León, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall, Hancock, Hernandez,
Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu,
McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Nguyen, Pan,
Pavley, Wieckowski, Wolk
NOES: Fuller, Gaines, Morrell, Nielsen, Stone, Vidak
NO VOTE RECORDED: Roth, Runner
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 48-20, 8/24/16 - See last page for vote
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!
SB 1157
Page 2
Women's Foundation of California, Women's Policy
Institute
DIGEST: This bill ensures that local correctional facilities
that elect to utilize video or electronic visitation do not
eliminate in-person visitation, as specified.
Assembly Amendments: (1) narrow the application of the bill to
adult facilities; (2) remove the hourly visitation requirements;
(3) add a provision specifying that a local detention facility
that does not have existing space available for in-person
visitation and elects to utilize video or other types of
electronic devices for inmate visitation shall provide
visitation in accordance with the requirements of this bill no
later than January 1, 2022; and, (4) add intent language.
ANALYSIS:
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
SB 1157
Page 3
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.
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 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)Requires a local detention facility that elects to utilize
video or other types of electronic devices for inmate
visitation to also provide inmates with in-person visitation
that meets or surpasses the minimum number of weekly visits
required by regulations of the Board of State and Community
Corrections for persons detained in the facility.
SB 1157
Page 4
2)Specifies that a local detention facility that does not have
existing space available for in-person visitation and elects
to utilize video or other types of electronic devices for
inmate visitation shall provide visitation in accordance with
the requirements of this bill no later than January 1, 2022.
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
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
SB 1157
Page 5
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
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
SB 1157
Page 6
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.:NoLocal: No
SUPPORT: (Verified8/22/16)
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
SB 1157
Page 7
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
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
SB 1157
Page 8
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: (Verified8/22/16)
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
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
SB 1157
Page 9
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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 48-20, 8/24/16
AYES: Alejo, Travis Allen, Atkins, Baker, Bloom, Bonilla,
Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu,
Cooley, Daly, Eggman, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto,
Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden,
Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Levine, Lopez, Low,
McCarty, Medina, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas,
Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Williams,
Wood, Rendon
NOES: Arambula, Bigelow, Brough, Cooper, Dababneh, Dodd, Beth
Gaines, Gallagher, Gray, Grove, Harper, Linder, Mathis, Mayes,
Obernolte, Patterson, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Achadjian, Chang, Chávez, Dahle, Frazier,
Gordon, Kim, Maienschein, Melendez, Mullin, Olsen, Rodriguez
Prepared by:Jessica Devencenzi / PUB. S. /
8/25/16 17:54:15
8/25/16 17:54:15
SB 1157
Page 10
**** END ****