BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PRISON CONSTRUCTION
AND OPERATIONS
Senator Daniel E. Boatwright, Chair
S
1995-96 Regular Session
B
2
1
SB 2156 (Lewis)
5
As amended April 8, 1996
6
Hearing date: April 9, 1996
Penal Code
SAH:js
the California Correctional Facilities Privatization
Commission Act of 1996
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SCA 7 (Campbell) - currently in Senate
Committee on Constitutional
Amendments
Support: Alternative Programs, Inc.; Cornell Corrections,
Inc.; Corrections Corporation of America; Management and
Training Corporation; Maranatha Production Company, LLC;
Wakenhut Corporation; Cal-Tax
Opposition: American Civil Liberties Union; California
Correctional Peace Officers Association; California
State Employeeso Association; California Independent
Public Employees Legislative Council, Inc.;
California Probation, Parole, and Correctional
Association; Union of American Physicians and
(More)
SB 2156 (Lewis)
Page b
Dentists
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE California Correctional Privatization Commission BE CREATED to
enter into contracts with contractors for the Procurement of land and the
design, financing, acquisition, leasing, construction, and operation of
private correctional facilities IN CALIFORNIA, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
Under existing law, the California Department of Corrections
and the Director of Corrections are responsible for
administering the state prison system. The Department is
authorized to contract for supplies, utilities, and other
necessary goods and services needed to operate the prison
system. (Penal Code Sections 2051 et seq.)
The Department may generally plan for new construction of
state prisons but any proposed new prison sites, the authority
to build, and the financing of new prisons is generally the
subject of legislative measures which require the Governoros
signature.
Existing law allows the supervision of inmates in restitution
centers by contract with private nonprofit or profit
corporations, or by peace officer personnel of the Department
of Corrections on a 24-hour basis. If the supervision is by
a private entity, the per inmate cost of operating these
facilitates under contract shall be less than the per inmate
cost of maintaining custody of inmates by the Department.
(Penal Code Section 6225)
Existing law also allows the California Departments of
Corrections and the Youth Authority to enter into long-term
contracts with local governments to house adult and juvenile
parole violators and offenders with short prison terms (less
(More)
SB 2156 (Lewis)
Page c
than eight months), in city or county facilities specially
designed for their incarceration. (Penal Code Section 6250)
Under current law the Department may enter into contractual
agreements with private enterprises to incarcerate short term
state prison felons. Under this authority the Department may
purchase additional bed capacity through community
correctional programs. (Penal Code Section 6250 et seq.)
Existing law provides for state agencies to use personal
services contracts when specific standards are met; procedures
are followed; and organizations representing state employees
are notified for comment. (Government Code Sections 19130,
19131, and 19132)
The California Constitution provides for a civil service
system for officers and employees of the state, with a
merit/competitive examination process established for
permanent appointment and promotion. (Calif. Const. Art. VII,
Section 1 [a] and [b])
This bill proposes the creation of a new California
Correctional Privatization Commission composed of five members
appointed by the Governor and subject to Senate confirmation
and the Governor shall appoint the chair and vice chair. The
bill specifies that none of the members shall be an employee
of the Department of Corrections; one member shall be a
minority as defined in the Government Code; four members shall
be employed in the private sector; terms are for four years;
conflict of interest prohibitions are included; members shall
serve without compensation but are to be entitled to per diem
and expenses. The Commission may employ an executive director
and staff and may lease necessary office space.
The Commission would continue in existence until January 1,
2002, unless either:
(1) The Governor issues an Executive Order during 2001
to extend the commission an additional five years,
or;
(More)
SB 2156 (Lewis)
Page d
(2) The Legislature adopts a concurrent resolution
during 2001 to extend the commission an additional
five years.
In either case, the Commission would remain in effect only
until January 1, 2007, unless continued by statute.
The Commission would be authorized to construct for up to five
facilities until January 1, 2002, as follows:
(1) One combination minimum and minimum/medium
security prison with a design capacity of 1,000 to
2,000 inmates.
(2) Two large combination medium and maximum security
prisons with a design capacity of 2,500 to 3,000
inmates each.
(3) Two small combination medium and maximum security
prisons with a design capacity of 500 to 1,000
inmates each.
At least one each of the small and large combination prisons
shall be ready for occupancy by January 1, 1999.
If the Commission is extended during 2001 by an Executive
Order or by a Legislative Concurrent Resolution, the
Commission may contract for an additional five prisons without
any other legislative authorization.
The Commission would be authorized to enter into a contract
with one contractor per facility for the design, acquisition,
financing, leasing, construction, and operation of a
correctional facility, along with the procurement of land.
The Commission shall be exempt from the existing Government
Code provisions related to state acquisition of property by
the Public Works Board.
The Commission shall be limited to contracts with a total cost
(More)
SB 2156 (Lewis)
Page e
per cell not exceeding $75,000. That cost per cell shall
include the total construction costs, including land
acquisition, utility connections, all preconstruction
activities, including studies, architectural and engineering
work, and actual construction expenditures.
The Commission shall encourage innovation and shall not
require any prototype designs used by or created for the
Department of Corrections.
Before finalizing any contract, the Commission shall first
provide the California Department of Corrections a copy of the
contract for review for five days. The Department shall sign
off on any contract that has been finalized. That sign off
shall constitute awareness of the Department of the terms and
conditions of the contract and agreement by the Department to
abide by the contract.
The Commission shall report to the Speaker, President pro
Tempore, and the Chair of the Joint Legislative Committee on
Prison Construction and Operations, the Governor, and the
Department of Corrections, by December 1 of each year the
status of the program authorized by this bill. That report
shall include comparisons with inmates housed by the
Department of Corrections, including the recidivism rates,
staff to inmate ratios, and staff injury claims.
This bill sets forth detailed requirements for contracting,
including compliance with applicable state and federal laws as
well as accreditation by the American Correctional
Association. Specified inmate programs at least at the level
of those provided by the Department of Corrections would be
required.
Contracts shall include authorization for tax-exempt financing
using bonds, certificates of participation, lease-purchase
agreements, or other tax-exempt financing methods.
Contracts shall require substantial employment by minorities
unless a good faith effort fails to achieve that status.
(More)
SB 2156 (Lewis)
Page f
Each contract shall contain penalties and incentives to ensure
compliance by the contractor with the contract.
The Commission shall appoint a full-time contract monitor for
each contract with cost reimbursed by the facility contractor.
If the Commission is not extended during 2001 or if it is not
extended beyond 2007, the bill provides for successful
contractors to continue operation after those dates,
supervised by the Department of Corrections.
This bill provides that once the debt service obligation has
been paid in full by the state, the title to the facility
shall revert to the state. If a contract is terminated or not
extended, the state shall be able to acquire the title by
paying off the remaining principle due on the contract.
This bill provides for specific use of any excess revenues
generated by sales to inmates.
The purpose of this bill is to allow California to utilize
privatized prison space for inmates in an effort to provide a
cost-effective alternative to state prison operations.
COMMENTS
1. Billos Legislative Findings and Declarations:
a. Public safety is a primary function and
consideration of government. As evidenced by the
overwhelming support for Proposition 184, the oThree
Strikes Initiativeo on the November 8, 1994 ballot, the
people of California are demanding that violent,
serious, and repeat felons be incarcerated with longer
sentences.
(More)
SB 2156 (Lewis)
Page g
b. As a result of the passage of Proposition 184 and
other laws recently enacted, the inmate population of
the state prison system is projected to increase by
unprecedented numbers. Upon the completion of current
authorized new prison construction and with current
inmate housing capacity, the state will reach its
capacity to house inmates by mid-1998.
c. The Legislative Analyst estimates that the state
will need to construct 24 new prisons over the next
several years, each housing 5,300 inmates, in order to
house an inmate population of 306,000, which is
projected for mid-2005. The construction cost for
these 24 new prisons would be about $7 billion plus
additional debt service costs. The total operating
cost for these 24 prisons would be an additional $1.8
to $2 billion annually.
d. The Legislative Analyst further estimates that since
the Legislature did not authorize the construction of
any new state prisons by January 1996, the state will
not have the capacity to incarcerate about 9,000 new
inmates before the end of 1998. The state must
therefore develop a strategy now to deal with the need
for more prison beds.
e. Controlling the rapid growth of Corrections
construction and operations costs is one of the
greatest challenges facing the state. The proposed
budget for the Department of Corrections for the
1996-97 fiscal year is about $3.8 billion.
f. In order to maintain public safety, avoid unwanted
court intervention, address the unprecedented inmate
population growth, and maintain a sense of fiscal
responsibility to the people of California, it is
critical that the state establish a commission to
expedite the construction and operation of new state
prisons with the use of private sector support and
innovations.
(More)
SB 2156 (Lewis)
Page h
2. Recent Legislative Analystos Office Report on Prison Bed
Space.
In a recent report released by the Legislative Analystos
Office (LAO), oAccommodating the Stateos Inmate Population
Growth,o December 28, 1995, the LAO reported that even if the
Legislature should authorize any additional new prisons for
construction by January 1996, the additional prison bed space
provided would not be available in time to house all inmates
by mid-1998.
The report noted it generally takes the Department of
Corrections about 40 months to complete environmental and
planning documents and construct a prison after it is
authorized by the Legislature. However, the Department has
three proposed prisons in which the environmental impact
reports have already been completed. The LAO estimates that
these three prisons could actually be completed in 34 months
once authorized by the Legislature.
The most critical point made in the Analystos report, however,
is that by mid-1998 othe state will be faced with
accommodating about 9,000 inmates through at least most of
1998 in a manner other than construction of new prisonso under
the current construction process.
COULD PRIVATE CORRECTIONAL FIRMS CONSTRUCT PRISON FACILITIES
FASTER THAN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS? COULD THEY PROVIDE
THE SAME LEVEL OF SECURITY AS A STATE FACILITY? COULD THEY DO
SO IN A COST-EFFECTIVE MANNER?
3. Administrationos Proposal for Handling Inmate Population
Growth.
The Governor noted in his Budget Summary for 1996-97 that he
is proposing a o$1.865 billion General Obligation bond for a
multi-year prison construction and renovation program for the
1996 ballot. These funds will allow planning and construction
of six new prisons with a design bed capacity of approximately
(More)
SB 2156 (Lewis)
Page i
15,000 beds (capable of housing approximately 27,000 inmates)
by 2000-01.o In addition, the bond measure will provide
funding for major and minor capital outlay projects for the
Department.
The Governoros bond measure is currently proposed in Assembly
Bill 3116 (Brulte) but has not been heard yet in the Assembly
Public Safety Committee. An additional Assembly Bill, AB 3461
(Brulte), would authorize the issuance of lease-purchase bonds
or notes to finance the construction of nine additional new
prisons to be determined by the Department of Corrections.
ASSUMING THE CALIFORNIA VOTERS APPROVE THIS BOND MEASURE ON
THE NOVEMBER 1996 BALLOT, COULD THE DEPARTMENT PROVIDE THE
NECESSARY BED SPACE BY MID-1998?
WHAT WOULD BE THE ADMINISTRATIONoS PLANS SHOULD THE VOTERS
REJECT THE NOVEMBER 1996 PRISON BOND MEASURE?
WOULD THE FINANCIAL MARKET CONTINUE TO APPROVE CALIFORNIAoS
RELIANCE ON BONDS FOR 24 ADDITIONAL PRISONS? SINCE THE STATE
WOULD NOT HAVE TO ISSUE ANY BONDS UNDER A PRIVATIZATION
CONTRACT, WOULDNoT THIS IMPROVE THE STATEoS OVERALL BOND
RATING?
The Governoros Budget Summary also notes that the California
Department of the Youth Authority will grow by six percent by
the year 2000. The CYA facilities are currently operating at
about 150 percent of design capacity.
In order to reduce overcrowding and provide additional space
for future growth, the Governor is proposing $204.5 million in
additional funds for CYA construction needs: $150 million in
new bond funds in multi-year projects for 1,450 additional
beds; $51 million in bond funds for major and minor capital
outlay; and $3.5 million in General Funds for minor capital
outlay projects.
Of the proposed projects noted, the CYAos 1996-97 budget
includes $27.7 million in bond funds and $3.5 million in
(More)
SB 2156 (Lewis)
Page j
General Funds.
SHOULD THE COMMISSION ESTABLISHED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
BILL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ADDITIONAL WARD SPACE
FOR THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF THE YOUTH AUTHORITY?
4. Efficiency in State Government Operations.
According to the Department of Finance (DOF) in the Governoros
Budget Summary, 1996-97, a guiding principal of the current
Administration has been oimproving the quality of state
programs and services, while containing the cost of delivering
them.o It notes that taxpayers want government to be
effective, accountable, and to deliver quality services at no
higher cost than necessary, and that most taxpayers want
limited growth in government.
The Budget Summary reports that the state oleads the nation in
the fewest number of state employees per population with 8.3
state employees per 1,000 citizens.o It also states that
while the number of employees involved in public safety work
has increased by 37 percent since 1990-91, the Governor has
reduced the balance of the state workforce personnel below the
1990-91 level.
In order to ensure that Californiaos government is efficient,
innovative, and properly focused on basic state services and
functions, the Governor has ordered all state agencies to
conduct a top-to-bottom review of their operations to
oidentify their highest priority functions and opportunities
for out-sourcing, consolidating and divesting duties where
appropriate. Departments and agencies are required to submit
plans for divestiture of programs where feasible, and for the
re-engineering of remaining, priority functions to deliver
higher-quality services at lower costs.o
Although the Governoros proposed 1996-97 budget did not
include any specific major privatization proposals, the
Governor has stated in his January State of the State address
that he would do so by mid-April.
(More)
SB 2156 (Lewis)
Page k
HAS THE ADMINISTRATION IDENTIFIED THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
OUT-SOURCING, CONSOLIDATING AND DIVESTING DUTIES WITHIN THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS?
WOULD THE ADOPTION OF THIS BILL ASSIST THE ADMINISTRATION IS
FULFILLING THAT MISSION?
5. Privatization in General.
In oThe 1996-97 Budget: Perspectives and Issueso report, the
Legislative Analystos Office provides some valuable background
information on the different types and forms of privatization,
current forms of privatization in state government, and a
number of issues related to the privatization of government
functions (see page 173).
More importantly, the report provides the Legislature with a
framework for evaluating privatization proposals. In
considering privatization proposals, the LAO recommends that
the Legislature ask the following four basic questions:
a. What are the goals and objections of privatizing?
The objective of privatization should be to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of services provided. In
order to achieve this goal, the state should clearly
identify the level of quality and accountability.
b. What is the appropriate type and form of
privatization? The LAO notes that there are four basic
elements to providing any service: Policymaking
(determining service level and quality); Funding
(method of financing to pay for service);
Administration and Oversight (overseeing day-to-day
operations); and Service Delivery (providing the good
or service).
When considering privatization, it is important to make
clear which of these four basic functions are to be
carried out by the public sector and by the private
(More)
SB 2156 (Lewis)
Page l
sector. In some cases, it may make sense to split the
function between the two entities.
c. Are the conditions orighto to privatize? In order
to reap the benefits of privatization there must be a
competitive environment. Such an environment would
allocate resources to their most productive uses,
encourage efficiency, stimulate innovation, and provide
for consumer choice.
d. What are the potential problems and risks of
privatizing? The LAO notes a number of potential
problems with privatization. They are as follows:
Accountability. How can government ensure it does not
lose control and maintainan appropriate degree of
oversight and responsibility?
Accurate Cost Comparisons. Governments need to ensure
that they do not overstate the financial benefits of
privatization by conducting accurate cost comparisons.
Realization of Net Benefits. What steps are necessary
to capture the potential benefits of privatization for
taxpayers? In some negative cases, private firms have
kept some financial benefits for profits.
Quality Control. What steps can be taken to ensure
quality is provided and maintained?
Legal Considerations. What is the nature of the
stateos legal liability for problems arising from
privatized programs?
Service Disruptions. How can government protect itself
against untimely disruptions in the provision of needed
public services by private entities with whom they
privatize, either due to lack of adequate performance
or withdrawal from services?
(More)
SB 2156 (Lewis)
Page m
Transitional Workforce Problems. How can government
best deal with the one-time government job losses that
will occur when private sector jobs replace government
jobs?
Dismantling of Public Institutions and Skills. What
are the short-term and long-term implications of
dismantling public institutions and public sector
skills in the event that privatization turns out to be
less than desirable?
6. Current Forms of Privatization Within the Department of
Corrections.
One of the most well-developed areas of privatization in the
country today is within the area of adult and juvenile
corrections. As of December 31, 1994, the total rated
capacity of all privatized adult correctional facilities under
contract in the United States was 45,476 with the security
levels ranging from minimum to maximum security inmates. The
rated capacity of the facilities range from as low as 32 and
up to 1,500 inmates.
Although the Department of Corrections currently contracts for
approximately 5,700 community correctional beds with various
public and private entities as allowed under existing law,
these beds are contracted with numerous providers at over 50
different locations. The capacities of these facilities range
from 6 beds to 446 beds with the majority of the facilities
with less than 80 beds. Most of these facilities do not enjoy
the high economy of scale that a larger facility would have.
The Department also currently reimburses local counties for
incarcerating state prison inmates for short periods of time.
The Department reimburses some counties at a maximum per diem
rate of $59 per day. In addition, the Department contracts
with Alameda County to house parole violators with short
prison revocation terms in one of its local county jails. The
Departmentos proposed 1996-97 budget includes a proposal to
contract with Los Angeles County for about 3,000 vacant county
(More)
SB 2156 (Lewis)
Page n
jail beds for state prison inmates.
Even though the Department currently has over 134,000 inmates,
the Department of Corrections is unable to keep all the
contract beds filled. With an overall current prison
overcrowding rate of approximately 181 percent, contract
community correctional center beds are only at 97 percent of
capacity and rarely ever overcrowded.
The main reason that the Department cannot provide more
inmates to these correctional facilities is that the current
laws are very specific as to what type of offenders may be
housed in a community correctional facilities. The contract
facilities that currently house the roughly 5,700 inmates and
parole violators are basically designed to house minimum
(Level I) and a few minimum-medium (Level II) security
inmates.
In addition to the current 5,700 community correctional center
beds, the Department of Corrections is currently evaluating 19
different proposals from private firms for the construction
and operations of community correctional facilities for
suitable inmates. Although the Department is attempting to
add 2,000 additional beds, the number proposed surpassed 9,000
beds.
In addition to contracting for private incarceration, the
Department of Corrections also contracts for a variety of
other services such as inmate medical care, prison
construction related services, and parolee services.
GIVEN THE DEPARTMENToS HISTORY OF CONTRACTING FOR THE
INCARCERATION OF INMATES, WOULD NOT ANY PHILOSPHICAL ARGUMENT
AGAINST PRIVATIZATION OF LARGER PRISONS BE CONTRADICTORY?
CAN THE STATE TAKE THE NEXT STEP TO NOW CONTRACT FOR LARGER
PRISONS? OR PRISONS FOR MEDIUM AND MAXIMUM SECURITY LEVEL
INMATES?
7. General Restrictions on State Agencies Contracting Out for
(More)
SB 2156 (Lewis)
Page o
Services.
Article VII of the California Constitution, which describes
the state civil service, is generally interpreted as
restricting contracting outside of civil service to fulfill
state tasks or activities. As one court has recently
restated: o...subdivision (a) of 19130 is carefully crafted
to permit personal service contracts to achieve cost savings
only when they will not have detrimental effect on the
integrity of the civil service system...the statute combines
considerations of efficiency and economy with other interests,
including those of state employees.o CSEA v. State of
California, 199 Cal. App. 3d 840 (1988).
Existing law, Government Code Section 19130 (a) specifies the
authority for state agencies to ocontract outo for services in
order to achieve cost savings. That Section includes the
following:
Contracting out is permissible to achieve cost savings when
specific conditions, including the following, are met...
The contracting agency clearly demonstrates that the proposed
contract will result in actual overall cost savings to the
state, provided that:
In comparing costs, there shall be included the state's
additional cost of providing the same service as
proposed by a contractor. These additional costs shall
include the salaries and benefits of additional staff
that would be needed and the cost of additional space,
equipment, and materials needed to perform the function.
In comparing costs, there shall be included in the cost of
a contractor providing a service any continuing state
costs that would be directly associated with the
contracted function, such as those for inspection,
supervision, and monitoring.
Proposals to contract out work shall not be approved solely
(More)
SB 2156 (Lewis)
Page p
on the basis that savings will result from lower
contractor pay rates or benefits. Proposals to contract
out work shall be eligible for approval if the
contractor's wages are at the industry's level and do
not significantly undercut state pay rates.
The contract does not cause the displacement of civil
service employees.
The contract does not adversely affect the state's
affirmative action efforts.
The savings shall be large enough to ensure that they will
not be eliminated by private sector and state cost
fluctuations that could normally be expected during the
contracting period.
The amount of savings clearly justify the size and duration
of the contracting agreement.
The contract includes specific provisions pertaining to the
qualifications of the staff that will perform the work
under the contract, as well as assurance that the
contractor's hiring practices meet applicable
nondiscrimination, affirmative action standards.
The potential for future economic risk to the state from
potential contractor rate increases is minimal.
8. Experience of the State of Florida Corrrectional
Privatization Commission.
The model for the authoros proposed California privatization
commission is based on the process recently adopted by the
State of Florida. Chapter 93-406, Laws of Florida, created
the Correctional Privatization Commission for the purpose of
entering into contracts for the construction and operation of
private correctional facilities in Florida. This commission
was established independently of the Florida State Department
of Corrections.
(More)
SB 2156 (Lewis)
Page q
Since being established, the Florida Commission has authorized
the construction and operation of six new correctional
facilities:
a. Two adult medium-security level facilities with 750
beds each which are already operational;
b. One adult close medium-security facility with 1,318
beds which is still under construction; and,
c. Three juvenile facilities with 350 beds each which
are also still under construction.
The State of Florida Office of Program Policy Analysis and
Government Accountability (OPPAGA) recently conducted a review
of the progress made by the Florida Correctional Privatization
Commission in contracting for prison capacity (Report No.
95-12,
November 13, 1995). The report has not made any final
conclusions as of yet but does provide some interesting
observations.
In attempting to determine whether the private prisons
provided any cost savings, the report noted that it was
difficult to compare state and private institutions since they
had different inmate programs. In order to make a conclusion,
the report stated that the Florida Department of Corrections
and the Commission would have to first agree on comparable
institutions for such a comparison.
The department attempted to contract for private facility
capacity on its own. In a comparison of privatization efforts
between the department and the commission, the report noted
that while the department attempted to facilitate
privatization efforts by providing vendors with technical
assistance, they hindered privatization by:
a. Requiring vendors to mirror the departmentos own
operations, which may limit cost savings and the
(More)
SB 2156 (Lewis)
Page r
identification of innovative approaches to corrections;
b. Establishing Requests for Proposals (RFPs) which
vendors perceived as overly demanding and highly
restrictive, thus, limiting the stateos choices of
vendors. Only two vendors submitted reponses to the
departmentos RFP.
c. The department changed the mission 9 days before the
opening of its contracted private facility, thus
requiring physical plant and vendor program changes.
While the commission facilitated privatization by conducting
open meetings to develop RFPs, by publishing RFPs which
clearly delineated vendor requirements and selection
criteria, and by meeting with vendors who submitted losing
bids, the report did note that there were two factors which
possibly hindered privatization:
a. The contract award process requires that that the
omost qualifiedo vendor be selected. The most
qualified vendor, however, happened to be the highest
bidder in four of six contracts awarded. There were
lower bidders who were highly qualified but happened to
not be the most qualified. The report estimates that
an additional $26 million could have been saved if the
law had been amended to allow the commission to select
the lowest bid from the three highest qualified
vendors.
b. The Florida law does not permit previous employees
from the Florida Department of Corrections to be on -
or work for - the commission within 2 years of that
relationship, nor does it allow the department to
review contracts even though the department is
obligated to abide by them. The departmentos role with
contracted institutions is not clear.
SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE CONSIDER AMENDING THIS BILL TO REQUIRE
THAT ONE MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION ALSO BE A MEMBER OF THE
(More)
SB 2156 (Lewis)
Page s
STATE BOARD OF CORRECTIONS, EXCLUDING THE AGENCY SECRETARY AND
THE DIRECTORS OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF CORRECTIONS AND THE YOUTH
AUTHORITY?
HAS THIS BILL SUFFICIENTLY CLARIFIED THE ROLE OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS?
9. Provision in This Bill for Revenues From Inmate Purchases.
This bill proposes to establish a new approach for handling
revenues generated by the inmate canteen and phone uses in
private facilities. Currently, any revenue generated by
inmate collect calls revert to the state General Fund Account.
In addition, the Departments of Corrections and Finance are
authorized to pay for any services provided to operate or
audit the institution canteen programs.
SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE OPERATE INMATE CANTEEN OPERATIONS AND
TRUST ACCOUNTS, AND TREAT INMATE PAY PHONE REVENUE DIFFERENTLY
THAN NORMAL STATE OPERATIONS?
10. o Sunseto on the Commission in This Bill.
This bill creates a process for extending the commission by
five additional years after the first five years at the
discreation of either the Governor by Executive Order or by a
Legislative Concurrent Resolution. The normal process would
be to have a bill approved by the Legislature and signed by
the Governor.
IS THIS PROVISION UNIQUE ENOUGH TO BE CHALLENGED BY THE
COURTS, ESPECIALLY THE PROVISION ALLOWING THE LEGISLATURE TO
ACT BY RESOLUTION?
WOULD IT BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO SIMPLY ADOPT A TEN YEAR SUNSET
REPEAL ON THE COMMISSION?
11. Authority for New Prisons in This Bill.
(More)
This bill proposes the authorization of a combination minimum
and minimum-medium security facility with a capacity of 1,000
to 2,000 inmates. However, existing law currently authorizes
the Department to construct such facilities. In fact, as
mentioned above, the Department currently is reviewing RFPos
(Request for Proposals) for an additional 2,000 such beds.
SINCE FUTURE BED SPACE NEEDS ARE FOR MEDIUM AND MAXIMUM
SECURITY INMATES, SHOULD THE AUTHORIZATION FOR MINIMUM AND
MINIMUM-MEDIUM SECURITY BEDS BE ELIMINATED?
SHOULD THIS BILL SPECIFY THE TYPES OF NEW FACILITIES, OR WOULD
IT BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO LEAVE THE BED CAPACITY UNSPECIFIED?
(More)
SB 2156 (Lewis)
Page u
12. Related Legislative Discussion - SB 760 (Lockyer).
The Conference Committtee on SB 760 (Lockyer) is currently
devising a muti-year plan for accomodating future inmate
population needs. That discussion includes the privatization
of new prisons, as well as orealignmento of county/state
inmate housing.
SHOULD THIS BILL SPECIFY A NUMBER FOR PRIVATIZED NEW PRISONS
OR WOULD IT BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO NOT MAKE THIS BILL SPECIFIC
PENDING THE SB 760 CONFERENCE COMMITTEE DETERMINATION OF
ACTUAL INMATE HOUSING NEEDS?
13. Use of oper cello as Criteria in This Bill.
This bill would prohibit the commission from contracting for
prison construction facilities which have a per cell
construction cost of $75,000. Under a private contract, the
state would not directly pay for any construction cost. These
costs would be included as part of the overall reimbursement
schedule. The Florida statutes allow the ocontracto with a
private operator to set the bed capacity at a contracted
facility and the number of inmates shall be between 90 and 100
per cent of that number.
DOES THIS BILL USE AN APPROPRIATE CONSTRUCTION CAP TO ENSURE
THAT EFFICIENT FACILITIES ARE CONSTRUCTED? SINCE SOME PRIVATE
FACILITIES WOULD NOT HOUSE A MEDIUM SECURITY INMATE IN A CELL,
SHOULD THIS LEGISLATION CONSIDER ANOTHER METHOD OF CALCULATION
FOR INMATE HOUSING?
14. Additional Issues for Consideration.
This bill proposes a relatively complex new process and it may
be anticipated that additional issues will be addressed in the
future. The author may wish to include the following issues
in that discussion: (1) providing for the authority and
training of correctional officers in privatized facilities;
(2) additional indemnification and liability issues; (3)
additional changes or cross-reference in law necessary to
ensure that the private facilities may operate in the same
SB 2156 (Lewis)
Page v
manner as public facilities; (4) any additional changes
suggested by the Florida experience?
***************