BILL ANALYSIS
AB 3064
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 25, 2006
Chief Counsel: Gregory Pagan
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Mark Leno, Chair
AB 3064 (Committee on Public Safety) - As Introduced: March 9,
2006
SUMMARY : Requires the Secretary of the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to establish a Reentry
Advisory Committee (RAC) to advise the Secretary on all matters
related to the successful statewide planning, implementation and
outcomes of all re-entry programs and services offered by CDCR.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the Secretary of CDCR to establish a RAC. The RAC
shall report to the Secretary, who shall serve as chair of
RAC. The RAC shall include representation from all of the
stakeholders in the successful administration of re-entry
programming including, but not limited to, all of the
following: cities; counties; law enforcement; probation;
courts; CDCR staff involved in providing re-entry services,
such as teachers and parole officer; substance abuse treatment
providers; education providers; job preparation providers;
business and employers; victims; ex-offenders; restorative
justice advocates; inmate family members; religious leaders in
the community; housing providers; vocational training
providers; Workforce Investment Act providers; medical
providers; mental health providers; and program evaluators.
2)Requires the RAC to meet at least quarterly at a time and
place determined by the Secretary. RAC members shall receive
compensation for travel expenses, as specified in existing
law, but no other compensation.
3)Provides that the RAC shall advise the Secretary on all
matters related to the successful statewide planning,
implementation and outcomes of all re-entry programs and
services offered by CDCR, with the goal of reducing recidivism
of all persons under the jurisdiction of CDCR.
AB 3064
Page 2
4)Requires the RAC to consider, and advise the Secretary of, the
following issues:
a) Encouraging collaboration among key stakeholders at the
state and local levels;
b) Developing a knowledge base of what people need to
successfully return to their communities from prison and
what resources communities need to successfully provide for
these needs;
c) Incorporating re-entry outcomes into CDCR organizational
missions and work plans as priorities;
d) Funding of re-entry programs;
e) Promoting systems of integration and coordination;
f) Measuring outcomes and evaluating the impact of re-entry
programs; and,
g) Educating the public about re-entry programs and their
role in public safety.
5)Provides that the Secretary shall regularly forward minutes of
all RAC meetings to each member of the Assembly Public Safety
Committee, the Assembly Select Committee on Prison
Construction and Operations, the Senate Committee on Public
Safety, and the Senate Select Committee on the California
Correctional System.
EXISTING LAW :
1)States that, commencing July 1, 2005, all powers and duties
previously granted to and imposed upon the CDCR shall be
exercised by the Secretary of CDCR, except where those powers
and duties are expressly vested by law in the Board of Parole
Hearings. Whenever a power is granted to the Secretary or a
duty is imposed upon the Secretary, the power may be exercised
or the duty performed by a subordinate officer to the
Secretary or by a person authorized pursuant to law by the
Secretary. (Penal Code Section 5055.)
2)Authorizes the CDCR Director to establish and operate
facilities to be known as "community correctional centers".
AB 3064
Page 3
The Director may enter into a long-term agreement, not to
exceed 20 years, for transfer of prisoners to, or placement of
prisoners in, community correctional centers. [Penal Code
Section 6250(a).]
3)Authorizes the CDCR Director to contract for the establishment
and operation of community correctional facilities for the
treatment of addiction to alcohol or controlled substances
based on the therapeutic community model only if the cost per
inmate for operating the facilities will be less than the cost
per inmate of operating similar state facilities. [Penal Code
Section 6250.5(a).]
4)Provides each state prison under CDCR's jurisdiction shall
have a citizens' advisory committee except that one committee
may serve every prison located in the same city or community.
Each committee shall consist of not more than 15 members
appointed by the institution's warden, nine of whom shall be
appointed from a list of nominations submitted to him or her
as follows:
a) Two persons from nominations submitted by the Assembly
member in whose district the prison is located.
b) Two persons from nominations submitted by the Senator in
whose district the prison is located.
c) Two persons from nominations submitted by the city
council of the city containing or nearest to the
institution.
d) Two persons from nominations submitted by the county
board of supervisors of the county containing the
institution.
e) One person from nominations submitted by the chief of
police of the city containing or nearest to the institution
and the county sheriff of the county containing the
institution. [Penal Code Section 5056(a)(1) to (5).]
5)Specifies where a citizens' advisory committee serves more
than one prison, the warden of each prison served by this
committee shall collaborate with every other warden of a
prison served by the committee for the purpose of appointing
committee members. [Penal Code Section 5056(b).]
AB 3064
Page 4
6)Provides each committee shall select its own chairperson by a
majority vote of its members. The term of office of all
members shall be two years. In the event of a vacancy due to
resignation, death, or absence from three consecutive
meetings, the appointing power shall fill the vacancy
following receipt of written notification that a vacancy has
occurred. [Penal Code Section 5056(c).]
7)States each committee shall meet at least once every two
months or as often, on the call of the chairperson, as
necessary to carry out the purposes and duties of the
committee. Meetings of the committee shall be open to the
public. The warden of each institution shall meet with the
committee at least four times each year. The advisory
committees of the several institutions shall have the power of
visitation of prison facilities and personnel in furtherance
of the goals of this section. [Penal Code Section 5056(d).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "The recidivism
rate for parolees released from California's prisons is nearly
twice the national average. This bill seeks to create a
re-entry advisory panel within CDCR so that the relevant
stakeholders may discuss how parole is working the State of
California and how best to implement policies and procedures
designed to successfully re-integrate parolees into the
community."
2)California's Parole Problems : According to the Little Hoover
Commission Report, "Back to the Community: Safe and Sound
Parole Policies" (November 2003), "California's parole system
is a billion-dollar failure. As the State built and filled
prisons over the last 20 years, the number of felons who serve
their time and are given bus ticket homes has swelled to
125,000 per year. But the real problem is that a growing
percentage of those 125,000 parolees are unprepared to get a
job, steer clear of drugs and alcohol and find a home. Not
surprisingly, before long most of those parolees are back on a
bus to prison. There are four fundamental problems:
a) "The time in prison is not being used to prepare inmates
AB 3064
Page 5
for their eventual release.
b) "Available resources - particularly those in communities
- are not being used to help parolees who with some
assistance could get a job and stay out of trouble.
c) "And when inmates do get into trouble, the vast majority
of them go back to prison - even if drug treatment, short
jail stays or some other intervention would cost less and
do more to help them straighten up.
d) "Thousands of times each year, parole revocation is used
in lieu of prosecution for parolees who are suspected of
committing new serious crimes."
"Parolees are a challenge for all states. But California's
parole policies are simply out of sync with the rest of the
nation. California puts a greater percentage of felons on
parole. The State offers little assistance to parolees. And
then it sends parolees back to prison for violations that in
other states would land a parolee in drug treatment, work
furlough or some other 'intermediate' sanction. The numbers
bear that out: nationally, one in three parolees end up back
in prison before completing parole. In California, two out of
three parolees return to prison. Criminologists say
California's parolees are no more dangerous than those in
others states. Rather, California has created a revolving
door that does not adequately distinguish between parolees who
should be able to make it on the outside and those who should
go back to prison for a longer period of time. California
puts more offenders on parole: California averages 95% and
the national average is 82%. More prison commitments are
returning parolees; California averages 67% and the national
average is 35%. Fewer parolees successfully complete parole;
in California, the average is 21% and the national average is
42%."
"California is not even doing as well on this score as it once
did. Returning prisoners are less prepared than ever before
to get a job, stay sober and successfully reunite with family
and community. In 1980, about one in four parolees ended up
back in prison. And now, with two out of three coming back,
prisons are overcrowded and constantly churning with
inmates - frustrating the efforts that do exist to teach and
counsel inmates, as well as punish them. Also caught up in
AB 3064
Page 6
this recycling of parole violators are scores of serious
criminals, who are blamed, but never formally prosecuted, for
murder, assault and rape. Without another trial - or the long
sentences they would receive - many of these criminals are
imprisoned for a few months and then given another bus ticket
home. The bottom line: California's correctional system
costs more than it should and it does not provide the public
safety that it could. Incarcerating parole violators costs
$900 million per year. The State spends another $465 million
on parole, the bulk of which is for parole agents who spend
much of their time filling out paperwork to send parolees back
to prison. Another $660 million is spent incarcerating
parolees convicted of committing new crimes."
3)Repairing California's Parole Problems : The Little Hoover
Commission also stated in its report, "Reforms should begin
with - and be faithfully guided by - a commitment to align
policies, programs and resources to improving public safety as
defined by both the incapacitation of serious criminals and
the successful reintegration of offenders who serve their time
and come back home. Prisons have excelled at what they have
been asked to do: manage more and more inmates without
escapes or riots. But eventually, all felons are released.
Prison time also must be used to help inmates learn basic
skills, kick drug habits, and plan for their release.
Communities also must do more. As the prison system expanded,
the link between state correctional and local law enforcement
agencies has weakened. Frustrated with a parole system they
describe as 'broken', some local law enforcement officials
have stepped in to provide the supervision and assistance that
most felons need to go from cellblock to neighborhood. But
all community assets - from community police to the pulpits -
need to help willing parolees obey the law and become
self-sufficient. Workforce investment boards, community
colleges, adult schools, Alcoholics' Anonymous, local
charities and labor unions all have a role."
This bill seeks to create a re-entry advisory panel within CDCR
to enable the relevant stakeholders to discuss how parole is
working the State of California and how best to implement
policies and procedures. According to CDCR's Division of
Adult Parole Operations in a briefing on parole programs,
there are several programs available for parolees. However,
many programs are grossly under funded and only available in a
few counties. A few of those programs include substance abuse
AB 3064
Page 7
treatment and recovery, computerized literacy learning,
management for mentally ill parolees, and parolee employment
and job programs. Despite the laudable goals of these
programs, most are not funded to a level that would allow all
or even most inmates to participate.
4)Related Legislation . SB 616 (Speier), Chapter 603, Statutes
of 2005, authorized counties to develop a multi-agency plan to
prepare and enhance non-violent offenders' successful re-entry
into the community.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Civil Liberties Union
California Catholic Conference of Bishops
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
California Public Defenders Association
Coalition for Effective Public Safety
County of San Diego
Friends Committee on Legislation
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744