BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Gloria Romero, Chair S
2007-2008 Regular Session B
8
1
8
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
As Introduced February 23, 2007
Hearing date: April 17, 2007
Penal Code
AA:br
PRISONS :
CONSTRUCTION
HISTORY
Source: California Correctional Peace Officers Association
Prior Legislation: None
Support: Crime Victims United of California
Opposition:Unknown
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD the "Rehabilitation and Re-Entry Facilities Bond Act of
2008," as set forth in this bill, be submitted to the voters for
approval at the next statewide election to authorize:
(1) the issuance of $2 billion in bonds pursuant to the State
General Obligation Bond Law;
(2) the use of up to $1 billion of these bond proceeds for the
construction of "facilities designed to provide opportunities
for inmates of the state prison system to participate in
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageB
rehabilitation programs"; and
(CONTINUED)
(3) the use of up to $1 billion of these bond proceeds for the
construction of "facilities designed to assist inmates in reentering
the community, or to incarcerate them for periods not exceeding six
months as a result of parole revocation," AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to require that the "Rehabilitation
and Re-Entry Facilities Bond Act of 2008," as set forth in this
bill, be submitted to the voters for approval at the next
statewide election, to authorize (1) the issuance of $2 billion
in bonds pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law; (2)
the use of up to $1 billion of these bond proceeds for the
construction of "facilities designed to provide opportunities
for inmates of the state prison system to participate in
rehabilitation programs"; and (3) the use of up to $1 billion of
these bond proceeds for the construction of "facilities designed
to assist inmates in reentering the community, or to incarcerate
them for periods not exceeding six months as a result of parole
revocation," as specified.
Current law creates in state government the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), headed by a secretary
appointed by the Governor and subject to Senate confirmation,
which consists of Adult Operations, Adult Programs, Juvenile
Justice, the Corrections Standards Authority, the Board of
Parole Hearings, the State Commission on Juvenile Justice, the
Prison Industry Authority, and the Prison Industry Board.
(Government Code 12838.) As explained in the Legislative
Analyst's Office Analysis of the 2007-08 Budget Bill:
Effective July 1, 2005, the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) was created
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageC
pursuant to the Governor's Reorganization Plan 1 of
2005 and Chapter 10, Statutes of 2005 (SB 737,
Romero). All departments that previously reported
to the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency (YACA)
were consolidated into CDCR and include YACA, the
California Department of Corrections, Youth
Authority, Board of Corrections, Board of Prison
Terms, and the Commission on Correctional Peace
Officers' Standards and Training.
The CDCR is responsible for the incarceration,
training, education, and care of adult felons and
nonfelon narcotic addicts, as well as juvenile
offenders. The CDCR also supervises and treats
adult and juvenile parolees, and is responsible for
the apprehension and reincarceration of those
parolees who commit new offenses or parole
violations. The department also sets minimum
standards for the operation of local detention
facilities and selection and training of law
enforcement personnel, as well as provides local
assistance in the form of grants to local
governments for crime prevention and reduction
programs.
The department operates 33 adult prisons, including
11 reception centers, a central medical facility, a
treatment center for narcotic addicts under civil
commitment, and a substance abuse facility for
incarcerated felons. The CDCR also operates eight
juvenile correctional facilities, including three
reception centers. In addition, CDCR manages 13
Community Correctional Facilities, 46 adult and
juvenile conservation camps, the Richard A. McGee
Correctional Training Center, and 192 adult and
juvenile parole offices.
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageD
This bill would enact the "Rehabilitation and Re-entry
Facilities Bond Act of 2008," with the following features and
requirements:
Creation of "2008 Rehabilitation and Re-Entry Facilities Fund"
This bill would establish the "2008 Rehabilitation and Re-entry
Facilities Fund," (the "Fund") and would require that the
proceeds of bonds issued and sold pursuant to the provisions of
this bill be deposited in this fund.
Up to $1 Billion for Facilities "Designed to Provide
Opportunities for Inmates . . . in Rehabilitation Programs"
This bill would authorize up to $1 billion in the Fund to be
available "to construct facilities designed to provide
opportunities for inmates of the state prison system to
participate in rehabilitation programs."
This bill would provide that these "facilities may include, but
not be limited to, substance abuse treatment space, and academic
and vocational classrooms."
This bill would limit to no more than 5 percent of the limit
that could be spent on directly related administrative space.
Up to $1 Billion for Facilities "Designed to Assist Inmates in
Reentering the Community" or for Short-Term Incarceration as a
Result of Parole Revocation
This bill would authorize up to $1 billion in the Fund to be
available "to construct facilities designed to assist inmates in
reentering the community, or to incarcerate them for periods not
exceeding six months as a result of parole revocation."
This bill would require that any "inmate housed in the
facilities as a result of a parole revocation shall be provided
with rehabilitative services."
This bill would require that all facilities constructed pursuant
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageE
to these provisions "be located in or near communities where
there are a sufficient number of parolees to justify the
capacity of the facility."
Fiscal Provisions
This bill would authorize the issuance and sale of $2 billion in
bonds to provide a fund to carry out the purposes of this bill,
as specified.
This bill contains a number of technical fiscal requirements and
authorities which would appear to fall within the jurisdiction
of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Voter Approval Required
This bill would provide that its provisions shall take effect
upon the approval by the voters of the Rehabilitation and
Re-entry Facilities Bond Act of 2008.
This bill would provide that its provisions be submitted to the
voters at the next statewide election, as specified.
This bill contains additional related provisions.
This bill contains legislative findings and declarations
relating to prison rehabilitation and reentry programs, as
specified.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION ("ROCA")
IMPLICATIONS
California currently faces an extraordinary and severe prison
and jail overcrowding crisis. California's prison capacity is
nearly exhausted as prisons today are being operated with a
significant level of overcrowding.<1> In addition, California's
jails likewise are significantly overcrowded. Twenty California
---------------------------
<1> Analysis of the 2007-08 Budget Bill: Judicial and Criminal
Justice, Legislative Analyst's Office (February 21, 2007).
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageF
counties are operating under jail population caps. According to
the State Sheriffs' Association, "counties are currently
releasing 18,000 pre and post-sentenced inmates every month and
many counties are so overcrowded they do not accept misdemeanor
bookings in any form, . . . ."<2> In January of this year the
Legislative Analyst's office summarized the trajectory of
California's inmate population over the last two decades:
During the past 20 years, jail and prison
populations have increased significantly. County
jail populations have increased by about 66
percent over that period, an amount that has been
limited by court-ordered population caps. The
prison population has grown even more dramatically
during that period, tripling since the
mid-1980s.<3>
The level of overcrowding, and the impact of the population
crisis on the day-to-day prison operations, is staggering:
As of December 31, 2006, the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) was
estimated to have 173,100 inmates in the state
prison system, based on CDCR's fall 2006
population projections. However, . . . the
department only operates or contracts for a total
of 156,500 permanent bed capacity (not including
out-of-state beds, . . . ), resulting in a
shortfall of about 16,600 prison beds relative to
the inmate population. The most significant bed
shortfalls are for Level I, II, and IV inmates, as
well as at reception centers. As a result of the
bed deficits, CDCR houses about 10 percent of the
inmate population in temporary beds, such as in
dayrooms and gyms. In addition, many inmates are
housed in facilities designed for different
--------------------
<2> Memorandum from CSSA President Gary Penrod to Governor,
February 14, 2007.
<3> California's Criminal Justice System: A Primer.
Legislative Analyst's Office (January 2007).
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageG
security levels. For example, there are currently
about 6,000 high security (Level IV) inmates
housed in beds designed for Level III inmates.
. . . (S)ignificant overcrowding has both
operational and fiscal consequences. Overcrowding
and the use of temporary beds create security
concerns, particularly for medium- and
high-security inmates. Gyms and dayrooms are not
designed to provide security coverage as well as
in permanent housing units, and overcrowding can
contribute to inmate unrest, disturbances, and
assaults. This can result in additional state
costs for medical treatment, workers'
compensation, and staff overtime. In addition,
overcrowding can limit the ability of prisons to
provide rehabilitative, health care, and other
types of programs because prisons were not
designed with sufficient space to provide these
services to the increased population. The
difficulty in providing inmate programs and
services is exacerbated by the use of program
space to house inmates. Also, to the extent that
inmate unrest is caused by overcrowding,
rehabilitation programs and other services can be
disrupted by the resulting lockdowns.<4>
As a result of numerous lawsuits, the state has entered into
several consent decrees agreeing to improve conditions in the
state's prisons. As these cases have continued over the past
several years, prison conditions nonetheless have failed to
improve and, over the last year, the scrutiny of the federal
courts over California's prisons has intensified.
In February of 2006, the federal court appointed a receiver to
take over the direct management and operation of the prison
medical health care delivery system from the state. Motions
filed in December of 2006 are now pending before three federal
court judges in which plaintiffs are seeking a court-ordered
---------------------------
<4> Analysis 2007-08 Budget Bill, supra, fn. 1.
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageH
limit on the prison population pursuant to the federal Prison
Litigation Reform Act. Medical, mental health and dental care
programs at CDCR each are "currently under varying levels of
federal court supervision based on court rulings that the state
has failed to provide inmates with adequate care as required
under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The courts
found key deficiencies in the state's correctional programs,
including: (1) an inadequate number of staff to deliver health
care services, (2) an inadequate amount of clinical space within
prisons, (3) failures to follow nationally recognized health
care guidelines for treating inmate-patients, and (4) poor
coordination between health care staff and custody staff."<5>
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison and jail
overcrowding crisis outlined above.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
Due to prison overcrowding the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation is lacking sufficient
rehabilitation and re-entry facilities. This lack
of facilities, and therefore lack of programs
continues to contribute to the high recidivism
rates, and the Department's inability to fulfill
their responsibilities as a "Rehabilitation"
institution.
. . .
The bond authorized by this bill would create
rehabilitation and re-entry facilities. The
rehabilitation facilities would create space for
evidence-based recidivism-reducing programs, such as
educational courses and job training. A direct
result of these facilities would be lower prison
---------------------
<5> Primer, supra, fn. 4.
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageI
populations due to a reduction in recidivism.
The re-entry facilities authorized in this bond
would also alleviate prison overcrowding. The
facilities would directly reduce numbers in the
prison by removing qualified inmates from general
population to these facilities to prepare them for
release. After spending the remainder of their
incarceration in re-entry facilities, the hope is
that these inmates will have an easier time
assimilating after release. An easier assimilation
would also lower the risk of re-offending, and would
thus lower prison populations.
2. What This Bill Would Do
As explained above, this bill would require its proposed
"Rehabilitation and Re-Entry Facilities Bond Act of 2008" to be
submitted to the voters for approval at the next statewide
election, as specified:
Authorize the issuance of $2 billion in bonds pursuant
to the State General Obligation Bond Law;
Authorize up to $1 billion of these bond proceeds for
the construction of "facilities designed to provide
opportunities for inmates of the state prison system to
participate in rehabilitation programs"; and
Authorize up to $1 billion of these bond proceeds for
the construction of "facilities designed to assist
inmates in reentering the community, or to incarcerate
them for periods not exceeding six months as a result of
parole revocation."
3. Governor's Budget Proposal
As explained by the LAO in its Analysis of the 2007-2008 Budget
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageJ
Bill:
The budget includes $10.1 billion in state funds for
capital outlay projects. (The budget also assumes a
local match of $1.1 billion for certain projects.)
Of this total, about $376 million is funded through
the General Fund. The remainder is proposed to be
funded through lease-revenue bonds. The
administration has included about $10 billion in the
CDCR capital outlay budget, primarily from
lease-revenue bonds, for additional prison
construction and jail beds. The capital outlay
budget also proposes an additional $84 million in
projects for improvements at existing prisons.
Key components of the proposal for CDCR include $2.7
billion to add bed and program space at existing
prisons; $1.6 billion to build secure reentry
facilities in communities for inmates otherwise held
in state prisons; $4.4 billion to construct local
jails and juvenile facilities; $1 billion to build
new medical facilities to comply with various
federal court orders and settlements; and $268
million in the budget year for a new death row
facility at San Quentin.<6> The administration also
proposes to address prison capacity issues with
proposals outside of the capital outlay budget
through sentencing law changes that would shift
low-level offenders from state prison to county
jails; establishing a commission to further review
state sentencing laws; beginning work to contract
for 4,350 beds for female offenders in the
---------------------
<6> With respect to bed capacity, the Governor's plan calls for
16,000 new prison beds on existing sites, 5,000 to 7,000 new
secure reentry beds, 10,000 medical and mental health beds and
45,000 local jail beds. (See "Solving California's Correctional
Crisis," Little Hoover Commission (Jan. 2007) p. 4.)
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageK
community; and, as noted above, transferring 2,260
inmates to facilities in other states.
HOW DOES THIS BILL INTERCONNECT WITH THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET
PROPOSALS RELATING TO INCREASING BED CAPACITY AT CDCR?
4. Reentry Facilities
As explained above, this bill would authorize up to $1 billion
to be available "to construct facilities designed to assist
inmates in reentering the community, or to incarcerate them for
periods not exceeding six months as a result of parole
revocation." It would require that any "inmate housed in the
facilities as a result of a parole revocation shall be provided
with rehabilitative services," and would require that all
facilities constructed pursuant to these provisions "be located
in or near communities where there are a sufficient number of
parolees to justify the capacity of the facility."
In its analysis of the 2007-2008 Budget Bill, the LAO indicated
it was withholding any recommendation relating to the Governor's
reentry facility proposals pending "key fiscal and operational
details regarding these proposed new facilities." LAO describes
the Governor's reentry facility as follows:
Proposal. The Governor proposes $1.6 billion in
lease-revenue bonds (or, alternatively,
lease-purchase authority for projects) to create
secure reentry facilities for an estimated 5,000 to
7,000 inmates. The reentry facilities would be
smaller than other prisons in California which
average about 5,000 inmates each and would be
located near urban communities to which many inmates
return after release from prison. Inmates housed in
reentry facilities would be those serving the final
months of their prison sentence prior to release or
short-term parole violators. The facilities would
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageL
provide inmates with services such as education,
substance abuse, and job training to prepare them
for successful reentry into the community.
Important Details Lacking. Research studies suggest
that the establishment of reentry beds could benefit
public safety by providing rehabilitation and other
programs to assist inmates before they are released
to the community. However, at the time this
analysis was prepared, the department had not
provided important fiscal and operational details
regarding the proposal, such as specific facility
locations, the length of stay and risk
classification of inmates, the specific reentry
programs that would be provided or required, or how
the relatively expensive construction costs for
these beds ($229,000 to $320,000 per bed) were
estimated.
Modify Reentry Proposal Based on Additional
Information. We withhold recommendation on this
proposal until the department provides more
information to the Legislature about these projects,
including (1) the basis for its construction cost
estimate, (2) the characteristics of their inmate
population, (3) their proposed programs, and (4) the
communities that have expressed interest in
accepting a reentry facility. Based on this
information, the Legislature can make a more
informed decision about whether the proposals match
the priorities of the state.
Should the Legislature decide to approve such
projects, we recommend that it authorize only the
General Fund resources sufficient for preliminary
plans in order to provide oversight over these
projects, given that they are not fully developed at
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageM
this time. We estimate these costs to be about $45
million. The Legislature should also consider
whether parolees who have been returned to custody
for parole violations might be the best population
to place in these facilities. Parole violators as a
group typically have a high need for services that
could be provided in reentry centers, such as
substance abuse treatment, education and vocational
training, and employment services. Diverting parole
violators from reception centers could also reduce
the significant levels of overcrowding in those
prison facilities.
Members of the Committee may wish to ask the author to address
the questions raised by LAO (italicized above) relating to the
Governor's reentry proposal and equally applicable to this bill.
WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR THE $1 BILLION THIS BILL WOULD AUTHORIZE
FOR REENTRY FACILITIES?
WHAT WOULD BE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INMATE POPULATIONS IN
THESE FACILITIES?
WHAT WOULD BE THE PROPOSED PROGRAMS FOR THESE FACILITIES?
SHOULD THE FUNDING FOR THESE FACILITIES BE PRECEEDING BY
PRELIMINARY PLANS TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OVER THESE PROJECTS?
WOULD RETURN-TO-CUSTODY PAROLEES BE THE BEST POPULATION FOR
THESE FACILITIES?
5. Rehabilitation
As detailed above, this bill would authorize up to $1 billion
"to construct facilities designed to provide opportunities for
inmates of the state prison system to participate in
rehabilitation programs." The bill would provide that these
"facilities may include, but not be limited to, substance abuse
treatment space, and academic and vocational classrooms," and
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageN
would limit how much could be spent on directly related
administrative space to no more than 5 percent of the limit.
Members may wish to consider whether more information is
necessary to understand this proposal and how it might be
implemented. For example:
How would the types of rehabilitative facilities
selected for construction be identified under this bill?
How would location decisions for these facilities be
made?
What would be the operational costs associated with
these facilities?
How many inmates could receive rehabilitative
programming under this bill, and how much of an impact
would this have on improving the numbers of inmates for
whom rehabilitative programming is available?
6. Inmate Population, Management and Projections
The LAO reports that, "(a)s of June 30, 2006, CDCR housed
172,508 inmates in prisons, fire and conservation camps, and
community correctional facilities. The CDCR forecasts the
inmate population will increase to 179,558 by June 30, 2008, a
projected two-year increase of 7,050 inmates, or about 4
percent, compared to the beginning of the current fiscal year.
The projected increase in the inmate population is the result of
a recent trend of increasing admissions to prison from county
courts, as well as more parole violators returned to prison
through the state's administrative returns process."<7> LAO
cautions that "the accuracy of the department's latest
projections remains dependent upon a number of factors, changes
to any of which could result in significantly higher or lower
populations. These factors include sentencing law, crime rates,
and local criminal justice practices."<8>
The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee reports that the
"California prison system currently has over 16,000 "bad" beds,
---------------------------
<7> Id.
<8> Id.
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageO
which are bunks on dayroom floors and gyms. These bad beds
impact prison operations on many levels. They make it more
difficult for prison officials to maintain safe conditions for
prison staff and inmates. They also reduce the space available
for inmate programs. Furthermore, the overcrowding of the
prison facilities has overburdened the basic infrastructure of
many of the institutions resulting in sewage spills and
shortages of safe drinking water."<9>
The ability of CDCR to effectively manage its population is a
critical issue. As explained in the Senate Budget and Fiscal
Review Committee's Overview of the 2007-2008 Budget Bill:
California's prison population is at an all-time
high and California's prisons are filled to over
capacity. The state has also been named in numerous
class action lawsuits that are changing the way
state prison functions. In three of these suits,
motions have been filed to cap the prison
population. One judge has given the state until
June to improve prison conditions and relieve prison
overcrowding. These issues and more have resulted
in the department's current crisis management
approach to managing the prison population. This is
not a cost-effective or sustainable long-term
approach to population management. Furthermore, it
has made it difficult to establish programs and
practices that improve inmates' access to
programming and improve safety in the institutions.
A few years ago the department started to evaluate
and make long-term plans for the mission of each of
its 33 institutions. However, these planning
efforts have been on hold, in part, because of the
healthcare Receiver and because these long-term
planners are needed to assist in day-to-day crisis
management.
---------------------
<9> Overview of
the 2007-2008 Budget Bill (Senate Budget and Fiscal Review
Committee).
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageP
The department needs to re-engage in real long-term
population management. Just building more beds will
not result in population management, the department
needs to become more efficient and active at
managing its population to improve safety in the
prisons and reduce recidivism. The Legislature
should evaluate a multi-strategy approach to help
refocus CDCR on long-term population management.
In January of this year, the Little Hoover Commission issued its
report entitled "Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time
is Running Out." With respect to addressing overcrowding and
population management, the report includes several
recommendations, including:
Implementation of a comprehensive strategy
to reduce prison overcrowding and improve public
safety in California communities.
o Implement prior reform
recommendations. Policy-makers do not need to
further research solutions. . . . To improve
the performance of the correctional system,
policymakers must re-invent parole; expand
educational, vocational and substance abuse
treatment programs in prisons; reallocate
resources to expand local punishment
alternatives; and, expand judicial discretion.
o Establish a corrections inter-agency
task force. The State should establish an
inter-agency task force to develop
partnerships with CDCR to bolster in-prison
and reentry programs with a goal of reducing
recidivism and improving public safety. . . .
To improve public safety and make the best
use of correctional resources, the State must
immediately implement evidence-based policies to
reduce overcrowding and hold offenders accountable
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageQ
for improving themselves. Specifically, the State
should:
o Re-invent parole. For determinately
sentenced offenders, the State should eliminate
parole and implement a system of post-release
supervision for certain offenders based on a
validated risk and needs assessment tool.
Specifically, the State should:
Apply the greatest resources in
post-release supervision to those offenders who
pose the greatest risk of re-offending and who
are the most serious, violent and dangerous.
Waive post-release supervision for
certain low-risk offenders with no history of
violence.
Provide opportunities for former
offenders to earn discharge from supervision by
maintaining employment, going to school,
completing drug treatment or achieving other
goals that reduce recidivism.
Authorize a grid of community-based
sanctions, including jail, for offenders who
violate the terms of post-release supervision.
Try offenders who commit new crimes. Offenders
on post-release supervision who commit a new,
serious crime should be charged and tried in court,
and if found guilty, sentenced to a new term.
Shift responsibility. The State should shift
post-release supervision and responsibility, and
accountability for offender reintegration, to
communities. It should begin with three or four
willing counties and develop agreements and provide
funding for sheriffs or probation departments in
those counties, in partnership with community
agencies, to provide supervision, services and
sanctions for parolees.
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageR
Expand programs and create incentives for
completing them. The State should expand programs
that research shows reduce recidivism. As programs
are increased, the State should establish incentives
for offenders to participate, including:
o Linking credits toward early release to
completion of education and job training
programs, as well as plans for a job and housing.
o Requiring inmates to make progress toward
educational or drug treatment goals before
becoming eligible for work assignments.
Expand local capacity. The State should
reallocate resources to assist counties in expanding
local capacity including jail space, drug treatment
programs, day reporting centers and other
locally-based punishment options. The State also
should reallocate resources to assist counties in
expanding intensive probation as an alternative
sanction to jail or prison and to enhance crime
prevention.
Expand the role of judges. Guided by an offender
risk assessment tool prior to sentencing, judges should
be empowered to set goals that offenders should
achieve, whether they are put on probation or sentenced
to jail or prison. Additionally, the State should
assist willing counties in establishing reentry courts
where judges oversee the reentry of selected offenders
back to the community.<10>
Committee members may wish to discuss whether the
recommendations made by the Little Hoover Commission in January
have been fully explored, and how they may interrelate with this
proposal. In addition, Committee members may wish to ask the
---------------------------
<10> "Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time is Running
Out" (January 2007), Executive Summary, Little Hoover
Commission.
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageS
author to describe the analysis underlying this proposal with
respect to inmate population management; for example:
How will this bill promote more effective
management of the inmate population?
How many new prison beds (in the reentry
facilities) would this proposal generate, and how was
this number determined?
What are the inmate population projections that are
the basis of this proposal?
How does this proposal interrelate with the
projects proposed by the Receiver in the Plata case?
WILL THIS BILL ENHANCE MANAGEMENT OF THE CDCR INMATE POPULATION?
IS THE PRISON BED EXPANSION PROPOSED BY THIS BILL'S REENTRY
FACILITY PROPOSAL SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT ANALYSIS TO ENSURE
THAT ITS CONTEMPLATED $1 BILLION INVESTMENT ACHIEVES MEANINGFUL
IMPROVEMENT TO CALIFORNIA'S CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM? OR, CAN THE
NECESSARY PLANNING OCCUR AS THIS BILL IS IMPLEMENTED?
SHOULD THIS BILL (OR SOME VARIATION OF IT) BE COUPLED WITH OTHER
TOOLS DESIGNED TO IMPROVE THE MANAGEMENT OF CALIFORNIA'S INMATE
POPULATION?
7. Incarceration Trends: California and National Data
According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, by the end
of 2004 there were more than 2.1 million inmates in the nation's
prisons and jails. "The new figures represent a record 32-year
continuous rise in the number of inmates in the U.S. The
current incarceration rate of 724 per 100,000 residents places
the United States first in the world in this regard. Russia had
previously rivaled the U.S., but substantial prisoner amnesties
in recent years have led to a decline of the prison population,
resulting in a current rate of incarceration of 564 per 100,000.
Rates of incarceration per 100,000 for other industrialized
nations include Australia - 120, Canada - 116, England/Wales -
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageT
145, France - 88, and Japan - 60."<11>
California has followed the nationwide trend of increased
incarceration, both in overall numbers and as a percentage of
the population. According to the California Department of
Justice, in 1980 California had a total of 27,916 inmates in
state prison, or 176.9 per 100,000 of its citizens. In 1990 the
state prison inmate population was 99,145, or 495 per 100,000.
By 2000, the state prison inmate population had risen to 161,000
or 725.3 per 100,000. In 2004, there were 164,169 state prison
inmates, which amounted to 686.7 per 100,000.<12>
While incarceration rates have gone up, crime rates have
generally gone down. However, research indicates that the
relationship between crime rates and incarceration is not a
simple one and that, at a certain point, incarceration reaches a
point of diminishing returns in terms of reducing crime. The
following chart illustrates how, "[b]etween 1991 and 1998, those
states that increased incarceration at rates that were less than
the national average experienced a larger decline in crime rates
than those states that increased incarceration at rates higher
than the national average."<13>
Members may wish to ask the author to address the significant
increase in California's rate of incarceration over the last
several decades and explain if this measure might impact the
rate of incarceration in the future. In addition, members may
wish to discuss the extent to which incarcerating a greater
percentage of the population has contributed to the decrease in
crime, and whether at this point some of the alternatives to
---------------------------
<11> Mauer, "New Incarceration Figures: Growth In Population
Continues," Nov. 2005
http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/1044.pdf
<12> "Crime in California 2004," California Department of Justice.
http://caag.state.ca.us/cjsc/publications/candd/cd04/Data%20Tables.p
df
<13> Mauer, King, Young, "Incarceration and Crime: A Complex
Relationship," The Sentencing Project, 2005.
http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/incarceration-crime.pdf
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageU
incarceration recommended by the Independent Review Panel,
discussed below, might be more effective in reducing the crime
rate.
DOES CALIFORNIA INCARCERATE MORE PEOPLE THAN IS NECESSARY TO
REDUCE CRIME? OR, DO CALIFORNIA'S INCARCERATION PRACTICES
ENSURE A LEVEL OF PUBLIC SAFETY NOT OTHERWISE ATTAINABLE?
WOULD THE INCREASED REENTRY PRISON BEDS PROVIDED BY THIS BILL
AFFECT THE RATE OF INCARCERATION IN CALIFORNIA?
WHAT EVIDENCE-BASED STRATEGIES AND RESEARCH SUPPORT INCREASING
PRISON BED SPACE IN CALIFORNIA?
BASED ON OBJECTIVE DATA AND ANALYSIS FROM CALIFORNIA AND OTHER
JURISDICTIONS, IS THIS BILL THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE STRATEGY FOR
ADDRESSING PRISON OVERCROWDING?
8. Prison Bed Capacity Growth Over the Last 20 Years
California has authorized 22 prisons since 1984. The following
chart indicates those new prisons, their locations, when they
opened and their design capacity:
---------------------------------------------------------
|Prison |Location |Date |Design|
| | |Opened | |
| | | |capaci|
| | | |ty |
|-----------------------+-----------------+--------+------|
|CSP Solano |Vacaville | 1984| 2100|
|-----------------------+-----------------+--------+------|
|CSP Sacramento |Folsom | 1986| 1700|
|-----------------------+-----------------+--------+------|
|Avenal State Prison |Avenal | 1987| 2300|
|-----------------------+-----------------+--------+------|
|Mule Creek State |Ione | 1987| 1700|
|Prison | | | |
|-----------------------+-----------------+--------+------|
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageV
|Richard J Donovan |San Diego | 1987| 2200|
|-----------------------+-----------------+--------+------|
|No Cal Women's |Stockton (now | 1987| 400|
|Facility |closed) | | |
|-----------------------+-----------------+--------+------|
|Chuckawalla Valley SP |Blythe | 1988| 1700|
|-----------------------+-----------------+--------+------|
|CSP Corcoran |Corcoran | 1988| 2900|
|-----------------------+-----------------+--------+------|
|Pelican Bay SP |Crescent City | 1989| 2300|
|-----------------------+-----------------+--------+------|
|Central Ca Women's |Chowchilla | 1990| 2000|
|Facility | | | |
|-----------------------+-----------------+--------+------|
|Wasco SP |Wasco | 1991| 3100|
|-----------------------+-----------------+--------+------|
|CSP-Calipatria |Calipatria | 1992| 2200|
|-----------------------+-----------------+--------+------|
|North Kern SP |Delano | 1993| 2500|
|-----------------------+-----------------+--------+------|
|CSP Centinela |Imperial | 1993| 2200|
|-----------------------+-----------------+--------+------|
|Los Angeles County SP |Lancaster | 1993| 1200|
|-----------------------+-----------------+--------+------|
|Ironwood SP |Blythe | 1994| 2200|
|-----------------------+-----------------+--------+------|
|Pleasant Valley SP |Coalinga | 1994| 2200|
|-----------------------+-----------------+--------+------|
|Valley State Prison |Chowchilla | 1995| 2000|
|Women | | | |
|-----------------------+-----------------+--------+------|
|High Desert SP |Susanville | 1995| 2200|
|-----------------------+-----------------+--------+------|
|Salinas Valley SP |Soledad | 1996| 2200|
|-----------------------+-----------------+--------+------|
|Substance Abuse |Corcoran | 1997| 3300|
|Treatment Facility | | | |
|-----------------------+-----------------+--------+------|
|Delano II |Delano | 2005| 2500|
|-----------------------+-----------------+--------+------|
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageW
| | | |47100 |
---------------------------------------------------------
In its January report, the Little Hoover Commission noted:
This expansion of the prison population has
come at a significant cost. At the beginning
of the building boom in the early 1980s, adult
and youth corrections accounted for 4 percent
of California's General Fund expenditures at $1
billion per year. Today, it represents 8
percent of the total General Fund,
approximately $9 billion, and continues to
grow. Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed a
budget of approximately $10 billion for
2007-08.<14>
The Commission concluded:
Policy-makers must manage the correctional
population. To do this, capacity may need to be
expanded, particularly at the local level. But,
the State should not settle for simply building
more cells. It has done that for nearly two
decades and the State is still in a crisis.<15>
Members may wish to discuss the impact of prison expansion in
California over the last 20 years with respect to addressing and
controlling overcrowding, and what if any measures in addition
to capacity building have been taken during this same period to
reduce the incidence of overcrowding in state institutions.
CAN CALIFORNIA BUILD ITS WAY OUT OF ITS PRISON OVERCROWDING
CRISIS?
IS INCREASING SOME BED CAPACITY NECESSARY, GIVEN THE LEVELS OF
OVERCROWDING THAT NOW EXIST?
---------------------------
<14> "Solving California's Correctional Crisis: Time is Running
Out," supra, at p. 21 (citations omitted).
<15> Id. at 49.
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageX
WOULD THIS BILL'S FOCUS ON NEW REENTRY BEDS POSITIVELY IMPACT
THE OVERCROWDING CRISIS?
9. The Elements of Overcrowding: What Drives Inmate Populations
A combination of factors contributes to prison and jail
population increases. Many of the causes for California's
escalating inmate population today are not new. In its January
1990 Final Report, the Blue Ribbon Commission on Inmate
Population Management explained:
The tangible contributing factors (to prison and
jail population increases) include increases in drug
arrests, mandatory prison sentencing practices,
increased sentences for certain offenses, and
increased numbers of parole violators returning to
prison. Similarly, there has been increased public
demand for judicial accountability which has
resulted in changes in the increased use of prison
and jail sentences. . . . The fact that
legislators and other public officials continue to
be willing to allocate increased funds for
operations of law enforcement, prosecution and
corrections is a factor in increasing the
incarcerated population in the state. The same is
true of construction funding in the form of bonds
that have passed with increasing voter majorities
over the last decade. . . .
The intangible contributing factors include the fact
that the public, legislators, judges, law
enforcement and others have individually and
collectively exhibited a much tougher attitude
toward crime and its perpetrators. This attitude
and its resulting actions have contributed to many
of the tangible factors such as tougher laws,
approval of funds for operation and construction of
prisons and jails, increased numbers of parole
violators going to prison and increased sentencing
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageY
to jail and prison. . . .
Finally, prison and jail population increases are
also a likely result of a lack of intermediate
sanctions or punishment options for judges, custody
and parole authorities in making punishment
decisions.<16>
Fourteen years later, in the face of a prison population that
had expanded from 99,145 inmates in 1990 to 164,169 in 2004,
many of these same factors were identified by the Corrections
Independent Review Panel ("IRP") assembled by Governor
Schwarzenegger. Chaired by former Governor George Deukmeijian,
the IRP was tasked with conducting a comprehensive review of
California's corrections system and make recommendations for
reform. The IRP identified the three major factors that
influence inmate population as: (1) the average length of time
served in prison; (2) the number of new admissions; and (3) the
number of parole violators returning to the prison system.
Length of Prison Terms. Since the early 1980's, California has
enacted a series of sentencing laws which have substantially
increased the length of prison terms. The most significant is
the 1994 "Three Strikes" law. Under the "Three Strikes" law, if
the defendant has one conviction that qualifies as a "strike,"
after a second conviction for any felony, an offender's sentence
is doubled. If the defendant has two prior convictions that
qualify as "strikes," after a third conviction for any felony
the penalty is 25-years-to-life. The Legislative Analyst's
Office ("LAO") reported in 2005 that "[a]s of December 31, 2004,
there were almost 43,000 inmates serving time in prison under
the Three Strikes law, making up about 26 percent of the total
prison population. Of the striker population, more than 35,000
---------------------------
<16> The California Blue Ribbon Commission on Inmate Population
Management was established by SB 279 (Presley) (Ch. 1255, Stats.
1987). "The Commission was established to examine prison and
jail population projections, study options for criminal
punishment, and make recommendations to the Governor and
Legislature on the problems of prison overcrowding and
escalating costs." (Commission Report at p. 1.)
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageZ
are second strikers, and about 7,500 are third strikers."<17>
Because the law increases the length of sentences,
it has raised the average length of stay for the
prison population. The average time served by all
felons before their first release to parole was 21
months in 1994, prior to the implementation of the
Three Strikes law. By 2004, this average had
increased by 19 percent to 25 months. In part, this
increase has occurred because second strikers serve
longer sentences than the average for all prison
inmates. Second strikers released to parole in 2004
served 43 months on average. The additional time in
prison for second strikers costs the state
approximately $60,000 per striker.
In addition, inmates serving life sentences for a
third strike conviction are in prison for longer
than would have been the case in the absence of the
Three Strikes law, particularly those whose current
offense is nonserious or nonviolent.<18>
The same 2005 LAO report found that sentencing policy also has a
significant effect on county jail populations.
Aging Inmate Population. The LAO also found that, due in large
part to sentencing laws such as "Three Strikes," the California
prison population is getting older and that this trend will
continue, with significant fiscal implications.
The average age of the inmate population has
risen from 32 to 36 since 1994. Moreover, the
number of inmates 50 years of age and older has
increased from about 5,500 to 16,300 between 1994
and 2004. This aging prison population is likely
due to two factors. The first and probably more
--------------------
<17> "A Primer: Three Strikes - The Impact After More Than A
Decade," Legislative Analyst's Office, October 2005.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/3_Strikes/3_strikes_102005.htm
<18> Ibid.
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageA
significant factor is the enactment of sentencing
laws (such as the Three Strikes law) to provide
longer terms, and in some cases life terms. Such
laws, designed to incarcerate offenders for
longer periods, result in a larger and older
prison population in the long run. Thus, as the
third striker population grows and ages (probably
at least until 2014) the overall prison
population will likely grow older, as well. The
second factor is that the aging of the prison
population simply reflects the aging of the
citizenry as a whole. The so-called "baby boom"
generation is getting older, and so are the
criminals of the baby boom generation.
The aging of the prison population over the past
decade has the potential for significant fiscal
consequences. As inmates age, the cost of housing
them increases due to age-related illness and the
associated health care costs, as well as the
security and transportation costs of moving these
inmates between prisons and local hospitals.
Estimates are that housing and caring for elderly
inmates' costs between two and three times more
than the $35,000 it costs in 2005-06 to
incarcerate the average inmate. Therefore, as the
striker population continues to grow and age in
prison, the state costs to incarcerate them will
also continue to escalate.<19>
Parole Revocations: According to the IRP, "The vast numbers of
parolees returning to prison help drive both the size of the
prison population and the cost of the system. In 2001 more than
74,000 (47 percent) of the average daily prison inmate
population of 157,000 was made up of parole violators." Citing
Department of Corrections figures, the IRP reported that 56% of
California inmates released on parole are returned to prison
within two years and that many of those returned to prison are
parolees who are sent back for violating the conditions of
---------------------------
<19> Id.
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageB
parole, rather than for committing new crimes. In 2003, the
Little Hoover Commission conducted a comprehensive study of
California's parole system and declared it a "billion dollar
failure."<20> The Commission found that, between 1980 and 2000,
the number of parolees returned to prison has nearly tripled and
that California inmate's failure rate on parole is twice the
national average.
HOW DOES THIS MEASURE ADDRESS THE FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO
ESCALATING INMATE POPULATIONS, OTHER THAN TO INCREASE THE NUMBER
OF PRISON BEDS DESIGNATED AS REENTRY BEDS?
WOULD THE REENTRY FACILITIES PROPOSED BY THIS BILL ADDRESS
OVERCROWDING BY IMPROVING PAROLE OUTCOMES?
WOULD CREATING PRISON REENTRY BEDS BE THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO
ADDRESS PAROLE REVOCATIONS?
OR, ARE THERE OTHER STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING PAROLEE SUCCESS
WHICH COULD REDUCE PRISON AND JAIL POPULATION WITHOUT
COMPROMISING PUBLIC SAFETY?
10. Strategies for Addressing Overcrowding: Recommendations
from Prior Studies
As noted above, the causes of prison and jail overcrowding in
California have been examined by a number of commissions and
panels over the past several years. The Blue Ribbon Commission
on Inmate Population Management in 1990, the Little Hoover
Commission in 2005 as well as earlier reports, and the IRP in
2004 all performed extensive reviews of California's corrections
system, especially with respect to the issues of population
management and overcrowding. Each made several specific
recommendations on how to reduce inmate populations.
Importantly, none of these groups recommended new jail or prison
construction as the answer to the problem of overcrowding.
---------------------------
<20> "Back to the Community: Safe and Sound Parole Policies,"
Little Hoover Commission, November 2003
http://www.lhc.ca.gov/lhcdir/172/report172.pdf
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageC
The 2004 IRP report made a total of 58 recommendations for
reducing inmate and ward populations. Although it did not
recommend closing any adult prisons until the current population
is reduced to the point that overcrowding is eliminated, none of
the panel's recommendations involved new jail or prison
construction. The panel focused on enhancing the performance,
rather than the size, of California's correctional system:
The department saves money with each inmate and
parolee it safely removes from the prison and parole
population. The present average cost of housing an
inmate is $28,439 per year, and the average cost of
supervising a parolee is $2,930 per year. Some of
the recommendations presented here require an
initial investment, but can be expected to save
money in the future by improving the chances for
inmates and parolees to succeed, thereby reducing
the numbers who return to prison and shrinking the
overall prison population.
The IRP's recommendations include, for example:
"The panel concluded that California can reduce the
growing cost of managing its adult prison population by
addressing three key factors that influence the size of
that population - the length of time inmates serve in
prison; the training and treatment they receive during
incarceration to decrease the likelihood that they will
return; and the services they receive during parole to help
them remain crime-free and successfully integrate into
society."
"To address the length of time inmates spend in prison,
the panel recommends eliminating the current time-credit
system for non life-term offenses and adopting instead a
'presumptive' sentencing structure that more effectively
encourages inmates to achieve identified goals during
incarceration."
"As an immediate measure to shorten prison terms, the
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageD
panel recommends enhancing time credits inmates can earn in
return for accomplishing specified goals."
"As a further means of reducing the prison population,
the panel recommends identifying older inmates who could
safely be released early, consistent with similar programs
operating in several other states."
"To better prepare inmates for release, the panel
recommends providing inmates with much greater access to
in-prison education, vocational classes, life-skills
training, reentry services, and drug treatment."
"The changes should include a risk-assessment of each
parolee."
"Parolees identified through risk assessment as very low
risk should be discharged from parole after three months."
"The panel recommends increasing the number of substance
abuse treatment beds in the community and continuing
implementation of the Department of Corrections 'new parole
model,' which includes prerelease planning, electronic
monitoring, and residential treatment as an alternative
sanction for technical parole violations."
(More)
The Little Hoover Commission's review of the Governor's proposed
reorganization of the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency in
2005 similarly focused on strategies to reduce the prison
population by improving the performance of California
correctional system:
The success of efforts to better prepare inmates
for release hinges in large part on the success of
parole reforms in reducing the size of the prison
population so that educational, vocational and
treatment programs can be more effectively managed
and delivered. The implementation of parole
reforms to reduce the size of the prison
population and improve efforts to prepare inmates
for release to the community should be a high
priority.
In 2003, the Commission reported that California
has the second highest parole failure rate in the
country. Sixty-seven percent of California prison
commitments are parolees returned to custody
compared to a national average of 35 percent. The
Commission recommended that the State cut costs
and improve outcomes by using alternatives to
prison for the large percentage of parole
violators returned to prison for drug use and
possession. The Legislature, in the 2003-04
Budget Act directed the department to implement a
series of reforms, including alternatives to
prison, to reduce the prison population.
Despite Secretary Hickman's assertion that
technical violation and parole discharge reforms
are progressing, the prison population has grown.
Given overcrowding, reducing the prison population
is critical to effectively implementing programs
to prepare inmates for release. The Commission
and the Independent Review Panel recommended that
the State shift the responsibility for parolees to
(More)
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageF
communities for certain nonviolent offenders.
Neither the reorganization plan nor the strategic
plan address the parole reforms required by the
Legislature or the recommendations for shifting
parole to counties. In the strategic plan,
expansions of evidence-based reentry and parole
supervision strategies are not slated not to occur
until 2007, but should be accelerated.
In 1990, the Blue Ribbon Commission on Inmate Population
Management similarly focused on alternatives to increased
capacity to address inmate population overcrowding. For
example, the Commission's observations and recommendations
included:
"Prisons and jails continue to be overcrowded and will
be overcrowded in the future despite California's massive
construction effort."
Adoption of a Community Corrections Act to provide state
funds to localities "to significantly expand public or
community based intermediate sanctions or punishment
options such as electronic surveillance, house arrest,
intensive probation supervision, work furlough,
mother-child programs, community service, victim
restitution centers and programs, community detention, and
substance abuse residential and non-residential treatment
programs. . . .";
Significant expansion of intermediate sanctions or
punishment options for parole violators; and
The creation of a Sentencing Law Review Commission to
review and make recommendations regarding certain adult and
juvenile sentencing issues.
HAVE THE STRATEGIES FOR ADDRESSING OVERCROWDING WHICH DO NOT
RELY ON CAPACITY BUILDING BEEN FULLY EXHAUSTED IN CALIFORNIA?
CAN CALIFORNIA'S TRUE NEED FOR INCREASING PRISON AND JAIL
SB 818 (Negrete McLeod)
PageG
CAPACITY BE ACCURATELY ASSESSED UNTIL OTHER STRATEGIES FOR
REDUCING INMATE POPULATIONS HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED?
***************