BILL ANALYSIS
AB 151
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 31, 2009
Consultant: Larry Yee
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Jose Solorio, Chair
AB 151 (Ruskin) - As Introduced: January 23, 3009
SUMMARY : Extends the sunset date for the parole re-entry pilot
program in East Palo Alto for parolees who have committed
nonviolent crimes until January 1, 2012.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) to establish a pilot program in East
Palo Alto for parolees returning to East Palo Alto. The
program:
a) Provides parolees with individual needs-based
assessments, and the program partners with East Palo Alto
police officers to blend enforcement and programming
services.
b) Requires CDCR to maintain information on the
effectiveness of the program and report to the Legislature
on request.
c) Provides that the program's operation is contingent upon
consent by the City of East Palo Alto to participate in the
pilot program.
d) Has a sunset date of January 1, 2009. [Penal Code
Section 3055.]
2)Directs the CDCR to establish three pilot programs for
intensive training and counseling programs for female parolees
to assist in successful reintegration into the community
following in-prison therapeutic community drug treatment.
[Penal Code Section 3054(a)(1).]
3)Provides that the services offered in the above pilot programs
may include, but are not limited to, drug and alcohol abuse
AB 151
Page 2
treatment, cognitive skills development, education, life
skills, job skills, victim impact awareness, anger management,
family reunification, counseling, vocational training and
support, residential care, and placement in affordable housing
and employment opportunities. [Penal Code Section
3054(b)(1).]
4)Provides that the CDCR operate the Preventing Parolee Crime
Program, including residential and non-residential
multi-service centers, literacy laboratories, drug treatment
networks and job placement assistance. [Penal Code Section
3068(a).].
5)Provides that prisoners on parole remain under the legal
custody of CDCR and are subject at any time to return to
prison. (Penal Code Section 3056.)
6)Provides that Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) has the power to
establish and enforce parole rules and regulations. (Penal
Code Section 3052.)
7)Provides the BPH full authority to suspend or revoke any
parole and to order returned to prison any prisoner upon
parole. (Penal Code Section 3060.)
8)Allows revocation of parole only for cause, and provides for a
revocation hearing. Depending upon the severity and
complexity of the allegations considered in the hearing, the
parolee may be entitled to the assistance of counsel. (Penal
Code Sections 3063, 3063.5 and 3063.6; California Code of
Regulations Sections 3901.21.10 and 3901.27.)
9)Provides that any person returned to prison after parole
revocation may be held for 12 months and an additional 12
months for prison misconduct. The person shall then be
released on parole for the balance of the period of un-served.
(Penal Code Section 3057.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "It is in the
nature of pilot programs that unforeseen complications arise
as the program is rolled out. While the City of East Palo
AB 151
Page 3
Alto wanted to be a full partner in the pilot program, the
city council needed to pass a resolution in support of the
program to satisfy the consent requirement of the law. There
are laws governing the agenda of local council meeting
including adequate notice of the agenda and allowing for
public comment during the council meeting to address any
concerns citizens may have about a proposed agenda item.
These requirements delayed the signing of the contract and
enrolling qualified parolees into the program. I am simply
asking that the reporting requirement be moved back so the
full effect of the program can be established and all the
pertinent data be collected and reported to the Legislature.
2)Background : According to background information supplied by
the author, "The pilot program under AB 2436 (Ruskin), Chapter
779, Chapter of 2006, is uniquely designed. In other parole
pilot programs, the CDCR contracts with public and private
not-for-profit entities or private companies who oversee the
parole re-entry programs. In AB 2436, the CDCR contracts
directly with the City of East Palo Alto. The City, working
with the East Palo Alto Police Department, oversees the design
and implementation of the program. Parolees are more directly
supervised by the Police Department and parole agents because
of the direct involvement of the City. Before the contract
could be signed, the City of East Palo Alto needed to
officially consent to participate in the program. The City
established consent by passing a resolution in support of the
program. In this effort, time was needed to ensure adequate
public notice and public comment. The residents of East Palo
Alto had the opportunity to discuss the project in an open
forum and the resolution was adopted by the council. The
contract between the City and the CDCR was not finalized until
May, 2007. This delayed the RFP and the final awarding of the
parolee assistance services of the contract. Because of the
due diligence by the City, delay in the signing of the
contract and the final awarding to the assistance service
provider, the official re-entry program started accepting
qualified parolees later then originally anticipated in AB
2436. The program did not officially begin taking parolees
until January, 2008. AB 151 extends the deadline for the
reporting requirement by two years to allow for additional
parolees to enter the program and adequate time to fully
analyze the data and determine the success of the program.
There is no need for additional funding to extend this
program, because the current appropriation is sufficient."
AB 151
Page 4
3)Failure to Prepare Offenders for Release Jeopardizes Public
Safety : According to the Little Hoover Commission Report,
"Back to the Community: Safe and Sound Parole Policies"
(November 2003), despite evidence that re-entry programs
reduce re-arrest, re-conviction, and re-incarceration, most
inmates do not have access to re-entry programs. The
Commission states the four fundamental problems are:
a) "The time in prison is not being used to prepare inmates
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."
4)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."
5)Arguments in Support :
a) According to Legal Services for Prisoners with Children ,
"Since the beginning of this pilot program Free at Last has
provided support services for up to 120 parolees each year,
AB 151
Page 5
including substance abuse education, vocational training,
literacy training, and job development. In the time that
the program has been in place, it has maintained a 70%
retention level, meaning that 70% of parolees in this
program have not returned to prison. When compared with
recidivism rates around the state, t his is a phenomenal
success.
"The work of this pilot program is just getting started. As
recently as this week, the program has partnered with
Caltrans to begin providing jobs for up to 20 parolees. By
extending the sunset date for the pilot to 2012, rather
than 2010, we believe that the program will continue to see
great success in helping formerly incarcerated people
reintegrate into their communities. At a time when our
prisons are overcrowded with people picked up on parole
violations, the pilot program is providing exactly the kind
of support that parolees need to be productive members of
society and not recidivate."
b) According to the Friends Committee on Legislation of
California , "The pilot program provides for a prerelease
needs-based assessment of prisoners and a reentry plan
identifying services needed by parolees to ensure success
upon returning to the community. Research and evidence
show that a well planned reentry program that consists of
job training, education, drug treatment and counseling
reduces recidivism rates, a finding reflected in the recent
passage by Congress of the Second Chance Act, which was
subsequently signed into law by former President Bush.
"A 2003 report by the Little Hoover Commission, 'Back to the
Community: Safe and Sound Parole Practices', called parole
in California 'a billion dollar failure." With
Californian's prisons at 195% of capacity and prison health
care under federal receivership as the result of
overcrowding, we need to take meaningful steps to reduce
our state's unusually high recidivism rate."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Friends Committee on Legislation of
California
AB 151
Page 6
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Opposition
None received
Analysis Prepared by : Larry Yee / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744