BILL ANALYSIS
AB 785
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 14, 2009
Counsel: Kimberly A. Horiuchi
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Jose Solorio, Chair
AB 785 (Bass) - As Introduced: February 26, 2009
SUMMARY : Requires the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR), no later than January 1, 2010, to
implement a "parole violation decision-making instrument"
(PVDMI) designed to provide guidelines for use by parole agents
and the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) to determine the most
appropriate sanctions for parolees who violate parole.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Defines "PVDMI" as providing rages of appropriate sanctions
for parole violators given relevant case factors such as
offense history, risk of re-offending, risk of violence based
on a validated risk assessment tool, need for treatment
services, the number and type of current and prior parole
violations, and other relevant statutory requirements.
2)Mandates parole agents, and when a violation of parole has
been referred to the BPH, impose sanctions on parole violators
in accordance with the PVDMI.
3)Requires CDCR to adopt emergency regulations to initially
implement the PVDMI and shall subsequently adopt permanent
regulations that make appropriate changes in policies and
procedures to reflect the intent of this bill.
4)States subject to legislative appropriation, CDCR shall ensure
that sufficient bed or program capacity is available in the
community to assign parole violators to those sanctions
designated in the PVDMI.
5)Provides that nothing in this bill shall limit the authority
of counties to prosecute parolees who commit new crimes.
6)Declares the following:
a) The state's 33 prisons are operating at approximately
AB 785
Page 2
200% of capacity. Several thousand California inmates have
been transferred out of state to help relieve overcrowding.
b) Approximately 70,000 parole violators are sent back to
these overcrowded prisons each year. Approximately 20% of
these violators are returned to custody for a technical
violation of parole, not for the commission of a new crime,
resulting in a stay of usually four months or less, and
these violators do not receive reentry services to stop the
cycle of re-offending.
c) Many reports and commissions have recommended the
adoption of an evidence-based risk assessment. These
include, but are not limited to, the following: the
Rehabilitation Strike Team Report to the Governor (12-07),
which included a specific recommendation for using a parole
violation decision-making matrix; the California Expert
Panel Report (6-07) that recommended development of a
parole sanctions matrix including sanction guidelines for
parole agents; and the Little Hoover Commission Report
(11-03), "Back to the Community: Safe and Sound Parole
Policies", which recommended that the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation use structured
decision-making and alternative sanctions in responding to
parole violations.
d) Community sanctions should be instituted for parole
violators who represent a low risk to public safety based
on the nature of the parole violation, their criminal
history, and the outcome of risk assessments as authorized
in Section 33 of Chapter 175, Statutes of 2007 [SB 81
(Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review)]. Community
sanctions include, but are not limited to, community work
crews, increased supervision, increased drug testing, home
detention, day reporting centers, and short-term
incarceration.
EXISTING LAW :
1)States CDCR is hereby authorized to expand the use of parole
programs or services to improve the rehabilitation of
parolees, reduce recidivism, reduce prison overcrowding, and
improve public safety through the following:
a) The use of intermediate sanctions for offenders who
AB 785
Page 3
commit a violation of parole.
b) The use of parole programs or services, in addition to
supervision, for any offender who is in need of services to
reduce the parolee's likelihood to re-offend. [Penal Code
Section 3060.98(a)(1) to (3).]
2)Provides that the expansion of parole programs or services may
include, but shall not be limited to, the following:
counseling, electronic monitoring, halfway house services,
home detention, intensive supervision, mandatory community
service assignments, increased drug testing, participation in
one or more components of the Preventing Parolee Crime
Program, rehabilitation programs, such as substance abuse
treatment, and restitution. [Penal Code Section 3060.9(b)(1)
to (10).]
3)Requires CDCR, in consultation with the Legislative Analyst's
Office, to, contingent upon funding, conduct an evaluation
regarding the effect of parole programs or services on public
safety, parolee recidivism, and prison and parole costs and
report the results to the Legislature three years after
funding is provided pursuant existing law. Until that date,
the department shall report annually to the Legislature,
beginning January 1, 2009, regarding the status of the
expansion of parole programs or services and the number of
offenders assigned and participating in parole programs or
services in the preceding fiscal year. [Penal Code Section
3060.9(h).]
4)Provides that the services offered in pilot programs may
include, but shall not be limited to, drug and alcohol abuse
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).]
5)Requires CDCR to operate the Preventing Parolee Crime Program
with various components including, at a minimum, residential
and non-residential multi-service centers, literacy
laboratories, drug treatment networks and job placement
assistance for parolees. [Penal Code Section 3068(a).]
AB 785
Page 4
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "Approximately
70,000 individuals each year are returned to custody for a
parole violation, a higher percentage than other states. CDCR
has been testing and analyzing a new parole violation decision
making instrument (PVDMI) that is aimed at giving the
appropriate sanctions to offenders which could include a
return to custody or community sanctions depending on a matrix
of factors. The PVDMI looks more broadly a the individual
through an analysis of offense history, the risk of
re-offending, the risk of violence based on a validated risk
assessment tool, the need for treatment services, and the
number and types of current and prior parole violations. The
PVDMI should help us use our resources wisely and incarcerate
higher risk offenders while assisting lower risk offenders
with services and community obligations. The goal must be to
remove dangerous offenders and successfully reintegrate low
risk offenders back into our communities and stop the endless
cycle of recidivism, especially for technical parole
violations by low risk offenders."
2)Overview and History of the Community Corrections Program
(CCP) : According to the California Research Bureau's paper,
"Community Correction Punishments: An Alternative to
Incarceration for Nonviolent Offenders":
"Community corrections is a range of alternative punishments for
nonviolent offenders. There are two basic community
corrections models in the United States. In the first model,
integrated community corrections programs combine sentencing
guidelines and judicial discretion ('front-end') with a
variety of alternative sanctions and parole and probation
options. In the second model, some states (including
California) have instituted programs in which correctional
officials may direct already sentenced offenders into
alternative sanction programs and parole and probation options
('back-end'). Both models are designed to help reduce prison
overcrowding and are less expensive alternatives to prison.
"Widespread development of CCPs in the United States began in
the late 1970's as a way to offer offenders, especially those
leaving jail or prison, residential services in halfway
AB 785
Page 5
houses. The first state community correction programs began
in Oregon, Colorado, and Minnesota as pilot projects with very
little government-funded support. They diverted nonviolent
offenders in selected pilot project areas from jails and state
prisons into local alternative punishment programs. The
programs were referred to as front-end sentencing because they
allowed judges to sentence offenders to a community-based
punishment rather than jail or prison. Rehabilitation
programs were the preferred punishment option.
"In the late 1980's, prison systems across the country began
experiencing serious overcrowding of facilities. The
overcrowding served as a catalyst for lawmakers to develop new
options for sentencing criminal offenders. Nineteen states
have now enacted various CCPs.
"CCPs provide many communities with local punishment options as
an alternative to prison or jail. These sanction programs are
lower cost alternatives to increased prison and jail
construction, based on the cost per offender. They provide
local courts, state departments of corrections, and state
parole boards with a broad range of correctional options for
offenders under their jurisdiction. The goal is to match the
appropriate punishment with the crime.
"CCPs are integrated sanctioning strategies which seek to
achieve the following goals: the offender is punished and
held accountable, public safety is protected, victims and
local communities receive restitution from felons who work in
their present jobs and/or in restitution programs, community
service work increases, and collection of court costs and fees
increases due to contractual agreements with offenders who
remain in their present jobs."
3)Benefits of the Parole Violation Intermediate Sanctions
Program (PVISP) : In November 2003, the Little Hoover
Commission released a report, "Back to the Community: Safe &
Sound Parole Policies." The report indicates:
"Unlike many other states, California has not developed a range
of alternative sanctions for parole violators who do not
require a return to prison. Moreover, California
policy-makers have rejected many strategies that have been
proven to work elsewhere and have been proposed by
California's own parole authorities.
AB 785
Page 6
"In 1998, at the request of the Senate President Pro Tempore,
the federal Bureau of Justice Assistance, through its
technical assistance program, assessed California parole
violations and recommended a series of programs and policies
designed to reduce the rate of parole revocations.
"The researchers suggested that the State fund a number of
programs experimentally to measure their effectiveness and
target them to parole violators who have not been re-arrested
for a violent crime. The proposals were approved by the
Legislature, but vetoed by Governor Davis. In his veto
message, the Governor said the bill would reduce
accountability for the conduct of parolees and result in the
implementation of unproven intermediate sanctions that could
pose a danger to public safety.
"In a 2003 report to the Legislature, parole officials stated:
" 'Re-confinement of non-serious parole violators is the most
expensive sanction available in a system that provides few
alternatives, and does not address the core problems that
drive long-term patterns of criminality.' The report proposed
initiatives to reduce recidivism, including cost-cutting
measures, effective punishment, prevention and early
intervention programs and prisoner reentry programs. It
estimated the proposals could result in a 50% reduction in
parolee recidivism by 2005-06 and net savings of $189.3
million. Some of these programs were included in the package
of correctional reforms included in the 2003-04 budget.'
"Finally, parole agents say they often have no choice but
revocation, because services in the community are inadequate
or difficult for parolees to access.
"Many jurisdictions have developed alternatives to prison for
non-violent parole violators. They include: community service
and restitution, enhanced substance abuse monitoring, day
incarceration, electronic monitoring, work furlough programs,
day reporting centers, halfway houses or community
incarceration. Some correctional agencies have linked
sanctions to the seriousness of violations. Others use risk
assessments to gauge the jeopardy to public safety. Some
examples of actions taken by other states to control prison
populations include:
AB 785
Page 7
a) " Restrict re-incarceration of technical violators .
Washington prohibits the return of technical parole
violators to state prison. Instead, they remain in the
community and serve any additional time in local jails.
b) " Develop graduated sanctions . Michigan, Vermont,
Maryland and Wisconsin have developed innovative programs
to limit the number of parole violators returned to prison,
while protecting public safety.
c) " Change laws on drug offenders . Some states, like
Florida, have diverted drug offenders to local jails and
expanded drug courts. To reduce the cost of incarcerating
increasing numbers of non-violent parole violators, the
2003-04 budget directed CDCR to employ alternative
sanctions for these parolees including substance abuse
treatment in jails, placement in Community Correctional
Re-Entry Centers, home detention and electronic monitoring.
"A 2001 prison survey showed that 22% of all state prisoners -
and 18% of prisoners on death row - committed their most
recent crime while on parole. An 11-state study of recidivism
among ex-prisoners found that 63% of the offenders were
re-arrested within three years of their release from prison.
Two-thirds of the re-arrests occurred within one year.
Importantly, the study found that despite the high re-arrest
rate, the arrests linked to these ex-prisoners constituted
less than 3% of all arrests that occurred in the 11 states
during that time period.
"A recent meta-analysis of 175 evaluations of intermediate
sanctions programs concluded that the combination of
surveillance and treatment was associated with reductions in
recidivism of 20 to 25% and up to 30% if the program was more
targeted. A study by RAND showed that offenders who
participated in treatment, community service, and employment
programs - all pro-social activities - had recidivism rates 10
to 20% below that of participants who did not participate in
such additional activities. Reductions of as much as 30% were
achieved when programs targeted particular risks and needs.
Researchers found similar results in Massachusetts, Oregon and
Ohio. Criminologist Joan Petersilia concludes that the
research regarding intermediate sanctions is decisive:
'Without a rehabilitation component, reductions in recidivism
AB 785
Page 8
are elusive. . . . However, programs that provided treatment
and additional services obtained some reductions in
recidivism, particularly for high-risk offenders, and drug
offenders more specifically.'
"Moreover, intermediate sanctions are not 'soft on crime.'
Research has shown that offenders perceive intermediate
sanctions like house arrest and electronic monitoring as much
more punitive than a short stint in jail or prison. When
offenders were asked whether they would prefer to serve six
months in jail or prison or two years on intensive
supervision, more than 50% chose jail or prison. CDCR and BPH
could better assess the public safety risks posed by parolees
and appropriately apply a broader range of sanctions for
violations. Also, communities could assume responsibility for
intervening with parolees who do not require a return to
prison."
4)Prior Legislation : SB 391 (Ducheney), Chapter 645, Statutes of
2007, created the CCP and PVISP within the CDCR.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744