BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair A
2009-2010 Regular Session B
8
0
7
AB 807 (Fuentes)
As Amended June 1, 2009
Hearing date: July 7, 2009
Penal Code
JM:mc
RESTITUTION CENTERS:
DIRECT PLACEMENT BY THE SENTENCING COURT
HISTORY
Source: California Public Defenders Association
Prior Legislation: AB 1478 (Baugh) - Ch. 249, Stats. 2000
SB 615 (Maddy) - Ch. 372, Stats. 1995
SB 1656 (Maddy) - Ch. 1520, Stats. 1984
Support: Crime Victims United; California Peace Officers
Association; California Police Chiefs Association
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 75 - Noes 1
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION BE
REQUIRED TO REOPEN THE CENTRAL AND THE LA CIENEGA RESTITUTION
CENTERS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY?
(More)
AB 807 (Fuentes)
PageB
SHOULD A DEFENDANT WHO OWES A RESTITUTION FINE BE ELIGIBLE FOR
PLACEMENT IN A RESTITUTION CENTER?
(CONTINUED)
SHOULD DEFENDANTS WHO OWE DIRECT RESTITUTION TO VICTIMS RETAIN
PRIORITY FOR PLACEMENT IN RESTITUTION CENTERS?
SHOULD THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE FOR A PERSON PLACED IN A RESTITUTION
CENTER BE EXPANDED FROM 32 MONTHS TO 60 MONTHS?
SHOULD NUMEROUS FINDINGS CONCERNING THE BENEFITS OF RESTITUTION
CENTERS BE STATED?
SHOULD A DEFENDANT WHO IS COMMITTED TO A RESTITUTION CENTER BY THE
COURT BE SENT DIRECTLY TO THE CENTER?
SHOULD CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS BE MADE TO THE LIST OF CRIMES THAT
RENDER A DEFENDANT INELIGIBLE FOR PLACEMENT IN A RESTITUTION CENTER?
PURPOSE
The purposes of this bill are to 1) require the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation to reopen the Central Restitution
Center and the La Cienega Restitution Center in Los Angeles; 2)
allow defendants who owe restitution fines to be placed in
restitution centers; 3) provide that defendants who owe direct
restitution to victims shall have priority for placement in
restitution centers; 4) expand from 32 months to 60 months the
maximum sentence a defendant can receive and remain eligible for
placement in a restitution center; 5) make findings concerning
the benefits of restitution centers; 6) provide that a defendant
committed to restitution centers by the court shall be sent
directly to the center; and 7) make clarifying changes in the
list of crimes that disqualify a defendant from placement in a
restitution center.
(More)
AB 807 (Fuentes)
PageC
Existing law authorizes the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") to establish restitution centers for
inmates to provide a means for those sentenced to prison to be
able to pay their victims' financial restitution, as specified.
(Pen. Code 6220 and 6221.)
Existing law provides that a defendant is eligible for placement
in a restitution center if he or she:
has not served a prison term within the five years prior
to the present conviction;
does not have a criminal history of a conviction for the
sale of drugs or for a crime involving violence or sex;
did not receive a sentence of more than 36 months;
presents no unacceptable risk to the community; and
is employable. (Pen. Code 6228.)
Existing law provides that the court may order the CDCR to place
an eligible defendant in a restitution center if the court makes
a restitution order or if a restitution agreement is entered
into by the victims and the defendant. (Pen. Code 6227.)
Existing law provides that offenders shall perform all labor
necessary to maintain the restitution center and meet the
offenders' needs, unless the director finds that other persons
can better perform a particular task. The director may employ
and pay compensation to offenders to perform work at a center.
(Pen. Code 6230, subds. (a)-(b).)
Existing law provides:
The offender's wages earned shall be paid directly to
the CDCR, less any tax deductions.
Wages received by the CDCR shall be used to reimburse
the offender for direct employment costs, such as
transportation, tools, clothing, meals, union dues, and
other employee-mandated costs. Of the remaining wages:
o one-third goes to the CDCR to pay the costs of
the restitution center;
o one-third first goes to court ordered or
(More)
AB 807 (Fuentes)
PageD
agreed upon restitution, and then the moneys are paid
to the prosecuting jurisdiction to defray court costs
and attorney fees incurred in prosecution, and then
the moneys are paid to the local jurisdiction for
crime prevention; and
o one-third goes in a savings account for the
offender, which can be used to provide support for the
offender's immediate family, purchase items necessary
for employment, or given to the offender to purchase
personal accessories. Upon release, the remaining
money in the savings account is paid to the offender.
(Pen. Code 6231, subds. (a) and (b)(3).)
Existing law provides that an offender shall not leave a
restitution center except to go to work or when specifically
authorized and shall return to the restitution center
immediately after work or when required by the person in charge
of the restitution center. An offender who violates this section
is guilty of escape. (Pen. Code 6233, subds. (a)-(b).)
Existing law establishes the Sex Offender Registration Act,
which requires all persons convicted in California, federal, or
military court, of specifically enumerated sex crimes to
register with the chief of police of the city in which he or she
is residing. (Pen. Code 290.)
Existing law provides that a "serious felony" includes
manslaughter, flight from a peace officer, reckless driving, and
driving under the influence, when any of these offenses involve
the personal infliction of great bodily injury in any person
other than an accomplice, or the personal use of a dangerous or
deadly weapon. (Pen. Code 1192.7.)
Existing law provides that a "violent felony" includes murder,
mayhem, rape, robbery, arson, attempted murder, kidnapping,
carjacking, extortion, and more. (Pen. Code 667.5, subd.
(c).)
This bill revises what is included by the term "restitution" for
the purposes of restitution centers to include restitution fines
(More)
AB 807 (Fuentes)
PageE
and fees.
This bill provides that inmates who commit crimes involving a
direct victim shall receive priority placement in restitution
centers.
This bill clarifies qualifications for placement in a
restitution center as concerns the defendant's prior
convictions. In particular, the defendant must not have been
convicted of the following offenses:
the sale of drugs within the last five years;
an offense requiring registration as a sex offender
pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act, Penal Code
Section 290;
a serious felony as listed in Penal Code Section 1192.7;
or,
a violent felony as listed in Penal Code Section 667.5.
This bill provides that a defendant is not eligible for
placement in a restitution center if he was sentenced to a term
exceeding 60 months (five years).
This bill removes the requirement that a defendant is only
eligible for placement in a restitution center if he or she has
not served a prison term within the five years prior to the
present conviction.
This bill requires CDCR to reopen the Los Angeles County Central
Reception Center and the Los Angeles County La Cienega
Restitution Center no later than the 2010-11 fiscal year.
This bill states findings and declarations pertaining to
restitution centers and inmates:
Of the 125,000 inmates annually released from California
prisons, more than one-half will return to prison within
two years and more than 70 percent will return within three
years.
Incarceration costs have risen to $46,000 per inmate per
(More)
AB 807 (Fuentes)
PageF
year, not including the costs of programming for substance
abuse, mental health, or educational and vocational
training.
The vast majority of California prisons' inmates do not
participate in any prison programs. The majority of
released inmates will be unemployed with few job prospects.
The most successful models for preventing recidivism
include public-private partnerships among law enforcement,
government agencies, business and labor associations,
private employers, and community-based organizations formed
to create living wage employment opportunities for eligible
former offenders and to take advantage of existing programs
and incentives for hiring former offenders.
The restitution center concept is a model where inmates
serving time for non-violent, non-serious offenses can
fulfill obligations to pay restitution and other
court-related fines and fees in addition to obtaining and
maintaining employment.
Being employed is a key factor ensuring a lower
recidivism rate and thus reducing taxpayer burdens.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
California continues to face a severe prison overcrowding
crisis. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
currently has about 170,000 inmates under its jurisdiction. Due
to a lack of traditional housing space available, the department
houses roughly 15,000 inmates in gyms and dayrooms.
California's prison population has increased by 125% (an average
of 4% annually) over the past 20 years, growing from 76,000
inmates to 171,000 inmates, far outpacing the state's population
growth rate for the age cohort with the highest risk of
(More)
AB 807 (Fuentes)
PageG
incarceration.<1>
In December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against
CDCR sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population
pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On
February 9, 2009, the three-judge federal court panel issued a
tentative ruling that included the following conclusions with
respect to overcrowding:
No party contests that California's prisons are
overcrowded, however measured, and whether considered
in comparison to prisons in other states or jails
within this state. There are simply too many
prisoners for the existing capacity. The Governor,
the principal defendant, declared a state of emergency
in 2006 because of the "severe overcrowding" in
California's prisons, which has caused "substantial
risk to the health and safety of the men and women who
work inside these prisons and the inmates housed in
them." . . . A state appellate court upheld the
Governor's proclamation, holding that the evidence
supported the existence of conditions of "extreme
peril to the safety of persons and property."
(citation omitted) The Governor's declaration of the
state of emergency remains in effect to this day.
. . . the evidence is compelling that there is no
relief other than a prisoner release order that will
remedy the unconstitutional prison conditions.
. . .
Although the evidence may be less than perfectly
----------------------
<1> "Between 1987 and 2007, California's population of ages 15
through 44 - the age cohort with the highest risk for
incarceration - grew by an average of less than 1% annually,
which is a pace much slower than the growth in prison
admissions." (2009-2010 Budget Analysis Series, Judicial and
Criminal Justice, Legislative Analyst's Office (January 30,
2009).)
(More)
AB 807 (Fuentes)
PageH
clear, it appears to the Court that in order to
alleviate the constitutional violations California's
inmate population must be reduced to at most 120% to
145% of design capacity, with some institutions or
clinical programs at or below 100%. We caution the
parties, however, that these are not firm figures and
that the Court reserves the right - until its final
ruling - to determine that a higher or lower figure is
appropriate in general or in particular types of
facilities.
. . .
Under the PLRA, any prisoner release order that we
issue will be narrowly drawn, extend no further than
necessary to correct the violation of constitutional
rights, and be the least intrusive means necessary to
correct the violation of those rights. For this
reason, it is our present intention to adopt an order
requiring the State to develop a plan to reduce the
prison population to 120% or 145% of the prison's
design capacity (or somewhere in between) within a
period of two or three years.<2>
The final outcome of the panel's tentative decision, as well as
any appeal that may be in response to the panel's final
decision, is unknown at the time of this writing.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis outlined above.
COMMENTS
---------------------------
<2> Three Judge Court Tentative Ruling, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the
Northern District of California United States District Court
composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28
United States Code (Feb. 9, 2009).
(More)
AB 807 (Fuentes)
PageI
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
California's 33 state prisons are bursting at the
seams at 200% capacity, and California boasts the
highest recidivism rate in the country, at 70%. There
is also a looming threat that thousands of inmates
will be released early, as a result of the prisons
system being in receivership. The overwhelming
majority of inmates in state prison do not access
meaningful job training or other programming while
incarcerated and have no immediate employment
prospects upon release, which ensures that they will
be dependent on government aid. Further, the cost per
day of housing a CDCR inmate in a Restitution Center
is approximately $50 compared to $97 per day to house
in state prison, which saves at least $17,000 per
inmate per year. The Restitution Centers provide an
avenue for inmates to be housed in a less costly
community setting while still fulfilling their
obligations to pay restitution.
AB 807 would expand eligibility to those charged with
non-violent, and non-Section 290 registerable offenses
facing a maximum five-year sentence. AB 807 would
further clarify that persons who owe restitution fines
and fees to the courts are eligible for placement in
Restitution Centers, but would prioritize admission to
those who owe restitution to individual victims. The
goal of AB 807 is to ensure that bed capacity is
always filled at 100%.
2. Background Submitted by the Author and Sponsor
According to the background submitted by the author:
Citing budget costs, [CDCR] abruptly closed the Los
Angeles Central and the La Cienega Restitution Centers
on Thanksgiving Eve 2008 and indefinitely suspended
(More)
AB 807 (Fuentes)
PageJ
contracts with the community provider. All 74
enrolled offenders [were sent] to prison, without
informing their employers. Placement in the centers
is contingent on a defendant obtaining and maintaining
full-time employment.
CDCR asserted that they were unable to fill all 110
beds under current criteria At the time of closing,
the two facilities had a combined total of 36 empty
beds. For many years, when eligibility for
restitution centers included defendants who owed
restitution fines and fees, the centers were filled to
capacity and had lengthy waiting lists. CDCR adopted
a strict interpretation of restitution and excluded
candidates who only owed restitution fines and fees,
not direct restitution to victims.
The Governor has mandated that inmates be sent to
community centers in order to reduce the number of
individuals sent to prison at the cost of $46,000 per
year. Re-opening the restitution centers makes good
fiscal sense, especially in light of California's dire
budget crisis and the lingering threat of the release
of thousands of inmates incident to the prison system
being in receivership. The restitution center model
is an example of being smart on crime: it is based on
employment that pays for restitution as well as the
cost of program operating expenses. The centers must
be reopened so that victims of nonviolent crime
continue to receive restitution. While AB 807 gives
priority to defendants who owe direct restitution to
victims, the bill also authorizes courts to commit
defendants who owe only restitution fines to
restitution center. This will ensure full capacity in
restitution centers.
3. Additional Background from Media Reports on the Closure
of the two Los Angeles Centers
In media reports in the Los Angeles Times and California
(More)
AB 807 (Fuentes)
PageK
Lawyer, CDCR representatives have argued that the VOA was
not willing to negotiate a satisfactory agreement for the
department. The VOA stated that CDCR wanted the VOA
facilities to accept parole violators, which the VOA was
not willing to do.
CDCR stressed that the centers had about 36 empty beds --
far short of capacity. The restrictions on placement
greatly restricted the ability of CDCR to place inmates in
the centers. Only inmates convicted of non-violent,
non-sex offenses, serving sentences of 32 months or less
who owed direct restitution to victims are eligible for
restitution center placement. Closing the centers
eliminated $500,000 in contract expenses for CDCR.
Essentially, CDCR could not justify the expense of renting
empty space for inmates.
CDCR was sharply criticized for closing the centers because
they are much cheaper to operate than prisons. CDCR noted
that the residents of restitution centers would be placed
in fire camps and other low-security facilities that are
not expensive to operate.
SHOULD ELIGIBILITY FOR RESTITUTION CENTERS BE EXPANDED?
(More)
WILL EXPANDING ELIGIBILITY FOR RESTITUTION CENTER
PLACEMENTS ALLOW CDCR TO FILL RESTITUTION CENTERS IN A
COST-EFFECTIVE MANNER?
ARE RESTITUTION CENTERS EFFECTIVE IN ALLOWING INMATES TO
MEET RESTITUTION OBLIGATIONS?
4. Current CDCR Reluctance to Open Restitution Centers in
Contemplation of the Release of Inmates who would be Eligible
for Restitution Center Placement
In discussions with Committee staff, CDCR representatives have
noted that proposed legislation would result in the release of
substantial numbers of non-violent offenders who have only
limited criminal records. Release of such inmates would greatly
reduce the pool of inmates who are eligible for restitution
centers. As such, the centers CDCR must open under this bill
would likely run far short of capacity. The inability of CDCR
to find eligible inmates was the major reasons the two Los
Angeles facilities were closed in November, 2008.
WOULD PROPOSED LEGISLATION UNDER WHICH NON-VIOLENT PRISONERS
WITH LIMITED CRIMINAL RECORDS WOULD BE RELEASED FROM PRISON
GREATLY LIMIT THE POOL OF INMATES ELIGIBLE FOR PLACEMENT IN
RESTITUTION CENTERS?
SHOULD ENACTMENT OF THIS BILL, OR SIMILAR LEGISLATION, AWAIT THE
DETERMINATION OF WHICH INMATES, IF ANY, WILL BE RELEASED FROM
PRISON BECAUSE OF THE BUDGET CRISIS?
5. Directing CDCR to Open Particular Restitution Centers
This bill directs CDCR to "operate the Los Angeles County
Central Restitution Center and the Los Angeles County La Cienega
Restitution Center." It can be argued that specifying the
particular restitution centers that CDCR must open is overly
restrictive and inefficient. Under such a directive the party
or parties contracting with CDCR for opening the restitution
centers would have a great advantage. Essentially, the party
(More)
AB 807 (Fuentes)
PageM
contracting with CDCR could dictate the terms of the contract.
SHOULD THE BILL SPECIFY THE PARTICULAR RESTITUTION CENTERS IN
LOS ANGELES THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION MUST OPEN?
SHOULD THE BILL, INSTEAD, SIMPLY DIRECT CDCR TO OPEN TWO
RESTITUTION CENTERS IN LOS ANGELES, LEAVING CDCR THE DISCRETION
TO DETERMINE WHICH FACILITIES TO OPEN?
***************