BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
1844 (Fletcher)
Hearing Date: 08/12/2010 Amended: As Proposed to be
Amended
Consultant: Jacqueline Wong-HernandezPolicy Vote: Public Safety
7-0
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: AB 1844 would change numerous statutes governing
sex offenses and sex offenders, as well as other crimes. This
bill would:
1) Increase the punishment for various sex offenses, as
specified.
2) Prohibit a person on parole for specified sex offenses
to enter any park where children regularly gather without
express permission from his/her parole agent.
3) Require lifetime parole for certain habitual sex
offenders, and increase the length of parole, as specified,
for all sex offenders.
4) Require the State-Authorized Risk Assessment Tool for
Sex Offenders (SARATSO) Review Committee, on or before
January 1, 2012, to select an actuarial instrument that
measures dynamic risk factors, and another that measures
risk of future sexual violence to be administered as
specified.
5) Require that with respect to persons convicted of
specified sex offenses, the Department of Justice (DOJ)
make available to the public via the department's website,
the static SARATSO score and information on risk level
based on the SARATSO future violence tool.
6) Impose specified conditions of probation, including
participation in an approved sex offender management
program (SOMP), on persons released on formal supervised
probation for an offense requiring registration as a sex
offender, as specified. The bill would similarly require
participation in an approved SOMP, as a condition of
parole, for specified persons released on parole.
7) Change the punishment for certain existing "wobblers"
that are not sex offenses.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Fund
Increases "triad" sentencing Substantial new
costs, beginning in 2013-14 General
Increases "one strike" sentencing Potentially substantial
costs beginning in 2026 General
Increases parole length/scope ------------Substantial
ongoing costs------------- General
New risk assessment policies Substantial development,
equipment, staff costs; General
Potentially low tens of millions
Requires SOMP programs Substantial development and
implementation costs; General
potentially substantial future
incarceration cost avoidance
DOJ website information $0
$35 Minor and absorbable General
Mandate: County probation Likely millions annually
in reimbursable activities General
Wobbler reductions General
Human Trafficking fines Unknown, potentially
significant revenue Special*
*Victim-Witness Assistance Fund
_________________________________________________________________
____
Page 2
AB 1844 (Fletcher)
STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE. As Proposed to be Amended.
AB 1844 would enact the Chelsea King Child Predator Prevention
Act of 2010, making numerous changes to statutes governing sex
offenses and sex offenders. The full range of fiscal
implications for the State of California cannot be determined,
because many costs will be driven by the future actions of
numerous individuals who will interact with these provisions.
Local law enforcement, district attorneys and public defenders,
the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR),
probation officers, parole agents, mental health professionals,
the SARATSO Review Committee, actuarial risk assessment
instrument vendors, the DOJ, and individual sex offenders, will
all make decisions that will affect the costs of implementing
this bill.
With regard to the existing determinate sentences for sex
offenses, this bill would:
1) Increase the punishment for assault with the intent to commit
mayhem, rape, sodomy, oral copulation, or with the intent to
commit, by force, rape, spousal rape, or sexual penetration in
concert with another, from imprisonment in state prison for 2,
4, or 6 years, to 5, 7, or 9 years, as specified. Additional
state incarceration costs, to the extent that new convictions
occur, would begin in 2013-14.
2) Increase the punishment for rape, sodomy accomplished against
the victim's will, oral copulation accomplished against the
victim's will, and sexual penetration accomplished against the
victim's will from imprisonment in state prison for 3, 6, or 8
years to 9, 11, or 13 years if the victim is under 14 years old,
or 7, 9, or 11 years if the victim was 14 years of age or older.
This bill would provide that if these crimes are committed in
concert with another person upon a child who is under 14 years
of age they are punishable in state prison for 10, 12, or 14
years, and if committed in concert upon a minor who is 14 years
of age or older by imprisonment for 7, 9, or 11 years, as
specified. Additional state incarceration costs, to the extent
that new convictions occur, would begin in 2014-15.
3) Increase the punishment for a person who commits any lewd or
lascivious act upon a child who is under 14 years of age, or
upon a dependent person, as defined, by use of force or fear
from imprisonment in state prison for 3, 6, or 8 years, to 5, 8,
or 10 years. Additional state incarceration costs, to the extent
that new convictions occur, would begin in 2014-15.
The extent to which new costs would result directly from these
provisions depends on the number of new specified crimes
committed, how the crimes are charged (including the use of
enhancements under existing law and Three Strikes), and the
degree to which plea deals are reached. Based on CDCR data from
2008-09 of the number of new admissions to state prison in that
year under principal offenses listed above, increasing the
determinate sentencing triads would likely result in a future
net population increase of 8 inmates in 2013-14; a population
increase of 20 inmates in 2014-15; a population increase of 130
inmates annually by 2019-20. In those years, the increase of
inmates (relative to a statewide population of approximately
160,000) would
Page 3
AB 1844 (Fletcher)
be small, and not uniquely require additional staff or
construction; the marginal cost of incarceration is
approximately $24,000.
Based on CDCR's population increase projection in a given year,
the additional cost of incarceration would be approximately
$192,000 General Fund (GF) in 2013-14, $480,000 GF in 2014-15,
and $3,120,000 GF by 2019-20. As the total number of inmates
incarcerated in state prisons grows (CDCR projects that these
provisions will result in an increase of 357 inmates in
2029-30), the cost per inmate grows, because a larger population
requires additional staff, beds, and other overhead
considerations which are not fully considered in the marginal
incarceration cost estimate. Additionally, as inmates age, their
healthcare needs grow and tend to be more expensive. Those costs
would vary by inmate, and cannot be determined.
This bill would further provide that any person who is convicted
of certain sex offenses currently punishable by imprisonment in
a state prison for 15 years-to-life, committed upon a victim who
is under 14 years of age, shall receive a sentence of 25
years-to-life. This provision would also result in a sentence
increase of at least 10 years, and would result in future
incarceration (both custody and long term healthcare) costs of
an unknown magnitude.
AB 1844 would also make changes to existing "one strike" sex
crimes, currently punishable by imprisonment in state prison for
15 years-to-life or 25 years-to-life. This bill would provide
that these specified felonies committed upon a victim who is
under 14 years of age shall be punished by imprisonment in state
prison for life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) if the
offender is 18 years of age or older or 25 years-to-life if the
offender is under 18 years of age. This bill would add as a
circumstance the infliction of bodily harm, as defined, on a
victim who is under 14 years of age to the list of existing
specified circumstances for which the extended terms could be
imposed.
This bill would also provide that when rape, spousal rape, rape
in concert, sexual penetration, sodomy, or oral copulation
committed against the victim's will are committed under two of a
specified list of circumstances, upon a minor 14 years of age or
older, the punishment shall be LWOP if the offender is 18 years
of age or older. The punishment shall be 25 years-to-life if the
offender is under 18 years of age. If the crime is committed
under one (instead of two) of the specified circumstances, the
punishment shall be 25 years-to-life.
The extent to which these provisions would result in an actual
increase in prison sentences is unclear. Under existing law,
after 15 or 25 years (as specified), the Board of Parole
Hearings (BPH) would consider parole; the inmates could be
denied parole continually and serve life sentences under
existing law. One strike sex crimes are often particularly
heinous, and there is very little data on the degree to which
BPH will release individuals serving those sentences, because
most have not yet reached their parole dates. Additionally, some
inmates will die in prison before reaching their parole dates,
or before successfully being paroled, more than 15 or 25 years
from conviction. Moreover, because a potential LWOP sentence
would apply only to future offenders, it is unclear to what
degree plea bargains will result from the threat of such a
sentence.
Page 4
AB 1844 (Fletcher)
This bill makes numerous changes to parole and probation
requirements and restrictions for sex offenders. This bill
would:
1) Increase the duration of parole for certain offenders. It
would require lifetime parole for habitual sex offenders,
persons convicted of kidnapping a child under 14 years of age
with the intent to commit a specified sexual offense, and
persons convicted of other specified sex crimes, including the
aggravated sexual assault of a child. This bill would, unless a
longer period of parole applies, impose a 10-year parole period
on individuals convicted of kidnapping with the intent to commit
specified sex offenses, and other specified sexual offenses.
This bill would also impose a 20-year parole period on inmates
convicted and required to register as sex offenders for rape,
sodomy, lewd or lascivious acts, continuous sexual abuse of a
child, and other specified sex crimes, in which one or more of
the victims of the offense was a child under 14 years of age, as
specified.
CDCR estimates the cost of parole supervision to be $5,965 per
year for each parolee. The associated costs for GPS monitoring
add approximately $1,600, annually. Due to the volume of
parolees likely to be affected by these provisions, CDCR's full
cost calculation is an appropriate estimate of true future cost.
Extending parole, as specified above and based on 2008-09
admissions data previously reported, would result in annual
increased parole costs of nearly $3,000,000 GF in 2024-25;
parole costs would continue to increase every year thereafter.
These estimates are specific to increased length of time under
parole supervision, and do not include practical interaction
with the additional parole regulations established by this bill.
2) Establish new conditions of parole for sex offenders. It
would require, among other provisions, parolees to participate
in approved SOMPs, and submit to polygraph tests. This bill
would make it a misdemeanor for a person on parole for specified
sex offenses to enter any park where children regularly gather
without express permission from the person's parole agent.
A longer duration of parole, with increased conditions of that
parole, will likely result in increased parole revocations. To
the extent that the approved SOMPs are successful at reducing
recidivism, however, future costs may be mitigated. Parole
supervision is far less expensive than custodial supervision,
although the new services required in this bill will increase
the state cost of sex offenders' parole to an unknown degree.
These costs compound the costs of increased parole duration
previously noted. This bill specifies that sex offender
participants will pay for their own participation, to the extent
which they are able, but the degree to which that will occur is
unknown. This bill specifies that individuals will not be denied
parole due to an inability to pay for their participation in
required activities. Additionally, significant costs will be
incurred to coordinate and staff SOMPs, as well as polygraph
testing, that will not be recoverable for some time, if ever.
3) Impose specified conditions of supervised probation that are
similar to parole restrictions, including participation in an
approved SOMP.
Page 5
AB 1844 (Fletcher)
Increasing the conditions of county-supervised probation
constitutes a reimbursable state mandate on county probation
officers. Existing law specifies that offenders shall be
referred to appropriate treatment programs to the extent that
they are available in the county. This bill requires SOMP
participation, and probation officers would be
responsible for managing this process. County probation officers
will have to be trained on new conditions, some of which require
extensive new monitoring for compliance. Additionally, county
probation officers must be trained on conducting
soon-to-be-adopted sex offender risk assessments, as specified.
The scope and expense of mandates on county probation officers
will vary by county, but will likely be in the millions during
initial implementation years. After the new systems are in
place, that cost could drop to hundreds of thousands of dollars,
annually. The exact amount would also depend on the extent of
the claimed mandate expenses that are approved by the Commission
on State Mandates.
This bill would require the SARATSO Review Committee, on or
before January 1, 2012, to select an actuarial instrument that
measures dynamic risk factors, and another actuarial instrument
that measures risk of future sexual violence to be administered,
as specified. This process will likely involve hiring experts to
consult on product selection and implmentation, in addition to
the actuarial instrument cost. This provision is likely to be
the most immediate cost incurred by this bill; costs will be in
the millions to procure and implement two new instruments for
assessing individuals' risk of future sexual violence.
Additional workload will include determining the processes for
using these instruments in conjunction with the existing
Static-99 assessment, and determining appropriate SOMP placement
and parole supervision level based on the results.
This bill would also require specified training for persons who
would administer the dynamic SARATSO and the future violence
SARATSO. In addition to certain existing CDCR staff who would
have to be trained, these provisions will likely result in a
need to hire or contract additional professionals to both
administer the risk assessments and train staff to administer
them. This bill provides that county probation officers "may" be
trained to administer the risk assessments; because of the new
requirements to place specified sex offenders who are on
probation in appropriate SOMPs, it is likely that county
probation officers will (for practical purposes) require this
specific training. Such training may be considered an additional
reimbursable state mandate on county probation departments.
These costs will be substantial, but the exact amount will be
determined by system centralization and efficiency, who
ultimately assesses the offenders, and the extent to which the
instruments are utilized.
Use of static, dynamic, and future sexual violence risk
assessments simultaneously, in conjunction with multi-agency
coordination, mandatory polygraph tests, and other reforms
adopted by this bill, are often referred to as a "Containment
Approach" or "Containment Model" program for sex offenders.
Various studies on the effectiveness of containment models in
other states have shown positive results in recidivism
reduction. To the extent that the containment strategies in this
bill are effective, sex offenses (and their myriad associated
costs for the state, local governments, and victims) could be
reduced.
Page 6
AB 1844 (Fletcher)
This bill would require that DOJ make available to the public
via the department's website the static SARATSO score and
information on an elevated risk level based on the SARATSO
future violence tool, for specified sex offenders. DOJ has
indicated that
there would be a one-time cost of $35,000 GF to make changes to
application screen profiles, add fields to the database,
replicate table structures for scores in the California Sex and
Arson Registry, and to change the file extraction logic to
include static, dynamic, and violence information.
AB 1844 changes sentencing with regard to certain "wobbler"
crimes; these offenses can be punished as either misdemeanors or
felonies. Under existing law, every person who has been
convicted of petty theft, grand theft, auto theft, burglary,
carjacking, robbery, or receiving stolen property, and is
subsequently convicted of petty theft, can be punished by
imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in
state prison. This bill would require instead that only persons
convicted three or more times of a qualifying offense would be
subject to imprisonment in the state prison for later conviction
of petty theft. However, individuals required to register as sex
offenders, or with a prior serious or violent felony conviction,
or who have been previously sentenced under the Three Strikes
law, would remain subject to imprisonment in the state prison
with one prior qualifying offense (as in current law).
During fiscal year 2008-09, the number of individuals admitted
to state prisons for petty theft convictions with fewer than
three prior qualifying offenses was 1,329. There is insufficient
data to determine the number of those inmates whose prior
offenses would be exceptions to the change (and thus, they would
have still been eligible for state prison). If that number were
to hold constant in future years, the effect of changing the
wobbler provisions would be that up to 665 individuals in fiscal
year 2010-11, and up to 1,329 individuals in subsequent fiscal
years, would be charged with misdemeanors and not be sentenced
to state prison. Based on the marginal cost per inmate, CDCR
could avoid incarceration costs of up to $16,000,000 in fiscal
year 2010-11, and up to $32,000,000 GF in subsequent fiscal
years.
The degree to which this cost avoidance will help CDCR offset
the new costs created by this bill is likely significant, but
cannot be determined. The future savings achieved by the change
in wobbler provisions also does not depend on enacting the
provisions of this bill that create new programs and costs; the
changes affect two unrelated statutes. Both areas of the bill,
however, do impact CDCR's costs and budget. As a practical
matter, the cost avoidance will help to offset costs to CDCR.
The author's proposed amendments would specify that human
trafficking of a minor for the purposes of commercial sex acts,
shall be punished by (in addition to other applicable penalties)
a fine of up to $100,000 to be deposited in the Victim-Witness
Assistance Fund. The amendments would also specify the role of
DOJ in processing criminal background checks for sex offender
management professionals who will be administering risk
assessments or employed in contracted SOMPs, as well as its fee
authority. The author has proposed other non-substantive,
clarifying amendments.