BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1961
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 23, 2010
Counsel: Kimberly A. Horiuchi
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 1961 (Gilmore) - As Introduced: February 17, 2010
SUMMARY : Requires the California Rehabilitative Oversight
Board (CROB) to recommend the elimination of any rehabilitation
or treatment program or effort that the CROB finds is not cost
effective or is unsuccessful and may include a recommendation
that funding be redirected to more effective programs or
treatment efforts. Specifically, this bill :
1)Mandates CROB complete the evaluation of all mental health,
substance abuse, educational and employment programs for
inmates and parolees operated by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) by January 1, 2021.
2)States legislative intent that CROB shall complete 10% of this
evaluation each year and include information in the reports
required by existing law.
EXISTING LAW creates CROB. CROB shall consist of 11 members, as
follows:
1)The OIG, who shall serve as chair;
2)The Secretary of CDCR;
3)The Superintendent of Public Instruction or his or her
designee;
4)The Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, or his or
her designee;
5)The Director of the State Department of Alcohol and Drug
Programs, or his or her designee;
6)The Director of Mental Health or his or her designee;
7)A faculty member of the University of California who has
AB 1961
Page 2
expertise in rehabilitation of criminal offenders, appointed
by the President of the University of California;
8)A faculty member of the California State University, who has
expertise in rehabilitation of criminal offenders, appointed
by the Chancellor of the California State University;
9)A county sheriff, appointed by the Governor;
10)A county chief probation officer, appointed by the Senate
Committee on Rules; and,
11)A local government official who provides mental health,
substance abuse, or educational services to criminal
offenders, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly. (Penal
Code Section 6140.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "As part of its
multi-pronged approach to prison construction and
rehabilitation, AB 900 (Solorio/Agahazarian) of 2007
established a permanent eleven-member California
Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB) within the Office of
the Inspector General. The C-ROB is required by law to 'meet
at least quarterly, and . . . regularly examine the various
mental health, substance abuse, educational, and employment
programs for inmates and parolees operated by the Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation.' The reports are required
to include, but are not limited to, 'findings on the
effectiveness of treatment efforts, rehabilitation needs of
offenders, gaps in rehabilitation services in the department,
and levels of offender participation and success in the
programs.' (Emphasis added.) The board is also required to
'make recommendations to the Governor and Legislature with
respect to modifications, additions, and eliminations of
rehabilitation and treatment programs. Although the board has
now been in existence for nearly three years and while it has
submitted a number of reports to the Legislature, we still
have very little concrete and policy-relevant information on
the 'effectiveness of treatment efforts.' The most recent
C-ROB report was published on March 15, 2010. The California
Watch Blog recently summarized this report as 'State unable to
AB 1961
Page 3
gauge effectiveness of prison rehab.' (See attached;
available at:
http://www.californiawatch.org/watchblog/state-unable-gauge-eff
ectiveness-prison-rehab.)
"Although the report discusses numerous issues with prison
rehabilitation programs, it has relatively little information
on what programs work, which do not, and what changes need to
be made in the programs themselves in order to make them
effective. The report even cites the conclusion of the
Legislative Analyst which questioned whether evidence exists
that prison education programs are effective. ('In a February
2008 report, the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) found that
spending money to expand the capacity of education programs
could be a poor expenditure because there is little evidence
that Corrections would be putting that money into effective
programs.' Report at p. 15.) While the report does contain
some general statements about program effectiveness (e.g.,
'Research shows that success on parole is often tied to
employment and an education makes obtaining employment more
likely,' (p. 15) and 'a three-year recidivism study found that
over 36 months, a reduction in recidivism exists for inmates
who completed an in-prison therapeutic community (TC) SAP
program followed by an aftercare program' (p. 17)), these
conclusions are very general and the drug program statement is
rather outdated. The cited authority for the statement on
drug program effectiveness is from a 1999 study, eight years
prior to the Inspector General's determination that
California's prison drug programs were a 'failure.' (In a
February 21, 2007 press release summarizing his findings,
then-Inspector General Matt Cate stated, 'California has spent
more than $1 billion since 1989 to provide substance abuse
treatment to California inmates and parolees in an effort to
reduce the state's high recidivism rate-but the programs have
had no effect on recidivism, and in that regard, appear to
represent a complete waste of money, the Office of the
Inspector General said today.' Source:
http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/press_releases/2007/The%20state's%2
0substance%20abuse%20treatment%20programs%20for%20inmates%20do%
20not%20reduce%20recidivism%20yet%20cost%20the%20state%20$143%2
0million%20per%20year.pdf)
"The Legislature needs better, more specific, more
policy-relevant data to determine which rehabilitation
programs should be continued, which should be expanded, and
AB 1961
Page 4
which should be terminated. When it established the C-ROB,
the Legislature, among other things, instructed it to make
'findings on the effectiveness of treatment efforts' and to
'make recommendations to the Governor and Legislature with
respect to modifications, additions, and eliminations of
rehabilitation and treatment programs.' However, without a
more comprehensive and specific analysis of 'what works' and
what changes need to be made to these programs, we are likely
to continue the types of practices that were criticized in the
Inspector General's 2007 report with regard to drug programs -
continuing business as usual and ignoring academic studies
suggesting appropriate changes in rehabilitation program
implementation. Furthermore, the evaluations should be far
more specific - not just an analysis of 'prison education,'
for example, but of particular programs as they are designed
and implemented by the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.
"Republicans and Democrats may disagree on the relative merits
of rehabilitation vs. punishment as sentencing philosophies.
However, we should be able to agree that, at a time of fiscal
austerity, it makes no sense to fail to look for ways that we
can make existing programs more efficient, expand the programs
that are most effective, and eliminate or modify programs that
are ineffective. In order to do that, the Legislature needs
much better, more specific data on what works and what doesn't
work for prison rehabilitation than C-ROB has provided, to
date.
"To address the lack of specificity in the current law regarding
whether the C-ROB is required to evaluate all rehabilitation
programs, AB 1961 would provide that, over a 10-year period,
the C-ROB would be required to 'complete the evaluation of all
mental health, substance abuse, educational, and employment
programs for inmates and parolees operated by the Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation.' It would state
legislative intent that at least 10% of the programs be
evaluated each year and would require each report to
'recommend the elimination of any rehabilitation or treatment
program or treatment effort that the board finds is not cost
effective or is unsuccessful and may include a recommendation
that funding be redirected to more effective programs or
treatment efforts.'
"The bill does not establish any particular standard regard what
AB 1961
Page 5
the C-ROB must define as an 'effective' program nor does it
require the C-ROB to conduct original research with its
limited staff. The bill permits C-ROB rely on independent
academic studies or studies conducted by the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation and to rely on its own
expertise in determining what programs are and are not
'effective' based upon the expertise of C-ROB's eleven members
and staff. However, consistent with its statutory role as an
oversight board, C-ROB is required to evaluate the programs in
light of available or obtainable evidence regarding whether
they are effective at achieving their purpose and in reducing
the recidivism rates of inmates and parolees who participate
in them. At a minimum, the C-ROB should review whether
appropriate research methods have been employed and insist
that common definitions of 'recidivism' are used in
independent and in-house evaluations of all CDCR programs so
that studies of the effectiveness of one program can be
compared to evaluations of similar CDCR programs.
"The bill's proposed ten-year timeline is designed to give the
C-ROB ample time to evaluate all programs. I recognize that
this is a major endeavor. However, we cannot continue to keep
funding ineffective programs or, conversely, failing to
adequately fund or improve programs that have a real potential
to dramatically reduce recidivism. Too often, the Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation has resisted change by
claiming that this or that reform cannot be made until a
comprehensive new computer system is developed or until some
new policy change is fully implemented. While some delays are
inevitable, such concerns should not be an excuse to prevent
the C-ROB from doing what the Legislature tasked them to do in
2007: make findings on the effectiveness of treatment
efforts.
"The implementation of new programmatic models in the wake of
the recent cuts to CDCR rehabilitation programs in the 2009-10
budget makes this an ideal time to begin comprehensive
evaluations of what rehabilitation programs do and do not work
with the goal of determining how to make the best use of scare
resources within the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation's program budget in the future. With regard to
programs, such as inmate education programs that have been
significantly altered because of recent policy changes, the
bill's ten-year timeline gives the C-ROB sufficient time to
postpone evaluation of the success of those programs until
AB 1961
Page 6
sufficient data has been obtained. More and better knowledge
of what are, and what are not, effective inmate and parolee
rehabilitation programs is good for public safety, for inmates
and parolees, for program staff, and for the Legislature's
ability to address future budget shortfalls. The C-ROB needs
additional guidance and more specific mandates in order to
provide this type of information to the Legislature and to
compel the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to
devote resources to either conduct the original research or
obtain it from independent evaluators. California cannot
afford to continue 'business as usual' on inmate and parolee
rehabilitation."
2)California Rehabilitation Oversight Board : According to
information on the California Inspector General's Web site,
"Assembly Bill 900 (the Public Safety and Offender
Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007) created the California
Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB) within the Office of
the Inspector General. C-ROB's mandate is to regularly
examine the various mental health, substance abuse,
educational, and employment programs for inmates and parolees
operated by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(department). C-ROB shall meet no less than quarterly and
shall submit reports to the Governor and the Legislature no
less than biannually (March 15 and September 15). C-ROB
reports shall include findings on the effectiveness of
treatment efforts, rehabilitation needs of offenders, gaps in
offender rehabilitation services in the department, and levels
of offender participation and success in the programs. The
board shall also make recommendations to the Governor and the
Legislature with respect to modifications, additions, and
eliminations of offender rehabilitation and treatment
programs. C-ROB reports shall be available to the public and
may be downloaded from this Web site."
According to information released to the press by the Office of
the Inspector General, "In its first full report, the
California Rehabilitation Oversight Board commends the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for
committing to an effective treatment model to rehabilitate
offenders. However, C-ROB's report raises several red flags
that must be addressed for reforms to succeed.
"In today's public report to the Governor and Legislature, C-ROB
details the department's progress regarding rehabilitative
AB 1961
Page 7
programming provided to California's inmates and parolees.
C-ROB is an 11-member board created within the Office of the
Inspector General and chaired by the Inspector General. Other
board members include state and local law enforcement,
education, treatment, and rehabilitation professionals.
"Established by the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation
Services Act of 2007, or Assembly Bill 900, the board meets
regularly to examine CDCR's rehabilitative programming
efforts. C-ROB is mandated to report its findings to the
Governor and Legislature twice a year. Today's report praises
the department's commitment to recommendations put forth by an
expert panel in June 2007. 'The department made a wise
decision to implement the rehabilitative treatment model that
was recommended by a panel of experts last year', said
Inspector General Matthew L. Cate.
"The report also commended the department for moving forward
with assessments of newly arrived and paroling inmates, albeit
without a case management system, and for its plans to develop
pilot treatment projects. 'I'm pleased that CDCR has taken
some positive first steps, but the Department will find that
the board has high expectations for progress in 2008,' said
Inspector General Cate.
"But C-ROB's report also raises some concerns. In particular,
the board expressed concerns that the department provided
limited information for the report, and details about pilot
treatment projects can only be speculated. In addition, the
report cites the department's lack of a comprehensive plan to
organize distinct reform efforts into a viable statewide
program.
"Overall, the lack of information provided to C-ROB hindered the
report's findings. The report notes that C-ROB expects the
department to move forward with its reform efforts during the
next six months-and to collect adequate information to share
with the board. 'We recognize that correctional change takes
time,' said Inspector General Cate. 'But C-ROB is also aware
that there have been many attempts over the years to improve
California's correctional system. Unfortunately, most of
those efforts did not survive the passage of time. In this
instance, however, the state cannot afford to fail. C-ROB is
determined to monitor and support the department's efforts
until California has successfully implemented a sustainable
AB 1961
Page 8
and effective rehabilitative treatment model.' "
3)Related Legislation : AB 1362 (Solorio) would have created the
CROB Advisory Committee. AB 1362 was held on the Assembly
Committee on Appropriations' Suspense File.
4)Prior Legislation :
a) AB 1684 (Machado), Chapter 144, Statutes of 2008,
changed the dates when CROB must report to the Governor and
the Legislature from January 1 to July 1 and from March 1
to September 1.
b) AB 900 (Solorio), Chapter 7, Statutes of 2007,
authorized CDCR to design, construct, or renovate prison
housing units, prison support buildings, and programming
space in order to add up to 7,484 beds to acquire land;
design, construct, and renovate reentry program facilities;
and construct and establish new buildings at facilities
under CDCR's jurisdiction to provide medical, dental, and
mental health treatment or housing for 6,000 inmates, as
specified.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744