BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2218
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 5, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2218 (Fuentes) - As Introduced: February 18, 2010
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill revises and clarifies the criteria for placing state
prison inmates in Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR) restitution centers. Specifically, this bill:
1)Deletes the requirement that to be eligible for restitution
center placement, an inmate must not have served a prison term
within five years of the present conviction.
2)Makes an inmate eligible for restitution center placement if
the inmate did not receive a sentence of more than 60 months
for the current offense or offenses (current law specifies 36
months), and if the inmate does not have a criminal conviction
for:
a) Drug sales within the last five years (current law makes
all persons convicted of drug sales ineligible).
b) An offense requiring registration as a sex offender
(consistent with current law).
c) A serious felony, as defined in Penal Code Sec 1192.7
(current law does not exempt serious felonies, as defined,
only crimes "involving violence").
AB 2218
Page 2
d) A violent felony, as defined in Penal Code Sec 667.5
(consistent with current law).
3)Specifies that inmates who commit crimes involving direct
restitution to a victim shall receive priority placement in
restitution centers.
FISCAL EFFECT
No immediate practical effect as CDCR in 2008 closed down its
two restitution centers - which had a combined 110 beds, but
about a 30% vacancy rate -to avoid what the department claimed
were unnecessary costs (about $500,000 in contract costs). This
bill does not require CDCR to take any specific action, other
than revising inmate eligibility. If CDCR eventually reopens a
restitution center, this bill should make it somewhat easier to
fill more beds, and therefore result in moderate per capita
savings. Considering, however, the competition for these
non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offender lower inmates between
CDCR camps, community correctional facilities, work details,
furlough centers, etc., CDCR will likely continue to have
difficulty filling these types of beds.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author's intent is to encourage CDCR to reopen
restitution centers by revising inmate eligibility. The author
maintains - accurately - that restitution centers are
considerably cheaper than prison beds while also providing a
crucial rehabilitative and restorative justice function.
Current CDCR overcrowding costs are about 30% higher than the
restitution center per capita costs of about $18,000, which
does not consider the value of the restitution payments and
AB 2218
Page 3
the inmate savings.
According to the sponsor, the CA Public Defenders Association,
"In the Restitution Center program which emphasizes principles
of individual accountability, non-violent state prison inmate
participants can obtain and maintain jobs, with the goal of
continuing their employment upon release on parole.
Additionally, earned wages help to directly fulfill
restitution owed to victims. The payment of restitution
assists in making the victims of non-violent crime whole. AB
2218 would prioritize those candidates who owe direct
restitution to a victim and would next admit eligible
participants who owe restitution fines and fees to the courts
to ensure that bed capacity is always filled at 100%."
2)Current law authorizes CDCR to establish restitution centers
as a place where inmates may live while they work to pay off
their financial restitution, as specified. In a restitution
center an inmate may not leave except to go to work and must
return to the center immediately after work or as required by
the center. The inmate's wages are paid directly to the CDCR,
less any tax deductions. Wages received by the CDCR are used
to reimburse the offender for direct employment costs, such as
transportation, tools, clothing, meals, and other
employee-mandated costs. Of the remaining wages, 1/3 goes to
CDCR to pay the costs of the restitution center, 1/3 goes to
court-ordered or agreed upon restitution, and 1/3 goes into an
inmate savings account.
3)Prior legislation , AB 807 (Fuentes) would have revised the
criteria for placement of inmates in restitution centers by
the CDCR. AB 807 was vetoed with the following message:
"Existing law already provides the authority for the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to
open and maintain restitution centers. The closings of the
previous centers were based on fiscal evaluation of the
operations. This bill is an unnecessary and unwarranted
interference in these operations, particularly in light of the
state's fiscal crisis. Additionally, this bill may be
premature as ongoing litigation and measures to address the
prison population are being developed."
AB 2218
Page 4
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081