BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair A
2009-2010 Regular Session B
2
2
1
AB 2218 (Fuentes) 8
As Introduced February 18, 2010
Hearing date: June 22, 2010
Penal Code
JM:mc
RESTITUTION CENTERS
HISTORY
Source: California Public Defenders Association
Prior Legislation: AB 807 (Fuentes) - 2009, Vetoed
AB 1478 (Baugh) - Ch. 249, Stats. 2000
SB 615 (Maddy) - Ch. 372, Stats. 1995
SB 1656 (Maddy) - Ch. 1520, Stats. 1984
Support: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; Drug Policy
Alliance; Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety;
California Public Defenders Association
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 62 - Noes 5
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE STATE INTENT TO CUT PRISON COSTS AND
REDUCE RECIDIVISM THROUGH THE USE OF RESTITUTION CENTERS IN
WHICH INMATES CAN MAINTAIN EMPLOYMENT IN THE COMMUNITY TO EARN
MONEY TO PAY RESTITUTION TO VICTIMS, RESTITUTION FINES AND OTHER
OBLIGATIONS, INCLUDING PROGRAM COSTS?
(More)
AB 2218 (Fuentes)
PageB
(CONTINUED)
SHOULD DEFENDANTS WHO OWE DIRECT RESTITUTION TO VICTIMS HAVE
PRIORITY FOR PLACEMENT IN RESTITUTION CENTERS?
SHOULD THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE FOR A PERSON PLACED IN A RESTITUTION
CENTER BE EXPANDED FROM 36 MONTHS TO 60 MONTHS?
IF OTHER ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS ARE MET, SHOULD A DEFENDANT WHO
HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF DRUG SALES WITHIN THE PREVIOUS FIVE YEARS
BE ELIGIBLE FOR RESTITUTION CENTER PLACEMENT?
PURPOSE
The purposes of this bill are to 1) state legislative intent to
reduce recidivism and assist in collection of restitution
through the use of restitution centers in which inmates can
maintain employment in the community to earn money to pay
restitution, restitution fines and other fines; 2) broaden
eligibility for restitution center placement to inmates with a
sentence of up to 60 months or who have not had a conviction for
sale of a controlled substance for five years - if the defendant
meets the other eligibility rules; and 3) to give priority in
placement for defendants who owe direct restitution to victims.
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
(More)
AB 2218 (Fuentes)
PageC
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 1/3 goes to the CDCR to pay the costs of the
restitution center;
o 1/3 first goes to court ordered or agreed upon
restitution, and the moneys are paid to the
prosecuting jurisdiction to defray court costs and
attorney fees incurred in prosecution and paid to the
local jurisdiction for crime prevention; and
o 1/3 goes in a savings account for the
offender, which can be used to provide support for the
offender's immediate family, purchase items necessary
(More)
AB 2218 (Fuentes)
PageD
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 declares legislative intent to address recidivism by
using a restitution center concept 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, as specified.
This bill provides that the purpose of a restitution center is
to allow inmates to pay their victims' financial restitution,
(More)
AB 2218 (Fuentes)
PageE
including direct restitution to victims as well as restitution
fines and fees.
This bill stipulates that inmates who commit crimes involving a
direct victim shall receive priority placement in restitution
centers.
This bill expands eligibility for placement in a restitution
center to a defendant who does not have a conviction for the
sale of a controlled substance within the last five years, if
the defendant meets other eligibility requirements.
This bill expands eligibility for restitution center placement
to a defendant who was sentenced to a term of no more than 60
months, if other eligibility requirements are met.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
The severe prison overcrowding problem California has
experienced for the last several years has not been solved. In
December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the state to
reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity
-- a reduction of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years.
In a prior, related 184-page Opinion and Order dated August 4,
2009, that court stated in part:
"California's correctional system is in a tailspin,"
the state's independent oversight agency has reported.
. . . (Jan. 2007 Little Hoover Commission Report,
"Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time Is
Running Out"). Tough-on-crime politics have increased
the population of California's prisons dramatically
while making necessary reforms impossible. . . . As a
result, the state's prisons have become places "of
extreme peril to the safety of persons" they house,
(More)
AB 2218 (Fuentes)
PageF
(Governor Schwarzenegger's Oct. 4, 2006 Prison
Overcrowding State of Emergency Declaration), while
contributing little to the safety of California's
residents . . . California "spends more on
corrections than most countries in the world," but the
state "reaps fewer public safety benefits." . . . .
Although California's existing prison system serves
neither the public nor the inmates well, the state has
for years been unable or unwilling to implement the
reforms necessary to reverse its continuing
deterioration. (Some citations omitted.)
. . .
The massive 750% increase in the California prison
population since the mid-1970s is the result of
political decisions made over three decades, including
the shift to inflexible determinate sentencing and the
passage of harsh mandatory minimum and three-strikes
laws, as well as the state's counterproductive parole
system. Unfortunately, as California's prison
population has grown, California's political
decision-makers have failed to provide the resources
and facilities required to meet the additional need
for space and for other necessities of prison
existence. Likewise, although state-appointed experts
have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the
state could safely reduce its prison population, their
recommendations have been ignored, underfunded, or
postponed indefinitely. The convergence of
tough-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to expend
the necessary funds to support the population growth
has brought California's prisons to the breaking
point. The state of emergency declared by Governor
Schwarzenegger almost three years ago continues to
this day, California's prisons remain severely
overcrowded, and inmates in the California prison
system continue to languish without constitutionally
(More)
AB 2218 (Fuentes)
PageG
adequate medical and mental health care.<1>
The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010 ruling
pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme
Court. On Monday, June 14, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed
to hear the state's appeal in this case.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
AB 2218 reinforces principles of individual
accountability, public safety and long-term cost
savings to the taxpayers of California. The bill
states legislative intent to re-open Restitution
Centers, where eligible and suitable non-violent state
prison inmates would be required to obtain and
maintain employment while also paying direct victim
restitution and other restitution fines and fees owed.
AB 2218 is an example of being smart on crime because
offenders who gain tangible life skills which include
vocational training and actual employment are much
more likely to successfully reintegrate into
communities and contribute to society instead of being
a drain to taxpayers. Restitution Center participants
----------------------
<1> Three Judge Court Opinion and Order, 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 (August 4, 2009).
(More)
AB 2218 (Fuentes)
PageH
often maintain the same employment upon being released
from state custody, thus providing a more seamless
transition.
2. Previous Restitution Center Program
(More)
In November 2008, the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) closed the two restitution centers, both
in Los Angeles. A restitution center is designed to house
non-serious, non-drug related offenders at a cost that is lower
than imprisonment. Residents can earn money to pay rent.
Arguably an equally important purpose is to allow residents to
earn money to pay restitution to their victims. In 2008, CDCR
announced that it could no longer afford the restitution center
program.
In media reports, CDCR "pointed out that the centers had about
three dozen empty beds, and said the state could not afford to
carry a program not operating at full capacity. The state could
not find enough eligible volunteers to fill all 110 beds.
Closing the centers eliminated $500,000 in contract costs for
the state." (McGreevy, State Closes Restitution Centers for
White Collar Prisoners, Los Angeles Times, January 13, 2009.)
To be eligible for admission into a restitution center, an
inmate must have owed restitution to a victim and have a
sentence of three years or less for a nonviolent, nonsexual
offense. One-third of an offender's earnings is paid to the
State for the offender's upkeep, one-third is paid to victims,
and the final one-third is deposited into an account to pay for
job-related costs such as transportation.
Crime victims' advocates argued that a group home costs the
state $50 per inmate per day whereas those same inmates are now
costing the state at least $97 per day in prison (according to
prison officials). Based on the number of inmates, the
difference of having inmates placed in group homes versus prison
is about $1.2 million per year. (Ibid.)
3. Little Hoover Commission Recommendations Relating to
Restitution Centers
In its report, "Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time
is Running Out," (Jan. 2007) the Little Hoover Commission
recommended that the Governor and the Legislature enact
(More)
AB 2218 (Fuentes)
PageJ
legislation to promote the utilization of intermediate or
community based sanctions, including restitution centers, to
reduce prison costs. (Little Hoover Commission, Solving
California's Corrections Crisis: Time is Running Out (Jan.
2007) p. 31.)
The 2007 report reiterated recommendations made by the Little
Hoover Commission in 1998. "?[T]he Governor and the
Legislature enact legislation funding community-based
punishments like restitution center programs that improve public
safety over the long term by reducing recidivism and that
minimize the short-term added risks to the public when compared
with incarceration in state prison." (Little Hoover Commission,
Behind Bars: Correctional Reforms to Lower Prison Costs and
Reduce Crime (Jan. 1998) p. 56.)
4. Related Legislation in 2009 was Vetoed
AB 807 (Fuentes) would have revised the criteria for placement
of inmates in restitution centers by the CDCR. AB 807 directed
CDCR to open two specific restitution centers in Los Angeles.
In discussions with Committees staff, CDCR representatives
expressed concerns about being given such a mandate. AB 807 was
vetoed by the Governor for interfering with CDCR operations and
because of uncertainty surrounding the prison reform measures
that are currently being litigated.
This bill does not direct CDCR to open restitution centers. The
bill essentially states legislative intent that centers should
be opened and eligibility for placement expanded.
5. Argument in Support
The California Public Defenders Association argues:
Instead of serving their sentences in state prison,
eligible and suitable prisoners would serve their time
AB 2218 (Fuentes)
PageK
at the Restitution Centers, where CDCR staff was
present. The Restitution Centers provide an avenue
for inmates to be housed in a less costly community
setting while fulfilling their obligations to pay
restitution. The cost per day of housing a CDCR
inmate in a restitution center would be approximately
$50 per day compared to $131 per day to house in state
prison, saving approximately $29,000 per inmate per
year in addition to the savings generated by the
percentage of wages allocated toward operating
expenses.
***************