BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair A
2009-2010 Regular Session B
2
3
2
AB 2326 (Bass) 6
As Amended June 16, 2010
Hearing date: June 22, 2009
Penal Code
AA:dl
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation:
Reentry Advisory Committee
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: AB 845 (Bass) - 2009, vetoed
AB 3064 (Assembly Committee on Public Safety) - Ch.
782, Stats. 2006
Support: SEIU Local 1000; Non-Profit Housing Association of
Northern California; Council of California Goodwill
Industries; Chief Probation Officers of California;
California Probation Parole and Correctional Association;
California Public Defenders Association; Crime Victims United of
California (if amended); California Attorneys for Criminal
Justice; County Alcohol & Drug Program Administrators
Association of California; Drug Policy Alliance; Legal Services
for Prisoners with Children
(More)
AB 2326 (Bass)
PageB
Opposition:None Known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 54 - Noes 20
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD SPECIFIED CHANGES BE MADE TO THE "REENTRY ADVISORY COMMITTEE"
IN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to make a number of changes to the
existing "Reentry Advisory Committee" in the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, as specified.
Current law creates in state government the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), headed by
a secretary who is appointed by the Governor, subject to Senate
confirmation, and serves at the pleasure of the Governor. CDCR
consists of Adult Operations, Adult Programs, Juvenile Justice,
the Corrections Standards Authority, the Board of Parole
Hearings, the State Commission on Juvenile Justice, the Prison
Industry Authority, and the Prison Industry Board. (Government
Code 12838 (a).)
Current law requires the Secretary of CDCR to establish a
Reentry Advisory Committee, as specified. (Penal Code
5056.5.)
This bill would make changes to the Reentry Advisory Committee,
as specified below.
(More)
AB 2326 (Bass)
PageC
Membership
Under current law , the advisory committee is required to be
comprised of the following members, appointed by the secretary:
(1) A representative of the California League of Cities.
(2) A representative of the California State Association of
Counties.
(3) A representative of the California State Sheriffs'
Association.
(4) A representative of the California Police Chiefs'
Association.
(5) A representative of the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation Adult Parole Operations.
(6) A representative of the Department of Mental Health.
(7) A representative of the Department of Social Services.
(8) A representative of the Department of Health Services.
(9) A representative of the Labor and Workforce Development
Agency.
(10) A representative of the County Alcohol and Drug Program
Administrators Association.
(11) A representative of the California Association of Alcohol
and Drug Program Executives.
(12) An individual with experience in providing housing for
low-income individuals.
(13) A recognized expert in restorative justice programs.
(14) An individual with experience in providing education and
vocational training services.
(15) An independent consultant with expertise in community
corrections and reentry services.
This bill would add the following persons to this advisory
committee:
A public defender or private defense attorney.
A representative of a community-based organization who
is familiar with the reentry needs of former offenders and
(More)
AB 2326 (Bass)
PageD
who has experience advocating for former offenders and with
providing reentry services in southern California.
A representative of a faith-based organization who is
familiar with the reentry needs of former offenders and who
has experience advocating for former offenders and
providing reentry services in northern California.
Under current law , the advisory committee is required to "meet
at least quarterly at a time and place determined by the
secretary. Committee members shall receive compensation for
travel expenses pursuant to existing regulations, but no other
compensation."
This bill would also authorize the RAC to meet upon call of the
Secretary.
Reporting Requirements
Under current law , the advisory committee is required to "advise
the secretary on all matters related to the successful statewide
planning, implementation, and outcomes of all reentry programs
and services provided by the department, with the goal of
reducing recidivism of
all persons under the jurisdiction of the department. The
committee shall consider and advise the secretary on the
following issues:
(1) Encouraging collaboration among key stakeholders at the
state and local levels.
(2) Developing a knowledge base of what people need to
successfully return to their communities from prison and what
resources communities need to successfully provide for these
needs.
(3) Incorporating reentry outcomes into department
organizational missions and work plans as priorities.
(4) Funding of reentry programs.
(5) Promoting systems of integration and coordination.
(6) Measuring outcomes and evaluating the impact of reentry
programs.
(More)
AB 2326 (Bass)
PageE
(7) Educating the public about reentry programs and their role
in public safety. (Penal Code 5056.5(c).)
This bill would revise and recast this subdivision to specify
the encouragement of collaborative reentry activities among
local and state stakeholders, to develop a knowledge base of
best practices and programs relating to reentry, and to require
the advisory committee to produce reports at the requires of the
Legislature or Governor, and to post reports on CDCR's website.
Additional Duties
This bill would require the secretary of CDCR, in consultation
with the RAC, to immediately seek and apply for grant funding
available through the federal Second Chance Act of 2007,
Community Safety Through Recidivism Prevention (Public Law
110-199).
This bill would provide that, "as required by the federal Second
Chance Act of 2007:
Community Safety Through Recidivism Prevention, if grant funding
is awarded for this purpose, the secretary, in consultation with
the committee, shall develop a comprehensive strategic reentry
plan containing annual and five-year performance goals. The
comprehensive reentry plan shall seek to reduce the rate of
recidivism by 50 percent over a five-year period for offenders
released from prison, jail, or a juvenile facility who are
served with funds provided under the federal Second Chance Act
of 2007: Community Safety Through Recidivism Prevention. The
outcome measures for the plan developed pursuant to this
subdivision may include, but shall not
be limited to, the following:
(1) Reduction in crime.
(2) Increase in employment and educational
opportunities.
(3) Reduction in supervised release violations.
(4) Increase in child support obligation compliance.
(5) Reduction in drug and alcohol abuse.
(More)
AB 2326 (Bass)
PageF
(6) Increase in participation in substance abuse and
mental health services.
(7) Other outcome measures that correlate positively
with the reentry success rate of offenders who
transition out of prisons, jails, or juvenile
facilities."
This bill would provide that if "grant funding is awarded for
the purposes specified (above), the secretary, in consultation
with the committee, shall develop the comprehensive strategic
reentry plan in consultation with community members and
stakeholders, including persons in the fields of public safety,
juvenile and adult corrections, housing, health, education,
substance abuse, child and family services, victim services,
employment, and business, and members of nonprofit organizations
working on reentry policy or providing reentry services."
This bill further would provide that if this grant funding is
awarded, the secretary, in consultation with the committee,
shall submit an annual report to the Legislature and the United
States Attorney General detailing the progress of grantees
towards achieving strategic performance
outcomes and describing other activities conducted by grantees
to increase the success rates of the reentry population, such as
programs that foster effective risk management and treatment,
offender accountability, and community and victim
participation."
This bill would provide that any reports under these provisions
would comply with Government Code section 9795.
Sunset
Under current law , the section authorizing the advisory
committee sunsets on January 1, 2011.
This bill would extend this sunset to January 1, 2016.
(More)
AB 2326 (Bass)
PageG
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION IMPLICATIONS
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, .
. . (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
(More)
AB 2326 (Bass)
PageH
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
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 aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis
described above.
COMMENTS
---------------------------
<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 2326 (Bass)
PageI
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
This bill strives to reduce California's recidivism
rate, which is regarded as the highest in the nation,
by providing the venue to evaluate current and share
best practices as it relates to the issue of the
successful re-integration of former offenders back
into society. It is vitally important that CA does not
miss an opportunity to receive federal funds to help
address the state's persistent prison overcrowding
issues and to encourage CDCR to continue inmate
reentry efforts beyond the 2011 sunset of the RAC.
2. Previous Related Bill; Differences Between This Bill and AB
845 From Last Year
Last year, the author carried AB 845, which proposed a number of
similar changes to the Reentry Advisory Committee. That bill
was vetoed by the Governor, whose vetoed message stated in part:
This bill would impose new requirements upon the
Reentry Advisory Committee (RAC), including a
requirement that the RAC seek and apply for federal
funds, develop a comprehensive reentry plan, submit
various advisory reports to the Legislature and
Governor, and would also increase the number of
individuals on the Committee. In addition, the RAC
would be required to develop a comprehensive resource
guide for use by various entities and the public. AB
845
also extends the sunset date of the RAC from January
1, 2011 to January 1, 2016.
(More)
This bill imposes several new duties upon the RAC
without providing any new funding to pay for them. I
cannot sign a bill that creates such unfunded mandates
for the State of California during this time of fiscal
crisis.
AB 2326, now before the Committee, is similar but not identical
to AB 845 from last year. Both AB 2326 and AB 845 propose to
add the same additional representatives to the RAC described
above. However, the remaining provisions of this bill are more
narrowly tailored than those contained in AB 845. For example,
AB 2326 does not authorize the RAC to issue reports upon its own
advisement, as did AB 845; AB 2326 would require the RAC to
produce reports at the request of the Governor or the
Legislature. AB 2326 also narrowly revises the purposes of the
RAC to advise the Secretary of CDCR on objectives pertaining to
encouraging collaborative reentry activities, and the
development of a knowledge base of "best practice models and
programs related to" successful reentry. This bill would
require the Secretary of CDCR, in consultation with the RAC, to
seek federal Second Chance Act funding and, if funding is
available, to develop a comprehensive strategic reentry plan, as
specified. Finally, under current law statutory authority for
the RAC sunsets on January 1, 2011; this bill, like AB 845,
would extend that sunset to January 1, 2016.
3. Background: The Importance of Reentry
The importance of effective reentry strategies for inmates
leaving prison has been underscored by many expert panels over
the years. In its January 2007 report, Solving California's
Corrections Crisis Time Is Running Out, The Little Hoover
Commission stated:
The State must immediately take action to improve its
management of
the correctional population and implement the
recommendations made
by this and other commissions, including expanding
(More)
AB 2326 (Bass)
PageK
in-prison programs,
improving prisoner reentry, and reallocating resources
to community based
alternatives. The State must use all of its human
resources, not just the personnel of the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation.
As explained in the expert panel report that forms the basis for
reforms now being pursued by CDCR:
Most people forget that (except for those serving life
without parole or death penalty sentences) all
offenders come from and will one day return to the
community. One needs to view corrections through the
lens of prisoner reentry to understand the importance
of rehabilitation programming. As Jeremy Travis
(2005) has reminded us, "they all come back." In
2006, the CDCR admitted nearly 142,000 persons to
prison and released nearly the same number - 134,000.
The average prison sentence served in California is 25
months. The
fact that the majority of prisoners go back to their
communities relatively quickly means that public
safety is the responsibility of all community members,
not just the correctional agency. When correctional
agencies deliver appropriate rehabilitation treatment
programs in prison and then follow those programs up
with aftercare programs and services in the community,
they are more likely to reduce recidivism two to three
times more than when delivering prison-based programs
alone. Other research shows that correctional
agencies can enhance the effectiveness of their
rehabilitation programming by actively collaborating
with communities. Additionally, research . . . shows
that female offenders need the assistance of their
family members, friends, and community support
agencies (e.g., substance abuse, mental health,
housing, etc.) if they are to sustain the treatment
gains they achieved through participating in
rehabilitation programming in prison.
AB 2326 (Bass)
PageL
To become productive and contributing members of
society, ex-offenders must stay sober, find work, and
have safe places to live. An individual who is high,
out of work, and living on the streets is not likely
to succeed. California must make a financial
commitment to help previously incarcerated persons
obtain access to and pay for the services they need to
be clean, sober, and employable. Without this
investment in offenders' survival issues, investments
in prison and parole programming alone will not
produce the desired recidivism reduction outcomes.<2>
WOULD THIS BILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TOOLS AND STRATEGIES THAT
WOULD BE LIKELY TO PRODUCE IMPROVED OUTCOMES FOR PERSONS
RELEASED FROM PRISON?
***************
---------------------------
<2> Expert Panel on Adult Offender and Recidivism Reduction
Programming, Report to the California State Legislature (2007)
(see http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/News/ExpertPanel.html).