BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair S
2009-2010 Regular Session B
4
4
1
SB 441 (Ducheny)
As Amended April 2, 2009
Hearing date: April 28, 2009
Penal Code
AA:mc
CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 737 (Romero) - Ch. 10, Stats. 2005
Support: Chief Probation Officers of California; California
Probation, Parole and
Correctional Association; California State Sheriffs' Association
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUES
should THE CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY ("csa") BE REMOVED from
the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation?
SHOULD CSA's existing duties concerning studying crime in California
include best practices in the field of crime prevention?
SHOULD CSA BE DIRECTED TO study methods to improve coordination and
effectiveness between state parole and local law enforcement, with a
report to the Governor and the Legislature on or before July 1,
2010?
(More)
SB 441 (Ducheny)
PageB
SHOULD CSA BE REQUIRED to evaluate the effect of concurrent parole
and probation sentences on state and local governments, as
specified?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to enact the following statutory
provisions relating to the Corrections Standards Authority
("CSA") to 1) remove CSA from the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation; 2) expand CSA's existing duties concerning
studying crime in California to include best practices in the
field of crime prevention; 3) require CSA to study methods to
improve coordination and effectiveness between state parole and
local law enforcement, with a report to the Governor and the
Legislature on or before July 1, 2010; and 4) require CSA to
evaluate the effect of concurrent parole and probation sentences
on state and local governments, as specified.
Current law creates in state government the 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 establishes within the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation the Corrections
Standards Authority and provides, as of July 1, 2005, any
reference to the Board of Corrections refers to the Corrections
Standards Authority ("CSA"). (Penal Code 6024.)
This bill would provide that, commencing July 1, 2010, CSA shall
no longer be within the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.
(More)
SB 441 (Ducheny)
PageC
Current law imposes on CSA the duty to "make a study of the
entire subject of crime, with particular reference to conditions
in the State of California, including causes of crime, possible
methods of prevention of crime, methods of detection of crime
and apprehension of criminals, methods of prosecution of persons
accused of crime, and the entire subject of penology, including
standards and training for correctional personnel, and to report
its findings, its conclusions and recommendations to the
Governor and the Legislature at such times as they may require."
(Penal Code 6027.)
This bill would amend this provision to require CSA to include
the study of best practices in the field of crime prevention,
and would make additional purely technical corrections to this
provision.
This bill would impose on CSA "the duty . . . to study methods
to improve coordination and effectiveness between state parole
and local law enforcement, and to report its findings,
conclusions, and recommendations to the Governor and the
Legislature on or before July 1, 2010."
This bill would require CSA, in consultation with the
Legislative Analyst's Office and contingent upon funding, to
"conduct an evaluation and report regarding the effect of
concurrent parole and probation sentences on state and local
governments and the levels of coordination between the state and
counties in these cases. This report shall include
recommendations on how to effectively reduce the numbers of
individuals sentenced to concurrent parole and probation and the
effect on state and local public safety resources."
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION IMPLICATIONS
California continues to face a severe prison overcrowding
crisis. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
currently has about 170,000 inmates under its jurisdiction. Due
to a lack of traditional housing space available, the department
houses roughly 15,000 inmates in gyms and dayrooms.
California's prison population has increased by 125 percent (an
(More)
SB 441 (Ducheny)
PageD
average of 4 percent annually) over the past 20 years, growing
from 76,000 inmates to 171,000 inmates, far outpacing the
state's population growth rate for the age cohort with the
highest risk of incarceration.<1>
In December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against
CDCR sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population
pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On
February 9, 2009, the three-judge federal court panel issued a
tentative ruling that included the following conclusions with
respect to overcrowding:
No party contests that California's prisons are
overcrowded, however measured, and whether considered
in comparison to prisons in other states or jails
within this state. There are simply too many prisoners
for the existing capacity. The Governor, the
principal defendant, declared a state of emergency in
2006 because of the "severe overcrowding" in
California's prisons, which has caused "substantial
risk to the health and safety of the men and women who
work inside these prisons and the inmates housed in
them." . . . A state appellate court upheld the
Governor's proclamation, holding that the evidence
supported the existence of conditions of "extreme
peril to the safety of persons and property."
(citation omitted) The Governor's declaration of the
state of emergency remains in effect to this day.
. . . the evidence is compelling that there is no
relief other than a prisoner release order that will
remedy the unconstitutional prison conditions.
. . .
----------------------
<1> "Between 1987 and 2007, California's population of ages 15
through 44-the age cohort with the highest risk for
incarceration-grew by an average of less than 1 percent
annually, which is a pace much slower than the growth in prison
admissions." (2009-2010 Budget Analysis Series, Judicial and
Criminal Justice, Legislative Analyst's Office (January 30,
2009).)
(More)
SB 441 (Ducheny)
PageE
Although the evidence may be less than perfectly
clear, it appears to the Court that in order to
alleviate the constitutional violations California's
inmate population must be reduced to at most 120% to
145% of design capacity, with some institutions or
clinical programs at or below 100%. We caution the
parties, however, that these are not firm figures and
that the Court reserves the right - until its final
ruling - to determine that a higher or lower figure is
appropriate in general or in particular types of
facilities.
. . .
Under the PLRA, any prisoner release order that we
issue will be narrowly drawn, extend no further than
necessary to correct the violation of constitutional
rights, and be the least intrusive means necessary to
correct the violation of those rights. For this
reason, it is our present intention to adopt an order
requiring the State to develop a plan to reduce the
prison population to 120% or 145% of the prison's
design capacity (or somewhere in between) within a
period of two or three years.<2>
The final outcome of the panel's tentative decision, as well as
any appeal that may be in response to the panel's final
decision, is unknown at the time of this writing.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis outlined above.
COMMENTS
---------------------------
<2> Three Judge Court Tentative Ruling, 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 (Feb. 9, 2009).
(More)
SB 441 (Ducheny)
PageF
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states in part:
The Corrections Standards Authority, formerly known as
the California Board of Corrections (BOC), has long
assisted policy makers with thorough research related
to crime prevention, among other things, since its
inception in 1944 and was once considered one of the
most effective state boards. In 2005, with the
passage of SB 737 (Romero, Chapter 10, Statutes of
2005), the Board of Corrections was eliminated, along
with the Correctional Peace Officer Standards and
Training (CPOST), and their functions were
consolidated as the CSA under CDCR.
The overall reorganization effort was put forth as a
companion bill to the Governor's Reorganization Plan
(GRP) 1, and reflected issues and recommendations
brought forward by the Little Hoover Commission, the
Legislative Analyst's Office, and Senate Budget
Subcommittee #5 on Public Safety, Labor & Veterans
Affairs. Despite input on the reorganization from all
of these entities, larger issues seemed to dominate
the reorganization discussion at the time, and little
attention appears to have been dedicated to the
decision to move the well-respected Board of
Corrections under CDCR.
Calvin Remington, former Ventura County Chief
Probation Officer and Board of Corrections member, was
among the few who addressed the issue. According to
written testimony he submitted to the Little Hoover
Commission for their Public Hearing on the Governor's
Reorganization Plan #2, "I also have some concerns
about the change in the Board of Corrections. It has
served the counties well in its current makeup. I
agree that there is a need to expand that
organization's responsibilities and have been assured
(More)
SB 441 (Ducheny)
PageG
that the relationship the counties now have with BOC
will not change in the reorganization."<3>
David Steinhart, Director of the Commonwealth Juvenile
Justice Program, also expressed concern with the
reorganization, "In real-world terms today, the Board
of Corrections does most of this work-administering
state funds for local juvenile justice programs,
inspecting local facilities, and generating
information on accepted practices and standards. But
the Board of Corrections is terminated by this
proposal, and is replaced by the Corrections Standards
Authority. Descriptions of the state-local or
community-corrections role of the Corrections
Standards Authority have shifted with each draft of
the Corrections Reorganization Plan."<4>
In practice, partly due to staff attrition and new
leadership, the newly formed CSA has struggled to
maintain the support afforded the BOC. Under the
direction of their new Executive Director, Kurt
Wilson, the CSA has improved its image, but the issues
of independence and fairness in decisions that relate
to local law enforcement continue to be of concern.
This bill would reorganize the current Corrections
Standards Authority to provide a much needed
independent state entity with a broader mandate to
enhance coordination between state and local law
enforcement on crime prevention efforts, and to create
a stronger partnership between parole and probation
programs, independently administered at the state and
local levels.
---------------------------
<3> Little Hoover Commission, Public Hearing on the Governor's
Reorganization Plan #2, January 27, 2005,
http://www.lhc.ca.gov/lhcdir/reorg/RemingtonJan05.pdf
<4> Little Hoover Commission, Public Hearing on the Governor's
Reorganization Plan #2, January 27, 2005,
http://www.lhc.ca.gov/lhcdir/reorg/SteinhartJan05.pdf
(More)
SB 441 (Ducheny)
PageH
2. What This Bill Would Do
As explained in detail above, this bill would do the following
with respect to the Corrections Standards Authority:
Remove CSA from CDCR;
Expand CSA's duties concerning studying crime in
California to include best practices in the field of crime
prevention;
Require CSA to study methods to improve coordination and
effectiveness between state parole and local law
enforcement, with a report to the Governor and the
Legislature on or before July 1, 2010; and
Require CSA to evaluate the effect of concurrent parole
and probation sentences on state and local governments and
the levels of coordination between the state and counties
in these cases, including recommendations on how to
effectively reduce the numbers of individuals sentenced to
concurrent parole and probation and the effect on state and
local public safety resources, as specified.
(More)
3. Background; Suggested Additional Reforms for Consideration
As explained above, the Governor's reorganization in 2005
consolidated a number of state entities under the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") which previously existed
independently, under the umbrella of the Youth and Adult
Correctional Agency ("YACA"). YACA consisted of the Department
of Corrections, the Department of the Youth Authority, the Board
of Prison Terms, the Youthful Offender Parole Board, the
Narcotic Addict Evaluation Authority, a Commission on
Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training ("CPOST"), and
the Board of Corrections. The 2005 reorganization abolished the
Board of Corrections, created in its place a new Corrections
Standards Authority ("CSA"), and consolidated CPOST, which was
responsible for training and standards for California's
correctional peace officers, into the new CSA.
The old Board of Corrections was recognized for its work "in
partnership with county sheriffs, chief probation officers,
other local officials and community-based service providers to
improve the delivery of correctional programs."<5> In its 2003
report on California parole policies, the Little Hoover
Commission noted:
More than anything else California needs to develop
the means for
correctional policies to be based on evidence of what
works to reduce
crime, violence and drug abuse by felons who leave the
system.
California could discipline correctional policy by
giving communities a
strong role in evaluating the performance of prisons
and recommending
improvements to prison and parole policies. The Board
of Corrections is
----------------------
<5> Back to the Community: Safe and Sound Parole Policies (Nov.
2003), Little Hoover Commission, p. 17.
(More)
SB 441 (Ducheny)
PageJ
well suited to assume this responsibility.<6>
WOULD THIS BILL ENHANCE THE ABILITY OF CSA TO DEVELOP STATEWIDE
CRIME REDUCTION POLICIES?
SHOULD A STATE ENTITY DEDICATED PRIMARILY TO PARTNERING WITH THE
LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNITY BE NESTED IN THE STATE'S PRISON
AGENCY?
The following chart depicts the membership of the Board of
Corrections as it existed prior to the reorganization, and CSA
today:
--------------------------------------------------------------
|Entity |Siz|Administrat|Governor |Senate |Term|State/lo|
| |e |ion |Appointment|Confirmati| |cal |
| | |Representat|s |on | |ratio |
| | |ion | | | | |
|---------+---+-----------+-----------+----------+----+--------|
|Board of |15 |3 members |12 members |YES |3 |20% - |
|Correctio| | | | |years|80% |
|ns | | | | | | |
|---------+---+-----------+-----------+----------+----+--------|
|Correctio|19 |5 members |14 members |YES |3 |36.8% - |
|ns | | | | |years|63.2% |
|Standards| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Authority| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------
Historically, CSA/BOC has been a lead agency for the state in
partnering with local law enforcement. The Legislature has
recognized this relationship by enlisting BOC/CSA in
implementing a number of innovative strategies for promoting
community-based public safety strategies, such as the Juvenile
Justice Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (AB 1913).
---------------------------
<6> Id., p. 84.
SB 441 (Ducheny)
PageK
Given the historic and ongoing mission of CSA, the author and/or
members of the Committee may wish to discuss revisiting the
composition of CSA, to ensure it reflects a model of state-local
balance and representation which enhances the opportunity for
cooperation, collaboration and coordination between the state
and local efforts to improve public safety. As noted above,
twenty percent of the old BOC's membership was state, and eighty
percent local. Under the new CSA, the state's representation
has nearly doubled. In addition, the author and/or members of
the Committee may wish to revisit the consolidation of CPOST
into CSA, and whether restoring the focus of CSA to local public
safety issues might be a better model for CSA.
***************