BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair S
2009-2010 Regular Session B
5
8
8
SB 588 (Committee on Public Safety)
As Introduced February 27, 2009
Hearing date: March 31, 2009
Penal Code
AA:mc
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT BOARD
HISTORY
Source: California Coalition Against Sexual Assault
("CalCASA"); California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation
Prior Legislation: AB 1015 (Chu) - Ch. 338, Stats. 2006
Support: Chief Probation Officers of California; California
Probation Parole and
Correctional Association; Crime Victims United of California
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE JANUARY 1, 2010, SUNSET FOR THE SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
BOARD BE ELIMINATED?
(More)
SB 588 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageB
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to eliminate the statutory sunset
for the Sex Offender Management Board.
Current law establishes the Sex Offender Management Board under
the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, with 17 members, as specified. (Penal Code
9001.)
Current law requires the board to "address any issues, concerns,
and problems related to the community management of adult sex
offenders. The main objective of the board, which shall be used
to guide the board in prioritizing resources and use of time, is
to achieve safer communities by reducing victimization. To that
end, the board shall do both of the following:
(1) Conduct a thorough assessment of current management
practices for adult sex offenders, primarily those under
direct criminal justice or other supervision, residing in
California communities. . . . A report on the findings of
this assessment shall be submitted to the Legislature and
the Governor by January 1, 2008. . . .
(2) Develop recommendations, based upon the findings in the
assessment, to improve management practices of adult sex
offenders under supervision in the community, with the goal
of improving community safety. The plan shall address all
significant aspects of community management including
supervision, treatment, housing, transition to the
community, interagency coordination and the practices of
other entities that directly or indirectly affect the
community management of sex offenders. The board shall
provide information to the Legislature and Governor as to
its progress by January 1, 2009. The completed plan shall
(More)
SB 588 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageC
be submitted to the Legislature and the Governor by January
1, 2010. . . ." (Penal Code 9002.)
Current law sunsets the board on January 1, 2010.
This bill would eliminate this sunset.
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% (an average
of 4% 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
----------------------
<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% 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 588 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageD
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.
. . .
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
(More)
SB 588 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageE
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
1. Background; What This Bill Would Do
Under current statute, the Sex Offender Management Board will
sunset on January 1, 2010. This bill will eliminate that sunset
and allow the board to continue its work into the future.
As explained above, in 2006 the California Sex Offender
Management Board was enacted into law to "address any issues,
concerns, and problems related to the community management of
adult sex offenders." The Board's website provides the
following information about its work:
(More)
---------------------------
<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).
Vision
The vision of the California Sex Offender Management
Board (CASOMB) is to decrease sexual victimization and
increase community safety.
Mission
The vision will be accomplished by addressing issues,
concerns and problems related to community management
of adult sex offenders by identifying and developing
recommendations to improve policies and practices.
Background
On September 20, 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
signed Assembly Bill 1015, which created the
California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB).
The bill had been introduced by Assembly Members Judy
Chu and Todd Spitzer and passed the California
Legislature with nearly unanimous bipartisan support.
Because California is the most populated state in the
Union and has had lifetime registration for its
convicted sex offenders since 1947, California has
more registered sex offenders than any other state
with about 88,000 identified sex offenders (per
Department of Justice, August 2007). Currently, the
California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) supervises about 10,000 of those
88,000 sex offenders, of which about 3,200 have been
designated as High Risk Sex Offenders (CDCR Housing
Summit, March 2007). Additionally, there are about
22,500 adult sex offenders serving time in one of 32
state prisons operated by CDCR (California Sex
Offender Management Task Force Report, July 2007).
While it is commonly believed that most sexual
assaults are committed by strangers, the research
(More)
SB 588 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageG
suggests that the overwhelming majority of sex
offenders victimize people known to them;
approximately 90 percent of child victims know their
offenders, as do 80 percent of adult victims [per
Kilpatrick, D.G., Edmunds, C.N., & Seymour, A.K.
(1992) Rape in America: A Report to the Nation.
Arlington, VA: National Victim Center].
The Board has produced a number of reports since its inception:
Progress Report, January 2009
Adam Walsh Act Position Recommendation
Homelessness among Registered Sex Offenders in California:
The Numbers, the Risks and the Response, November 2008
An Assessment of Current Management Practices of Adult Sex
Offenders in California, January 2008
GPS Response Letter to CDCR Secretary
All of these are available on the Board's website at
http://www.casomb.org/reports.htm .
SB 588 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageH
***************