BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair S
2009-2010 Regular Session B
9
7
3
SB 973
(Negrete McLeod)
As Introduced February 8, 2010
Hearing date: March 23, 2010
Penal Code
JM:mc
PAROLE REENTRY PROGRAM IN SAN BERNARDINO
HISTORY
Source: Community Re-Entry Education/Employment Service and
Training of San Bernardino
Prior Legislation: AB 2436 (Ruskin) - Ch. 779, Stats. 2006
AB 1998 (Chan) - Ch. 732, Stats. 2006
Support: Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety; San Bernardino
County Superintendent of Schools; California State
University, San Bernardino, Office of the President;
California Institute of Health and Social Services;
UCLA Office of Professor Lewis King; Mary's Mercy
Center Inc.; Knotts Family and Parenting Institute; The
Stephan Center; Aiming High Treatment Centers;
Christian Counseling Service; Young Visionaries;
Arrowhead United Way; The Restorative Justice Center of
the Inland Empire; Mustard Seed Tutorial Center; Desert
Sanctuary Inc.; City of San Bernardino Office of the
Mayor; two individuals
Opposition:None known
(More)
SB 973 (Negrete McLeod)
PageB
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD A PAROLE REENTRY PROGRAM BE ESTABLISHED IN THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO OR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO THAT WOULD, IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SERVICE AGENCIES, PROVIDE
EDUCATION, JOB TRAINING AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES TO PAROLEES?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to create a parole reentry program
in San Bernardino that would, in partnerships with local law
enforcement and service agencies, provide assessments of
parolees, job training, education, substance abuse treatment,
transitional housing and other needed services to parolees.
Existing law directs the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") to establish three pilot programs
for intensive training and counseling programs for female
parolees to assist in the successful reintegration into the
community upon release from custody following in-prison
therapeutic community drug treatment. (Pen. Code 3054, subd.
(a)(1).)
Existing law provides that the services offered in the above
pilot programs may include, but shall not be limited to, drug
and alcohol abuse treatment, cognitive skills development,
education, life skills, job skills, victim impact awareness,
anger management, family reunification, counseling, vocational
training and support, residential care, and placement in
affordable housing and employment opportunities. (Pen. Code
3054, subd. (b)(1).)
Existing law provides that CDCR shall operate the Preventing
Parolee Crime Program with various components including, at a
minimum, residential and non-residential multi-service centers,
literacy laboratories, drug treatment networks and job placement
assistance for parolees. (Pen. Code 3068, subd. (a).)
(More)
SB 973 (Negrete McLeod)
PageC
Existing law provides that prisoners on parole shall remain
under the legal custody of CDCR and shall be subject at any time
to being taken back within the enclosure of the prison. (Pen.
Code 3056.)
This bill makes the following legislative findings:
Support services help parolees reintegrate into society
and reduce recidivism.
The creation of a pilot program in San Bernardino will
help the Legislature determine the effectiveness of the
program.
The City of San Bernardino and the County of San
Bernardino are uniquely situated in regard to parolee
population and available services to parolees so as to
allow the Legislature to measure the efficacy of the
program.
This bill provides that the CDCR, to the extent possible with
resources that exist or are to be appropriated, shall establish
a reentry program in the City of San Bernardino or the County of
San Bernardino.
This bill provides that the reentry program may include, but is
not limited to, the following:
Assessment prior to release of inmates paroled to the
City of San Bernardino or the County of San Bernardino.
Partnership between parole agents and local law
enforcement officers in supervising parolees in San
Bernardino.
Development of a reentry plan that identifies services
needed by each parolee.
Partnership with local community organizations and
service providers to provide transitional housing, job
training, job placement and substance abuse treatment.
This bill provides that CDCR shall "maintain statistical
information" on the program, including, but not limited to, the
number of parolees served and rate of return to prison of these
(More)
SB 973 (Negrete McLeod)
PageD
parolees. The information shall be submitted to the Legislature
upon request.
This bill provides that the program shall become operative only
upon the consent of the applicable jurisdiction (City or County
of San Bernardino).
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, .
. . (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
(More)
SB 973 (Negrete McLeod)
PageE
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
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. That appeal, and the final outcome of this litigation,
---------------------------
<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)
SB 973 (Negrete McLeod)
PageF
is not anticipated until later this year or 2011.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
SB 973 would establish the framework for the creation
of a parolee services pilot program. San Bernardino
County has a historically high number of prison
commitments and consequently a high number of parolees
that return to the area. San Bernardino County has
the second largest number of parolees in the state
with over 10,000. While the City of San Bernardino
has 10% of the county's population, it is home to 23%
of the county parolees. There is a lack of
corresponding services for these individuals, which
does little to stem the tide of recidivism or increase
public safety. San Bernardino County is the largest
geographical county in the nation, and due to its vast
geography, it is not uncommon for parolees to have to
travel great distances, while relying on public
transit, to reach the services they need or are
required to attend as a condition of their parole.
This model sets parolees up for failure, does nothing
to alleviate the cycle of recidivism, maintains
pressure on an overburdened prison system, and harms
public safety.
The proponent of this bill is the Community Re-Entry
Education/Employment Service and Training (CREST).
CREST is a collaboration between the California State
University, San Bernardino; Mayor Patrick Morris;
Goodwill of Southern California; and many others.
CREST is seeking to create a comprehensive, one-stop
parolee services center to include, but not be limited
to: a day reporting center, educational services, job
(More)
SB 973 (Negrete McLeod)
PageG
training, substance abuse treatment, and family
services. With a one-stop approach, parolees will be
more likely to succeed, and face the current
difficulties of having to go to multiple facilities
for the variety of programs required as a term of
their parole.
2. East Palo Alto Parole Reentry Program
This bill appears to be modeled on a parole reentry program
implemented in East Palo Alto through AB 2346 (Ruskin) (2006).
The provisions of AB 2346 sunsetted on January 1, 2010. Some
portions of the program may still be operating.
The East Palo Alto program appeared to operate in close
cooperation with the East Palo Alto Police Department. Chief
Ronald L. Davis made the following assessment of the program in
October of 2008:
In 2007, the City of East Palo Alto entered into a
three and a half year contract with the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to
implement the East Palo Alto Community-Based Coalition
(CBC) - a parole reentry program that blends
enforcement with programming services. The CDCR is
funding this program at a total projected cost of $3.4
million dollars ($949,000 annually). This program was
initiated by Assembly Bill 2436, authored by Assembly
Member Ira Ruskin, which requires the CDCR to
establish a pilot parole reentry program in East Palo
Alto.
The Police Department and CDCR worked collaboratively
to implement a program that provides, at a minimum,
the following services:
1. Create a Day Reporting Center that provides a
single reporting location for parolees and provides
a host of reentry services, such as:
(More)
SB 973 (Negrete McLeod)
PageH
Individualized treatment plans
Residential/transitional housing
Substance abuse education and treatment
Anger management
Domestic violence programs
Cognitive and life skills development
Parenting and family reintegration
community service
Educational services (GED preparation)
Budgeting and money management
Job readiness and job search
Discharge planning and aftercare
2. Provide transitional sober living
accommodations for 12 parolees which equates to ten
percent of the target population.
3. Conduct a prerelease needs assessment of
inmates scheduled to parole to East Palo Alto.
(More)
4. Develop a reentry plan identifying services
needed by persons returning to the community.
5. Forge partnership between the police and CDCR
parole agents to enhance the level of supervision
and accountability of parolees residing in East Palo
Alto.
6. Create partnerships with local community
organizations and service providers to provide
support services to parolees such as transitional
housing, job training, or placement, or substance
abuse treatment.
The Day Reporting Center (DRC) began accepting
parolees on January 7, 2008. Since that time, the DRC
has served over 100 participants. Although it is too
early to determine to what extent the program is
successful, early indicators suggest the program is
very promising.
The parole recidivism rate for
participants at this point is 48% which is well
below the state average of 60 to 70%.
Many parolees either drop out of the
program or never enter into it due to the need to
find employment and provide for their families
immediately following their return from prison.
Job training and placement are critical aspects
to the overall success of the parolees and the
reentry program.
3. Little Hoover Commission Report Concluded that Failure to
Prepare Offenders for Release Jeopardizes Public Safety
According to the Little Hoover Commission Report, "Back to the
Community: Safe and Sound Parole Policies" (November 2003),
despite evidence that re-entry programs reduce re-arrest,
(More)
SB 973 (Negrete McLeod)
PageJ
re-conviction, and re-incarceration, most inmates do not have
access to re-entry programs.
Fundamental Problems in Parole:
Inmates are not being prepared for their eventual
release.
Community resources are not being used to help parolees
who with some assistance could get a job and stay out of
trouble.
When inmates do get into trouble, the vast majority of
them go back to prison - even if drug treatment, short jail
stays or some other intervention would cost less and do
more to reduce recidivism.
Parole revocation is often used in lieu of prosecution
for parolees who are suspected of committing new serious
crimes.
The Commission concluded:
Reforms should begin with - and be faithfully guided
by - a commitment to align policies, programs and
resources to improving public safety as defined by
both the incapacitation of serious criminals and the
successful reintegration of offenders who serve their
time and come back home. Prisons have excelled at
what they have been asked to do: manage more and more
inmates without escapes or riots.
[Because most inmates will be released] prison time
also must be used to help inmates learn basic skills,
kick drug habits, and plan for their release.
Communities also must do more. As the prison system
expanded, the link between state correctional and
local law enforcement agencies has weakened. (Little
Hoover Comm., Back to the Community, Exec. Summary,
pp. ii-iii.)
SHOULD A PAROLE REENTRY PROGRAM BE ESTABLISHED IN THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO OR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO?
SB 973 (Negrete McLeod)
PageK
***************