BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 175
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 15, 2011
Counsel: Milena Nelson
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 175 (Donnelly) - As Introduced: January 24, 2011
SUMMARY : Removes the sunset date from the provision allowing
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR) to transfer an inmate to an out-of-state facility without
the consent of that inmate, except in specified instances.
Additionally, in instances where the inmate did consent to
transfer to an out-of-state facility, the inmate is prohibited
from revoking his or her consent to the transfer.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Allows CDCR to transfer an inmate to another in-state or
out-of-state facility without the consent of the inmate.
a) Inmates who are determined to have a serious medical or
mental health condition may not be transferred or committed
to an out-of-state facility without the consent of that
inmate.
b) Inmates may consult with an attorney of their choice, or
an public defender if he or she cannot afford counsel,
concerning his or her rights and obligations under this
section and shall be informed of those rights prior to
transfer or, where appropriate, prior to executing written
consent to an out of state transfer.
c) This section is to remain in effect until July 1, 2011
or until CDCR has replaced temporary beds, as specified,
whichever occurs first. (Penal Code Section 11191.)
2)Enacts the Interstate Corrections Compact, which allows any
party state to the Compact to contract with another party
state for the confinement of inmates on behalf of the sending
state in institutions in the receiving state. (Penal Code
Section 11190.)
AB 175
Page 2
3)States that inmates imprisoned in another state, pursuant to
the Interstate Corrections Compact, are entitled to all
hearings, within 120 days of the time and under the same
standards, which are normally accorded to persons similarly
sentenced who are confined in institutions in California. The
inmate may consent in writing to hearings conducted by the
corresponding agencies or officials of the other jurisdiction.
(Penal Code Section 11193.)
4)Empowers the Director of CDCR to enter into contracts
consistent with the Interstate Corrections Compact
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "CDCR stated
that they spend $52,363 per year to incarcerate a prisoner.
Much of this inflated cost is due to the major overcrowding
issue the State is currently facing. Prisoners are being
housed on cots in gym or cafeteria like facilities because
there are not enough beds for the increasing population."
2)Reduced Funding for Out-of-State Inmate Transfers : On January
10, 2011, the Governor released his 2011-12 budget, which
included a budget reduction from $409.7 million in the current
budget year to $224.3 million in the 2011-12 budget year for
CDCR contracted facilities. �2011-12 Governor's Budget,
Corrections and Rehabilitation (January 10, 2011) p. 58.]
This trend, expected to continue, will eliminate much of the
funding for out-of-state transfers.
3)Argument in Support : None submitted.
4)Arguments in Opposition :
a) According to the California Correctional Peace Officers
Association , "Costs. Both the Legislative Analyst, in a
letter to Senator Romero in 2007, and the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), in testimony before
the Senate Budget Subcommittee in 2010, indicated that the
use of out-of-state beds increased CDCR's costs compared to
housing these inmates in-state. CDCR incurs substantial
costs to screen these inmates before transfer, to transport
the inmates to out-of-state locations (and back), and to
AB 175
Page 3
manage and oversee the contracts. In addition, as a result
of the screening process, inmates with significant medical
and mental health needs are not sent out of state, but are
retained in California. As a result of this process, any
comparison of costs between in-state custody and for-profit
private custody out-of-state is skewed in favor of the
out-of-state contracts. Nevertheless, both the Legislative
Analyst and the Department found the out-of-state costs
were higher, even without any adjustment for medical costs.
"Economic Development. As we all know, job growth is a
challenge for California. Yet, this program develops jobs
in other states at the expense of California taxpayers.
That simply makes no sense in these economic times.
Rather, the monies now sent out of state should be used to
develop jobs in California and to support suppliers in our
state."
b) According to the California Public Defenders
Association , "Prisoners should not be housed so far away as
to impede meaningful family visitations and legal
consultation. The former aids rehabilitation and ultimate
reintegration into society. The later aids completion of
pending appeals and/or habeas corpus, and ensures that
challenges to conditions of incarceration are speedily and
effectively handled."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None
Opposition
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
California Public Defenders Association
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Analysis Prepared by : Milena Nelson / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3957
AB 175
Page 4