BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2011-2012 Regular Session B
1
1
2
SB 1121 (Hancock) 1
As Amended April 9, 2012
Hearing date: April 17, 2012
Penal Code
SM:mc
STATE PRISON INMATE CLASSIFICATION:
PARTICIPATION OF EDUCATORS
HISTORY
Source: Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local
1000
Prior Legislation: AB 900 (Solorio) - Chapter 7, Statutes of
2007
Support: Drug Policy Alliance; California Public Defenders
Association
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION BE REQUIRED
TO HAVE A CREDENTIALED TEACHER, VICE PRINCIPAL, OR PRINCIPAL PRESENT
AT ALL CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE HEARINGS RELATING TO THE ACADEMIC OR
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAM PLACEMENT OF AN INMATE, AS SPECIFIED?
(More)
SB 1121 (Hancock)
Page 2
SHOULD ATTENDANCE AT THESE HEARINGS BE MADE PART OF THE ASSIGNED
DUTIES OF A CREDENTIALED TEACHER, VICE PRINCIPAL, OR PRINCIPAL?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to (1) provide that a credentialed
teacher, vice principal, or principal shall be present at all
meetings relating to the academic or vocational education
program placement of an inmate, as specified; and (2) provide
that attendance at these meetings shall be made part of the
assigned duties of a credentialed teacher, vice principal, or
principal who is employed by the department and who assigns
inmates to programs pursuant to this article.
Current law requires that California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (CDCR) conduct assessments of all inmates
that include, but are not limited to, data regarding the
inmate's history of substance abuse, medical and mental health,
education, family background, criminal activity, and social
functioning. The assessments shall be used to place inmates in
programs that will aid in their reentry to society and that will
most likely reduce the inmate's chances of reoffending. (Penal
Code � 3020.)
Current law provides that the Director of Corrections shall
appoint a Superintendent of Correctional Education, who shall
oversee and administer all prison education programs. The
Superintendent of Correctional Education shall set both
short-term and long-term goals for inmate literacy and testing,
and shall establish priorities for prison education programs.
(Penal Code � 2053.4.)
Current law requires that the Director of CDCR shall implement
in every state prison literacy programs that are designed to
ensure that upon parole inmates are able to achieve a
(More)
SB 1121 (Hancock)
Page 3
ninth-grade reading level. The department shall prepare an
implementation plan for this program, and shall request the
necessary funds to implement this program as follows:
To make the program available to at least 25 percent of
eligible inmates in the state prison system by July 1,
1991.
To make the program available to at least 60 percent of
eligible inmates in the state prison system by January 1,
1996.
In complying with the requirements of this section, the
department shall give strong consideration to computer assisted
training and other innovations which have proven to be effective
in reducing illiteracy of disadvantaged adults. (Penal Code �
2053.1.)
Current law provides that the Director of Corrections may
establish and maintain classes for inmates by utilizing
personnel of CDCR, or by entering into an agreement with the
governing board of a school district or private school or the
governing boards of school districts under which the district
shall maintain classes for such inmates. The governing board of
a school district or private school may enter into such an
agreement regardless of whether the institution or facility at
which the classes are to be established and maintained is within
or without the boundaries of the school district.
Current law requires CDCR to determine and implement a system of
incentives to increase inmate participation in, and completion
of, academic and vocational education, consistent with the
inmate's educational needs as identified in the assessment
performed pursuant to Section 3020, including, but not limited
to, a literacy level specified in Section 2053.1, a high school
diploma or equivalent, or a particular vocational job skill.
These incentives may be consistent with other incentives
provided to inmates who participate in work programs. (Penal
Code � 2054.2.)
(More)
SB 1121 (Hancock)
Page 4
Current law provides that CDCR's inmate classification process
shall take into consideration the inmate's needs, interests and
desires, his/her behavior and placement score in keeping with
the department and institution's/facility's program and security
missions and public safety. Each determination affecting an
inmate's placement within an institution/facility, transfer
between facilities, program participation, privilege groups, or
custody designation shall be made by a classification committee
composed of staff knowledgeable in the classification process.
(15 Cal. Code of Regs. � 3375(b), (c).)
This bill would provide that a credentialed teacher, vice
principal, or principal shall be present at all meetings
relating to the academic or vocational education program
placement of an inmate pursuant to Section 3375 of Title 15 of
the California Code of Regulations.
This bill would further provide that attendance at these
meetings shall be made part of the assigned duties of a
credentialed teacher, vice principal, or principal who is
employed by the department and who assigns inmates to programs
pursuant to this article.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
("ROCA")
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, since
early 2007 it has been the policy of the chair of the Senate
Committee on Public Safety and the Senate President pro Tem to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions. Under
the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which stands for
"Receivership/Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the Committee
has held measures which create a new felony, expand the scope or
penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increase the
application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate the
prison overcrowding crisis by expanding the availability or
(More)
SB 1121 (Hancock)
Page 5
length of prison terms (such as extending the statute of
limitations for felonies or constricting statutory parole
standards). In addition, proposed expansions to the
classification of felonies enacted last year by AB 109 (the 2011
Public Safety Realignment) which may be punishable in jail and
not prison (Penal Code section 1170(h)) would be subject to ROCA
because an offender's criminal record could make the offender
ineligible for jail and therefore subject to state prison.
Under these principles, ROCA has been applied as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress towards reducing prison
overcrowding by passing legislation which could increase the
prison population. ROCA will continue until prison overcrowding
is resolved.
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). 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 January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving
California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject
to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate
circumstances. Design capacity is the number of inmates a
prison can house based on one inmate per cell, single-level
(More)
SB 1121 (Hancock)
Page 6
bunks in dormitories, and no beds in places not designed for
housing. Current design capacity in CDCR's 33 institutions is
79,650.
On January 6, 2012, CDCR announced that California had cut
prison overcrowding by more than 11,000 inmates over the last
six months, a reduction largely accomplished by the passage of
Assembly Bill 109. Under the prisoner-reduction order, the
inmate population in California's 33 prisons must be no more
than the following:
167 percent of design capacity by December 27, 2011
(133,016 inmates);
155 percent by June 27, 2012;
147 percent by December 27, 2012; and
137.5 percent by June 27, 2013.
This bill does not aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis
described above under ROCA.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the Author:
Current practice at the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) allows custodial
staff and classification committees to assign inmates
in education programs and does not require input from
educators. SB 1121 would instead require a teacher,
vice principal, or principal to be present at
classification committee meetings. Educators would be
able to use test scores and their professional
assessment to help place inmates into classes or
suggest removal from classes based upon the identified
educational needs of inmates. Professionals, who are
able to assess real learning levels and motivation of
(More)
SB 1121 (Hancock)
Page 7
inmates, have the skills necessary to help custodial
staff assign inmates in education programs.
A decrease in rehabilitation funding in recent years,
particularly to the number of teachers and education
programs, has made it extremely important that those
who are assessed to have educational deficiencies or
need job training be placed in the most appropriate
programs to meet their needs. However, that has not
been the case. A recent survey of 216 teachers within
California's 33 state prisons indicated problems with
mis-assignments and the inability to remove or add
inmates to classes. Teachers, for example, reported
long waiting lists to get into classes while inmates
who had been in the infirmary for over 4 months were
still listed in their classes, thus taking up limited
space that could have been given to other students.
In a recent report by the Legislative Analyst Office
(LAO), Refocusing CDCR After the 2011 Realignment, the
LAO reported that the CDCR is not adhering to a number
of principles of effective programming such as risk
and needs principles. For example, in September 2011
the Bureau of State Audits (BSA) found that CDCR is
not always using needs assessments to assign inmates
to programs (The Benefits of Its Correctional Offender
Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions Program
Are Uncertain).
This bill is an effort to address some of the issues
raised by the LAO and the BSA, and to address a
persistent problem that teachers in the field indicate
decreases the effectiveness of rehabilitation
programs. With less overcrowding as a result of the
public safety realignment, there emerges a chance to
put in place academic and vocational education
programs that would allow inmates to successfully
reintegrate into society. In that respect, the law
needs to change to allow professionals to help
custodial staff make education placement decisions.
(More)
SB 1121 (Hancock)
Page 8
2. Inmate Classification at CDCR and What This Bill Would Do
According to CDCR, when an inmate is first committed to CDCR, he
or she is first sent to a reception center to be evaluated for
placement at an institution. The major factors determining
placement are:
Placement Score
Custody Level
Medical/mental health needs
Safety needs
Enemy Concerns
Disabilities
o Physical
o Developmental
According to CDCR:
Within 14-days of arrival at a general population
institution, an Initial Classification Committee shall
evaluate an inmate's case factors, and assist an
inmate in understanding facility expectations,
available programs, and resources. The inmate is
encouraged to participate, i.e., state their
preference, etc., in the discussion. This
classification committee shall initiate an education,
vocational training, or work program, and will explain
the decision and reason for their decision to the
inmate. The inmate is placed on a waiting list for
assignment.
At least annually, a Unit Classification Committee
(UCC) shall evaluate each inmate's case to consider
their program. The Initial and UCC are generally
comprised of a Facility Captain, Correctional
Counselor (CC) II, CC I, Educational or Vocational
representative, Inmate Assignment Lieutenant, and
(More)
SB 1121 (Hancock)
Page 9
other staff as required.
In determining program placement, the Initial
Classification Committee and UCC shall consider
factors that include but are not limited to the
following:
� Academic testing
� Program availability
� Work skills
� Criminal history
� Vocational certifications
� Reintegration needs
� Substance abuse treatment needs
� Safety concerns
� Inmates request
� Medical, dental, and mental health needs
The Substance Abuse Program (refer to attached
criteria) and Education Program (refer to attached
Penal Code and Department Operations Manual Sections)
are mandatory assignments for eligible inmates. Other
assignments can include assignments such as working as
a clerk, porter, yard crew, or in the kitchen,
laundry, garage, fire department or canteen. In
addition, they can be assigned a vocational trade or a
work assignment with Prison Industries Authority.
Removal from Program
An inmate may be removed from a program for reasons
that include but are not limited to the following:
� Disciplinary behavior and/or refusal to
participate
� Medical, dental, and mental health
restrictions
� Program completion
� Program closure
� Safety concerns within the area
(More)
SB 1121 (Hancock)
Page 10
� Pre-release processing time
� Substance abuse treatment needs
� Transfer
An inmates work supervisor will provide documentation
that supports an inmates program removal to the
assigned CC I. The CC I will schedule the inmate to
appear before a UCC for a program review. The UCC
will discuss the inmate's program participation,
retention, removal, and reassignment. The Chairperson
will inform the inmate of the decision for the
decision, e.g., refusal to participate, etc. The
inmate will be placed on a new waiting list.
This bill would require that a credentialed teacher, principal
or vice principal be present at classification hearings where
decisions are made regarding the inmate's placement in academic
or vocational education programs.
3. Current Make-Up of Classification Committees
(More)
As noted above, according to CDCR, the Initial Classification
Committees and the Unit Classification Committees are generally
comprised of a Facility Captain, Correctional Counselor (CC) II,
CC I, Educational or Vocational representative, Inmate
Assignment Lieutenant, and other staff as required. However,
CDCR has informed Committee staff that, currently, job duties of
the educational representative do not include participation in
classification committee hearings. Consequently, the teacher or
principal who might be asked to participate would need to either
take time away from the classroom or other responsibilities to
do so or participate in these hearings on their own time. This
would be expected to reduce the actual participation of
educators in these hearings. In addition to requiring that an
educator participate in these hearings, this bill would also
require that CDCR include such participation within their
assigned duties so that complying with this requirement does not
result in taking teachers out of the classroom and also assuring
that the participating educator would be compensated for this
new job duty.
HOW OFTEN ARE EDUCATORS INVOLVED IN THESE PLACEMENT DECISIONS?
4. Matching the Right Inmate with the Right Program
CDCR has adopted the Correctional Offender Management Profiling
for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) as the needs assessment tool
to determine offender rehabilitation treatment programming
needs. (California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB),
September 15, 2011, Biannual Report, page 10.)
Case planning affects how the department prioritizes
program enrollment for inmates, many with multiple
needs. Because case management is a resource-driven
endeavor, the department has had to take a different
approach to case management than originally planned.
While the department is still developing the revised
case management process, it is managing cases by
assessing inmates' needs at reception centers and
using a new assignment process with priority
(More)
SB 1121 (Hancock)
Page 12
placements (risk, need, time left to serve), Test for
Adult Basic Education (TABE) scores, and the inmates'
classification levels to make program placements.
This year, the department will begin using or
increasing the use of COMPAS assessments as part of
program assignments now that the general population
institutions have implemented COMPAS. The department
is developing implementation plans for a more
integrated case management process than it had
originally planned to test at six pilot institutions.
It now intends to pilot case management at the female
institutions in January 2012 (pending realignment and
other possible fiscal constraints). (Id. at page 11.)
Despite its adoption of the COMPAS needs assessment tool, CDCR
has been criticized for its track record in matching the right
inmate with the right programs, be they educational, vocational
training or otherwise. The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO)
recently found:
CDCR Is Not Adhering to Certain Principles of
Effective Programming. The department is not
currently adhering to � ] principles of effective
programming as well as it could be. For example, the
Bureau of State Audits (BSA) recently found that CDCR
is not always using needs assessments to assign
inmates to programs. Although the department assesses
the programming needs of prisoners, it does not often
use the results of the assessments to determine where
inmates will be assigned. This often means that
inmates are assigned to prisons where the programs
they need are not offered. In addition, the
department does not always use the results of the
needs assessment when assigning inmates to programs.
(Legislative Analyst's Office, The 2012-13 Budget:
Refocusing CDCR After the 2011 Realignment, February
23, 2012, at page 27.)
At the same time, LAO also found that, even where CDCR
SB 1121 (Hancock)
Page 13
identifies the needs of inmates and parolees for specific types
of programming, it lacks the capacity to provide it. (Id. at
page 28.)
WILL HAVING AN EDUCATOR ON THE CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE HELP
PLACE THE RIGHT INMATE IN THE RIGHT PROGRAM?
***************