BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 999
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 17, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 999 (Bonta) - As Amended: March 21, 2013
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 5-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill requires the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) to develop a five-year plan to provide
inmate access to condoms in all California prisons. The bill
requires, beginning January 1, 2015, at least five prisons per
year phase in a condom access program. The bill is not
prescriptive in approach, simply urging CDCR to follow its own
recent pilot project report recommendations.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Costs . Based on a detailed pilot report conducted over a
one-year period at Solano State Prison by CDCR health services
and the state Department of Public Health (DPH), during which
more than 800 inmates prison inmates were provided access to
condoms via vending machines, the cost of providing condom
access to inmates via vending machines, including condoms,
machines, and staff time, is about $1.50 per inmate the first
year, decreasing to about 75 cents per inmate in subsequent
years, once dispensers have been purchased and installed.
Assuming a fairly regular need to replace damaged dispensers,
and a modicum of additional staff time to monitor and report
on program progress, if condom access was provided on this
basis systemwide in one year, first-year costs would be about
$200,000, declining to about $100,000 in subsequent years.
Assuming an incremental implementation of five prisons per
year, with an average prison population of 4,000, first year
costs would likely be less than $10,000. Upon full
implementation at all 33 prisons in six or seven years, annual
costs would likely be in the range of $150,000, assuming an
AB 999
Page 2
inmate population of 120,000.
2)Savings . The report assumes an annual cost of about $41,000 to
treat an HIV-positive inmate in state prison, meaning if a
condom access program prevents three or four HIV infections
annually, the program would pay for itself. (About 1,200
inmates are HIV-positive, with an infection rate often
estimated at up to 10 times higher than the general
population.)
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author contends a condom access program will
save lives, money and families. "Notwithstanding the supposed
ban on sexual activity in prison, it is no secret that inmates
commonly engage in sexual activity. Some of the activity is
consensual; some of it is forcible. But whatever the genesis
of the act, the fact is that prisoners with HIV/AIDS are
spreading the disease to others in the institution and then to
additional partners upon release. This is a vicious cycle of
disease that can be immediately improved by introducing
condoms in prisons?.
"By not distributing condoms in our prisons, we are not only
ignoring the realities of prison, but we are abandoning the
predominantly low-income and minority populations outside of
prison who will eventually have the most contact with these
former inmates.
"And if the moral principles of keeping our low-income and
minority populations safe from deadly disease isn't sufficient
enough of a reason to make condoms available in prison, the
financial considerations are also persuasive."
2)The CDCR study, "Evaluation of a Prisoner Condom Access Pilot
Program Conducted in One California State Prison Facility" was
released in September 2011 following a year-long condom access
pilot project at Solano State Prison. The study was the result
of Gov. Schwarzenegger's 2007 veto of AB 1334 (Swanson), which
required CDCR to allow distribution of condoms.
In his veto, the governor stated, "?the provisions of this
bill conflict with Penal Code Sections 286 (e) and 288 (e),
which make sexual activity in prison unlawful. However,
condom distribution in prisons is not an unreasonable public
AB 999
Page 3
policy and it is consistent with the need to improve our
prison healthcare system and overall public health. Local
jail systems in both Los Angeles and San Francisco have
already implemented condom distribution programs. Therefore,
I am directing the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation to determine the risk and viability of such a
program by identifying one state prison facility for the
purpose of allowing non-profit and health agencies to
distribute sexual barrier devices."
In 2007, CDCR convened a task force and selected Solano State
Prison for the pilot project. The Center for Health Justice
(CHJ) provided the condom dispensing machines, condoms, and
staff and inmate education. Following implementation of an
exception to the contraband rule, CHJ made condoms available
(free; possession of more than one condom at a time was made a
rules violation) from wall-mounted dispensers (chosen based on
successful programs in the San Francisco jail and because of
minimal staffing requirements) throughout the pilot facility
from November 5, 2008 through November 4, 2009.
CDCR and DPH evaluated the risk, feasibility, and cost of
providing condoms. Staff monitored the number of condoms
dispensed and the operability of each dispenser.
The task force/report found no evidence that providing condoms
posed an increased risk to safety and security or resulted in
injuries to staff or inmates and made the following
recommendation:
"A program to provide CDCR inmates access to condoms should be
initiated and incrementally expanded while continuing to
monitor the safety and acceptability of the program. Consider
conducting similar pilot studies when expanding the program to
other prison populations (e.g, with a higher security level or
in a mental health treatment housing unit). Prisons should
locate dispensers in discreet areas and consider providing
condoms confidentially through medical staff or in a medical
clinic."
3)Custody Staff and Inmate Concerns. Custody staff questioned
how to reconcile the illegality of sex in prison with
providing condoms, and the potential for misusing condoms to
conceal contraband and to gas guards.
AB 999
Page 4
Inmates worried about perceptions that condoms condones sex
among inmates, that inmates would be judged as gay and
therefore negatively judged by family and friends, and the
possibility of being written up for rule violations.
According to the report, by the end of the pilot, both staff
and inmate concerns appeared to diminish, based on input from
inmate and custody staff representatives.
4)Current law .
a) Prohibits all sex acts, illegal and consensual, between
inmates, and makes sodomy and oral copulation in prison an
alternate felony/misdemeanor.
b) Requires CDCR, contingent on funding, to provide
HIV/AIDS health and prevention information to inmates.
5)The bill contains a long section of codified findings and
declarations, as well as recommendations, that should be
deleted or uncodified .
6)There is no registered opposition to this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081