BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1652
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 30, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 1652 (Ammiano) - As Amended: April 3, 2014
Policy Committee: Public Safety
Vote: 4-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill provides that a prison inmate may only be placed in a
Security Housing Unit (SHU) for violation of specified serious
offenses, and deletes the provision of law making a person who
is placed in a SHU upon validation as a gang member or associate
ineligible to earn sentence credits.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Significant ongoing out-year GF savings, likely in the low
millions of dollars, to the extent validated gang members and
associates no longer in SHU, who are not lifers, receive
sentence credits.
2)Significant one-time infrastructure costs (GF or bonds),
potentially in the low millions of dollars, assuming up to
2,200 SHU inmates would need to be transferred to general
population housing. Considering the scale of such a transfer,
and given the lack of available general population beds and a
federal court order to reduce the inmate population, it is
likely existing SHU beds would need to be converted to general
population, which would necessitate modification and addition
of recreation yard facilities and/or individual exercise
modules, programming and education space, and visitation
rooms. Cumulative costs at the five prisons that include a SHU
would likely be in the low millions of dollars.
In addition, or alternatively, CDCR could increase general
population capacity at existing non-SHU facilities, which also
would require costly retrofitting.
AB 1652
Page 2
3)Unknown, potentially significant ongoing GF costs, likely in
the low millions of dollars, to the extent former SHU inmates
who are validated gang members increase behavioral incidents
within the general population, which result in costs related
to the use of lockdowns, modified programming, and increased
staffing.
4)One-time GF costs for significant regulatory changes, likely
in the range of $100,000.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author, who has held four informational
hearings on SHU policy and has visited the Pelican Bay SHU,
contends the use of SHUs to house and punish inmates
indefinitely for real or alleged gang affiliation - rather
than for actual crimes or rule violations - is inappropriate.
According to the author, "As of last summer CDCR had assigned
more 4,500 inmates to SHUs in Pelican Bay, Corcoran, Tehachapi
and Valley State Prison for Women. Fewer than half of the
states allow indeterminate sentences to a SHU, and in many
states only a few prisoners at a time serve these long
sentences of a decade or more, whereas California has several
hundred that have been in a SHU for more than a decade?.
"This created numerous problems over the decades. Ultimately
it led to investigations and findings that conditions in
California's SHUs do not meet international human rights
standards regarding the treatment of incarcerated people. The
conditions amounted to torture, and groups are challenging the
constitutionality of the SHU. This bill is intended to limit
the use of solitary confinement to people who have committed
serious rule violations, and restore time credits for inmates
currently serving time in the SHU on a non-rule violation
assignment."
2)Current law provides that a person placed in a SHU,
Psychiatric Services Unit, Behavioral Management Unit, or an
Administrative Segregation Unit for specified violent
misconduct, or upon validation as a prison gang member or
associate, is ineligible to earn credits for time spent in a
SHU, Psychiatric Services Unit, Behavioral Management Unit, or
an Administrative Segregation Unit. (Provides that the loss of
credits prescribed above does not apply if the administrative
finding of the misconduct is overturned or if the person is
AB 1652
Page 3
criminally prosecuted for the misconduct and is found not
guilty.)
3)SHU Background . As detailed in the Assembly Public Safety
analysis, CDCR has SHUs in five institutions - Pelican Bay
State Prison, California State Prison in Corcoran, California
Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California State Prison
in Sacramento, and California Institution for Women. As of
April 2014, CDCR reports these SHUs had a population of about
2,200 validated prison gang members and associates.
Inmates are assigned to the SHU in two ways. First, inmates
may be assigned to the SHU for a determinate time period as
punishment for actions within a prison. If an inmate is found
guilty of violating specified rules, regulations, or laws, for
example, possessing a weapon, assault, or any of a series of
violent offenses, the inmate may be placed in the SHU for a
determinate period of time. Second, if an inmate is validated
as a member of a prison gang, the inmate may be placed in the
SHU for an indeterminate period.
As of February 2014, according to CDCR, 289 inmates have spent
more than 10 years in a SHU; 46 inmates have spent more than
20 years in a SHU; and 39 inmates have spent more than 25
years in a SHU.
Historically, an inmate placed in the SHU as a validated gang
member or associate would serve the remainder of his or her
sentence in the SHU, unless the institutional gang
investigator determined the inmate had no gang activity for
six years, or the inmate agreed to debrief. Debriefing
requires the inmate to provide gang investigators with
detailed information on alleged gang members and associates.
Most SHU inmates choose not to debrief, however, for fear of
reprisal.
In October 2012, CDCR implemented a 24-month pilot program
entitled "Security Threat Group Identification, Prevention,
and Management Instructional Memorandum." Under the Security
Threat Group (STG) Plan, gang members and affiliates are
placed in a step-down program that provides for graduated
housing, privileges, and personal interaction with the goal of
integrating participants back into the general population of
the prisons. While there are recommended time frames for each
step, there is no limit on how long an inmate may remain in
AB 1652
Page 4
each step. Debriefing remains available for inmates who do
not wish complete the step-down program.
In implementing the STG Plan, CDCR conducted reviews of
inmates currently in the SHU to determine whether their
continued placement in the SHU was appropriate. According to
CDCR, as of April 2014, CDCR had completed 551 reviews, and
355 of those inmates were released to the general population.
4)Inmate Hunger Strikes . In early July 2011 about 6,500 inmates
refused meals in protest over SHU status and condition. The
number of inmates gradually decreased until the hunger strike
ended on July 20, 2011. Following the strike, CDCR officials
agreed to a series of SHU changes such as wall calendars for
purchase, exercise equipment in SHU yards, annual photographs
for disciplinary free inmates, proctors for college
examinations, use of a CDCR ombudsman for monitoring and
auditing of food services, authorization of hobby items. CDCR
also agreed to conduct comprehensive reviews of SHU policies,
increased privileges based on disciplinary-free behavior, a
step-down process for SHU inmates, and a system that better
defines and weighs necessary points in the gang validation
process.
Last July 8, about 30,000 inmates joined a second hunger
strike led by Pelican Bay State Prison SHU inmates. The
inmates wanted more substantive changes to CDCR's policy for
validating inmates as gang leaders or accomplices. This strike
ended on September 5, 2013, with the promise of legislative
hearings on the use and conditions of solitary confinement in
California's prisons. Assemblymember Ammiano held
informational hearings in October 2013 and February 2014.
5)LA Times Op-Ed by CDCR Secretary Jeffrey Beard defends
gang/SHU policy .
"So what is this really about? Some of the men who
participated in the last hunger strike have since dropped out
of the gangs for religious or personal reasons, and they said
it best in recently filed court declarations. "Honestly, we
did not care about human rights," one inmate said about the
2011 hunger strike. "The objective was to get into the general
population, or mainline, and start running our street
regiments again." Another described the hunger strike this
AB 1652
Page 5
way: "We knew we could tap big time support through this
tactic, but we weren't trying to improve the conditions in the
SHU; we were trying to get out of the SHU to further our gang
agenda on the mainline."
"It's no different this time. The inmates calling the shots
are leaders in four of the most violent and influential prison
gangs in California: the Aryan Brotherhood, the Mexican Mafia,
Nuestra Familia and the Black Guerrilla Family. We're talking
about convicted murderers who are putting lives at risk to
advance their own agenda of violence." (LA Times, Aug. 6,
2013)
6)Supporters - including a list of inmate advocacy organizations
- generally cite fairness and the lack of due process for SHU
terms.
According to the CA Public Defenders Association, "In 2013,
California prisoners throughout the state went on a prolonged
hunger strike to demand changes in the desperate conditions of
inmates locked in the SHU, and in particular prison gang
members without hope of ever being released. For such status
offenders, the only path to release is 'debriefing.'
'Debriefing' is the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation's term for where a prison gang member or
associate renounces their gang affiliation by naming all of
the other gang members and their practices. Since
California's state prisons are already rife with inmate on
inmate violence 'debriefing' has the potential to make the
former gang member a target. Such a policy also puts members
of the community at risk since 'debriefed' former gang
members' families become targets as well."
7)Opponents - primarily law enforcement - cite public safety,
prison safety and deterrence as a need for a SHU option for
gang members.
According to the CA Correctional Peace Officers Association,
"By precluding prison gang leaders, associates and affiliates
from being placed in SHU, the measure would create a demand
for more general population beds, which do not exist.
Therefore, it is likely that the state would incur significant
capital outlay costs to convert SHU beds to general population
units. More importantly, the cost of returning these inmates
AB 1652
Page 6
to the general population are unknown, but potentially,
significant. To the extent that this bill makes it easier for
these inmates to be disruptive, or cause others to be
disruptive, in the general prison population, CDCR could incur
significant costs to deal with the consequences. Such costs
could include increased inmate supervision costs on an ongoing
basis.
"According to the CA State Sheriffs Association, "Prohibiting
gang members from being assigned to the SHU based solely on
their gang status reduces the SHU's efficacy and allowing a
gang member assigned to the SHU to earn credits minimizes the
sanction's utility.
"We are further concerned that this sort of micromanagement,
if approved by the Legislature and Governor, will soon be
applied to local detention facilities. For these reasons, we
must respectfully oppose AB 1652."
According to the CA District Attorneys Association, "Prison
gangs pose a serious threat to law enforcement officials,
fellow prisoners, and the general public safety of our
communities. While the ability of gang members to physically
commit crimes may stop at the walls of their facility, the
effect of their activities is often felt on a much larger
scale.
"The existing prohibition on prison gang members who are
assigned to a SHU (or similar unit) receiving additional
credit reductions is a useful tool in attempting to dissuade
gang activity in California prisons."
8)Related Legislation . SB 892 (Hancock) creates additional due
process procedures for determining if an inmate is a member of
or an associate of a gang, and subject to placement in a SHU.
SB 892 would also require data collection and reports to the
Legislature pertaining to inmates in a SHU and a Psychiatric
Services Unit. SB 892 is pending in the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
AB 1652
Page 7