BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON Public Safety
Senator John Vasconcellos, Chair S
1999-2000 Regular Session B
1
2
7
SB 127 (Polanco)
As amended January 3, 2000
Hearing date: January 11, 2000
Penal Code
SH:br
PLACEMENT ON PAROLE
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 103 - Chapter 440, Statutes of 1995
Support: California State Sheriffs' Association ("support
in concept")
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD THE PAROLING AUTHORITY BE REQUIRED TO GIVE "SERIOUS
CONSIDERATION" TO PAROLE OF INMATES OUT OF THE COUNTY OF LAST LEGAL
RESIDENCE WHEN THE INMATE HAS PARTICIPATED IN AN IN-PRISON DRUG
TREATMENT PROGRAM?
SHOULD THE CRITERIA TO BE CONSIDERED BE RELEASED TO A COUNTY WHICH
HAS AN AFTERCARE DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAM THAT IS BEST ALIGNED WITH
THE IN-PRISON PROGRAM AND THE NEEDS OF THE INMATE, WITH PRIORITY FOR
PLACEMENT IN A COUNTY WITH AN AFTERCARE PROGRAM WHICH ALLOWS
(More)
SB 127 (Polanco)
Page 2
CHILDREN TO BE PRESENT IF THE INMATE IS A PRIMARY CARETAKER OF THE
CHILDREN?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to add additional criteria to
which the paroling authority shall give "serious
consideration" for parole of inmates out of the county of
last legal residence when the inmate has participated in an
in-prison drug treatment program, as follows: release to a
county which has an aftercare drug treatment program that
is best aligned with the in-prison program and the needs of
the inmate, with priority for placement in a county with an
aftercare program which allows children to be present if
the inmate is a primary caretaker of the children.
Existing law generally requires the Board of Prison Terms
(BPT), in the case of indeterminately sentenced prisoners,
or the Department of Corrections (CDC), in the case of
determinately sentenced prisoners, to parole an inmate to
the county that was the last legal residence of the inmate
prior to his or her incarceration. (Penal Code section
3003(a))
Notwithstanding that general requirement, an inmate may be
released to another county if that would be in the best
interests of the public. If the BPT or the CDC decides to
return an inmate to another county, the agency making this
decision is required to place its reasons in writing in the
parolee's permanent record and send those reasons to
specified local law enforcement. (Penal Code section
3003(b))
Existing law sets forth criteria which the paroling
authority shall consider, among others, in paroling an
inmate to a county other than the county of last legal
residence and still giving the greatest weight to the
protection of the victim and the safety of the community:
(More)
SB 127 (Polanco)
Page 3
(1) The need to protect the life or safety of a victim,
the parolee, a witness, or any other person.
(2) Public concern that would reduce the chance that the
inmate's parole would be successfully completed.
(3) The verified existence of a work offer, or an
educational or vocational training program.
(4) The existence of family in another county with whom
the inmate has maintained strong ties and whose support
would increase the chance that the inmate's parole would
be successfully completed.
(5) The lack of necessary outpatient treatment programs
for parolees receiving treatment pursuant to Section 2960
(treatment of severe mental disorders).
Existing law further specifies that the Department of
Corrections, in determining an out-of-county commitment,
shall give priority to the safety of the community and any
witnesses and victims, and that, in making its decision
about an inmate who participated in a joint venture
program, the paroling authority shall give serious
consideration to
releasing him or her to the county where the joint venture
program employer is located if that employer states to the
paroling authority that he or she intends to employ the
inmate upon release. (Penal Code section 3003(c) and (d))
This bill adds the following to the criteria to be given
"serious consideration" for parole out of the county of
last legal residence for an inmate who participated in an
in-prison drug treatment program:
release to a county that has an aftercare drug treatment
program that is best aligned with the elements of the
in-prison program in which the inmate participated and
with the needs of the inmate and, that, if the inmate is
the primary caretaker of children, priority shall be
given to placement in a county that has an aftercare
program that allows children to be present.
(More)
SB 127 (Polanco)
Page 4
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
Background provided by the author includes the following:
I have visited several of our in-prison drug treatment
programs in the state. The one consistent message I get
from inmate-addicts who are serious about their recovery
is that they will not get to go into an aftercare drug
treatment program upon their release because their county
of last legal residence doesn't have such a program. I
have also heard from parolees who want to attend such a
program who have been told by their parole agent that
they cannot attend an out-of-county program.
National studies show, and the Department of Corrections
acknowledges, that in-prison treatment without aftercare
treatment is virtually a waste of taxpayer dollars. On
the other hand, a recent study by the National Center on
Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University
showed that when aftercare programs are fully implemented
and provided to inmates who have participated in a
treatment program in prison, there is a ten-fold return
on investment.
This bill is fiscally responsible by ensuring that the
millions of taxpayer dollars spent on in-prison drug
treatment is not wasted because there is no follow-up in
the community. The bill would give parole agents the
option of allowing a parolee to participate in a drug
treatment program outside of the county where they would
normally be paroled. The bill does not require a
parolee's placement in such a program - it requires the
paroling authority to "give serious consideration to"
paroling them to such a county.
I am working with the representatives of the California
State Association of Counties to resolve any concerns
they might have about a disproportionate influx of
(More)
SB 127 (Polanco)
Page 5
parolees to certain counties.
The recidivism rate is unacceptably high - close to 70%. A
large proportion of those parolees who end up back in
prison do so because of drug use. It is in the interest of
public safety to encourage parolees to be placed in
aftercare drug treatment - residential or outpatient -
instead of releasing them back into the environment which
supports the drug habit that got them into prison, thereby
promoting a vicious, expensive cycle.
2. Existing "Therapeutic Community" Drug Treatment
Programs in State Prisons
The California Department of Corrections currently has
approximately 5,000 prison beds dedicated to "drug
treatment" programs out of approximately 160,000 inmate
beds. That total includes beds at the Substance Abuse
Treatment Facility and State Prison at Corcoran (a
contiguous but separate facility from the California State
Prison at Corcoran; each of these institutions at Corcoran
has a separate perimeter) and other state facilities.
The drug treatment beds are generally organized on the
Therapeutic Community Model. Such programs are run on
contract with providers such as Amity, Walden House, and
Forever Free, and Phoenix House. Assuming 5,000 beds at
the present time, that is approximately 4% of the entire
inmate beds dedicated to such programs.
Last year's budget act contains the following specific
language which modifies the provisions pertaining to the
Department of Corrections:
13. Of the funds appropriated in this item, $6,000,000
shall be available only for drug treatment in
community-based aftercare for graduates of the In-Prison
Therapeutic Community Drug Treatment program. This
funding is intended to ensure that at least 50 percent of
the graduates from the In-Prison Therapeutic Community
(More)
SB 127 (Polanco)
Page 6
Drug Treatment Program are placed in community aftercare.
14. Of the funds appropriated in this item, $3,000,000
shall be available only for an additional 1,500 slots of
In-Prison Therapeutic Community Drug Treatment
programming. (SB 160 - Chapter 50, Statutes of 1999 -
page 412)
SB 1535 - Chapter 54, Statutes of 1999 - contains the
following contingency, which must occur before the new
prison authorized in the act may be opened:
(c) California State Prison-Kern County at Delano II
shall not be occupied until the Director of the
Department of Finance finds and reports to the
Legislature that the following has occurred:
The department has activated or made available a
total of 9,000 in-prison therapeutic drug treatment
slots or similar modalities.
3. Importance of "Aftercare" Drug Treatment Programs
It is generally recognized that the Therapeutic Community
Drug Treatment programs work best as a continuum. There is
thus a strong incentive for community aftercare to be part
of a successful program for inmates who are paroled into
the community. However, there may be several impediments
to the implementation of such aftercare programs, including
siting and staffing. Staff for such programs must be
trained in that continuum and there are real practical
limits on such staff development.
4. Current Release of Felons "Out of County"
It is committee staff's impression that the current policy
of the CDC is to consider paroling an inmate to a county
other than the county of last legal residence due to the
availability of a residential treatment program if the
inmate participated in an in-prison substance abuse
treatment program.
(More)
SB 127 (Polanco)
Page 7
The October 1, 1999, "CDC FACTS" includes the following
information about parolees:
POPULATION: Total: 114,430. One year
change: 5,612 + 5.2%.
Paroled to county of last legal residence:
85.7% Other: 14.3%
Region I (North/Central Valley): 23,291;
Region II (Bay Area/North, Central
Coast): 22,520; Region III (LA County):
39,113; Region IV (San Diego/S. CA):
29,506 Return rate (per 100 avg daily pop)
with new prison term: 14.1;
Return rate (per 100 avg daily pop) as parole
violator: 57.1
Top 5 counties: LA; 28.3%, San Diego; 6.3%,
San Bernardino; 5.7%, Orange;
5.2%, Riverside; 4.7%. (emphasis added)
(More)
SB 127 (Polanco)
Page 8
5. Possible Issue Raised by This Bill
This bill refers to "aftercare drug treatment program that
is best aligned with the elements of the in-prison program"
without further specifying whether the aftercare program
would be residential or a day program. It may be that the
limitations are best left non-specific. Regardless, there
may be some concern that this bill would result in more
inmates being diverted to counties, which have been more
willing or able to implement such programs. This bill does
not directly address the issue of whether inmates who would
otherwise be released to a county with aftercare programs
should have priority in placement in such programs over out
of county inmates where both would benefit from such
placement. Included in that issue may be whether or not if
a program was fully subscribed, a parolee from the county
could, would, or should "bump" an out of county parolee who
has been successfully working with the program.
Whether or not this bill would result in the inadvertent
consequence of some counties deliberately choosing not to
implement aftercare programs in order to "off load"
parolees to another county is not possible to ascertain.
Comment 6, below, quotes from the California State
Sheriffs' Association letter which suggests that local
government officials and local law enforcement "must have
input" in any out of county parolee placements pursuant to
this bill. Given that the Department of Corrections
indicates that it currently makes some number of such
placements, is there any statistical information to suggest
that more local input is needed or that adding such input
in statute would be beneficial in making such placements?
It may be that a sunset on the provisions of this bill
would be appropriate in order to allow for an evaluation of
the number of parolees who are placed pursuant to its
provisions - with a comparison to the number of parolees
placed out of county in prior years.
SB 127 (Polanco)
Page 9
6. Support for This Bill
The California State Sheriffs' Association writes in their
"support in concept" letter that:
We . . . respectively request that you work with us to
ensure that local government and law enforcement
officials have proper input to ensure that we do not end
up with an over-concentration of parolees in one area
simply because there is a good drug treatment program in
that area.
. . . CSSA suggests that in order for SB 127 to serve
both the inmate and the community in which the person
will be released, local government officials and local
law enforcement must have input - under provisions of
this section -into where parolees are released and for
what reasons. SB 127 does have the potential to create a
situation where a community is, in effect, punished for
having a drug treatment program because it will become
the release point for parolees that wish to participate
in that program.
We will gladly work with you and groups such as CSAC, the
League of California Cities, the California Police
Chiefs' Association and others to work out how best to
provide these opportunities to parolees while protecting
our communities.
***************