BILL ANALYSIS
SB 127
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 13, 2000
Chief Counsel: Bruce E. Chan
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Carl Washington, Chair
SB 127 (Polanco) - As Amended: June 6, 2000
SUMMARY : Requires the paroling authority to consider if an
inmate participated in an in-prison substance abuse treatment
program and the availability of aftercare in deciding whether to
release an inmate on parole to a county other than that of his
or her last legal residence. Specifically, this bill :
1)Adds to existing parole criteria by requiring that the
paroling authority shall, in cases where an inmate has
participated in an in-prison drug treatment program a mental
illness treatment program, or a combined treatment program for
substance abuse and a mental disorder, give "serious
consideration" to "releasing him or her to a county that has
an aftercare 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. 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."
2)Requires a report to the Legislature on or before March 1,
2002.
3)Provides for a sunset date of January 1, 2003.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires the Board of Prison Terms (BPT), in the case of
indeterminately sentenced prisoners, or the California
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).)
2)Provides that an inmate may be released to another county if
that would be in the best interests of the public. If the BPT
SB 127
Page 2
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).)
3)Sets forth criteria which the paroling authority shall
consider in paroling an inmate to a county other than the
county of last legal residence while still giving the greatest
weight to the protection of the victim and the safety of the
community:
a)The need to protect the life or safety of a victim, the
parolee, a witness, or any other person.
b)Public concern that would reduce the chance that the
inmate's parole would be successfully completed.
c)The verified existence of a work offer, or an educational
or vocational training program.
d)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.
e)The lack of necessary outpatient treatment programs for
parolees receiving treatment pursuant to Penal Code Section
2960 (treatment of severe mental disorders).
4)Provides that CDC, in determining an out-of-county commitment
for an inmate who participated in a joint venture program,
shall give priority to the safety of the community and any
witnesses and victims. 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), (d).)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "I have visited
SB 127
Page 3
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 CDC 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 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)Impact On Local Government: The California State Sheriffs'
Association (CSSA) writes in their "support in concept" letter
that: "We have requested that Senator Polanco consider
amendments so that local government and law enforcement
officials have proper input to ensure that we do not end up
SB 127
Page 4
with an over-concentration of parolees in one area simply
because there is a good drug treatment program in that area.
"We agree with the intent of the premise for SB 127 - that
inmates who are working a drug treatment program and want to
stay clean and sober should be given every opportunity to
continue in that program when they are released if it is
viable.
"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 the provisions of this section - into where parolees
are released and for what reasons.
"Please note that 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 wishes to participate in that
program."
3)Proposed Amendments: CSSA has suggested the following
amendments:
a)Prior to the paroling authority paroling an inmate to a
county other than that of last residence under this section
(the one about drug programs only - Section 303(b)(5)), the
board of supervisors of that county must have adopted a
resolution agreed to by the county sheriff that, at a
minimum: (i) agree to make private and county drug and
alcohol treatment program available to any person in the
state, without regard to the county of residence, if the
person meets the standard criteria for acceptance into the
program; (ii) find that an over-concentration of parolees
from out of county does not currently exist; and (iii) find
that the board of supervisors may, at any time, inform the
parole authority of any negative impacts on the public
safety of the county from release of parolees and request
that no more parolees be paroled to that county for
purposes of participating in a drug and alcohol treatment
program.
b)The board of supervisors may at any time, withdraw the
resolution upon a finding that an over-concentration of
parolees, as a result of out of county paroles pursuant to
SB 127
Page 5
Section 303 (b)(5).
c)The BPT shall give great weight to the input of the county
board of supervisors and county sheriff as it relates to
out of county placements under this provision.
d)The provisions of this section shall sunset January 1,
2003/4, with the report due to the Legislature March 1,
2003.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Psychiatric Association
Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Los Angeles County District Attorney
MAAC Project
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Riverside County Sheriff
Sam Bernardino County Sheriff
3 private citizens
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Bruce Chan / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744