BILL ANALYSIS
SB 127
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 127 (Polanco)
As Amended August 25, 2000
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE : 38-0
PUBLIC SAFETY 5-2 APPROPRIATIONS 14-6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Washington, Cedillo, |Ayes:|Migden, Alquist, Aroner, |
| |Firebaugh, Keeley, Romero | |Cedillo, Corbett, Davis, |
| | | |Kuehl, Papan, Romero, |
| | | |Shelley, Thomson, Wesson, |
| | | |Wiggins, Wright |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Battin, Oller |Nays:|Campbell, Ackerman, |
| | | |Ashburn, Brewer, |
| | | |Maldonado, Zettel |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
will be the primary caretaker of children upon release,
priority shall be given to placement in a county that has an
aftercare program that allows children to be present."
2)Provides that the paroling authority shall ensure that the
placement of an out-of-county inmate in an aftercare program
not cause the displacement of a program participant who is a
resident of the county. The paroling authority shall consider
SB 127
Page 2
the input of the county board of supervisors and the county
sheriff.
3)Requires a report to the Legislature on or before September 1,
2002. The report shall include an assessment of the impact on
counties.
4)Provides for a sunset date of January 1, 2003.
5)Adds double-jointing language to this bill to avoid chaptering
out with SB 580 (Lewis), pending in the Senate.
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.
2)Provides that an inmate may be released to another county if
that would be in the best interests of the public. If BPT or
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.
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;
SB 127
Page 3
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; and,
e) The lack of necessary outpatient treatment programs for
parolees receiving treatment pursuant to Penal Code Section
2960 (treatment of severe mental disorders).
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee analysis:
1)Moderate General Fund costs, in excess of $150,000, to the
extent that parolees who would otherwise not receive aftercare
services do so as a result of this bill. At a cost of about
$50 per day, if 20 parolees received aftercare treatment for
six months as a result of this bill, the annual cost would be
about $180,000.
2)Absorbable costs to the CDC to produce a report.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "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 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
SB 127
Page 4
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."
Please see the policy committee analysis for a more
comprehensive discussion of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Bruce Chan / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
FN: 0006381