BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 127|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 127
Author: Polanco (D)
Amended: 8/25/00
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 4-0, 1/11/00
AYES: Vasconcellos, Burton, Johnston, Polanco
NOT VOTING: McPherson, Rainey
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SENATE FLOOR : 38-0, 1/27/00 (Consent)
AYES: Alarcon, Alpert, Bowen, Brulte, Burton, Chesbro,
Costa, Dunn, Escutia, Figueroa, Hayden, Haynes, Hughes,
Johnson, Johnston, Karnette, Kelley, Knight, Leslie,
Lewis, McPherson, Monteith, Morrow, Mountjoy, Murray,
O'Connell, Ortiz, Peace, Perata, Polanco, Poochigian,
Rainey, Schiff, Sher, Solis, Speier, Vasconcellos, Wright
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 56-21, 8/28/00 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Placement for parole
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill adds 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
CONTINUED
SB 127
Page
2
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.
Assembly Amendments :
1. Expand criteria to be considered prior to parole to
include specified programs.
2. Narrow guidelines for out-of-county placement.
3. Change the sunset date from 2005 to 2003 and other
related dates.
4. Require a report to the Legislature relative to the
impact of this bill.
5. Provide that parole not take place within one-quarter
mile of any school.
6. Double join the bill with SB 580 (Lewis) dealing with
stalkers.
ANALYSIS : 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
SB 127
Page
3
residence and still giving the greatest weight to the
protection of the victim and the safety of the community:
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, a mental illness
treatment program, or a combined treatment program for
substance abuse and a mental disorder:
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
SB 127
Page
4
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.
In making the decision, 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 where the
program is operated. The paroling authority would be
required to consider input of the county's board of
supervisors and the county sheriff where the placement is
scheduled to be made.
This bill would provide that, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, an inmate released on parole for a
violation of these crimes shall not be placed or reside,
for the duration of the period of parole, within
one-quarter mile of any school that includes any or all of
grades kindergarten to six, inclusive.
This bill would require the paroling authority to report to
the Legislature on or before September 1, 2002, regarding
the operation of the provisions of this bill. The report
would be required to include an assessment of the impact
that the provisions have had on the counties, the total
number of parolees who were placed in out-of-county
programs and whether or not there was any cost savings.
The provisions of this bill would sunset on January 1,
2003.
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
SB 127
Page
5
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/29/00)
California State Sheriffs' Association
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau
California Psychiatric Association
Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)
SB 127
Page
6
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
Riverside County Sheriff's Department
San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department
MAAC Project
Individual letters
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Alquist, Aroner, Bates, Bock, Calderon, Cardenas,
Cardoza, Cedillo, Corbett, Correa, Cunneen, Davis,
Ducheny, Dutra, Firebaugh, Florez, Gallegos, Havice,
Honda, Jackson, Keeley, Knox, Kuehl, Leach, Lempert,
Leonard, Longville, Lowenthal, Machado, Maldonado,
Margett, Mazzoni, Migden, Nakano, Olberg, Papan,
Pescetti, Reyes, Romero, Scott, Shelley, Steinberg,
Strickland, Strom-Martin, Thompson, Thomson, Torlakson,
Villaraigosa, Vincent, Washington, Wayne, Wesson,
SB 127
Page
7
Wiggins, Wildman, Wright, Hertzberg
NOES: Aanestad, Ackerman, Ashburn, Baldwin, Battin, Baugh,
Brewer, Briggs, Campbell, Cox, Dickerson, Granlund,
House, Kaloogian, Maddox, McClintock, Oller, Robert
Pacheco, Rod Pacheco, Runner, Zettel
RJG:jk 8/29/00 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****