BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON Public Safety
Senator John Vasconcellos, Chair S
1999-2000 Regular Session B
1
7
5
SB 175 (Rainey)
As IntroducedJanuary 12, 1999
Hearing date: April 6, 1999
Uncodified Law, Penal and EducationCodes
SH:br
(More)
SB 175 (Rainey)
Page 2
Prison Inmate Population Master Plan
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 295 (1997-98) - provisions deleted in
Assembly Appropriations Committee
SB 760 (1996) - in conference at end of
session
AB 126 (1996) - in conference at end of
session
AB 99x - Chapter 41, Statutes. of 1st Ex.
Session, 1994
Support: Little Hoover Commission; California Psychiatric
Association (and
requests amendment); California Peace Officers'
Association; California Police Chiefs' Association
Opposition:California Correctional Peace Officers
Association; California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
KEY ISSUES
(1) EXISTING LAW GENERALLY LIMITS CONFINEMENT IN LOCAL CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES
TO THOSE PERSONS COMMITTED FOR ONE YEAR OR LESS.
(CONTINUED)
SHOULD THE LAW BE CHANGED TO authorize a person who is convicted and sentenced
(More)
SB 175 (Rainey)
Page 3
for a nonviolent felony to be placed in a local correctional facility for not
more than 35 months, for purposes of treatment, incarceration, and
supervision, if the county in which the person is convicted has an approved
community-based punishment plan and has executed a contract with the Board of
Corrections to place that type of offender?
(2) EXISTING LAW AUTHORIZES THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO ESTABLISH PILOT
PROJECTS TO CONTRACT with private sector health care facilities for the
provision of medical, developmental, and mental health services.
SHOULD THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS BE ADDITIONALLY REQUIRED TO establish a
Medical Detention Program that uses licensed health care facilities for the
provision of medical, developmental, and mental health services necessary for
the treatment of severely ill, incapacitated, and disabled inmates, AS
SPECIFIED?
(3) SHOULD RELATED CHANGES BE MADE?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to (1) create a new option for
persons convicted of felonies to be held in custody at the
county level, rather than in the state prison system, (2)
to create a new Medical Detention Program, as specified,(3)
and to make related changes.
Under existing law the Director of the Department of
Corrections (CDC)is vested with the supervision, management
and control of the State prisons and is responsible for the
care, custody, treatment, training, discipline and
employment of persons confined in those prisons. The
Director may prescribe rules and regulations for the
administration of the prisons. (Penal Code sections 5054
and 5058)
Existing law provides that punishment for a felony is
imprisonment in the state prison for specified periods of
time and that parolees who violate their parole are subject
to be returned to state prison.
(More)
SB 175 (Rainey)
Page 4
Existing law authorizes the Director of Corrections to
contract with a city, county, or city and county, to permit
transfer of prisoners in the custody of the Director of
Corrections to a jail or other adult correctional facility
of the city, county, or city and county, if the sheriff or
corresponding official having jurisdiction over the
facility has consented. The agreement shall provide for
contributions to the city, county, or city and county
toward payment of costs incurred with reference to such
transferred prisoners. Eligible prisoners transferred to a
local facility may participate in programs of the facility,
including work furlough rehabilitation programs. No
agreement may be entered into under this section unless the
cost per inmate in the facility is no greater than the
average costs of keeping an inmate in a comparable facility
of the Department, as determined by the director. (Penal
Code sections 2910 - 2913)
Existing law authorizes the Department of Corrections to
establish pilot projects using contracts with private
sector health care facilities for the provision of medical,
developmental, and mental health services. Those services
may include comprehensive health services for individuals
with medical or rehabilitation needs, chronic diseases or
conditions, mental disorders, controlled substance
addiction, or developmental disabilities. Specified
restrictions apply, including requiring custody by peace
officers, no transfers for inmates with background of
escapes or committed for violent offenses, and locked
facilities. The authority for these pilots expires January
1, 2000. (Penal Code sections 6130 - 6134)
Existing law establishes the Community-Based Punishment Act
of 1994. That Act is administered by the Board of
Corrections and is designed to establish an option for a
county or counties to establish a continuum of sanctions
for targeted nonviolent offenders who are otherwise
prison-bound and jail-bound. "Intermediate punishments"
may be provided by ". . . correctional agencies directly
(More)
SB 175 (Rainey)
Page 5
or through community-based public or private correctional
service providers." (Penal Code sections 8050 - 8093)
This bill creates the Prison Inmate Population Master Plan
and would do the following to implement a community based
punishment program:
Add uncodified Legislative findings and declarations,
including:
(1) The state's prison inmate population is projected to
experience an unparalleled increase with the
implementation of the "Three Strikes" initiative
(Proposition 184) and the continuation of existing
sentencing trends.
(2) The practice of the imprisonment of new commitments
and parole violators in the state prison who serve not
more than thirty-five months offers little opportunity to
implement strategies to manage offender behavior and to
sustain long-term behavior change that would promote
public safety.
(3) A decline in local fiscal resources is debilitating
local correctional systems that are responsible for
county jails and probation, thereby threatening efforts
by local corrections to maintain public safety.
(4) Alternatives to imprisonment and probation
supervision, such as community-based punishment options,
are a cost-effective manner in which to maintain public
safety and at the same time manage and modify offender
behavior. The fiscal responsibility for these options
must be shared between the state and each county.
(5) State and local corrections should be viewed as an
interconnected system that provides an array of
appropriate punishment alternatives.
Authorize a person who is convicted and sentenced for a
(More)
SB 175 (Rainey)
Page 6
nonviolent felony, as specified, to be placed in a local
correctional facility for not more than thirty-five
months, for purposes of treatment, incarceration, and
supervision, if the county in which the person is
convicted has an approved community-based punishment plan
and has executed a contract with the Board of Corrections
to place that type of offender.
The terms of those contracts are added by this bill.
Authorizes the board of supervisors of any county to
designate a chief correctional administrator and a
correctional administrator, as defined, to administer
community-based punishment programs.
Persons who are placed pursuant to a community-based
punishment plan would not be given a term of parole.
Persons who are placed pursuant to a community-based
punishment plan would receive "goodtime/worktime"
sentence credits at the rate earned by county prisoners
which is one day for each six days served. (The types
of inmates who would qualify for county placement by this
bill would generally receive state prison time credits of
50% for participation in full-time state prison work or
education programs; however, this bill would also offer
community-based alternatives to incarceration, as
specified.)
Declares the intent of the Legislature to appropriate
money in the annual Budget Act for the costs of the
contracts for the community-based punishment programs
($20 million - FY 99-00; $60 million - FY 00-01; and $120
million - FY 01-02).
This bill also creates a new Medical Detention Program and
would add the following requirements for that Program:
Requires the department to establish a Medical Detention
Program that uses licensed health care facilities for the
(More)
SB 175 (Rainey)
Page 7
provision of medical, developmental, and mental health
services necessary for the treatment of severely ill,
incapacitated, and disabled inmates, as specified.
Requires the department to establish a Medical Detention
Evaluation Panel to make recommendations to the Director
of Corrections on inmate eligibility for the program.
This bill redefines the existing term "intermediate
sanctions" in the existing community-based punishment
program to instead use the term "intermediate punishments"
and adds to the definition of that term.
This bill would make conforming changes
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
Background provided by the author includes the following:
SB 175 would provide a reasonable, cost-effective
solution to prison overcrowding by enabling counties to
accept custody of certain low-risk, nonviolent felons
with sentences of 35 months or less. These inmates could
be dealt with at the county level for less than the cost
of prison incarceration, without any undue risk to public
safety. Felony inmates eligible for county custody would
specifically exclude any inmate with a total imposed
sentence of more than 35 months, or any inmate with a
history of serious offenses, violent offenses or any
history of escape.
The California Department of Corrections' Master Plan
predicts that "the growing inmate population will exceed
maximum prison operating capacity of 178,432 sometime in
the year 2000." The latest projections show that
California's prison inmate population will near 191,700
(More)
SB 175 (Rainey)
Page 8
by June of 2004. The most significant increase in
population is expected to be among Level I offenders, and
currently, Level I housing is insufficient to meet this
demand. SB 175 aims to bridge this gap by allowing
low-level, prison-bound felons with no history of violent
or serious offenses to serve their time at the county
level, either in county jails, or through community based
punishment programs such as work camps, boot camps,
electronic home detention, vocational training programs,
drug treatment programs and therapy.
This bill specifies that a person convicted of a felony
may not be punished by incarceration in the county if the
current felony conviction does not subject the offender
to, nor does the offender have a criminal record that
includes a conviction pursuant to, the provisions of
Penal Code section 667 (habitual criminals), Penal Code
section 667.51 (lewd or lascivious acts with a child
under 14), Penal Code section 667.71 (habitual sexual
offenders), Penal Code section 1170.12 (second- and
third-strike felons), Penal Code section 1203.066 (lewd
or lascivious acts of continuous sexual abuse of a child
under age 14), an offense in subdivision (c) of Penal
Code section 667.5 (violent felonies), or an offense in
subdivision ( c) or (e) of Penal Code section 1192.7
(serious felonies).
The following offenses are also ineligible for county
incarceration under this bill: manslaughter, gross
vehicular manslaughter, assault with a deadly weapon,
assault and battery offenses, rape, kidnapping, lewd and
lascivious acts with a child, oral copulation, sodomy,
penetration with a foreign object, other sex offenses,
burglary, participation in a criminal street gang, arson,
a violation of the Gun Free School Zone Act, escape or
failure to return, any offense where the defendant
personally possessed or used a firearm, or any other
specified firearm offense.
Under SB 175, the decision to accept custody of low-level
(More)
SB 175 (Rainey)
Page 9
felons is left entirely up to the counties. Nowhere in
this bill does it mandate counties to participate in
community based punishment programs. Instead, SB 175
would allow sheriffs of participating counties to
contract with the Board of Corrections to accept custody
of inmates, which meet the above criteria, with the
counties being reimbursed for each felony offender in
county custody. This bill will be phased in over three
years with funds being appropriated to the Board of
Corrections in the annual Budget Act--20 million dollars
for the 1999-2000 fiscal year, 60 million dollars for the
2000-01 fiscal year, and 120 million dollars for the
2001-02 fiscal year.
2. Current CDC Facts and Figures
As of March 28, 1999, the CDC had 159,911 inmates housed in
33 state prisons, 38 fire camps, 6 prisoner mother
facilities, and 16 Community Correctional Facilities.
The CDC Population Projection Unit projected inmate
population report prepared on August 24, 1998, projects the
following total populations: 173,100 (Yr. 2000); 181,686
(Yr. 2001); 190,629 (Yr. 2002); 199,276 (Yr. 2003); and
207,620 (Yr. 2004).
NOTE : Estimates such as these have generally been somewhat
higher than the actual numbers for projected years; in
addition, these estimates do not by themselves indicate
which level of incarceration space will be needed to house
inmates, whether Level I, II, III, or IV, with Level I
inmates needing the lowest level of security.
A Sacramento Bee article, April 2001, No More Room at Inn,
quoted Robert Presley, Director of the Youth and Adult
Correctional Agency (YACA) on the conditions in California
prisons. Presley told AP that the prison system "is
approaching critical
mass. . . [By] April, 2001 . . . we will have exhausted
every cranny and nook."
(More)
SB 175 (Rainey)
Page 10
3. Synopsis of the New Prison Inmate Population Master
Plan Created in This Bill
The following synopsis has been provided to describe the
first part of this bill:
State-County Corrections Partnership
"Non Strikers"--low level, non-violent and non-serious
inmates, sentenced to 35 months or less--could be
placed into intermediate punishment programs operated
by counties who contract with the state to take them.
The Board of Corrections would be responsible for
negotiating contracts benefiting both state and local
governments. Funding for county contracts would be
provided in the budget: 1999-00, $20 million;
2000-01, $60 million; 2001-02, $120 million. By the
third year, this could provide funding for
community-based punishment programs for 8,000 to
12,000 inmates.
Authorized by the Community Based Punishment Act in
1994 (AB 99x-Rainey), intermediate punishments are
programs that offer a cost effective alternative to
state prison while maintaining public safety. These
programs include short term "shock incarceration," day
reporting centers, home detention with electronic
monitoring, boot camps, mandatory community service,
intensive supervision, and restorative justice
programs such as mandatory victim restitution and
victim-offender reconciliation.
("Non Strikers" are defined as offenders whose current
or prior offense is non-violent and non-serious; no
first degree burglary, arson, escape or firearm
offenses.)
(More)
SB 175 (Rainey)
Page 11
4. The Medical Detention Program Created by This Bill
The following synopsis has been provided to describe the
first part of this bill:
Reduce Costs for Targeted Inmates
Severely Ill Inmates. Maximize federal financial
participation in the health care costs of severely ill
and incapacitated inmates by establishing a medical
detention category that allows severely ill inmates to
be placed into private nursing homes while remaining
in the custody of CDC. The Legislative Analyst has
previously estimated that by the year 2024, there will
be almost 50,000 inmates in state prison over age 60.
Health care will become an increasingly significant
cost driver for state prisons. This proposal has the
potential for saving substantial state tax dollars
without jeopardizing public safety.
SINCE THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CURRENTLY HAS THE
AUTHORITY FOR PILOT PROJECTS TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME GOALS
REGARDING PRIVATE INCARCERATION FOR SUCH INMATES, SHOULD
THAT PILOT PROJECT AUTHORITY BE DELETED OR SIMPLY LEFT TO
EXPIRE ON JANUARY 1, 2000?
SHOULD ANY OF THE LANGUAGE IN THAT PILOT PROJECT AND NOT IN
THIS BILL BE INCLUDED IN THIS BILL?
5. Limitations on Inmates Who May Participate in the
Proposed Community-Based Punishment Program
This bill adds a new Penal Code section 19.3 to limit the
types of persons who are normally state prison inmates who
may be transferred to the local level. That new section
contains an extensive list of commitment crimes which would
disqualify an inmate from local incarceration, including
current or previous serious or violent felonies as well as
specified crimes including specified sex offenses and other
offenses. A history of escape or attempted escape would
(More)
SB 175 (Rainey)
Page 12
also be grounds for disqualification for local
incarceration.
6. Additional Issues Raised by This Bill
There are likely to be a number of technical issues, which
are raised by this bill and its impact upon the existing
laws pertaining to the incarceration of "state prison
inmates."
It may be presumed that there will be a number of future
discussions about such issues. Whether technical or in
terms of the impact upon the current prison system of
potentially moving a significant number of inmates who
otherwise require relatively low levels of security.
In addition, the funding issues raised by this bill and the
actual amount of state funds transferred to the local
entities may need further clarification as well.
7. Opposition to This Bill
The California Correctional Peace Officers Association
letter to the author in opposition includes the following:
(More)
SB 175 (Rainey)
Page 13
. . . the use of "community based punishment" . . . may
be provided by "private correctional service providers".
Our association has a long history defending our still
emerging peace officer profession from privateers who
introduce a "for profit" motive in the business of
incarceration. We would like to work with your office to
ensure that the privatization envisioned by the bill does
not substitute private employees for those services which
are or should be provided by sworn peace officer
personnel.
How can the legislature in good conscience take for an
already strapped General Fund, additional revenues, to
handle "lighter weight" felons, triple the number
presently handled locally?
It seems patently unfair for the state to pay for those
minimum custody inmates at the average cost of state
prison inmates who will obviously require much higher
levels of security. Such a formula is a windfall for the
counties contracting with the state.
. . . we believe the structure that is established, which
requires any prisoner sentenced to under three years of
imprisonment to be clearly not under the jurisdiction of
the state Department of Corrections is nonetheless paid
for by the state as if they were.
. . . the bill defines incarcerations as "supervision" or
"treatment". . . . Under this loose d defintion the
state' s General Fund may in fact be paying for prisoners
at an "average cost of incarceration felons in the state
prison" and yet only receive some kind of supervision or
treatment program at the local level.
8. Request for Amendment from the California Psychiatric
Association
The California Psychiatric Association has requested that
SB 175 (Rainey)
Page 14
the Medical Detention Evaluation Panel proposed by this
bill - five members with either a medical or correctional
background - be amended to require that at least one of
those members be a physician. Three members of that panel
are to be appointed by the Governor and one each is to be
appointed by the Senate Rules Committee and the Speaker of
the Assembly.
9. Technical Amendments to This Bill
Legislative Counsel has provided the author with technical
amendment to this bill as introduced (which could also be
added whenever this bill is otherwise amended). Those
amendments delete and replace section 4 of the bill as
introduced with all new Penal Code section 17 language
which includes not only the changes made to that Penal Code
section by this bill as introduced but also picks up the
change made to that section by AB 2560 - Chapter 960,
Statutes of 1998 - which took effect on January 1, 1999.
This bill should also be amended at the same time to delete
section 7 of the bill in its entirety. Section 7 contains
the changes made by this bill to the provisions of Penal
Code section 2900.5 that was in effect until January 1,
1999. Section 8 of the bill contains the changes being
made to the version of Penal Code section 2900.5 which took
effect on January 1, 1999 and thus now in effect. The
"old" section 2900.5 language no longer needs to be in this
bill.
***************