BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 175|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 175
Author: Rainey (R), et al
Amended: 5/17/99
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 4/6/99
AYES: Vasconcellos, Johnston, McPherson, Polanco, Rainey
NOT VOTING: Burton
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 13-0, 5/10/99
AYES: Johnston, Alpert, Bowen, Burton, Escutia, Johnson,
Karnette, Kelley, Leslie, McPherson, Mountjoy, Perata,
Vasconcellos
SUBJECT : Prison Inmate Population Master Plan
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill enacts the Prison Inmate Population
Master Plan. This bill creates a new option for persons
convicted of felonies to be held in custody at the county
level, rather than in the state prison system. The bill
also creates a new Medical Detention Program, as specified,
and makes related changes.
ANALYSIS : 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
CONTINUED
SB 175
Page
2
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.
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
SB 175
Page
3
for targeted nonviolent offenders who are otherwise
prison-bound and jail-bound. "Intermediate punishments"
may be provided by ". . . correctional agencies directly
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:
1. Add uncodified Legislative findings and declarations,
including:
A. 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.
B. 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.
C. 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.
D. 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.
E. State and local corrections should be viewed as an
interconnected system that provides an array of
appropriate punishment alternatives.
SB 175
Page
4
1.Authorize a person who is convicted and sentenced for a
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 and the board makes a
finding that incarceration of felons in a county jail in
that county is either cost neutral or a savings to the
state when compared to the costs of incarcerating felons
of similar classification in state prison.
2.The terms of those contracts are added by this bill.
3.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.
4.Persons who are placed pursuant to a community-based
punishment plan would not be given a term of parole.
5.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.)
6.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:
1.Requires the department to establish a Medical Detention
SB 175
Page
5
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.
2.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
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."
The following synopsis has been provided to describe the
first part of this bill:
SB 175
Page
6
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.)
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
SB 175
Page
7
increasingly significant cost driver for state prisons.
This proposal has the potential for saving substantial
state tax dollars without jeopardizing public safety.
Prior Legislation :
SB 295 Passed the Senate on Consent 38-0, 6/5/97 --
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
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 1999-2000
2000-01 2001-02 Fund
County incarceration $ 20,000* $
60,000* $120,000* General
contracts offset by unknown state
prison incarceration
cost savings, potentially
significant
BOC administration $ 305 $
900 $ 1,000 General
Medical Detention One-time startup costs
probably under General
Program $150, unknown ongoing costs or
savings
Evaluation Panel --------- Under $150
annually ---------- General
*Based on intent language in the bill
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/11/99)
Little Hoover Commission
California Psychiatric Association (and requests amendment)
California Peace Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs' Association
SB 175
Page
8
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/11/99)
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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 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
SB 175
Page
9
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
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.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Correctional
Peace Officers Association letter to the author in
opposition includes the following:
1.. . . 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
SB 175
Page
10
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.
2.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?
3.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.
4.. . . we believe the structure that is established, which
requires any prisoner sentenced to under three years of
imprisonment to be clearly under the jurisdiction of the
state Department of Corrections is nonetheless paid for
by the state as if they were.
5.. . . the bill defines incarcerations as "supervision" or
"treatment". . . . Under this loose definition 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.
RJG:jk 5/19/99 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****