SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Senator Jim Beall, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: AB 1687 Hearing Date: 7/9/2019

SUBJECT: Outdoor advertising displays: exemptions

DIGEST: This bill expands the exemptions from the Outdoor Advertising Act (OAA) for sports stadiums.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the OAA, which regulates the size, illumination, orientation, and location of advertising displays adjacent to and within specified distances of interstate or primary highways, and, with some exceptions, specifically prohibits any advertising display from being placed or maintained on property adjacent to a section of landscaped highway.
2. Generally exempts OAA application to on premise advertising displays, which include those advertising the sale of the property upon which it is placed or that advertise the business conducted, services rendered, or goods produced or sold on the property. Local government regulates on premise displays, except for certain safety requirements.
3. Exempts advertising displays associated with sports arenas, as defined, from specific provisions of the OAA, provided that advertising display only includes products, goods, or services sold within that area on a regular basis, or marketed or promoted in that area pursuant to a sponsorship marketing plan, provided that the display is authorized by January 1, 2021. Advertising for distilled spirits, tobacco, firearms, or sexually explicitly material is not permitted.
4. Defines a "sponsorship marketing plan" as an agreement between the property owner, facility owner, facility operator, or occupant of the premises of an arena and a sponsor pursuant to which the sponsor is allowed to include its logo, slogan, and that the agreement is for a duration of not less than one year.
5. Requires the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to assess penalties for a violation of the OAA, as specified.
6. Provides, by contractual agreement, for Caltrans to administer the federal Outdoor Advertising Control (OAC) program, which has restrictions similar to California’s OAA program, including maximum sign size, sign spacing, location, illumination, and content. If the state fails to properly administer the federal program, the state shall lose 10% of its federal highway funding.

This bill:

1. Extends the exemption from the OAA for advertising displays on the premises of a sports arenas for displays authorized as of January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2028.
2. Relaxes the requirement that the sponsorship marketing plans, which are required of the sports arenas, be of one-year duration and instead allows for weekly marketing plans during a sports league season or at least 30 days duration if outside the sports league season.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s Statement. Existing law places a number of limitations on the ability of stadiums and arenas to advertise and, by extension generate revenue. As California continues to encourage the construction of stadiums without the use of public dollars, we must amend existing law to provide additional flexibility in finding revenue streams. This bill is a modest change in the law that will protect California taxpayers while encouraging development and job creation.
2. What Does the Arena Exemption Provide? A combination of state and federal requirements govern the placement and operation of all outdoor advertising. Advertising displays associated with sports arenas have been exempted from some state requirements, though state law cannot provide an exemption from the federal requirements. The primary benefit of the sports arena is that it allows advertising displays to be erected on landscaped and scenic highways. While the arena exemption also applies to other state law that, for example, limits the size and character of the displays (e.g. glare, flashing lights), federal law covers most of the same provisions.
3. In the Beginning. The arena exemption was established in 2008, a result of an effort to develop alternatives to public funding of professional sports arenas. Over the years, the exemption was clarified to limit the advertising displays to products and services actually sold at the arena and to products and services with which the arena had a sponsorship plan of at least one year. This was viewed as a compromise which addressed the concerns of arena developers to maximize advertising revenue and the outdoor advertising industry which faced new, heavily funded competition that built new advertising displays in areas which had previously been off-limits to outdoor advertisers.
4. Fair Competition? The arena exemption was originally established to help fund new sports arenas. In this case the arena associated with the sponsor has already been built and is home to a successful soccer team and numerous events. The shortening of the duration of the sponsorship marketing plan proposed in this bill will increase the revenue for the bill sponsor as it will allow advertising for special events and promotions. However, it comes at the expense of the traditional outdoor advertising companies, which were legally prohibited from building the same advertising displays because they did not enjoy the same exemption as the arenas. Whether this is fair is the basis for supporting or opposing this bill. It should be noted that this exemption will apply to all arena billboards, not just the ones associated with the bill sponsor.
5. Sunset Extension? The extension of the sunset opens the door for many other arenas to take advantage of the arena exemption. But there’s been no demonstration by any other entity that such an exemption is necessary. And it is not needed by the sponsor of this bill as the necessary approvals will be obtained by the existing sunset date. The author may wish to consider deleting the sunset extension.
6. Last Time. The last major revision to the OAA was in 2016 when legislation was passed to allow additional outdoor advertising associated with a large entertainment venue in downtown Los Angeles (AB 1373; Santiago – Chapter 853 of 2016). This committee included language to ensure that federal highway funding was not put at risk by the associated displays by ensuring that the displays were preapproved before construction. The author may wish to consider including similar language in this bill.
7. Gut and Amend. This is a new bill which, until June 20, dealt with prisoner rehabilitation.

Related Legislation:

AB 700 (Jones-Sawyer; Chapter 337 of 2017) — Extends the sunset on the arena exemption created in SB 31 from January 1, 2019 to January 1, 2021.

AB 1373 (Santiago; Chapter 853 of 2016) — Authorized additional outdoor advertising associated with a large entertainment venue in downtown Los Angeles.

SB 31 (Padilla; Chapter 542 of 2013) — Allows arenas to display advertising on two displays for products, goods, or services sold on premises as well as part of a long-term sponsorship marketing plan if the arena is on public land and has a capacity of 15,000 or more seats. Authority to erect new displays sunsets on January 1, 2019.

SB 190 (Perata; Chapter 54 of 2001) — Exempted from the OAA the prohibition against placing advertising displays adjacent to landscaped freeways, up to five advertising structures or signs (billboards) used to support the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Complex.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,

July 3, 2019.)

SUPPORT:

Los Angeles Football Club (sponsor)

Oakland Athletics

OPPOSITION:

Bulletin Displays

California State Outdoor Advertising Association

General Outdoor Advertising

Lamar Advertising

Meadown Outdoor Advertising

Stott Outdoor Advertising

Veale Outdoor Advertising

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1687

Author:(Jones-Sawyer and Calderon)

As Amended Ver:May 16, 2019

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Requires the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to report to the Legislature on CDCR's implementation of the State Auditor's recommendations in the 2019 report entitled, "Several Poor Administrative Practices Have Hindered Reductions in Recidivism and Denied Inmates Access to In‑Prison Rehabilitation Programs."

Major Provisions

1. Declares that it is the intent of the Legislature that CDCR, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), and the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB) regularly provide information to the Legislature to allow it to better assess the performance of the department in establishing all of the following:
   1. Rehabilitative program performance targets, including an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of those programs and an analysis of the programs' success at reducing recidivism;
   2. Systems to ensure that rehabilitative programs are providing a significant benefit to program participants, and that those benefits are commensurate with the Legislature's investment in rehabilitative programs; and,
   3. Processes to ensure that inmates who are most in need of rehabilitative programs do in fact receive access to those programs.
2. Requires that on or before January 10, 2020, and annually thereafter, CDCR shall report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and to the public safety committees of both houses of the Legislature on CDCR's implementation of the State Auditor's recommendations as contained in the 2019 report entitled "Several Poor Administrative Practices Have Hindered Reductions in Recidivism and Denied Inmates Access to In‑Prison Rehabilitation Programs," as specified.
3. Requires the OIG to provide public oversight of CDCR's data collection and issue an annual, public report summarizing its oversight and recommendations.
4. Requires CDCR to submit its report to C-ROB at its next public meeting and requires C-ROB to consider the report when making findings and recommendations to the Legislature.

COMMENTS:

According to the Author:

"The State Auditor's report highlighted some corrections programs that have had some demonstrable success in reducing recidivism. However, the audit also made clear areas where improvement is needed. Most striking, the report notes that if these programs are just 11% successful, stopping one in every nine inmates from returning to prison, in-prison cognitive behavioral programming will pay for itself without any additional cost to taxpayers, freeing state funds for educational programs, affordable housing, and combatting rising healthcare costs. We must stop throwing taxpayer money at problems, without demanding demonstrative results."

Arguments in Support:

According to the California Public Defender's Association: "In 2019, the State Auditor drafted a report entitled "Several Poor Administrative Practices Have Hindered Reductions in Recidivism and Denied Inmates Access to In-Prison Rehabilitation Programs." In addition to detailing the deficiencies and harmful practices, the State Auditor listed corrective recommendations. Assembly Bill 1687 will require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Office of the Inspector General, and the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board to routinely provide the Legislature with information, so that the legislature can knowledgeably (1) evaluate the performance of rehabilitative programs, (2) assess the evidenced-based foundation for the systems that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has established, and (3) ensure that individuals who need rehabilitation are receiving the services."

"Effective rehabilitation reduces recidivism, which emphasizes the value of human life and saves the state money by lessening incarceration. Ultimately, Assembly Bill 1687 is about 1) rehabilitation, 2) effectiveness, and 3) efficiency."

Arguments in Opposition:

None

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Costs (GF) likely between $150,000 and $300,000 in additional workload and information technology (IT) improvements for CDCR to collect and analyze new data on in-prison rehabilitation programs pertaining to staffing, rates of inmate enrollment and successful completion.
2. Costs (GF) of likely less than $150,000 annually for OIG to provide public oversight of CDCR's data collection and reporting process.

VOTES:

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 8-0-0

YES: Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Bauer-Kahan, Diep, Kamlager-Dove, Quirk, Santiago, Wicks

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 18-0-0

YES: Gonzalez, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonta, Brough, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Diep, Eggman, Fong, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Maienschein, Obernolte, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Robert Rivas

UPDATED:

VERSION: May 16, 2019

CONSULTANT: Matthew Fleming / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0000835

Date of Hearing: May 8, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1687

Author:(Jones-Sawyer) – As Amended Ver:April 25, 2019

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires, on or before January 10, 2020, and annually thereafter, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB) and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to report to the Legislature on CDCR’s implementation of the State Auditor’s recommendations in the 2019 report entitled, “Several Poor Administrative Practices Have Hindered Reductions in Recidivism and Denied Inmates Access to In‑Prison Rehabilitation Programs.”

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Costs (GF) of approximately $872,000 annually to OIG for six new positions to provide oversight of CDCR’s data collection and analysis efforts.
2. Costs (GF) likely between $150,000 and $300,000 in additional workload and information technology (IT) improvements for CDCR to collect and analyze new data on in-prison rehabilitation programs pertaining to staffing, rates of inmate enrollment and successful completion.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. The purpose of this bill is to address CDCR’s failure to reduce recidivism through in-custody programming. According to the author:

[T]he report notes that if these [recidivism reduction] programs are just 11% successful, stopping one in every nine inmates from returning to prison, in-prison cognitive behavioral programming will pay for itself without any additional cost to taxpayers, freeing state funds for educational programs, affordable housing, and combatting rising healthcare costs.

1. Background: Although the prison population has decreased as a result of significant criminal justice reform, the recidivism rate has remained constant. Approximately 7 of 10 inmates will re-offend within three years of release. This bill requires CDCR, C-ROB and the OIG to report to the Legislature on rates of enrollment in recidivism reduction programs, success rates, staffing levels and completion rates. In 2007, the Legislature similarly enacted reporting requirements on recidivism reduction. AB 900 (Solorio), Chapter 7, Statutes of 2007, created C-ROB within OIG. C-ROB's mandate is to regularly examine the various mental health, substance abuse, educational and employment programs for inmates and parolees operated by the CDCR and report to the governor and Legislature. C-ROB reports include findings on the effectiveness of treatment efforts, rehabilitation needs of offenders, gaps in offender rehabilitation services in the department and levels of offender participation and success in the programs.
2. Related Legislation. AB 561 (Burke) requires CDCR to complete a statewide evaluation of rehabilitation programs by January 1, 2022. AB 561 is pending hearing in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
3. Prior Legislation. AB 900 (Solorio) Chapter 7, Statutes of 2007, among other things, implemented C-ROB and requires CDCR to develop and implement a plan to obtain additional rehabilitation and treatment services for prison inmates and parolees.

Analysis Prepared by: Kimberly Horiuchi / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 23, 2019

Counsel: Matthew Fleming

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1687

Author:(Jones-Sawyer) – As Amended Ver:March 21, 2019

As Proposed to be Amended in Committee

SUMMARY:

Requires the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB), and the Inspector General to report to the Legislature on CDCR’s implementation of the State Auditor’s recommendations in the 2019 report entitled, “Several Poor Administrative Practices Have Hindered Reductions in Recidivism and Denied Inmates Access to In‑Prison Rehabilitation Programs.” Specifically, this bill:

1. Declares that it is the intent of the Legislature that CDCR, the Office of the Inspector General, and the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board regularly provide information to the Legislature to allow it to better assess the performance of the department in establishing all of the following:
   
   1. Rehabilitative program performance targets, including an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of those programs and an analysis of the programs’ success at reducing recidivism;
      
   2. Systems to ensure that rehabilitative programs are providing a significant benefit to program participants, and that those benefits are commensurate with the Legislature’s investment in rehabilitative programs; and,
      
   3. Processes to ensure that inmates who are most in need of rehabilitative programs do in fact receive access to those programs.
      
2. Requires that on or before January 10, 2020, and annually thereafter, CDCR, the Office of the Inspector General, and C-ROB report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and to the public safety committees of both houses of the Legislature on CDCR’s implementation of the State Auditor’s recommendations as contained in the 2019 report entitled “Several Poor Administrative Practices Have Hindered Reductions in Recidivism and Denied Inmates Access to In‑Prison Rehabilitation Programs.” The annual report should include all of the following:
   
   1. Data on rehabilitation program success, including participant testimony, as discussed in the University of California, Irvine study on the department’s rehabilitation programs entitled, “CPAP Assessment of CDCR Recidivism-Reduction Programs.^[1]”
      
   2. The percentage of inmates that were recommended for rehabilitation programs who actually received the rehabilitation services;
      
   3. Data on the placement of inmates on rehabilitation program waiting lists after they have been identified as candidates for rehabilitation programs;
      
   4. Data on staffing levels for rehabilitation programs and a description of current efforts to reach full staffing;
      
   5. The number of sanctions or other adverse actions taken against rehabilitation program vendors in the previous year;
      
   6. Data on the Prison Industry Authority program participation and a description of efforts to increase participation;
      
   7. Data on infrastructure capacity for rehabilitation programs and additional space needed, if any;
      
   8. Data on federal recidivism funds applied for by the department in the prior year;
      
   9. Data on rehabilitation program completion rates;
      
   10. Data on inmates receiving rehabilitation programs in their areas of expressed need;
       
   11. Data on recidivism rates for each rehabilitation program in operation over the previous year; and,
       
   12. Data on the success of volunteer programs in rehabilitation and preventing recidivism.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires CDCR to develop and implement, by January 15, 2008, a plan to address management deficiencies within the department and states that the plan should, at a minimum, address all of the following:
   
   1. Filling vacancies in management positions within the department;
      
   2. Improving lines of accountability within the department;
      
   3. Standardizing processes to improve management;
      
   4. Improving communication within headquarters, between headquarters, institutions and parole offices, and between institutions and parole offices;
      
   5. Developing and implementing more comprehensive plans for management of the prison inmate and parole populations;
      
   6. The department may contract with an outside entity that has expertise in management of complex public and law enforcement organizations to assist in identifying and addressing deficiencies. (Pen. Code, § 2061.)
      
2. Requires CDCR to develop and implement a plan to obtain additional rehabilitation and treatment services for prison inmates and parolees and states that the plan shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:
   
   1. Plans to fill vacant state staff positions that provide direct and indirect rehabilitation and treatment services to inmates and parolees;
      
   2. Plans to fill vacant staff positions that provide custody and supervision services for inmates and parolees;
      
   3. Plans to obtain from local governments and contractors services for parolees needing treatment while in the community and services that can be brought to inmates within prisons; and,
      
   4. Plans to enter into agreements with community colleges to accelerate training and education of rehabilitation and treatment personnel, and modifications to the licensing and certification requirements of state licensing agencies that can accelerate the availability and hiring of rehabilitation and treatment personnel.
      
3. Requires that by January 10 of each year, CDCR shall provide to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee operational and fiscal information to be displayed in the Governor’s proposed budget. This information shall include data for the three most recently ended fiscal years, and shall include, but is not limited to, the following:
   
   1. Per capita costs, average daily population, and offender to staff ratios for each of the following:
      
      1. Adult inmates housed in state prisons;
         
      2. Adult inmates housed in Community Correctional Facilities and out-of-state facilities;
         
      3. Adult parolees supervised in the community;
         
      4. Juvenile wards housed in state facilities; and,
         
      5. Juvenile parolees supervised in the community.
         
   2. Total expenditures and average daily population for each adult and juvenile institution.
      
   3. Number of established positions and percent of those positions vacant on June 30 for each of the following classifications within the department:
      1. Correctional officer;
         
      2. Correctional sergeant;
         
      3. Correctional lieutenant;
         
      4. Parole agent;
         
      5. Youth correctional counselor;
         
      6. Youth correctional officer;
         
      7. Physician;
         
      8. Registered nurse;
         
      9. Psychiatrist;
         
      10. Psychologist;
          
      11. Dentist;
          
      12. Teacher;
          
      13. Vocational instructor; and,
          
      14. Licensed vocational nurse.
          
   4. Average population of juvenile wards classified by board category;
      
   5. Average population of adult inmates classified by security level;
      
   6. Average population of adult parolees classified by supervision level;
      
   7. Number of new admissions from courts, parole violators with new terms, and parole violators returned to custody;
      
   8. Number of probable cause hearings, revocation hearings, and parole suitability hearings conducted;
      
   9. For both adult and juvenile facilities, the number of budgeted slots, actual enrollment, and average daily attendance for institutional academic and vocational education and substance abuse programs; and,
      
   10. Average population of mentally ill offenders classified by Correctional Clinical Case Management System or Enhanced Outpatient Program status, as well as information about mentally ill offenders in more acute levels of care.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “The State Auditor’s report highlighted some corrections programs that have had some demonstrable success in reducing recidivism. However, the audit also made clear areas where improvement is needed. Most striking, the report notes that if these programs are just 11% successful, stopping one in every nine inmates from returning to prison, in-prison cognitive behavioral programming will pay for itself without any additional cost to taxpayers, freeing state funds for educational programs, affordable housing, and combatting rising healthcare costs. We must stop throwing taxpayer money at problems, without demanding demonstrative results.”
   
2. California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB): (Solorio) Chapter 7, Statutes of 2007, among other things, created the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB) within the Office of the Inspector General. C-ROB's mandate is to regularly examine the various mental health, substance abuse, educational, and employment programs for inmates and parolees operated by the CDCR.
   
   C-ROB is required to meet at least biannually and submit reports to the Governor and the Legislature annually, on September 15. C-ROB reports include findings on the effectiveness of treatment efforts, rehabilitation needs of offenders, gaps in offender rehabilitation services in the department, and levels of offender participation and success in the programs. C-ROB also makes recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature with respect to modifications, additions, and eliminations of offender rehabilitation and treatment programs. C-ROB reports are available to the public its website. (https://www.oig.ca.gov/pages/c-rob.php#.)
   
3. 2019 State Auditor Report on CDCR Rehabilitation Programs: On January 31, 2019, the California State Auditor released a report concerning the effectiveness of in-prison rehabilitation programs at CDCR. The report is entitled Several Poor Administrative Practices Have Hindered Reductions in Recidivism and Denied Inmates Access to In‑Prison Rehabilitation Programs, and is available online. (California State Auditor, Jan. 2019, available at: https://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2018-113.pdf.) By way of background: To reduce the likelihood of inmates reoffending within three years of their release dates, CDCR began increasing inmates’ access to in‑prison rehabilitation programs to meet the needs of inmates before their release from one of 36 adult prisons across the State. Although the number of inmates housed in state prisons has decreased over the years, the recidivism rate for inmates in California has remained relatively constant. In addition to academic and vocational programs, CDCR has expanded to all prisons its cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) reentry programs, which are designed to correct an inmate’s patterns of thinking and behavior. CDCR determines what in‑prison rehabilitation programs inmates need through the assessments that it requires inmates to take upon entering an institution. (https://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/factsheets/2018-113.pdf.)
   
   The key findings of the auditor’s report were: 1) CDCR’s Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) programs have not reduced recidivism; 2) CDCR has neither placed inmates on program waiting lists appropriately nor assigned inmates to the programs necessary to address their rehabilitative needs, and 3) CDCR has not established performance measures for its rehabilitation programs nor has it measured their cost effectiveness and thus does not know if its programs reduce recidivism.
   

In regards CBT programs, the auditor stated that CDCR has not properly assessed its own ability to determine inmates’ needs and therefore is potentially placing certain inmates into programs that will not be the most effective at reducing the possibility of reoffending. In addition, the auditor stated that a lack of oversight by CDCR resulted in numerous CBT programs being administered that have not been evaluated and shown to have a positive impact on program participants. According to the audit, nearly 20 percent of the CBT programming that it reviewed in CDCR facilities had not been shown to be effective at reducing recidivism. (Auditor’s Report, supra at 19.) For waitlist issues, the auditor found that CDCR has historically struggled with high staff vacancy rates for its academic and vocational education programs. In addition, for the three prisons the auditor reviewed, the enrollment rate for rehabilitation programs was 45 to 76 percent of full capacity. Finally, the report indicates that CDCR has not yet established performance measures for rehabilitation programs and therefore doesn’t know the extent of their cost-effectiveness.

The audit concludes by making recommendations to the Legislature, C-ROB, and CDCR. The recommendations to the Legislature include requiring CDCR to issue an annual report on the effectiveness of the rehabilitation programs on recidivism, which would be accomplished by the provisions of this bill. This bill would require specific information to be included in the report, including the effectiveness of rehabilitative programs as discussed in the University of California, Irvine study on the department’s rehabilitation programs entitled, CPAP Assessment of CDCR Recidivism-Reduction Programs. (https://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/2013/06/CPAP-Assessment-of-CDCR.pdf.) It would further require information and data on problems identified by the auditor such as the placement of inmates on waitlists as well as staffing levels. This would appear to address the auditor’s recommendation to the Legislature in terms of holding CDCR accountable for the effectiveness of its rehabilitative programs. (Auditor’s Report, supra at 44.) A companion bill, AB 1688 (Calderon) would address the auditor’s recommendations regarding external researchers and performance targets.

1. Responses to the Audit: In response to the audit, C-ROB submitted the following:

“Thank you for including the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB) in your recent audit of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's (CDCR) rehabilitative programming. We appreciate the work your office has done in preparing this audit. We also appreciate that you realize this board lacks the resources, funding and legislative authority necessary to implement the recommendations set forth in the audit report.” (Id. at 65.)

CDCR submitted the following response:

“The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) submits this letter in response to the California State Auditor's (CSA) audit of CDCR's in-prison rehabilitation programs.

“CDCR considers rehabilitation one of its highest priorities. In the most recent fiscal years following California's historic recession, CDCR placed significant focus on re-establishing rehabilitative programs statewide. CDCR continues to champion a culture focused on rehabilitation that addresses the critical needs of the Department's population. CDCR's rehabilitation efforts go beyond the in-prison Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT) programs which are the main focus of the CSA's report. As stated in the report, CBT programs comprise just 26 percent of all rehabilitative programs; the remaining 74 percent comprise academic and career technical education. CDCR believes that robust in-prison rehabilitation opportunities followed by aftercare are essential to holistically addressing the criminogenic needs of the offender population and truly impacting recidivism.

“CSA's report on CDCR's in-prison programming highlights areas where CDCR is already taking action to improve. Moreover, CDCR's significant efforts in recent fiscal year go beyond those raised in the report. These current efforts include:

1. Creation of in-prison cognitive behavioral treatment program accountability and fidelity tools. In collaboration with external researchers, CDCR has developed and is currently implementing program accountability and fidelity tools. Research shows that fidelity can significantly impact the efficacy (recidivism effects) of programming. CDCR believes that ensuring vendors adhere to the fidelity of the implemented models will produce reductions in recidivism.

2. Modification to in-prison CBT contracts.
CDCR is already in the process of finalizing future treatment contract language to ensure that CDCR vendors are delivering treatment programming consistent with the highest likelihood for positive outcomes.

3. Development and implementation of technology tools aimed at improving offenders' engagement in rehabilitative programs.
In the previous fiscal year, data analytic tools were developed and implemented to ensure that CDCR staff have the ability to prioritize offender placement into programming. Additionally, weekly and detailed monthly reports have been developed to further monitor performance expectations at the local level. These tools, combined with planned technology initiatives in 2019, will help ensure that the right offenders are getting into the right programs at the right time.

4. Expansion and development of career technical education.

CDCR will continue to work in collaboration with Prison Industry Authority to establish career technical education programs that best prepare inmates for employment and success upon reentry.

5. Conduct research on CDCR rehabilitative programs.

CDCR will continue the development of partnerships with external researchers to allow for output and outcome-based research opportunities that demonstrate the full impact of programming on the offender population. As noted in the audit, because of recent expansions, CDCR has continued to focus on a number of priority issues critical to robust research, including data collection, data extraction, and program accountability and fidelity.

“CDCR welcomes the insights provided by the auditors and would like to thank CSA for their work on this report. CDCR will address the specific recommendations in a corrective action plan within the timelines outlined in the report.” (Id. at 61-62.)

1. Argument in Support: According to the California Public Defender’s Association: “In 2019, the State Auditor drafted a report entitled “Several Poor Administrative Practices Have Hindered Reductions in Recidivism and Denied Inmates Access to In-Prison Rehabilitation Programs.” In addition to detailing the deficiencies and harmful practices, the State Auditor listed corrective recommendations. Assembly Bill 1687 will require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Office of the Inspector General, and the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board to routinely provide the Legislature with information, so that the legislature can knowledgeably (1) evaluate the performance of rehabilitative programs, (2) assess the evidenced-based foundation for the systems that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has established, and (3) ensure that individuals who need rehabilitation are receiving the services.”

“Effective rehabilitation reduces recidivism, which emphasizes the value of human life and saves the state money by lessening incarceration. Ultimately, Assembly Bill 1687 is about (1) rehabilitation, (2) effectiveness, and (3) efficiency.”

1. Related Legislation: AB 561 (Burke) would require CDCR to complete a statewide evaluation of rehabilitation programs by January 1, 2022. AB 561 is pending hearing in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
   
2. Prior Legislation: AB 900 (Solorio) Chapter 7, Statutes of 2007, among other things, implemented C-ROB and required CDCR to develop and implement a plan to obtain additional rehabilitation and treatment services for prison inmates and parolees.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Public Defenders Association

Opposition

None

Analysis Prepared by:

Matthew Fleming / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

1. CPAP stands for the California Performance Assessment Process. ↑