GOVERNOR'S VETO

GV Bill Id:AB 2342

Author:(McCarty)

As Enrolled Ver:September 4, 2020

2/3 vote

SUMMARY:

Creates a program through which parolees, except those required to register as a sex offender, are able to earn "reintegration credits" to reduce the term of parole.

Senate Amendments:

1. Provide that if the Legislature enacts this bill and AB 1304, and both become effective on or before January 1, 2021, reintegration credits may be earned for participation in substance abuse treatment programs, as follows:
2. Credits may be earned for successful participation in a program as an alternative, but not in addition to, credits earned for completion of a program;
3. For every six months of successful participation in a substance abuse treatment program that is not ordered by the court, one month of credit is earned, up to a maximum of three months;
4. Successful participation shall be determined by the treatment provider; and,
5. Credits or a reduction in the term of parole pursuant to both this program and the provisions of AB 1304 shall not be awarded for the participation or completion of the same substance abuse treatment program.
6. Delete the prohibition against waiving the ability to earn worktime credits in prison as part of a plea agreement.

Governor's Veto Message:

This bill would create parole reintegration credits, which would allow persons on parole to earn credits and reduce the length of their parole term.

I share the author's goal of reducing recidivism in California by incentivizing persons on parole to comply with the conditions of parole, pursue educational and vocational goals, and participate in rehabilitation programs for which they can earn credits to reduce their terms of supervision. To this end, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is currently in the process of implementing an amended earned discharge policy that provides an opportunity for early discharge from parole if the parolee is participating in community-based programming to address substance use disorder, education, and employment. This bill largely duplicates efforts that are currently underway at CDCR.

For this reason, I am unable to sign this bill.

COMMENTS:

According to the Author:

"AB 2342 adopts nationwide best practices to improve how someone is supervised within the state's parole system. It is rooted in the understanding that the principle objective of post-incarceration supervision is to coordinate, manage, encourage and facilitate the successful reintegration of persons on parole. Parole is intended to be guided supervision for a successful re-entry and this will be essential as folks are sent home due to the novel coronavirus. California is granting early release to 3,500 folks in an effort to reduce crowding as infections begin spreading through the state prison system. This pandemic will continue to force us to reevaluate our prison overcrowding. Current law allows certain persons on parole to be eligible for discharge from parole after their first 180 successful days; this bill expands the opportunity for early discharge to a broader population of persons on parole.

"This bill encourages people on parole to reach their full potential by incentivizing good behavior, educational attainments and community service. For far too long we have had a punishment approach to all who have paid their dues to society and are trying to re-enter their communities. Formerly incarcerated have to jump through employment and housing hurdles, incentivizing people on parole to reach their educational potential can only ease reintegration. This legislation is taking into consideration all who have served their time and are ready to be productive members of society."

Arguments in Support:

According to Californians for Safety and Justice, a co-sponsor of this bill, "AB 2342 represents sensible parole reform grounded in science and drafted to enhance public safety. It draws upon and expands already successful parts of California law and is endorsed by a broad coalition of criminal justice actors and advocates. AB 2342 will reduce recidivism in California by incentivizing persons on parole to comply with the conditions of parole, pursue educational and vocational goals, and participate in rehabilitation programs for which they can earn reduced terms of supervision. AB 2342 embraces the science that establishes it is counterproductive to inflexibly tie the length of parole to the type of commitment offense and to supervise persons on parole longer than they need to reintegrate into society. AB 2342 allows the length of parole to be responsive to the circumstances of the person under parole supervision, including their conduct while on parole and their ability to acquire educational, occupational and therapeutic skills critical for successful community reentry."

Arguments in Opposition:

According to the Peace Officers Research Association of California, "Current law requires specified persons who have been released on parole from state prison who were imprisoned for a serious felony or an offense requiring registration as a sex offender, and who have been on parole continuously for one year since release from confinement, to be discharged from parole. Current law also requires that specified persons who have been released on parole from state prison who were imprisoned for a violent felony, and who have been released on parole for a period not exceeding 3 years and have been on parole continuously for 2 years since release from confinement, or who have been released on parole for a period not exceeding 5 years and have been on parole continuously for 3 years since release from confinement, be similarly discharged from parole. This bill would instead require all of the persons described, except those imprisoned for an offense requiring registration as a sex offender, who have been on parole continuously for 180 days and during that time have not committed any new offenses or violated the terms or conditions of parole, to be discharged, unless there is good cause, as specified, for the person to be retained.

"PORAC understands that the author wants to work to reduce the recidivism numbers in California. However, shortening or eliminating parole is a dangerous way to address this. Oversight, education, and vocational assistance reduces recidivism, not simply letting a parolee off supervision because they managed to not reoffend within 180 days."

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) reports one-time costs totaling $767,575 for information technology revisions and consulting ($350,000) and for training and changing regulations ($417,575). The department indicates ongoing costs of $185,280 for 2.0 Correctional Case Records Analysts to review discharge dates and process discharge documents to update parole terms to account for reintegration credits. (General Fund)

This measure may result in cost savings if it results in individuals serving a shorter term of parole. The department, however, would experience savings only to the extent that workload reduction was sufficient to sustain a decrease in the number of parole agents. (General Fund)

1. The Department of Justice anticipates a minor increase in workload related to individuals litigating denial of parole reintegration credits and a short-term increase in workload to defend against legal challenges to the measure.

VOTES:

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 5-3-0

YES: Jones-Sawyer, Kamlager, Carrillo, Santiago, Wicks

NO: Lackey, Bauer-Kahan, Diep

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-7-0

YES: Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Eggman, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, McCarty, Robert Rivas

NO: Bigelow, Bauer-Kahan, Megan Dahle, Diep, Fong, Petrie-Norris, Voepel

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 65-0-14

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cunningham, Daly, Eggman, Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bigelow, Boerner Horvath, Cervantes, Chen, Choi, Cooper, Megan Dahle, Diep, Flora, Frazier, Mathis, Obernolte, Patterson, Salas

SENATE FLOOR: 34-5-1

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Beall, Borgeas, Bradford, Caballero, Chang, Dodd, Durazo, Galgiani, Glazer, Lena Gonzalez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Hurtado, Jackson, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Nielsen, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk

NO: Bates, Dahle, Grove, Melendez, Morrell

ABS, ABST OR NV: Jones

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 63-0-16

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cunningham, Daly, Diep, Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Waldron, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bigelow, Boerner Horvath, Cervantes, Chen, Choi, Cooper, Megan Dahle, Eggman, Flora, Frazier, Mathis, Obernolte, Patterson, Rodriguez, Salas, Voepel

UPDATED:

VERSION: September 4, 2020

CONSULTANT: Cheryl Anderson / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0003731

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2342

Author:(McCarty)

As Amended Ver:August 25, 2020

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Creates a program through which parolees, except those required to register as a sex offender, are able to earn "reintegration credits" to reduce the term of parole.

The Senate Amendments:

1. Provide that if the Legislature enacts this bill and AB 1304, and both become effective on or before January 1, 2021, reintegration credits may be earned for participation in substance abuse treatment programs, as follows:
2. Credits may be earned for successful participation in a program as an alternative, but not in addition to, credits earned for completion of a program;
3. For every six months of successful participation in a substance abuse treatment program that is not ordered by the court, one month of credit is earned, up to a maximum of three months;
4. Successful participation shall be determined by the treatment provider; and,
5. Credits or a reduction in the term of parole pursuant to both this program and the provisions of AB 1304 shall not be awarded for the participation or completion of the same substance abuse treatment program.
6. Delete the prohibition against waiving the ability to earn worktime credits in prison as part of a plea agreement.

COMMENTS:

According to the Author:

"AB 2342 adopts nationwide best practices to improve how someone is supervised within the state's parole system. It is rooted in the understanding that the principle objective of post-incarceration supervision is to coordinate, manage, encourage and facilitate the successful reintegration of persons on parole. Parole is intended to be guided supervision for a successful re-entry and this will be essential as folks are sent home due to the novel coronavirus. California is granting early release to 3,500 folks in an effort to reduce crowding as infections begin spreading through the state prison system. This pandemic will continue to force us to reevaluate our prison overcrowding. Current law allows certain persons on parole to be eligible for discharge from parole after their first 180 successful days; this bill expands the opportunity for early discharge to a broader population of persons on parole.

"This bill encourages people on parole to reach their full potential by incentivizing good behavior, educational attainments and community service. For far too long we have had a punishment approach to all who have paid their dues to society and are trying to re-enter their communities. Formerly incarcerated have to jump through employment and housing hurdles, incentivizing people on parole to reach their educational potential can only ease reintegration. This legislation is taking into consideration all who have served their time and are ready to be productive members of society."

Arguments in Support:

According to Californians for Safety and Justice, a co-sponsor of this bill, "AB 2342 represents sensible parole reform grounded in science and drafted to enhance public safety. It draws upon and expands already successful parts of California law and is endorsed by a broad coalition of criminal justice actors and advocates. AB 2342 will reduce recidivism in California by incentivizing persons on parole to comply with the conditions of parole, pursue educational and vocational goals, and participate in rehabilitation programs for which they can earn reduced terms of supervision. AB 2342 embraces the science that establishes it is counterproductive to inflexibly tie the length of parole to the type of commitment offense and to supervise persons on parole longer than they need to reintegrate into society. AB 2342 allows the length of parole to be responsive to the circumstances of the person under parole supervision, including their conduct while on parole and their ability to acquire educational, occupational and therapeutic skills critical for successful community reentry

Arguments in Opposition:

According to the Peace Officers Research Association of California, "Current law requires specified persons who have been released on parole from state prison who were imprisoned for a serious felony or an offense requiring registration as a sex offender, and who have been on parole continuously for one year since release from confinement, to be discharged from parole. Current law also requires that specified persons who have been released on parole from state prison who were imprisoned for a violent felony, and who have been released on parole for a period not exceeding 3 years and have been on parole continuously for 2 years since release from confinement, or who have been released on parole for a period not exceeding 5 years and have been on parole continuously for 3 years since release from confinement, be similarly discharged from parole. This bill would instead require all of the persons described, except those imprisoned for an offense requiring registration as a sex offender, who have been on parole continuously for 180 days and during that time have not committed any new offenses or violated the terms or conditions of parole, to be discharged, unless there is good cause, as specified, for the person to be retained.

"PORAC understands that the author wants to work to reduce the recidivism numbers in California. However, shortening or eliminating parole is a dangerous way to address this. Oversight, education, and vocational assistance reduces recidivism, not simply letting a parolee off supervision because they managed to not reoffend within 180 days."

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) reports one-time costs totaling $767,575 for information technology revisions and consulting ($350,000) and for training and changing regulations ($417,575). The department indicates ongoing costs of $185,280 for 2.0 Correctional Case Records Analysts to review discharge dates and process discharge documents to update parole terms to account for reintegration credits. (General Fund)

This measure may result in cost savings if it results in individuals serving a shorter term of parole. The department, however, would experience savings only to the extent that workload reduction was sufficient to sustain a decrease in the number of parole agents. (General Fund)

1. The Department of Justice anticipates a minor increase in workload related to individuals litigating denial of parole reintegration credits and a short-term increase in workload to defend against legal challenges to the measure.

VOTES:

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 5-3-0

YES: Jones-Sawyer, Kamlager, Carrillo, Santiago, Wicks

NO: Lackey, Bauer-Kahan, Diep

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-7-0

YES: Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Eggman, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, McCarty, Robert Rivas

NO: Bigelow, Bauer-Kahan, Megan Dahle, Diep, Fong, Petrie-Norris, Voepel

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 65-0-14

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cunningham, Daly, Eggman, Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bigelow, Boerner Horvath, Cervantes, Chen, Choi, Cooper, Megan Dahle, Diep, Flora, Frazier, Mathis, Obernolte, Patterson, Salas

SENATE FLOOR: 34-5-1

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Beall, Borgeas, Bradford, Caballero, Chang, Dodd, Durazo, Galgiani, Glazer, Lena Gonzalez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Hurtado, Jackson, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Nielsen, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk

NO: Bates, Dahle, Grove, Melendez, Morrell

ABS, ABST OR NV: Jones

UPDATED:

VERSION: August 25, 2020

CONSULTANT: Cheryl Anderson / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0003481

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2342

Author: McCarty (D)

Amended: 8/25/20 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-1, 8/7/20

AYES: Skinner, Moorlach, Bradford, Jackson, Mitchell, Wiener

NOES: Morrell

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/20/20

AYES: Portantino, Bradford, Hill, Leyva, Wieckowski

NOES: Bates, Jones

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 65-0, 6/15/20 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Parole

SOURCE: #cut50

Anti-Recidivism Coalition

Californians for Safety and Justice

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform

Project Rebound, Sacramento State

Root & Rebound

Underground Scholars Initiative

Young Women’s Freedom Center

DIGEST:

This bill creates a program through which parolees are able to earn “reintegration credits” to reduce the length of their parole term.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/25/20 fix a drafting error.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides for a period of post-prison supervision immediately following a period of incarceration in state prison. (Pen. Code, § 3000 et seq.)
2. Requires the following persons released from prison prior to, or on or after July 1, 2013, be subject to parole under the supervision of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR):
3. A person who committed a serious felony listed in Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c);
4. A person who committed a violent felony listed in Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (c);
5. A person serving a Three-Strikes sentence;
6. A high risk sex offender;
7. A mentally disordered offender;
8. A person required to register as a sex offender and subject to a parole term exceeding three years at the time of the commission of the offense for which he or she is being released; and,
9. A person subject to lifetime parole at the time of the commission of the offense for which he or she is being released. (Pen. Code, § 3000.08, subd. (a).)
10. Requires all other offenders released from prison to be placed on post-release community supervision (PRCS) under the supervision of a county agency, such as a probation department. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subd. (b), 3450.)
11. Provides that, notwithstanding any other law, a person released from prison prior to October 1, 2011, is subject to parole under CDCR supervision. (Pen. Code, § 3000.09.)
12. Establishes parole-term lengths based on the committing offense and the date the offense is committed. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000, subd. (b)(6), 3000.1.)
13. Provides for the opportunity for early discharge from parole for all parolees after a certain period of continuously-successful parole. (Pen. Code, § 3001.)
14. Entitles a parolee to an annual review hearing until the statutory maximum period of parole expires. (Pen. Code, § 3001, subd. (d).)
15. Prohibits, for an inmate who has committed specified crimes and is released on parole, from being returned to a location within 35 miles of the residence of a victim or witness if the victim or witness makes such a request and the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) finds that the placement is necessary to protect the victim or witness. (Pen. Code, § 3003, subds. (f) & (h).)

This bill:

1. Provides that a person on parole serving a determinate period of parole is entitled to earn reintegration credits to reduce the term of that parole, except as specified.
2. Provides that a person on parole subject to lifetime parole may earn reintegration credits to advance the date of the parolee’s discharge review.
3. Specifies the rates at which reintegration credits are earned for completing specific types of programs or activities while on parole.
4. Specifies the following credit earning rates for the completion of an accredited academic program or course.
5. Defines “accredited” as a program or course that is accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education or the State of California.
6. Awards reintegration credits for other specified activities, including completion of a certified career or technical education or training program, a cognitive behavioral treatment program, a substance abuse treatment program or residential treatment program that is not court-ordered, and voluntary service hours.
7. Specifies that if no other credits are earned in the 12-month period before the annual review, a person on parole may earn 15 days of credit per month for remaining free of any new arrests or parole violations.
8. Provides that reintegration credits may be awarded for academic achievements completed while on parole in cases in which the parolee began the academic program during the period of incarceration.
9. Prohibits reintegration credits from being awarded for the completion of any counseling or treatment that the person is required to complete pursuant to a court order.
10. Requires that reintegration credits earned during the 12-month period before each annual review be awarded at the annual review. Requires the department to reduce the period of parole imposed on a person on parole by the amount of reintegration credit awarded at the parolee’s annual review. Prohibits earned credits from being revoked once earned and provides that they may not be waived by any court, parolee, or other government agency.
11. Provides that any reintegration credits earned during the 12-month period before each annual review may, at the discretion of the parole agent, be revoked and not awarded only if a person on parole has had a new arrest or a parole violation during that 12-month period.
12. Provides that a person on parole may not be awarded more than 12 months of credit earned during a 12-month period. Prohibits excess credits earned in a 12-month period before an annual review from being awarded in a subsequent year.
13. Requires that a person on parole be awarded retroactive credits for educational or training programs that were completed during the parolee’s current period of parole but before the effective date of this bill, subject to the specified restrictions.
14. Excludes a person who is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290 from eligibility to earn reintegration credits.
15. Defines “voluntary service” as any time spent volunteering for a nonprofit or government agency, including time spent visiting prisons, jails, or juvenile detention facilities. Any volunteer activity shall be approved by a parole agent and documented by a site supervisor in a manner prescribed by the department.
16. Authorizes a parolee who successfully earns and is awarded any amount of reintegration credits to have their 50-mile radius of restricted travel increased by 25 miles after each annual review during which credits are awarded, except as prohibited by law and subject to the approval of the parole agent. Provides that the total restricted radius of travel authorized shall not exceed 125 miles.
17. Provides that a parolee may travel outside of their radius of restricted travel for educational or employment-related purposes, except as provided and subject to the approval of their parole agent. Provides that an increase in travel area excludes any areas within 35 miles of a victim or witness, as described, and does not authorize travel across state borders without a travel pass.
18. Prohibits, as a condition of continued state funding, an entity that receives state funds and provides services and programs in the fields of education, job training, workforce placement, health, or housing, from denying access to services or programs to a person on the basis that the person is currently or previously has been on parole or post-release community supervision.
19. Directs CDCR and BPH to adopt regulations to carry out these provisions.
20. Includes language requiring the program to award credits for participation in a substance abuse treatment program consistent with another bill if that bill is enacted.

Background

Prior to realignment, individuals released from prison were placed on parole and supervised in the community by parole agents of CDCR. Realignment shifted the supervision of some released prison inmates from CDCR parole agents to local probation departments. Parole under the jurisdiction of CDCR for inmates released from prison on or after October 1, 2011 is limited to those defendants whose term was for a serious or violent felony; were serving a Three-Strikes sentence; are classified as high-risk sex offenders; who are required to undergo treatment as mentally disordered offenders; or who, while on certain paroles, commit new offenses. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subds. (a) and (c), and 3451, subd. (b).) All other inmates released from prison are subject to up to three years of PRCS under probation supervision. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subd. (b), and 3451, subd. (a).) This bill would apply only to individuals released from prison and placed on parole, not on PRCS.

The length of a person’s parole term depends on the commitment offense, the sentence imposed, and the date the offense is committed. Most inmates who received a determinate sentence will serve a three-year period of parole, with the possibility of a one-year extension. (Pen. Code § 3000, subd. (b).) Most parolees can be discharged from parole early by successfully completing a specified amount of parole time without obtaining any violations. Different time periods apply in determining the presumptive discharge date, depending on the length of parole. (Pen. Code, § 3001.) For example, a person who was not imprisoned for a serious or violent felony, or for a registerable sex offense, and who is subject to a three-year parole period must be discharged from parole within 30 days after a consecutive six-month period of violation-free parole unless BPH decides to retain the person on parole. (Pen. Code, § 3001, subd. (a).)

When a parolee reaches the presumptive discharge date, CDCR prepares a recommendation as to whether or not the person should remain on parole. Parole terminates automatically unless BPH decides to retain the parolee after the presumptive discharge date. If the parolee is retained on parole, the parolee’s case will be reviewed annually until the maximum parole date is reached. (Pen. Code, § 3001, subd. (d).) If a parolee has not been discharged early, the parolee must be discharged from parole at the end of the maximum statutory period of parole specified.

Parole Provisions in Public Safety Trailer Bill

The May Revision to the Governor’s proposed 2020-2021 Budget included a proposal to cap parole terms for most parolees at 24 months, establish earned discharge for non-Penal Code section 290 registrants at 12 months, and establish earned discharge at 18 months for specified Penal Code 290 registrants. SB 118, the Public Safety Trailer Bill, amended the proposal in the May Revision. Specifically, the trailer bill:

• Limits the period of parole for a person sentenced to a determinate term to 2 years. Requires the Division of Parole Operations (DAPO) to review for possible discharge from parole no later than 12 months after release, and requires the person to be discharged from parole if there have been no violations and the person is not a mentally disordered offender
• Limits the period of parole for a person sentenced to a life term to 3 years. Requires DAPO to review and refer to the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) for possible discharge no later than 12 months after release. If BPH decides to retain the person on parole, a review for discharge must take place no later than 24 months after release.
• Provides that parole caps and early discharge from parole does not apply to individuals currently incarcerated for an offense requiring registration as a sex offender
• Does not apply to a person whose parole term at the time of the commission of the offense is less than the parole term prescribed in the trailer bill
• Does not apply to a person whose review period at the time of the commission of the offense provides for an earlier review period than that prescribed in the trailer bill

AB 2342 is complementary to the trailer bill. Presumably, if both AB 2342 and the trailer bill are passed and signed by the Governor, AB 2342 would further reduce the parole period from the newly established parole terms (i.e., parolees could earn a reduction in their parole term for successfully participating in a MAT program or other substance abuse treatment program from either the 2- or 3-year cap established in the trailer bill).

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) reports one-time costs totaling $767,575 for information technology revisions and consulting ($350,000) and for training and changing regulations ($417,575). The department indicates ongoing costs of $185,280 for 2.0 Correctional Case Records Analysts to review discharge dates and process discharge documents to update parole terms to account for reintegration credits. (General Fund)

This measure may result in cost savings if it results in individuals serving a shorter term of parole. The department, however, would experience savings only to the extent that workload reduction was sufficient to sustain a decrease in the number of parole agents. (General Fund)

• The Department of Justice anticipates a minor increase in workload related to individuals litigating denial of parole reintegration credits and a short-term increase in workload to defend against legal challenges to the measure.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/25/20)

#cut50 (co-source)

Anti-Recidivism Coalition (co-source)

Californians for Safety and Justice (co-source)

Legal Services for Prisoner’s with Children (co-source)

National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (co-source)

Project Rebound, Sacramento State (co-source)

Root & Rebound (co-source)

Underground Scholars Initiative (co-source)

Young Women’s Freedom Center (co-source)

ACLU of California

Asian Americans Advancing Justice- California

Asian Solidarity Collective

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice

California Catholic Conference

California Coalition for Women Prisoners

California Public Defenders Association

Center for Employment Opportunities

Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley

Drug Policy Alliance

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Initiate Justice

Pillars of the Community

Re:Store Justice

Reform Alliance

San Francisco Public Defender’s Office

Smart Justice California

Think Dignity

Underground Scholars Initiative at UC Berkeley

We The People- San Diego

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/25/20)

California District Attorneys Association

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 65-0, 6/15/20

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cunningham, Daly, Eggman, Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bigelow, Boerner Horvath, Cervantes, Chen, Choi, Cooper, Megan Dahle, Diep, Flora, Frazier, Mathis, Obernolte, Patterson, Salas

Prepared by: Stephanie Jordan / PUB. S. /

8/26/20 14:45:15

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2342

Author: McCarty (D)

Amended: 8/20/20 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-1, 8/7/20

AYES: Skinner, Moorlach, Bradford, Jackson, Mitchell, Wiener

NOES: Morrell

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/20/20

AYES: Portantino, Bradford, Hill, Leyva, Wieckowski

NOES: Bates, Jones

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 65-0, 6/15/20 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Parole

SOURCE: #cut50

Anti-Recidivism Coalition

Californians for Safety and Justice

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform

Project Rebound, Sacramento State

Root & Rebound

Underground Scholars Initiative

Young Women’s Freedom Center

DIGEST:

This bill creates a program through which parolees are able to earn “reintegration credits” to reduce the length of their parole term.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides for a period of post-prison supervision immediately following a period of incarceration in state prison. (Pen. Code, § 3000 et seq.)
2. Requires the following persons released from prison prior to, or on or after July 1, 2013, be subject to parole under the supervision of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR):
3. A person who committed a serious felony listed in Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c);
4. A person who committed a violent felony listed in Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (c);
5. A person serving a Three-Strikes sentence;
6. A high risk sex offender;
7. A mentally disordered offender;
8. A person required to register as a sex offender and subject to a parole term exceeding three years at the time of the commission of the offense for which he or she is being released; and,
9. A person subject to lifetime parole at the time of the commission of the offense for which he or she is being released. (Pen. Code, § 3000.08, subd. (a).)
10. Requires all other offenders released from prison to be placed on post-release community supervision (PRCS) under the supervision of a county agency, such as a probation department. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subd. (b), 3450.)
11. Provides that, notwithstanding any other law, a person released from prison prior to October 1, 2011, is subject to parole under CDCR supervision. (Pen. Code, § 3000.09.)
12. Establishes parole-term lengths based on the committing offense and the date the offense is committed. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000, subd. (b)(6), 3000.1.)
13. Provides for the opportunity for early discharge from parole for all parolees after a certain period of continuously-successful parole. (Pen. Code, § 3001.)
14. Entitles a parolee to an annual review hearing until the statutory maximum period of parole expires. (Pen. Code, § 3001, subd. (d).)
15. Prohibits, for an inmate who has committed specified crimes and is released on parole, from being returned to a location within 35 miles of the residence of a victim or witness if the victim or witness makes such a request and the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) finds that the placement is necessary to protect the victim or witness. (Pen. Code, § 3003, subds. (f) & (h).)

This bill:

1. Provides that a person on parole serving a determinate period of parole is entitled to earn reintegration credits to reduce the term of that parole, except as specified.
2. Provides that a person on parole subject to lifetime parole may earn reintegration credits to advance the date of the parolee’s discharge review.
3. Specifies the rates at which reintegration credits are earned for completing specific types of programs or activities while on parole.
4. Specifies the following credit earning rates for the completion of an accredited academic program or course.
5. Defines “accredited” as a program or course that is accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education or the State of California.
6. Awards reintegration credits for other specified activities, including completion of a certified career or technical education or training program, a cognitive behavioral treatment program, a substance abuse treatment program or residential treatment program that is not court-ordered, and voluntary service hours.
7. Specifies that if no other credits are earned in the 12-month period before the annual review, a person on parole may earn 15 days of credit per month for remaining free of any new arrests or parole violations.
8. Provides that reintegration credits may be awarded for academic achievements completed while on parole in cases in which the parolee began the academic program during the period of incarceration.
9. Prohibits reintegration credits from being awarded for the completion of any counseling or treatment that the person is required to complete pursuant to a court order.
10. Requires that reintegration credits earned during the 12-month period before each annual review be awarded at the annual review. Requires the department to reduce the period of parole imposed on a person on parole by the amount of reintegration credit awarded at the parolee’s annual review. Prohibits earned credits from being revoked once earned and provides that they may not be waived by any court, parolee, or other government agency.
11. Provides that any reintegration credits earned during the 12-month period before each annual review may, at the discretion of the parole agent, be revoked and not awarded only if a person on parole has had a new arrest or a parole violation during that 12-month period.
12. Provides that a person on parole may not be awarded more than 12 months of credit earned during a 12-month period. Prohibits excess credits earned in a 12-month period before an annual review from being awarded in a subsequent year.
13. Requires that a person on parole be awarded retroactive credits for educational or training programs that were completed during the parolee’s current period of parole but before the effective date of this bill, subject to the specified restrictions.
14. Excludes a person who is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290 from eligibility to earn reintegration credits.
15. Defines “voluntary service” as any time spent volunteering for a nonprofit or government agency, including time spent visiting prisons, jails, or juvenile detention facilities. Any volunteer activity shall be approved by a parole agent and documented by a site supervisor in a manner prescribed by the department.
16. Authorizes a parolee who successfully earns and is awarded any amount of reintegration credits to have their 50-mile radius of restricted travel increased by 25 miles after each annual review during which credits are awarded, except as prohibited by law and subject to the approval of the parole agent. Provides that the total restricted radius of travel authorized shall not exceed 125 miles.
17. Provides that a parolee may travel outside of their radius of restricted travel for educational or employment-related purposes, except as provided and subject to the approval of their parole agent. Provides that an increase in travel area excludes any areas within 35 miles of a victim or witness, as described, and does not authorize travel across state borders without a travel pass.
18. Prohibits, as a condition of continued state funding, an entity that receives state funds and provides services and programs in the fields of education, job training, workforce placement, health, or housing, from denying access to services or programs to a person on the basis that the person is currently or previously has been on parole or post-release community supervision.
19. Directs CDCR and BPH to adopt regulations to carry out these provisions.
20. Includes language requiring the program to award credits for participation in a substance abuse treatment program consistent with another bill if that bill is enacted.

Background

Prior to realignment, individuals released from prison were placed on parole and supervised in the community by parole agents of CDCR. Realignment shifted the supervision of some released prison inmates from CDCR parole agents to local probation departments. Parole under the jurisdiction of CDCR for inmates released from prison on or after October 1, 2011 is limited to those defendants whose term was for a serious or violent felony; were serving a Three-Strikes sentence; are classified as high-risk sex offenders; who are required to undergo treatment as mentally disordered offenders; or who, while on certain paroles, commit new offenses. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subds. (a) and (c), and 3451, subd. (b).) All other inmates released from prison are subject to up to three years of PRCS under probation supervision. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subd. (b), and 3451, subd. (a).) This bill would apply only to individuals released from prison and placed on parole, not on PRCS.

The length of a person’s parole term depends on the commitment offense, the sentence imposed, and the date the offense is committed. Most inmates who received a determinate sentence will serve a three-year period of parole, with the possibility of a one-year extension. (Pen. Code § 3000, subd. (b).) Most parolees can be discharged from parole early by successfully completing a specified amount of parole time without obtaining any violations. Different time periods apply in determining the presumptive discharge date, depending on the length of parole. (Pen. Code, § 3001.) For example, a person who was not imprisoned for a serious or violent felony, or for a registerable sex offense, and who is subject to a three-year parole period must be discharged from parole within 30 days after a consecutive six-month period of violation-free parole unless BPH decides to retain the person on parole. (Pen. Code, § 3001, subd. (a).)

When a parolee reaches the presumptive discharge date, CDCR prepares a recommendation as to whether or not the person should remain on parole. Parole terminates automatically unless BPH decides to retain the parolee after the presumptive discharge date. If the parolee is retained on parole, the parolee’s case will be reviewed annually until the maximum parole date is reached. (Pen. Code, § 3001, subd. (d).) If a parolee has not been discharged early, the parolee must be discharged from parole at the end of the maximum statutory period of parole specified.

Parole Provisions in Public Safety Trailer Bill

The May Revision to the Governor’s proposed 2020-2021 Budget included a proposal to cap parole terms for most parolees at 24 months, establish earned discharge for non-Penal Code section 290 registrants at 12 months, and establish earned discharge at 18 months for specified Penal Code 290 registrants. SB 118, the Public Safety Trailer Bill, amended the proposal in the May Revision. Specifically, the trailer bill:

• Limits the period of parole for a person sentenced to a determinate term to 2 years. Requires the Division of Parole Operations (DAPO) to review for possible discharge from parole no later than 12 months after release, and requires the person to be discharged from parole if there have been no violations and the person is not a mentally disordered offender
• Limits the period of parole for a person sentenced to a life term to 3 years. Requires DAPO to review and refer to the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) for possible discharge no later than 12 months after release. If BPH decides to retain the person on parole, a review for discharge must take place no later than 24 months after release.
• Provides that parole caps and early discharge from parole does not apply to individuals currently incarcerated for an offense requiring registration as a sex offender
• Does not apply to a person whose parole term at the time of the commission of the offense is less than the parole term prescribed in the trailer bill
• Does not apply to a person whose review period at the time of the commission of the offense provides for an earlier review period than that prescribed in the trailer bill

AB 2342 is complementary to the trailer bill. Presumably, if both AB 2342 and the trailer bill are passed and signed by the Governor, AB 2342 would further reduce the parole period from the newly established parole terms (i.e., parolees could earn a reduction in their parole term for successfully participating in a MAT program or other substance abuse treatment program from either the 2- or 3-year cap established in the trailer bill).

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) reports one-time costs totaling $767,575 for information technology revisions and consulting ($350,000) and for training and changing regulations ($417,575). The department indicates ongoing costs of $185,280 for 2.0 Correctional Case Records Analysts to review discharge dates and process discharge documents to update parole terms to account for reintegration credits. (General Fund)

This measure may result in cost savings if it results in individuals serving a shorter term of parole. The department, however, would experience savings only to the extent that workload reduction was sufficient to sustain a decrease in the number of parole agents. (General Fund)

• The Department of Justice anticipates a minor increase in workload related to individuals litigating denial of parole reintegration credits and a short-term increase in workload to defend against legal challenges to the measure.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/20/20)

#cut50 (co-source)

Anti-Recidivism Coalition (co-source)

Californians for Safety and Justice (co-source)

Legal Services for Prisoner’s with Children (co-source)

National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (co-source)

Project Rebound, Sacramento State (co-source)

Root & Rebound (co-source)

Underground Scholars Initiative (co-source)

Young Women’s Freedom Center (co-source)

ACLU of California

Asian Americans Advancing Justice- California

Asian Solidarity Collective

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice

California Catholic Conference

California Coalition for Women Prisoners

California Public Defenders Association

Center for Employment Opportunities

Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley

Drug Policy Alliance

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Initiate Justice

Pillars of the Community

Re:Store Justice

Reform Alliance

San Francisco Public Defender’s Office

Smart Justice California

Think Dignity

Underground Scholars Initiative at UC Berkeley

We The People- San Diego

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/20/20)

California District Attorneys Association

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 65-0, 6/15/20

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cunningham, Daly, Eggman, Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bigelow, Boerner Horvath, Cervantes, Chen, Choi, Cooper, Megan Dahle, Diep, Flora, Frazier, Mathis, Obernolte, Patterson, Salas

Prepared by: Stephanie Jordan / PUB. S. /

8/25/20 10:04:55

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

AB 2342 (McCarty) - Parole

Bill Summary:

AB 2342 would create a program through which individuals on parole are able to earn reintegration credits to reduce the length of their parole term.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 20, 2020

Fiscal Impact:

• The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) reports one-time costs totaling $767,575 for information technology revisions and consulting ($350,000) and for training and changing regulations ($417,575). The department indicates ongoing costs of $185,280 for 2.0 Correctional Case Records Analysts to review discharge dates and process discharge documents to update parole terms to account for reintegration credits. (General Fund)

This measure may result in cost savings if it results in individuals serving a shorter term of parole. The department, however, would experience savings only to the extent that workload reduction was sufficient to sustain a decrease in the number of parole agents. (General Fund)

• The Department of Justice anticipates a minor increase in workload related to individuals litigating denial of parole reintegration credits and a short-term increase in workload to defend against legal challenges to the measure.

Author Amendments:

Strike the prohibition on waiving credits and add a coauthor.

Committee Amendments:

Double join the substance abuse treatment program provision with AB 1304 and specify credits for participation in a substance abuse treatment program.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

AB 2342 (McCarty) - Parole

Bill Summary:

AB 2342 would create a program through which individuals on parole are able to earn reintegration credits to reduce the length of their parole term.

Fiscal Impact:

• The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) reports one-time costs totaling $767,575 for information technology revisions and consulting ($350,000) and for training and changing regulations ($417,575). The department indicates ongoing costs of $185,280 for 2.0 Correctional Case Records Analysts to review discharge dates and process discharge documents to update parole terms to account for reintegration credits. (General Fund)

This measure may result in incarceration cost savings to CDCR. Actual savings would depend on how many individuals, absent this measure, (i) would have waived their credit-earning ability, (ii) would have qualified for reductions of their term of incarceration provided for by existing law, and (iii) the amount of time reduced from their term of imprisonment. The FY 2020-2021 per capita cost to detain a person in a state prison is $91,100 annually, with an annual marginal rate per person of over $12,000. Aside from marginal cost savings per individual, however, the department would experience an institutional cost savings only if the number of persons incarcerated decreased to a level to effectuate the closing of a yard or wing of a prison. Additionally, this measure may result in cost savings if it results in individuals serving a shorter term of parole. Similar to incarceration, however, CDCR would experience savings only to the extent that workload reduction was sufficient to sustain a decrease in the number of parole agents. (General Fund)

• The Department of Justice anticipates a minor increase in workload related to individuals litigating denial of parole reintegration credits and a short-term increase in workload to defend against legal challenges to the measure.

Background:

As stated in the analysis of this bill by the Senate Committee on Public Safety:

Prior to realignment, individuals released from prison were placed on parole and supervised in the community by parole agents of CDCR. Realignment shifted the supervision of some released prison inmates from CDCR parole agents to local probation departments. Parole under the jurisdiction of CDCR for inmates released from prison on or after October 1, 2011 is limited to those defendants whose term was for a serious or violent felony; were serving a Three-Strikes sentence; are classified as high-risk sex offenders; who are required to undergo treatment as mentally disordered offenders; or who, while on certain paroles, commit new offenses. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subds. (a) and (c), and 3451, subd. (b).) All other inmates released from prison are subject to up to three years of [postrelease community supervision] under probation supervision. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subd. (b), and 3451, subd. (a).)

…

The length of a person’s parole term depends on the commitment offense, the sentence imposed, and the date the offense is committed. Most inmates who received a determinate sentence will serve a three-year period of parole, with the possibility of a one-year extension. (Pen. Code § 3000, subd. (b).) Most parolees can be discharged from parole early by successfully completing a specified amount of parole time without obtaining any violations. Different time periods apply in determining the presumptive discharge date, depending on the length of parole. (Pen. Code, § 3001.) For example, a person who was not imprisoned for a serious or violent felony, or for a registerable sex offense, and who is subject to a three-year parole period must be discharged from parole within 30 days after a consecutive six-month period of violation-free parole unless BPH decides to retain the person on parole. (Pen. Code, § 3001, subd. (a).)

When a parolee reaches the presumptive discharge date, CDCR will prepare a recommendation as to whether or not the person should remain on parole. Parole terminates automatically unless BPH decides to retain the parolee after the presumptive discharge date. If the parolee is retained on parole, the parolee’s case will be reviewed annually until the maximum parole date is reached. (Pen. Code, § 3001, subd. (d).) If a parolee has not been discharged early, the parolee must be discharged from parole at the end of the maximum statutory period of parole specified.

In passing Proposition 57 (2016), The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016, the voters made a number of criminal justice and juvenile justice reforms. Included among the reforms was a constitutional amendment that allowed CDCR to “award credits earned for good behavior and approved rehabilitative or educational achievements.” (Cal. Const., art. I, § 32.) The credit-awarding authority granted to the department is “notwithstanding anything in [article I of the Constitution] or any other provision of law.” (Ibid.) There remains an open legal question on whether the Legislature retains authority to enact laws related to the awarding of credits for good behavior and approved rehabilitative or educational achievements.

Proposed Law:

This bill would create a program under which the length of a person’s period of parole could be reduced through credits earned by successfully completing specified education, training, or treatment programs, or by participating in volunteer service, while adhering to the conditions of parole. Specifically, reintegration credits would awarded as follows:

• Twelve months of credit for a general equivalency high school diploma, associate degree, or bachelor’s degree.
• Six weeks of credit for the completion of any quarter, trimester, or semester-long course taken towards an academic degree for which a passing grade was received and for which credit was not awarded for the completion of a degree.
• Six months of credit for the completion of a certified career or technical education or training program or certificate.
• Two months of credit for the completion of a cognitive behavioral treatment program.
• Three months of credit for the completion of a substance abuse treatment program or residential treatment program that is not ordered by a court.
• Ten days of credit per month for the completion of a minimum of 12 voluntary service hours per month.
• Fifteen days of credit per month for remaining free of any new arrests or parole violations if no other credits are earned in the 12-month period before the annual review.

A person serving a determinate period of parole would be entitled to earn reintegration credits to reduce the term of that parole, while a person on lifetime parole may earn reintegration credits to advance the date of the parolee’s discharge review. A person who is required to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act would not eligible to earn reintegration credits pursuant to this bill.

AB 2342 also would:

• Prohibit the ability to earn credits pursuant specified provisions of existing law from being waived by a sentencing court or by a defendant as part of a plea agreement.
• Increase the 50-mile travel restriction for an individual on parole who successfully participates in the parole credit program, subject to certain restrictions.
• Require CDCR and the Board of Parole Hearings to adopt regulations to carry out this program.
• Prohibit, as a condition of continued state funding, any entity that receives state funds and provides services and programs in the fields of education, job training, workforce placement, health, or housing, from denying access to services or programs to a person on the basis that the person is currently or previously has been on parole or postrelease community supervision.

Related Legislation:

AB 277 (McCarty, 2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) would have created a program through which individuals on parolees, except as specified, are able to earn reintegration credits to reduce the term of parole. AB 277 was held on the Suspense File of the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

AB 1182 (Carrillo, 2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) would have required the discharge from parole for specified individuals after six months unless the person had violated any of their parole conditions within that six-month period. AB 1182 was held on the Suspense File of the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

AB 1304 (Waldron, 2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) would establish the California MAT Re-Entry Incentive Program which would make an individual on parole, except as specified, eligible for a reduction in the period of parole if the person successfully participates in a substance abuse treatment program, as specified, including medication-assisted treatment. AB 1304 is pending on the Suspense File of this Committee.

SB 118 (Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Ch. 29, Stats. 2020), in part, limited with specified exceptions, parole terms for those subject to parole after release from prison to two years for a person who was serving a determinate-term sentence and to three years for a person who was serving a life-term sentence. It also allowed for an administrative (for two-year parole) and quasi-judicial (for three-year parole) process for early discharge from parole supervision after one year of supervision without a violation.

Staff Comments:

As discussed in Background above, there is an open legal question on the Legislature’s ability to legislate on credits for good behavior or rehabilitative or educational achievements. This question extends to whether any restriction on the Legislature’s ability to legislate on credits also applies to terms of parole (as opposed to solely incarceration).

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Nancy Skinner, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: AB 2342 Hearing Date: August 7, 2020

Subject: Parole

HISTORY

Source: Anti-Recidivism Coalition

Californians for Safety and Justice

#cut50

Legal Services for Prisoner’s with Children

National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform

Project Rebound, Sacramento State

Root & Rebound

Underground Scholars Initiative

Young Women’s Freedom Center

Prior Legislation: AB 277 (McCarty), held in Assembly Appropriations 2019

AB 1940 (McCarty), failed on the Assembly Floor 2018

Support: ACLU of California; Asian Americans Advancing Justice- California; Asian Solidarity Collective; California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California Catholic Conference; California Coalition for Women Prisoners; California Public Defenders Association; Center for Employment Opportunities; Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley; Drug Policy Alliance; Ella Baker Center for Human Rights; Initiate Justice; Pillars of the Community; Re:Store Justice; Reform Alliance; San Francisco Public Defender’s Office; Smart Justice California; Think Dignity; Underground Scholars Initiative at UC Berkeley; We The People- San Diego;

Opposition: California District Attorneys Association

Assembly Floor Vote: 65 - 0

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to create a program through which parolees are able to earn “reintegration credits” to reduce the length of their parole term.

Existing law provides for a period of post-prison supervision immediately following a period of incarceration in state prison. (Pen. Code, § 3000 et seq.)

Existing law requires the following persons released from prison prior to, or on or after July 1, 2013, be subject to parole under the supervision of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR):

• A person who committed a serious felony listed in Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c);
• A person who committed a violent felony listed in Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (c);
• A person serving a Three-Strikes sentence;
• A high risk sex offender;
• A mentally disordered offender;
• A person required to register as a sex offender and subject to a parole term exceeding three years at the time of the commission of the offense for which he or she is being released; and,
• A person subject to lifetime parole at the time of the commission of the offense for which he or she is being released. (Pen. Code, § 3000.08, subd. (a).)

Existing law requires all other offenders released from prison to be placed on post-release community supervision (PRCS) under the supervision of a county agency, such as a probation department. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subd. (b), 3450.)

Existing law provides that, notwithstanding any other law, a person released from prison prior to October 1, 2011, is subject to parole under CDCR supervision. (Pen. Code, § 3000.09.)

Existing law establishes parole-term lengths based on the committing offense and the date the offense is committed. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000, subd. (b)(6), 3000.1.)

Existing law provides for the opportunity for early discharge from parole for all parolees after a certain period of continuously-successful parole. For example:

• Requires that specified persons who have been released on parole who were not imprisoned for a violent felony, a serious felony, or an offense requiring registration as a sex offender, and who have been on parole for a period of 6 months, be discharged from parole within 30 days unless BPH, for good cause, determines the person should be retained; or
• Requires specified persons who have been released on parole who were imprisoned for a serious felony or an offense requiring registration as a sex offender, and who have been on parole continuously for one year since release from confinement, to be similarly discharged from parole; or
• Requires that specified persons who have been released on parole from state prison who were imprisoned for a violent felony, and who have been released on parole for a period not exceeding 3 years and have been on parole continuously for 2 years since release from confinement, or who have been released on parole for a period not exceeding 5 years and have been on parole continuously for 3 years since release from confinement, be similarly discharged from parole. (Pen. Code, § 3001.)

Existing law entitles a parolee to an annual review hearing until the statutory maximum period of parole expires. (Pen. Code, § 3001, subd. (d).)

Existing law prohibits, for an inmate who has committed specified crimes and is released on parole, from being returned to a location within 35 miles of the residence of a victim or witness if the victim or witness makes such a request and the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) finds that the placement is necessary to protect the victim or witness. (Pen. Code, § 3003, subds. (f) & (h).)

This bill provides that a person on parole serving a determinate period of parole is entitled to earn reintegration credits to reduce the term of that parole, except as specified.

This bill provides that a person on parole subject to lifetime parole may earn reintegration credits to advance the date of the parolee’s discharge review.

This bill specifies the rates at which reintegration credits are earned for completing specific types of programs or activities while on parole.

This bill specifies the following credit earning rates for the completion of an accredited academic program or course:

• For a general equivalency high school diploma, 12 months of credit.
• For an associate degree, 12 months of credit.
• For a bachelor’s degree, 12 months of credit.
• For the completion of any quarter, trimester, or semester-long course taken towards an academic degree for which a passing grade was received and for which credit was not awarded for the completion of a degree, six weeks of credit.

This bill defines “accredited” as a program or course that is accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education or the State of California.

This bill awards reintegration credits for other specified activities as follows:

• Six months of credit for the completion of a certified career or technical education or training program or certificate, as specified;
• Two months of credit for the completion of a cognitive behavioral treatment program;
• Three months of credit for the completion of a substance abuse treatment program or residential treatment program that is not court-ordered; and,
• Ten days of credit per month for the completion of a minimum of 12 voluntary service hours per month.

This bill specifies that if no other credits are earned in the 12-month period before the annual review, a person on parole may earn 15 days of credit per month for remaining free of any new arrests or parole violations.

This bill provides that reintegration credits may be awarded for academic achievements completed while on parole in cases in which the parolee began the academic program during the period of incarceration.

This bill prohibits reintegration credits from being awarded for the completion of any counseling or treatment that the person is required to complete pursuant to a court order.

This bill requires that reintegration credits earned during the 12-month period before each annual review be awarded at the annual review. Requires the department to reduce the period of parole imposed on a person on parole by the amount of reintegration credit awarded at the parolee’s annual review. Prohibits earned credits from being revoked once earned and provides that they may not be waived by any court, parolee, or other government agency.

This bill provides that any reintegration credits earned during the 12-month period before each annual review may, at the discretion of the parole agent, be revoked and not awarded only if a person on parole has had a new arrest or a parole violation during that 12-month period.

This bill provides that a person on parole may not be awarded more than 12 months of credit earned during a 12-month period. Prohibits excess credits earned in a 12-month period before an annual review from being awarded in a subsequent year.

This bill specifies the guide that parole agents are required to utilize when revoking earned credits.

This bill requires that a person on parole be awarded retroactive credits for educational or training programs that were completed during the parolee’s current period of parole but before the effective date of this bill, subject to the specified restrictions.

This bill excludes a person who is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290 from eligibility to earn reintegration credits.

This bill defines “voluntary service” as any time spent volunteering for a nonprofit or government agency, including time spent visiting prisons, jails, or juvenile detention facilities. Any volunteer activity shall be approved by a parole agent and documented by a site supervisor in a manner prescribed by the department.

This bill authorizes a parolee who successfully earns and is awarded any amount of reintegration credits to have their 50-mile radius of restricted travel increased by 25 miles after each annual review during which credits are awarded, except as prohibited by law and subject to the approval of the parole agent. Provides that the total restricted radius of travel authorized shall not exceed 125 miles.

This bill provides that a parolee may travel outside of their radius of restricted travel for educational or employment-related purposes, except as provided and subject to the approval of their parole agent. Provides that an increase in travel area excludes any areas within 35 miles of a victim or witness, as described, and does not authorize travel across state borders without a travel pass.

This bill prohibits, as a condition of continued state funding, an entity that receives state funds and provides services and programs in the fields of education, job training, workforce placement, health, or housing, from denying access to services or programs to a person on the basis that the person is currently or previously has been on parole or post-release community supervision.

This bill directs CDCR and BPH to adopt regulations to carry out these provisions.

This bill prohibits that the ability to earn in-custody credits from being waived by a sentencing court or by a defendant as part of a plea agreement.

COMMENTS

1. Need For This Bill

According to the author:

For decades, the parameters of parole supervision in California have been tethered to commitment offense even though the crime for which a person is convicted often says very little about that person’s readiness to become a responsible and productive citizen. The primary focus of parole agents and staff has been to punish missteps, rather than identify persons’ needs, and promote their successes in attaining goals to meet those needs. While people on parole are encouraged to seek educational or job training opportunities, they are not incentivized to complete programs that greatly increase the likelihood of successful reentry.

California’s system of parole supervision must adopt a new paradigm that focuses on the successful reintegration and gives parole agents the time and tools they need to identify those who should remain on parole, and to help those persons obtain the programs and achieve measurable progress to become productive members in their communities.

Research shows that public safety is improved when determinations about the length and nature of community supervision reflect the person’s unique circumstances and conduct, and when the parole system places greater emphasis on rewarding persons on parole for their acquisition of critical life skills rather than punishing them for their blunders.

AB 2342 will reduce recidivism in California by incentivizing persons on parole to pursue educational and vocational goals, and participate in rehabilitation programs for which they can earn credits reduced terms of supervision.

Parole is intended to be guided supervision for a successful re-entry and this will be essential as folks are sent home due to the novel coronavirus. California is granting early release to 3,500 folks in an effort to reduce crowding as infections begin spreading through the state prison system. This pandemic will continue to force us to reevaluate our prison overcrowding.

1. Changes to Parole Supervision As a Result of Realignment

Prior to realignment, individuals released from prison were placed on parole and supervised in the community by parole agents of CDCR. Realignment shifted the supervision of some released prison inmates from CDCR parole agents to local probation departments. Parole under the jurisdiction of CDCR for inmates released from prison on or after October 1, 2011 is limited to those defendants whose term was for a serious or violent felony; were serving a Three-Strikes sentence; are classified as high-risk sex offenders; who are required to undergo treatment as mentally disordered offenders; or who, while on certain paroles, commit new offenses. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subds. (a) and (c), and 3451, subd. (b).) All other inmates released from prison are subject to up to three years of PRCS under probation supervision. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subd. (b), and 3451, subd. (a).)

This bill would apply only to individuals released from prison and placed on parole, not on PRCS.

1. Parole

The length of a person’s parole term depends on the commitment offense, the sentence imposed, and the date the offense is committed. Most inmates who received a determinate sentence will serve a three-year period of parole, with the possibility of a one-year extension. (Pen. Code § 3000, subd. (b).) Most parolees can be discharged from parole early by successfully completing a specified amount of parole time without obtaining any violations. Different time periods apply in determining the presumptive discharge date, depending on the length of parole. (Pen. Code, § 3001.) For example, a person who was not imprisoned for a serious or violent felony, or for a registerable sex offense, and who is subject to a three-year parole period must be discharged from parole within 30 days after a consecutive six-month period of violation-free parole unless BPH decides to retain the person on parole. (Pen. Code, § 3001, subd. (a).)

When a parolee reaches the presumptive discharge date, CDCR will prepare a recommendation as to whether or not the person should remain on parole. Parole terminates automatically unless BPH decides to retain the parolee after the presumptive discharge date. If the parolee is retained on parole, the parolee’s case will be reviewed annually until the maximum parole date is reached. (Pen. Code, § 3001, subd. (d).) If a parolee has not been discharged early, the parolee must be discharged from parole at the end of the maximum statutory period of parole specified.

1. Effect of This Bill

This bill creates a program through which parolees are able to earn “reintegration credits” to reduce the length of their parole term. The bill specifies the credit earning rate for successful completion of various rehabilitative programs and activities, including academic programs and coursework, certified career or technical education or training, cognitive behavioral treatment program, substance abuse treatment program, and volunteer work. The bill also authorizes a parolee to earn up to 15 days of credit per month for not having any parole violations or new arrests if no other credits are earned during the 12-month period prior to the annual review. Credits cannot be earned for the completion of a court-ordered counseling or treatment program.

This bill specifies that reintegration credits may be awarded for academic achievements completed while on parole when the person began the academic program while still incarcerated. This bill limits the amount of credits that may be awarded to no more than 12 months of credit during a 12-month period. Additionally, this bill requires reintegration credits to be awarded retroactively for educational or training programs completed during the parolee’s current period of parole but before the effective date of this bill.

This bill provides that reintegration credits earned during the 12-month period prior to the annual review may be revoked at the discretion of the parole agent only if a parolee has had a new arrest or parole violation. Once the reintegration credits are awarded at the annual review, they may not be revoked.

This bill excludes individuals who are required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290 from eligibility to earn reintegration credits.

Other provisions of the bill permit a parolee who has been awarded reintegration credits to have the mileage limits of their restricted travel area increased subject to parole agent approval and other restrictions and prohibit an entity that receives state funds and provides services and programs related to education, job training, workforce placement, health, or housing, from denying access to services or programs to a person on the basis that the person is currently or previously has been on parole or PRCS.

1. Constitutional Authority to Award Credits Given to CDCR in Proposition 57

Proposition 57, the “The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016” of the November 2016 election amended the state Constitution to authorize CDCR to award credits earned for good behavior and approved rehabilitative or educational achievements. Prior to Prop. 57, the matter of conduct credits earned in prison was governed by statute. (See e.g., Pen. Code, §§ 2933, 2933.1.)

The relevant portion of Prop. 57 reads:

“32. (a) The following provisions are hereby added to enhance public safety, improve rehabilitation, and avoid the release of prisoners by federal court order, notwithstanding anything in this article or any other provision of law….

(2) Credit Earning: The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall have authority to award credits earned for good behavior and approved rehabilitative or educational achievements.

(b) The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall adopt regulations in furtherance of these provisions, and the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall certify that these regulations protect and enhance public safety.” (Cal. Const., art. I, § 32, emphasis added)

As pertains to this bill, this language raises the question of whether the Legislature still has the authority to enact statutory credit schemes. A memo authored by two retired judges addressed the issue:

“[I]t is not clear whether the credits awarded by CDCR for good behavior are in addition to the credits currently authorized under sections 2933 and 2933.05, or whether CDCR has exclusive jurisdiction to determine all good conduct and rehabilitation credits earned by inmates. It is unlikely that it is the intent of the sponsors of the Act to simply confirm CDCR’s existing authority to grant conduct credits. Rather, the Act is intended to increase the authority of CDCR to grant conduct credits for good behavior and participation in rehabilitation programs. At a minimum, therefore, the Act likely gives CDCR authority to award credits in addition to those already provided by statute, and not to be limited because of the nature of the current crime. If CDCR has exclusive jurisdiction to determine conduct credits, presumably it may set credits at a higher or lower rate than currently provided by statute. It is at least arguable that CDCR is given total control over credits because the Act specifies that CDCR ‘shall have the authority to award credits’ ‘notwithstanding any other law.’” (Couzens & Bigelow, Proposition 57: The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (May 2017), pp. 12-13 <http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/prop57-Parole-and-Credits-Memo.pdf>.)

In People v. Brown (2016) 63 Cal.4th 335, the California Supreme Court considered the scope of Elections Code section 9002, which permits amendments to a proposed initiative measure if they are “reasonably germane” to the measure’s theme, purpose, or subject. In opining that the proposed amendments to Prop. 57 violated this section—including those which would grant CDCR the authority to award good conduct and rehabilitative credits—Justice Chin’s dissenting opinion discussed the implications:

“The constitutional amendment would also give the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (department) constitutional authority to award behavior and other credits. The Legislature has already enacted detailed mandatory provisions for the department to award conduct and participation credits. (See Pen. Code, § 2931 et seq.) But the amended measure’s proposed constitutional language is permissive. Presumably, authority to award credits includes authority not to award credits or to award lower credits than the statutes currently require. Because the Constitution prevails over mere statutes, it appears the proposed constitutional amendment would displace the current statutory provisions for credits and shift authority over such credits from the legislative to the executive branch of government.” (Brown, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 359.)

Justice Chin’s dissent further stated:

“The proposed constitutional amendment gives the department “authority to award credits earned for good behavior and approved rehabilitative or educational achievements.” (Amended measure, § 3, adding art. I, proposed § 32, subd. (a)(2).) But it does not explain how this new, apparently permissive constitutional provision would interact with the detailed, mandatory provisions for credits the Legislature has enacted. As I have already discussed, the constitutional provision would seem to displace the statutory scheme. But I am not sure that is the intent. Displacing the statutory credit scheme might be one of the measure’s “unintended consequences”…. (Brown, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 361.)

The majority opinion did not address this issue. It remains an open question whether the Legislature still has the authority to enact statutes pertaining to credits. However, given the history and intent of Prop. 57, this debate is arguably limited to in-custody credits and not the post-release credits contemplated in this bill.

1. Parole Provisions in Public Safety Trailer Bill

The May Revision of the 2020-2021 budget included a proposal to cap parole terms for most parolees at 24 months, establish earned discharge for non-Penal Code section 290 registrants at 12 months, and establish earned discharge at 18 months for specified Penal Code 290 registrants.

(<http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2020-21/pdf/Revised/BudgetSummary/PublicSafety.pdf> [as of Aug. 3, 2020].) AB 88, the Public Safety Trailer Bill, amends the proposal in the May Revision. Specifically, the trailer bill:

• Limits the period of parole for a person sentenced to a determinate term to 2 years. Requires the Division of Parole Operations (DAPO) to review for possible discharge from parole no later than 12 months after release, and requires the person to be discharged from parole if there have been no violations and the person is not a mentally disordered offender
• Limits the period of parole for a person sentenced to a life term to 3 years. Requires DAPO to review and refer to the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) for possible discharge no later than 12 months after release. If BPH decides to retain the person on parole, a review for discharge must take place no later than 24 months after release.
• Provides that parole caps and early discharge from parole does not apply to individuals currently incarcerated for an offense requiring registration as a sex offender
• Does not apply to a person whose parole term at the time of the commission of the offense is less than the parole term prescribed in the trailer bill
• Does not apply to a person whose review period at the time of the commission of the offense provides for an earlier review period than that prescribed in the trailer bill

1. Argument in Support

The Anti-Recidivism Coalition writes:

Although post-release supervision is intended to help formerly incarcerated people, the conditions of parole supervision create many barriers for ARC members once they return home. This includes frequent check-ins with parole officers and only traveling within a certain radius. Limiting a person’s movement and ability to travel prevents many ARC members from accepting much needed employment opportunities or attending school. Parole restrictions exacerbate the reentry process, as the purpose of parole should not be to restrict formerly incarcerated individuals further, but help them to achieve their goals and thrive in their communities.

Furthermore, many ARC members are kept on parole, even when they have stable housing, a job, and have continued to meet the conditions of parole. … However, parole often does not factor these into their discharge decisions. … Parole should not be time-oriented, but help people reintegrate and eventually discharge from parole. AB 2342 will give formerly incarcerated people the opportunity to discharge off parole early if they pursue and engage in rehabilitative, educational, and vocational programs while remaining crime-free.

…

AB 2342 will reduce recidivism in California by incentivizing persons on parole to comply with the conditions of parole, pursue educational and vocational goals, and participate in rehabilitation programs for which they can earn reduced terms of supervision. AB 2342 is rooted in the understanding that the principle objective of post-incarceration supervision is to coordinate, manage, encourage, and facilitate the successful reintegration of persons on parole. Research shows that public safety is improved when determinations about the nature of community supervision reflect the person’s unique circumstances and conduct, and when the parole system places greater emphasis on rewarding persons on parole for their acquisition of critical life skills rather than punishing them for their mistakes.

1. Argument in Opposition

According to the California District Attorneys Association:

Although AB 2342 excludes sex offenders, every other type of parolee is eligible for reintegration credits, including serious and violent offenders. Even those individuals whose offenses, like murder, resulted in lifetime parole would be able to apply reintegration credits to advance the date of their discharge hearing. It is unclear what the public benefit would be in having those individuals unsupervised in the community sooner than they would be under existing law.

We understand and appreciate your desire to create incentives for parolees to avail themselves of educational, career-training, and substance abuse programs, but we remain concerned about the individuals most likely to benefit from these credits. According to CDCR, the vast majority of parolees receive a three-year period of parole. Most of these parolees can be discharged from parole early if they complete a relatively short period of time without any violations. Individuals whose offenses were non-serious, non-violent, and non-sexual receive a presumptive discharge date of 30 days after completing a six-month period without violating their parole. By the time one of these individuals could earn these credits, they would likely already have been discharged from parole.

Meanwhile, individuals who, by virtue of the seriousness of their offense, receive significantly longer parole terms would be able to significantly shorten the amount of time they are subject to parole supervision. In fact, this appears to be the population most likely to benefit from these credits.

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2342

Author:(McCarty)

As Amended Ver:June 10, 2020

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Creates a program through which parolees, except those required to register as a sex offender, are able to earn "reintegration credits" to reduce the term of parole.

Major Provisions

1. Entitles parolees serving a determinate period of parole, except as specified, to earn reintegration credits to reduce the length of parole.
2. Allows a parolee subject to lifetime parole to earn reintegration credits to advance the date of his or her discharge review.
3. Awards reintegration credits for the completion of an accredited academic program or course, as follows:
   1. Twelve months of credit for a general equivalency high school diploma;
   2. Twelve months of credit for an associate's degree;
   3. Twelve months of credit for a bachelor's degree; and,
   4. Six weeks of credit for the completion of any quarter, trimester, or semester-long course taken towards an academic degree for which a passing grade was received and for which credit was not awarded for the completion of a degree.
4. Defines "accredited" as meaning "that the program or course is accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education or the State of California."
5. Specifies that reintegration credits may be awarded for academic achievements commenced during the individual's term of incarceration but completed while on parole.
6. Awards reintegration credits for other specified activities as follows:
   1. Six months of credit for the completion of a certified career or technical education or training program or certificate, as specified;
   2. Two months of credit for the completion of a cognitive behavioral treatment program;
   3. Three months of credit for the completion of a substance abuse treatment program or residential treatment program that is not court-ordered; and,
   4. Ten days of credit per month for the completion of a minimum of 12 voluntary service hours per month.
7. Specifies that reintegration credits shall not be awarded for the completion of any counseling or treatment that the person is required to complete pursuant to court order.
8. States that a person who is required to register as a sex offender, as specified, is not eligible to earn reintegration credits.
9. Defines ''voluntary service'' for purposes of these provisions as ''any time spent volunteering for a nonprofit or government agency, including time spent visiting prisons, jails, or juvenile detention facilities. Any volunteer activity shall be approved by a parole agent and documented by a site supervisor in a manner prescribed by the department.''
10. Provides that reintegration credits earned during the 12-month period before each annual review shall be awarded at the annual review. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) shall then reduce the parole period by the amount of reintegration credits awarded. Once awarded, earned credits shall not be revoked and may not be waived by any court, parolee, or other government agency.
11. Gives the parole officer discretion to deny credits that have been earned, but not yet awarded at an annual review hearing, but only if the parolee has had a new arrest or parole violation during that 12-month period.
12. States that if no other credits are earned in the 12-month period before the annual review, a parolee may earn 15 days of credit per month for remaining free of any new arrests or parole violations.
13. Limits the awarding of reintegration credits to no more than 12 months of credit during a 12-month period.
14. Requires reintegration credits to be awarded retroactively, as specified.
15. Allows a parolee who successfully earns any amount of reintegration credits to have their radius of restricted travel increased at each annual review, as specified, except as prohibited by law and subject to the approval of the parole officer.
16. Requires CDCR and the Board of Parole Hearings to adopt any regulations necessary to carry out these provisions.
17. Prohibits, as a condition of continued state funding, any entity that receives state funds and provides services and programs in the fields of education, job training, workforce placement, health, or housing, from denying access to services or programs to a person on the basis that the person is currently or previously has been on parole or post release community supervision.
18. States that the ability to earn credits while incarcerated, as specified, cannot be waived by the sentencing court or by the defendant as part of a plea agreement.

COMMENTS:

According to the Author:

"AB 2342 adopts nationwide best practices to improve how someone is supervised within the state's parole system. It is rooted in the understanding that the principle objective of post-incarceration supervision is to coordinate, manage, encourage and facilitate the successful reintegration of persons on parole. Parole is intended to be guided supervision for a successful re-entry and this will be essential as folks are sent home due to the novel coronavirus. California is granting early release to 3,500 folks in an effort to reduce crowding as infections begin spreading through the state prison system. This pandemic will continue to force us to reevaluate our prison overcrowding. Current law allows certain persons on parole to be eligible for discharge from parole after their first 180 successful days; this bill expands the opportunity for early discharge to a broader population of persons on parole.

"This bill encourages people on parole to reach their full potential by incentivizing good behavior, educational attainments and community service. For far too long we have had a punishment approach to all who have paid their dues to society and are trying to re-enter their communities. Formerly incarcerated have to jump through employment and housing hurdles, incentivizing people on parole to reach their educational potential can only ease reintegration. This legislation is taking into consideration all who have served their time and are ready to be productive members of society."

Arguments in Support:

According to Californians for Safety and Justice, a co-sponsor of this bill, "AB 2342 represents sensible parole reform grounded in science and drafted to enhance public safety. It draws upon and expands already successful parts of California law and is endorsed by a broad coalition of criminal justice actors and advocates. AB 2342 will reduce recidivism in California by incentivizing persons on parole to comply with the conditions of parole, pursue educational and vocational goals, and participate in rehabilitation programs for which they can earn reduced terms of supervision. AB 2342 embraces the science that establishes it is counterproductive to inflexibly tie the length of parole to the type of commitment offense and to supervise persons on parole longer than they need to reintegrate into society. AB 2342 allows the length of parole to be responsive to the circumstances of the person under parole supervision, including their conduct while on parole and their ability to acquire educational, occupational and therapeutic skills critical for successful community reentry.

Arguments in Opposition:

According to the Peace Officers Research Association of California, "Current law requires specified persons who have been released on parole from state prison who were imprisoned for a serious felony or an offense requiring registration as a sex offender, and who have been on parole continuously for one year since release from confinement, to be discharged from parole. Current law also requires that specified persons who have been released on parole from state prison who were imprisoned for a violent felony, and who have been released on parole for a period not exceeding 3 years and have been on parole continuously for 2 years since release from confinement, or who have been released on parole for a period not exceeding 5 years and have been on parole continuously for 3 years since release from confinement, be similarly discharged from parole. This bill would instead require all of the persons described, except those imprisoned for an offense requiring registration as a sex offender, who have been on parole continuously for 180 days and during that time have not committed any new offenses or violated the terms or conditions of parole, to be discharged, unless there is good cause, as specified, for the person to be retained.

"PORAC understands that the author wants to work to reduce the recidivism numbers in California. However, shortening or eliminating parole is a dangerous way to address this. Oversight, education, and vocational assistance reduces recidivism, not simply letting a parolee off supervision because they managed to not reoffend within 180 days."

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, annual General Fund costs in the low millions of dollars, in increased workload and at least four additional staff for CDCR to collect and process information on re-integration credit earnings.

VOTES:

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 5-3-0

YES: Jones-Sawyer, Kamlager, Carrillo, Santiago, Wicks

NO: Lackey, Bauer-Kahan, Diep

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-7-0

YES: Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Eggman, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, McCarty, Robert Rivas

NO: Bigelow, Bauer-Kahan, Megan Dahle, Diep, Fong, Petrie-Norris, Voepel

UPDATED:

VERSION: June 10, 2020

CONSULTANT: Cheryl Anderson / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0003050

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2342

Author:(McCarty)

As Amended Ver:June 4, 2020

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Creates a program through which parolees are able to earn "reintegration credits" to reduce the term of parole.

Major Provisions

1. Entitles parolees serving a determinate period of parole to earn reintegration credits to reduce the length of parole.
2. Allows a parolee subject to lifetime parole to earn reintegration credits to advance the date of his or her discharge review.
3. Awards reintegration credits for the completion of an accredited academic program or course, as follows:
   1. Twelve months of credit for a general equivalency high school diploma;
   2. Twelve months of credit for an associate's degree;
   3. Twelve months of credit for a bachelor's degree; and,
   4. Six weeks of credit for the completion of any quarter, trimester, or semester-long course taken towards an academic degree for which a passing grade was received and for which credit was not awarded for the completion of a degree.
4. Defines "accredited" as meaning "that the program or course is accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education or the State of California."
5. Specifies that reintegration credits may be awarded for academic achievements commenced during the individual's term of incarceration but completed while on parole.
6. Awards reintegration credits for other specified activities as follows:
   1. Six months of credit for the completion of a certified career or technical education or training program or certificate, as specified;
   2. Two months of credit for the completion of a cognitive behavioral treatment program;
   3. Three months of credit for the completion of a substance abuse treatment program or residential treatment program that is not court-ordered; and,
   4. Ten days of credit per month for the completion of a minimum of 12 voluntary service hours per month.
7. Specifies that reintegration credits shall not be awarded for the completion of any counseling or treatment that the person is required to complete pursuant to court order.
8. Defines ''voluntary service'' for purposes of these provisions as ''any time spent volunteering for a nonprofit or government agency, including time spent visiting prisons, jails, or juvenile detention facilities. Any volunteer activity shall be approved by a parole agent and documented by a site supervisor in a manner prescribed by the department.''
9. Provides that reintegration credits earned during the 12-month period before each annual review shall be awarded at the annual review. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) shall then reduce the parole period by the amount of reintegration credits awarded. Once awarded, earned credits shall not be revoked and may not be waived by any court, parolee, or other government agency.
10. Gives the parole officer discretion to deny credits that have been earned, but not yet awarded at an annual review hearing, but only if the parolee has had a new arrest or parole violation during that 12-month period.
11. States that if no other credits are earned in the 12-month period before the annual review, a parolee may earn 15 days of credit per month for remaining free of any new arrests or parole violations.
12. Limits the awarding of reintegration credits to no more than 12 months of credit during a 12-month period.
13. Requires reintegration credits to be awarded retroactively, as specified.
14. Allows a parolee who successfully earns any amount of reintegration credits to have their radius of restricted travel increased at each annual review, as specified, except as prohibited by law and subject to the approval of the parole officer.
15. Requires CDCR and the Board of Parole Hearings to adopt any regulations necessary to carry out these provisions.
16. Prohibits, as a condition of continued state funding, any entity that receives state funds and provides services and programs in the fields of education, job training, workforce placement, health, or housing, from denying access to services or programs to a person on the basis that the person is currently or previously has been on parole or post release community supervision.
17. States that the ability to earn credits while incarcerated, as specified, cannot be waived by the sentencing court or by the defendant as part of a plea agreement.

COMMENTS:

According to the Author:

"AB 2342 adopts nationwide best practices to improve how someone is supervised within the state's parole system. It is rooted in the understanding that the principle objective of post-incarceration supervision is to coordinate, manage, encourage and facilitate the successful reintegration of persons on parole. Parole is intended to be guided supervision for a successful re-entry and this will be essential as folks are sent home due to the novel coronavirus. California is granting early release to 3,500 folks in an effort to reduce crowding as infections begin spreading through the state prison system. This pandemic will continue to force us to reevaluate our prison overcrowding. Current law allows certain persons on parole to be eligible for discharge from parole after their first 180 successful days; this bill expands the opportunity for early discharge to a broader population of persons on parole.

"This bill encourages people on parole to reach their full potential by incentivizing good behavior, educational attainments and community service. For far too long we have had a punishment approach to all who have paid their dues to society and are trying to re-enter their communities. Formerly incarcerated have to jump through employment and housing hurdles, incentivizing people on parole to reach their educational potential can only ease reintegration. This legislation is taking into consideration all who have served their time and are ready to be productive members of society."

Arguments in Support:

According to Californians for Safety and Justice, a co-sponsor of this bill, "AB 2342 represents sensible parole reform grounded in science and drafted to enhance public safety. It draws upon and expands already successful parts of California law and is endorsed by a broad coalition of criminal justice actors and advocates. AB 2342 will reduce recidivism in California by incentivizing persons on parole to comply with the conditions of parole, pursue educational and vocational goals, and participate in rehabilitation programs for which they can earn reduced terms of supervision. AB 2342 embraces the science that establishes it is counterproductive to inflexibly tie the length of parole to the type of commitment offense and to supervise persons on parole longer than they need to reintegrate into society. AB 2342 allows the length of parole to be responsive to the circumstances of the person under parole supervision, including their conduct while on parole and their ability to acquire educational, occupational and therapeutic skills critical for successful community reentry.

Arguments in Opposition:

According to the Peace Officers Research Association of California, "Current law requires specified persons who have been released on parole from state prison who were imprisoned for a serious felony or an offense requiring registration as a sex offender, and who have been on parole continuously for one year since release from confinement, to be discharged from parole. Current law also requires that specified persons who have been released on parole from state prison who were imprisoned for a violent felony, and who have been released on parole for a period not exceeding 3 years and have been on parole continuously for 2 years since release from confinement, or who have been released on parole for a period not exceeding 5 years and have been on parole continuously for 3 years since release from confinement, be similarly discharged from parole. This bill would instead require all of the persons described, except those imprisoned for an offense requiring registration as a sex offender, who have been on parole continuously for 180 days and during that time have not committed any new offenses or violated the terms or conditions of parole, to be discharged, unless there is good cause, as specified, for the person to be retained.

"PORAC understands that the author wants to work to reduce the recidivism numbers in California. However, shortening or eliminating parole is a dangerous way to address this. Oversight, education, and vocational assistance reduces recidivism, not simply letting a parolee off supervision because they managed to not reoffend within 180 days."

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, annual General Fund costs in the low millions of dollars, in increased workload and at least four additional staff for CDCR to collect and process information on re-integration credit earnings.

VOTES:

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 5-3-0

YES: Jones-Sawyer, Kamlager, Carrillo, Santiago, Wicks

NO: Lackey, Bauer-Kahan, Diep

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-7-0

YES: Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Eggman, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, McCarty, Robert Rivas

NO: Bigelow, Bauer-Kahan, Megan Dahle, Diep, Fong, Petrie-Norris, Voepel

UPDATED:

VERSION: June 4, 2020

CONSULTANT: Cheryl Anderson / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0003009

Date of Hearing: June 2, 2020

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2342

Author:(McCarty) – As Amended Ver:May 4, 2020

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

SUMMARY:

This bill reduces the period of time during which a parolee or person on post-release community supervisor (PRCS) may be eligible for early-discharge, and creates a program through which parolees may earn “reintegration credits” to reduce the term of parole. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires any parolee, except a registered sex offender, who has been on parole continuously for 180 days and has not committed any new offenses or violated parole, be discharged within 30 days, unless the parolee does not consent to discharge, or the California Department of Corrections Recommends (CDCR) and Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) determines there is good cause for the person to be retained on parole.
2. Requires CDCR, on or before January 31, 2022, and annually thereafter, to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature on the impact of re-integration credits on lowering recidivism rates.
3. Entitles parolees serving a determinate period of parole to earn reintegration credits to reduce the length of parole.
4. Allows a parolee subject to lifetime parole to earn reintegration credits to advance the date of their discharge review.
5. Specifies that the number of persons on parole under the supervision of a single parole agent not exceed 40.
6. Awards reintegration credits for the completion of an accredited academic program or course.
7. Limits reintegration credits to no more than 12 months of credit during a 12-month period.
8. Requires certain reintegration credits be awarded retroactively.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. One-time costs (GF), likely in the mid-hundreds of thousands of dollars, for CDCR to review the entire parole population to determine eligibility for automatic or early discharge. There are approximately 49,000 parolees within the jurisdiction of CDCR. Depending upon the initial date of conviction, these parolees are supervised by either the Department of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) or Board of Parole Hearings (BPH). This bill is retroactive and applies to parolees not convicted of a sex offense. If 230 parole agents are required to spend two hours of overtime at an estimated cost of $70 per hour reviewing their caseload to identify parolees eligible for discharge, costs would be $322,000.
2. Costs (GF) in the tens of millions of dollars annually to CDCR for additional parole officers to accommodate a caseload of no more than 40 parolees.
3. One-time GF costs of $1 million dollars for CDCR to establish a new parole re-integration credits program including, costs to develop and implement software programming necessary to track and maintain earned credits and to account for the impact of rewarded credits on parole terms.
4. Annual GF costs in the millions of dollars, in increased workload and at least four additional staff for CDCR to collect and process information on credit earnings.
5. Savings (GF) in the low millions of dollars in avoided supervision costs to DAPO and BPH once inmates eligible for early discharge are identified and released from parole.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

AB 2342 adopts nationwide best practices to improve how someone is supervised within the state’s parole system. … This bill encourages people on parole to reach their full potential by incentivizing good behavior, educational attainments and community service.

1. Background. The Realignment Act of 2011 changed parole for inmates serving sentences in state prison. Parole under the jurisdiction of CDCR for inmates released from prison on or after October 1, 2011, is limited to those inmates whose prison terms were for serious or violent felonies; were serving Three-Strike sentences; are classified as high-risk sex offenders or mentally disordered offenders; or who, while on certain grants of parole, commit new offenses. All other inmates released from state prison are subject to up to three years of Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS) under local supervision.
   
   Under existing law, any inmate released from state prison following a conviction for a serious or violent felony may be discharged early from parole if the person has been on parole continuously for up to two years without violating parole. There were approximately 50,498 people on parole as of January 2020. There were approximately 20,271 discharges from parole in 2019. For this same period, approximately 4,705 parolees discharged early. A person who was not imprisoned for a serious or violent felony, or for a registerable sex offense, and who is subject to a three-year parole period must be discharged from parole within 30 days after a consecutive six-month period of violation-free parole unless BPH decides to retain the person. This bill authorizes additional time reductions for inmates on parole. The reintegration credits portion of this bill would apply only to individuals released from prison and placed on parole, not on PRCS.
   
   Proposition 57, enacted by the voters in 2016, granted broad authority to CDCR to adopt regulations offering or limiting credits for inmates in custody or on parole. The California Supreme Court has left open the question of whether California Constitution Article I, section 32, as amended by Proposition 57, eliminated the authority of the Legislature to adjust inmate credits without CDCR action.
2. 2020-21 May Revision to the Governor’s Budget. The Governor’s May revise proposes to reduce parole to 12 months for serious and violent offenders not convicted of a sex offense and establish earned discharge at 18 months for certain sex offender registrants. This bill excludes sex offender registrants. The Governor’s Office estimates cost savings of $23.2 million General Fund in 2020-21, increasing to $76 million ongoing General Fund in 2023-24.
3. Related Legislation.
   1. AB 277 (McCarty), of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, creates a program through which parolees, except those subject to sex offender registration requirements, are able to earn “reintegration credits” to reduce the term of parole. AB 277 was held on this committee’s Suspense File.
   2. AB 1182 (Carrillo), of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, requires discharge from parole for specified parolees after six months unless the parolee in question has had violated any of their parole conditions within that six month period. AB 1182 was held on this committee’s Suspense File.

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

Date of Hearing:

Counsel: Cheryl Anderson

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2342

Author:(McCarty) – As Amended Ver:May 4, 2020

SUMMARY:

Reduces the early-discharge eligibility time line for specified parolees and persons on postrelease community supervision (PRCS), and creates a program through which parolees are able to earn “reintegration credits” to reduce the term of parole. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires any person, except those imprisoned for an offense requiring registration as a sex offender, who have been on parole continuously for 180 days and during that time have not committed any new offenses or violated the terms or conditions of parole, to be discharged within 30 days, unless the person does not consent to discharge, or unless the California Department of Corrections Recommends (CDCR) and Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) determines there is good cause, as specified, for the person to be retained.
2. Requires that if a person is retained on parole, CDCR shall, within 30 days after the decision to retain the person, provide the person with a written explanation of its recommendation to the BPH. CDCR shall also adopt a written parole supervision plan to address the person’s behaviors that contributed to the finding of good cause and provide the person with the support and interventions needed to reduce the future risk of offending. Interventions may include counseling and vocational training.
3. Requires that if a person is retained on parole, has been on parole continuously for any subsequent 180 days following a prior decision to retain the person on parole, and has not committed any new offenses or violated the terms or conditions of parole during this 180 days, the person shall, within 30 days, be discharged from parole, unless the person does not consent to discharge, or unless CDCR recommends and BPH determines there is good cause, as specified, for the person to be retained.
4. Requires that if a person is retained on parole, CDCR shall, within 30 days after the decision to retain the person, provide the person with a written explanation of its recommendation to BPH. CDCR shall also create a written plan describing the relevant community-based support and services that are reasonably available to the person on parole and how the department will help connect the person to those supports and services.
5. Specifies that notwithstanding awarded reintegration credits, as specified, a person shall not be discharged from parole before serving at least 180 days on parole.
6. Requires CDCR to on or before January 31, 2022, and annually thereafter, prepare and submit a report to the Legislature on the impact of this program on lowering recidivism and other positive outcomes for formerly incarcerated persons. The report shall also describe the measures CDCR has taken, as specified, to reduce rates of recidivism through improvements to supervision and supportive services.
7. Specifies that the number of persons on parole under the supervision of a single parole agent not exceed 40.
8. Defines good cause as existing when CDCR or BPH identifies one or more documented and verifiable behaviors, actions, or omissions by a parolee that reasonably and persuasively suggest that the person poses an unacceptable risk for committing a serious or violent offense if presently discharged from parole.
9. Specifies that new offense or violation of the terms and conditions of parole does not include an offense that results in a custodial sanction of less than 10 consecutive days, unless the offense indicates that the parolee poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety absent continued supervision as supported by objective and verifiable evidence.
10. Provides that if CDCR or its agent discovers any sentencing error, it shall be disclosed directly to the court and to the inmate or person on parole in writing immediately.
11. Entitles parolees serving a determinate period of parole to earn reintegration credits to reduce the length of parole.
    
12. Allows a parolee subject to lifetime parole to earn reintegration credits to advance the date of his or her discharge review.
    
13. Awards reintegration credits for the completion of an accredited academic program or course, as follows:
    
    1. Twelve months of credit for a general equivalency high school diploma;
       
    2. Twelve months of credit for an associate’s degree;
       
    3. Twelve months of credit for a bachelor’s degree; and,
       
    4. Six weeks of credit for the completion of any quarter, trimester, or semester-long course taken towards an academic degree for which a passing grade was received and for which credit was not awarded for the completion of a degree.
       
14. Defines “accredited” as meaning “that the program or course is accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education or the State of California.”
    
15. Specifies that reintegration credits may be awarded for academic achievements commenced during the individual’s term of incarceration but completed while on parole.
    
16. Awards reintegration credits for other specified activities as follows:
    
    1. Six months of credit for the completion of a certified career or technical education or training program or certificate, as specified;
       
    2. Two months of credit for the completion of a cognitive behavioral treatment program;
       
    3. Three months of credit for the completion of a substance abuse treatment program or residential treatment program that is not court-ordered; and,
       
    4. Ten days of credit per month for the completion of a minimum of 12 voluntary service hours per month.
       
17. Specifies that reintegration credits shall not be awarded for the completion of any counseling or treatment that the person is required to complete pursuant to court order.
18. Defines ''voluntary service'' for purposes of these provisions as ''any time spent volunteering for a nonprofit or government agency, including time spent visiting prisons, jails, or juvenile detention facilities. Any volunteer activity shall be approved by a parole agent and documented by a site supervisor in a manner prescribed by the department.''
    
19. Provides that reintegration credits earned during the 12-month period before each annual review shall be awarded at the annual review. CDCR shall then reduce the parole period by the amount of reintegration credits awarded. Once awarded, earned credits shall not be revoked and may not be waived by any court, parolee, or other government agency.
    
20. Gives the parole officer discretion to deny credits that have been earned, but not yet awarded at an annual review hearing, but only if the parolee has had a new arrest or parole violation during that 12-month period.
21. States that if no other credits are earned in the 12-month period before the annual review, a parolee may earn 15 days of credit per month for remaining free of any new arrests or parole violations.
    
22. Limits the awarding of reintegration credits to no more than 12 months of credit during a 12-month period.
    
23. Requires reintegration credits to be awarded retroactively, as specified.
    
24. Allows a parolee who successfully earns any amount of reintegration credits to have their radius of restricted travel increased at each annual review, as specified, except as prohibited by law and subject to the approval of the parole officer.
    
25. Requires CDCR and the BPH to adopt any regulations necessary to carry out these provisions.
26. Requires CDCR to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature, on or before January 31, 2022, and annually thereafter, regarding the success of the reintegration credit program, as specified.
27. Requires a person who has been on PRCS for 180 days with no new offenses or violation of the conditions of PRSC during the 180 days since release that result in a custodial sanction be discharged from supervision immediately.
28. Prohibits, as a condition of continued state funding, any entity that receives state funds and provides services and programs in the fields of education, job training, workforce placement, health, or housing, from denying access to services or programs to a person on the basis that the person is currently or previously has been on parole or PRCS.
29. States that the ability to earn conduct credits cannot be waived by the sentencing court or by the defendant as part of a plea agreement.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides for a period of post-prison supervision immediately following a period of incarceration in state prison. (Pen. Code, § 3000 et seq.)
   
2. Requires the following persons released from prison prior to, or on or after July 1, 2013, be subject to parole under the supervision of CDCR (Pen. Code, § 3000.08, subds. (a) and (c)):
   
   1. A person who committed a serious felony listed in Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c);
      
   2. A person who committed a violent felony listed in Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (c);
      
   3. A person serving a Three-Strikes sentence;
      
   4. A high risk sex offender;
      
   5. A mentally disordered offender;
      
   6. A person required to register as a sex offender and subject to a parole term exceeding three years at the time of the commission of the offense for which they are being released; and,
      
   7. A person subject to lifetime parole at the time of the commission of the offense for which they are being released.
      
3. Requires all other offenders released from prison to be placed on PRCS under the supervision of a county agency, such as a probation department. (Pen. Code, § 3000.08, subd. (b).)
   
4. States that, notwithstanding any other law, a person released from prison prior to October 1, 2011, is subject to parole under CDCR supervision. (Pen. Code, § 3000.09.)
   
5. Establishes parole-term lengths depending on the committing offense and the date the offense is committed. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000, subd. (b)(1)-(6), 3000.1.)
   
6. Entitles a parolee to an annual review hearing until the statutory maximum period of parole expires. (Pen. Code, § 3001, subd. (d.)
   
7. Provides for the opportunity for early discharge from parole for parolees after a certain period of continuously-successful parole, depending on the circumstances of the offense and the length of the parole period. For example (Pen. Code, § 3001):
   1. Requires that specified persons who have been released on parole who were not imprisoned for a violent felony, a serious felony, or an offense requiring registration as a sex offender, and who have been on parole for a period of 6 months, be discharged from parole within 30 days unless BPH, for good cause, determines the person should be retained; or
   2. Requires specified persons who have been released on parole who were imprisoned for a serious felony or an offense requiring registration as a sex offender, and who have been on parole continuously for one year since release from confinement, to be similarly discharged from parole; or
   3. Requires that specified persons who have been released on parole from state prison who were imprisoned for a violent felony, and who have been released on parole for a period not exceeding 3 years and have been on parole continuously for 2 years since release from confinement, or who have been released on parole for a period not exceeding 5 years and have been on parole continuously for 3 years since release from confinement, be similarly discharged from parole.
8. Provides that an inmate who has committed specified crimes and is released on parole shall not be returned to a location within 35 miles of the residence of a victim or witness if the victim or witness makes such a request and the BPH finds that the placement is necessary to protect the victim or witness. (Pen. Code, § 3003, subds. (f) & (h).)
   
9. Triggers suspension of the period of parole if a parolee absconds. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000, subd. (b)(6) & 3064.)
   
10. Provides that any person who has been on PRCS continuously for six consecutive months without any violations of conditions of release that result in a custodial sanction may be considered for immediate discharge. (Pen. Code, § 3456, subd. (a)(2).)
    
11. Provides that any person who has been on PRCS continuously for one year without any violations of conditions of release that result in a custodial sanction shall be discharged from supervision within 30 days. (Pen. Code, § 3456, subd. (a)(3).)
12. Grants certain conduct credits against a person’s sentence that may be earned by persons who are incarcerated, as specified. (Pen. Code, §§ 2933, 4019.)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “AB 2342 adopts nationwide best practices to improve how someone is supervised within the state’s parole system. It is rooted in the understanding that the principle objective of post-incarceration supervision is to coordinate, manage, encourage and facilitate the successful reintegration of persons on parole. Parole is intended to be guided supervision for a successful re-entry and this will be essential as folks are sent home due to the novel coronavirus. California is granting early release to 3,500 folks in an effort to reduce crowding as infections begin spreading through the state prison system. This pandemic will continue to force us to reevaluate our prison overcrowding. Current law allows certain persons on parole to be eligible for discharge from parole after their first 180 successful days; this bill expands the opportunity for early discharge to a broader population of persons on parole.

“This bill encourages people on parole to reach their full potential by incentivizing good behavior, educational attainments and community service. For far too long we have had a punishment approach to all who have paid their dues to society and are trying to re-enter their communities. Formerly incarcerated have to jump through employment and housing hurdles, incentivizing people on parole to reach their educational potential can only ease reintegration. This legislation is taking into consideration all who have served their time and are ready to be productive members of society.”

1. Changes to Parole Supervision As a Result of Criminal Justice Realignment: Prior to realignment, individuals released from prison were placed on parole and supervised in the community by parole agents of CDCR. Realignment shifted the supervision of some released prison inmates from CDCR parole agents to local probation departments. Parole under the jurisdiction of CDCR for inmates released from prison on or after October 1, 2011 is limited to those defendants whose term was for a serious or violent felony; were serving a Three-Strikes sentence; are classified as high-risk sex offenders; who are required to undergo treatment as mentally disordered offenders; or who, while on certain paroles, commit new offenses. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subds. (a) and (c), and 3451, subd. (b).) All other inmates released from prison are subject to up to three years of PRCS under probation supervision. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subd. (b), and 3451, subd. (a).)

This bill would change some of the existing eligibility requirements for early discharge from parole and PRCS. The reintegration credits portion of this bill would apply only to individuals released from prison and placed on parole, not on PRCS.

1. Length of Parole Term: The length of a person’s parole term depends on the committing offense, the sentence imposed, and the date the offense is committed. Most inmates who received a determinate sentence will serve a three-year period of parole, with the possibility of a one-year extension. (Pen. Code § 3000, subd. (b).)
   
   The last data provided to this committee by CDCR (January 31, 2018) regarding the breakdown in the parole population by parole period is as follows:
   

1. Discharge from Parole: Most parolees can be discharged from parole early by successfully completing a specified amount of parole time without obtaining any violations. Different time periods apply in determining the presumptive discharge date, depending on the length of parole. (See Pen. Code, § 3001.) For example, a person who was not imprisoned for a serious or violent felony, or for a registerable sex offense, and who is subject to a three-year parole period must be discharged from parole within 30 days after a consecutive six-month period of violation-free parole unless BPH decides to retain the person. (Pen. Code, § 3001, subd. (a).)
   
   When a parolee reaches the presumptive discharge date, CDCR will prepare a recommendation as to whether or not the person should remain on parole. Parole terminates automatically unless BPH decides to retain the parolee after the presumptive discharge date. If the parolee is retained on parole, the parolee’s case will be reviewed annually until the maximum parole date is reached. (Pen. Code, § 3001, subd. (d).) If a parolee has not been discharged early, the parolee must discharge after serving the maximum period of parole specified.
   
   CDCR has informed this committee that there were a total of 23,464 discharges during the two year period from 2017 through 2018. For this same period, 8,513 parolees discharged early.

This bill would lower some of the parole timelines for early release eligibility, in particular for some serious or violent felons who have been on parole continuously for 180 days and have not re-offended. The reduced timeline does not apply to a parolee required to register as a sex offender. Moreover, if the person poses an unacceptable risk for committing a serious or violent offense, BPH may retain the person on parole. The parolee must also consent to early discharge. If a person is retained on parole, CDCR must develop a written plan to provide the person with interventions including counseling and vocational training.

1. CDCR Parole Generally: Generally, BPH has jurisdiction over parolees who committed their commitment offense before July 1, 2013, and all Penal Code section 3000.1 cases (e.g., commitment crimes including first degree murder, second degree murder, life terms for kidnapping, and specified sexual offenses involving children under the age of 14 years old). CDCR’s Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) has jurisdiction over individuals who committed their offense on or after July 1, 2013, with the exception of those committed under Penal Code section 3000.1. (Pen. Code, § 3000, subd. (b)(5).)

Both the early release eligibility provisions and the reintegration credits provisions appear to apply to both parole populations – BPH and DAPO.

1. DAPO’s Earned Discharge Policy: According to information provided to this committee by CDCR, DAPO’s Earned Discharge Policy, currently in effect, applies to parolees with commitment offenses that have occurred after July 1, 2013, with the exception of Penal Code section 3000.1 cases. Under the provisions of the Earned Discharge Policy, a parolee who accomplishes the goals listed within their case plan, successfully addresses their criminogenic needs, particularly in the areas of substance abuse, mental health, employment, and education, and completes any mandated programming (e.g., batterer’s program, parenting classes, etc.) will discharge from parole within at least 15-18 months.

Under the early release provisions of this bill, a parolee could discharge after 180 days.

1. Discharge from PRCS: A person on PRCS must be discharged from supervision within 30 days if they have been on PRCS for a continuous year with no violations of their PRCS conditions that result in a custodial sanction. (Pen. Code, § 3456, subd. (a)(3).) A person on PRCS may be considered for immediate discharge if they have been on PRCS for 180 consecutive days with no violations of their PRCS conditions that result in a custodial sanction.

This bill would lower some of the PRCS timelines for early release eligibility and eliminate the supervising county’s ability to retain a person on PRCS in some instances. In particular, the bill would require the supervising county to discharge a person from PRCS if they had been on 180 continuous days of supervision with no new offenses or violations during the initial 180 days of release.

1. Constitutional Authority to Award Credits Given to CDCR in Proposition 57: Proposition 57, the “The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016” of the November 2016 election changed the rules governing parole and the granting of custody credits to inmates in state prison. Prop. 57 authorized CDCR to award credits earned for good behavior and approved rehabilitative or educational achievements. Before Prop. 57, the matter of conduct credits earned in prison was governed by statute. (See e.g., Pen. Code, §§ 2933 and 2933.1.)
   
   Specifically, Prop. 57 added section 32 to article I of the California Constitution which states, in pertinent part:

“32. (a) The following provisions are hereby added to enhance public safety, improve rehabilitation, and avoid the release of prisoners by federal court order, notwithstanding anything in this article or any other provision of law….

(2) Credit Earning: The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall have authority to award credits earned for good behavior and approved rehabilitative or educational achievements.

(b) The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall adopt regulations in furtherance of these provisions, and the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall certify that these regulations protect and enhance public safety.” (Cal. Const., art. I, § 32, emphasis added)

As pertains to this bill, this language raises the question of whether the Legislature still has the authority to enact statutory credit schemes. “It is at least arguable that CDCR is given total control over credits because the Act specifies that CDCR ‘shall have the authority to award credits’ ‘notwithstanding any other law.’” (See Proposition 57: The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016, by Couzens & Bigelow, May 2017, p. 13. < http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/prop57-Parole-and-Credits-Memo.pdf >.)

In People v. Brown (2016) 63 Cal.4th 335, the Supreme Court considered the scope of Elections Code section 9002, which permits amendments to an initiative if they are “reasonably germane” to the measure’s theme, purpose, or subject. In opining the proposed amendments to Prop. 57 which would grant CDCR the power to award credits violated this section, Justice Chin’s dissenting opinion discussed the implications:

“The constitutional amendment would also give the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (department) constitutional authority to award behavior and other credits. The Legislature has already enacted detailed mandatory provisions for the department to award conduct and participation credits. (See Pen. Code, § 2931 et seq.) But the amended measure's proposed constitutional language is permissive. Presumably, authority to award credits includes authority not to award credits or to award lower credits than the statutes currently require. Because the Constitution prevails over mere statutes, it appears the proposed constitutional amendment would displace the current statutory provisions for credits and shift authority over such credits from the legislative to the executive branch of government.”

For the moment, I will assume that altering the balance of power between the two branches of government in this way would not be an impermissible constitutional revision. … But shifting power from one branch of government to another is not reasonably germane to the original measure, which left the separation of powers between the branches of government untouched. (Brown, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 359.)

Justice Chin’s dissent further stated:

“The proposed constitutional amendment gives the department “authority to award credits earned for good behavior and approved rehabilitative or educational achievements.” (Amended measure, § 3, adding art. I, proposed § 32, subd. (a)(2).) But it does not explain how this new, apparently permissive constitutional provision would interact with the detailed, mandatory provisions for credits the Legislature has enacted. As I have already discussed, the constitutional provision would seem to displace the statutory scheme. But I am not sure that is the intent. Displacing the statutory credit scheme might be one of the measure's “unintended consequences”…. (Brown, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 361.)

It remains an open question whether the Legislature still has the authority to enact statutes pertaining to credits. However, as noted by Justice Chin, it is possible that one of the “unintended consequences” of Prop. 57 was to shift this authority exclusively to the executive branch.

The reintegration credits portion of this bill would apply to individuals released from prison and placed on parole, not on PRCS.

1. Parole Caseload: CDCR has informed this committee that the general population, which is most of their parole population, is supervised under their California Parole Supervision and Reintegration Model (CPSRM) at 53 parolees to one parole agent. Their sex offender population is supervised under their Sex Offender Management Program (SOMP) at 25 registered sex offenders to one parole agent with global positioning system (GPS) monitoring. Similarly, their GPS gang caseloads are supervised at a 25 to 1 ratio. Their GPS caseloads only make up approximately 6,500 of their 55,000 total population, so most supervision is at 53-1 ratio.

This bill would limit the number of persons on parole under the supervision of single parole agent to 40.

1. Prohibition on Waiving Credits: An incarcerated person may earn certain credits to be applied against their sentence. For example, in addition to actual time spent in presentence custody (Pen. Code, § 2900.5), a person may earn credits, with exceptions, for good conduct during their presentence custody (Pen. Code, § 4019). Additionally, a person may earn day-for-day credits, with exceptions, for good conduct during post-sentence incarceration. (Pen. Code, § 2933.)

For over 140 years California law has provided that “Any one may waive the advantage of a law intended solely for his benefit.” (Civ. Code, § 3513.) This maxim of jurisprudence has been applied in a variety of criminal cases, upholding waivers of significant rights. (See, e.g., People v. Johnson (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1050, 1055 [waiver of credits for time in pre-sentence custody]; People v. Lara (2012) 54 Cal.4th 896, 903, fn. 3 [“prisoner may waive presentence credits, including conduct credits, as part of a negotiated disposition”].) The ability to waive presentence custody credits affords a court the flexibility to reinstate probation while having the defendant serve up to one year in the county jail. (Pen. Code, § 19.2 [one-year limit on jail time that can be served as a condition of probation].)

On the other hand, post-sentence conduct credit is determined by CDCR. (Pen. Code, §§ 2930–2935; People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4^th 20, 31.) Because CDCR has the duty of determining prison behavior and worktime credits, it is an abuse of discretion for a sentencing court to determine prison credits before the administrative process is completed. (People v. Chew (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 45, 50–51, disapproved on another point in People v. Buckhalter, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 40.)

This bill would clarify that the ability to earn post-sentence credits in prison for good conduct under Penal Code section 2933 cannot be waived by the sentencing court or by the defendant as part of a plea agreement. However, this bill would also prohibit a sentencing court or defendant as part of a plea agreement from waiving the ability to earn pre-sentence conduct credits (Pen. Code, § 4019). Should this flexibility currently afforded courts and criminal defendants in plea negotiations be taken away?

1. Practical Considerations: The Governor’s May Revision of the 2020-2021 budget proposes to set a cap on parole terms and establish earned discharge:

In an effort to align community supervision terms with evidence that most recidivism occurs earlier in the supervision period, create incentives for positive behavior change, and more effectively use limited state resources, the May Revision proposes to cap supervision for most parolees at 24 months, establish earned discharge for non-Penal Code section 290 registrants at 12 months, and establish earned discharge at 18 months for certain Penal Code section 290 registrants. This proposal is expected to result in estimated savings of $23.2 million General Fund in 2020-21, increasing to $76 million ongoing General Fund in 2023-24.

(< http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/ > [as of May 14, 2020].)

1. Argument in Support: According to Californians for Safety and Justice, a co-sponsor of this bill, “AB 2342 represents sensible parole reform grounded in science and drafted to enhance public safety. It draws upon and expands already successful parts of California law and is endorsed by a broad coalition of criminal justice actors and advocates. AB 2342 will reduce recidivism in California by incentivizing persons on parole to comply with the conditions of parole, pursue educational and vocational goals, and participate in rehabilitation programs for which they can earn reduced terms of supervision. AB 2342 embraces the science that establishes it is counterproductive to inflexibly tie the length of parole to the type of commitment offense and to supervise persons on parole longer than they need to reintegrate into society. AB 2342 allows the length of parole to be responsive to the circumstances of the person under parole supervision, including their conduct while on parole and their ability to acquire educational, occupational and therapeutic skills critical for successful community reentry.

“For decades, the parameters of parole supervision in California have been tethered to commitment offense, even though the crime for which a person is convicted often says extraordinarily little about that person’s readiness to become a responsible and productive citizen. Additionally, the primary focus of parole agents and staff has been to spot missteps and punish persons for those missteps, rather than identify persons’ needs, and promote their successes in attaining goals to meet those needs. While people on parole are encouraged to seek educational or job training opportunities, the parole system is not designed to provide them with the support and incentives to find and complete programs that greatly increase the likelihood of successful reentry.

“California has a 55 to 1 person on parole to Agent funding ratio for most of the parole population. Most parole agents are frequently responsible for supervising 60 or more persons on parole. These ratios are too large to allow agents to develop a nuanced understanding of the needs of the persons whom they supervise. Agents are forced to simply “manage” their caseloads via a predetermined list of “specifications” structured around a case “point” system rather than being positioned to meaningfully respond to the multifaceted, complex issues faced by the persons whom they supervise. These predicaments restrict the agent’s ability to be flexible and responsive while concurrently requiring the frequent transfer of people on parole to a new supervising Agent. This reality short-changes persons on parole and more distressingly adversely impacts community safety.

“These facts expose the faults of our current scheme, which fails to tailor parole terms and resources to the needs and complex circumstances of the person on parole. California’s system of parole supervision must adopt a new paradigm that focuses on the successful reintegration of persons on parole, and which gives parole agents the time and tools they need to identify those who should remain on parole, and help those persons obtain the programs and achieve measurable progress towards acquiring the skills necessary to become productive members in their communities.

“AB 2342 is rooted in the understanding that the principle objective of post-incarceration supervision is to coordinate, manage, encourage and facilitate the successful reintegration of persons on parole. Research shows that public safety is improved when determinations about the length and nature of community supervision reflect the person’s unique circumstances and conduct, and when the parole system places greater emphasis on rewarding persons on parole for their acquisition of critical life skills rather than punishing them for their mistakes.

“AB 2342 adopts nationwide best practices to improve under what circumstances and how long persons are supervised within the state’s parole system. Research demonstrates that persons who fail on parole tend to fail very quickly, usually during their first 90 days on parole, and almost always before their first six months. California law partially reflects this reality by allowing certain persons on parole to be eligible for discharge from parole after their first 180 days on parole if they perform well. AB 2342 expands this opportunity for early discharge to a broader population of persons on parole. AB 2342 incentivizes persons on parole to engage in crime-free behavior and gain greater aptitude in education, work readiness and physical and behavioral health, instead of simply “doing their time” (the current paradigm).

“AB 2342 also lowers the parole agent to person on parole ratio for non-specialized caseloads to 40-1. Reducing community supervision caseload ratios (while maintaining parole’s current funding level) will improve public safety by better enabling agents to develop the critically important personal relationship with persons on parole, identify the needs of those persons, connect them to services and programs that address those needs, and monitor their progress towards acquiring competences to thrive when they are discharged from parole.

“In this way, AB 2342 is a sensible counterpart to the Governor’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Because of COVID-19, over 6,000 people, some who represent a new and unique risk to the community and themselves have unexpectedly been released from prison and are now being supervised by parole. Now more than ever before, it is imperative that parole has the capability to quickly and accurately identify who in their population is most at risk to the often-deadly consequences and concurrent public safety implications of the COVID-19 virus. AB 2342 helps to ensure parole is effectively deployed and appropriately supported in the community as they respond to the unique public safety obligations the COVID-19 pandemic demands.”

1. Argument in Opposition: According to the Peace Officers Research Association of California, “Current law requires specified persons who have been released on parole from state prison who were imprisoned for a serious felony or an offense requiring registration as a sex offender, and who have been on parole continuously for one year since release from confinement, to be discharged from parole. Current law also requires that specified persons who have been released on parole from state prison who were imprisoned for a violent felony, and who have been released on parole for a period not exceeding 3 years and have been on parole continuously for 2 years since release from confinement, or who have been released on parole for a period not exceeding 5 years and have been on parole continuously for 3 years since release from confinement, be similarly discharged from parole. This bill would instead require all of the persons described, except those imprisoned for an offense requiring registration as a sex offender, who have been on parole continuously for 180 days and during that time have not committed any new offenses or violated the terms or conditions of parole, to be discharged, unless there is good cause, as specified, for the person to be retained.

“PORAC understands that the author wants to work to reduce the recidivism numbers in California. However, shortening or eliminating parole is a dangerous way to address this. Oversight, education, and vocational assistance reduces recidivism, not simply letting a parolee off supervision because they managed to not reoffend within 180 days.”

1. Prior Legislation:
   1. AB 1182 (Carrillo), of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, would have required discharge from parole for specified parolees after six months unless the parolee had violated any of their parole conditions within that six month period. AB 1182 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
   2. AB 277 (McCarty), of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, would have created a program through which parolees, except those subject to sex offender registration requirements, are able to earn “reintegration credits” to reduce the term of parole. AB 277 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
   3. AB 1940 (McCarty), of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session, would have created a program through which parolees, except those subject to sex offender registration requirements, are able to earn “reintegration credits” to reduce the term of parole. AB 1940 failed passage in the Assembly.
   4. AB 109 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 15, Statutes of 2011, enacted Criminal Justice Realignment, which, among other things, shifted the supervision of some inmates released from prison from parole agents of CDCR to local supervision by probation departments.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

#cut50 (Co-Sponsor)
Anti Recidivism Coalition (Co-Sponsor)
Californians for Safety and Justice (Co-Sponsor)
American Civil Liberties Union/northern California/southern California/san Diego and Imperial Counties
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Coalition for Women Prisoners
California Public Defenders Association
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Initiate Justice
Re:store Justice
San Francisco Public Defender
Smart Justice California
Underground Scholars Initiative UC Berkeley

Oppose

Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)
San Bernardino County Safety Employees' Benefit Association

Analysis Prepared by:

Cheryl Anderson / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744