Date of Hearing: April 10, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 964

Author:(Medina) – As Amended Ver:March 14, 2019

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

SUMMARY:

Requires all local detention facilities to offer in-person visitation and gives any facility that does not currently offer in-person visitation until January 1, 2025, to comply with this requirement.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Potential costs through the 2023-2024 fiscal year (Local Costs – Proposition 30/GF) in the tens of millions of dollars for capital improvements and increased operational costs for in-person visits at the 22 jail facilities in the state that currently operate video-only visitation. To the extent local agencies submit claims for reimbursement and the Commission on State Mandates determines the costs constitute a reimbursable state mandate, the state could be required to provide funding for these costs. Additionally, any increase in overall costs to local jails is potentially subject to the requirements of Proposition 30 in lieu of mandate reimbursement.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

Eliminating in-person visitation would have a drastic and negative impact on families, particularly children, the wellbeing of incarcerated people, and the institutional environment. Families with members in these institutions must pay for video calls from home or can video call their incarcerated family member from the jail lobby for free. In the latter situation, both the visitor and the incarcerated person are often in the same building, but instead of having a real visit, they can only see each other through a video screen. Even when family members travel to these jails to visit their loved ones through a video screen, equipment often malfunctions, leaving them unable to see their loved ones at all.

1. Background. AB 103 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 17, Statutes of 2017, addressed the issue of video-only visitation in local jail facilities after SB 1157 (Mitchell), of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, was vetoed. Portions of AB 103 prevent any jail facility that provides in-person visits as of January 1, 2017, from converting to video-only visitation. However, the remaining facilities with video-only visitation are allowed to maintain video-only visitation. This bill gives those remaining facilities until 2025 to shift to in-person visits. Some counties, such as Riverside and San Mateo, maintain they do not currently have the space to accommodate in-person visits post-Realignment without adding space requiring additional funds. Proposition 30 (2012) requires any legislation adding pressures to county jail operation must be accompanied by additional funding or counties may decline implementation of the legislation.
2. Support. According to the California Public Defenders Association:

By requiring each local detention facility to offer in-person visitation, Assembly Bill 964 mandates local detention facilities to provide the incarcerated with an opportunity to maintain a personal relationship. Incarceration is also incredibly difficult – sometimes more so – for the inmate’s family and friends. In-person visitation offers these individuals with an opportunity to address, to diminish, and to heal from the trauma that is caused by incarceration.

1. Opposition. According to the Riverside Sheriffs’ Association:

The mandates contained within AB 964 will prove to be a very expensive hit to the state budget, or, in the alternative, county budgets and result in costly litigation. However, by pushing the implementation date back, it appears that the bill hopes to avoid the suspense file by not impacting the state budget for another 6-7 years.

1. Prior Legislation.
   1. AB 103, (Committee on Budget), Chapter 17, Statutes of 2017, prevents all facilities that provided in-person visitation as of January 1, 2017, from converting to video-only visitation.
      
   2. SB 1157 (Mitchell), of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, would have prohibited local correctional facilities and juvenile facilities from replacing in-person visits with video or other types of electronic visitation. SB 1157 was vetoed by the governor.

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

Date of Hearing: April 2, 2019

Counsel: Nikki Moore

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 964

Author:(Medina) – As Amended Ver:March 14, 2019

SUMMARY:

Requires all local detention facilities to offer in-person visitation, and gives any facility that does not currently offer in-person visitation until January 1, 2025 to comply with this requirement.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires each county jail to contain a sufficient number of rooms to allow certain persons belonging to specified classes to be confined separately and distinctly from persons belonging to other specified classes. (Pen. Code, § 4001.)
   
2. Defines “in-person visit” to mean an “on-site visit that may include barriers, and includes interactions in which an inmate has physical contact with a visitor, the inmate is able to see a visitor through a barrier, or the inmate is otherwise in a room with a visitor without physical contact.” (Pen. Code, § 4032.)
   
3. Excludes from the definition of “in-person visit” an interaction between an inmate and a visitor through the use of an on-site, two-way, audio-video terminal. (Pen. Code, § 4032, subd. (a)(1).)
   
4. Defines “video visitation” to mean “an interaction between an inmate and a member of the public through the means of an audio-visual communication device when the member of the public is located at a local detention facility or at a remote location. “(Pen. Code, § 4032, subd. (a)(2).)
   
5. Defines “local detention facility” to mean “any city, county, city and county, or regional facility used for the confinement for more than 24 hours of adults, or of both adults and minors, but does not include that portion of a facility for the confinement of both adults and minors which is devoted only to the confinement of minor, and also includes any city, county, city and county, or regional facility, constructed on or after January 1, 1978, used for the confinement, regardless of the length of confinement, of adults or of both adults and minors.” (Pen. Code, §§ 4032, subd. (a)(3); 6031.4, subds. (a) & (b).)
   
6. Defines “local detention facility” to include “a court holding facility within a superior court that is operated by or supervised by personnel trained pursuant to Section 1024 of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations. A court holding facility does not include an area within a courtroom or a public area in the courthouse, and does not include those rooms that are used for holding persons for interviews, interrogations, or investigations, and are either separate from a jail or located in the administrative area of a law enforcement facility.” (Pen. Code, §§ 4032, subd. (a)(3); 6031.4, subds. (c) & (d).)
   
7. Prevents a local detention facility that offered in-person visitation as of January 1, 2017 from converting to video visitation only. (Pen. Code, § 4032, subd. (b).)
8. Prohibits a local detention facility from charging for visitation when visitors are onsite and participating in either in-person or video visitation. For purposes of this subdivision, “onsite” is defined as at the location where the inmate is housed. (Pen. Code, § 4032, subd. (c).)
9. States that if a local detention facility offered video visitation only as of January 1, 2017, on-site video visitation shall be offered free of charge, and the first hour of remote video visitation per week shall be offered free of charge if the facility offers remote video visitation. (Pen. Code, § 4032, subd. (d).)
   
10. Requires inspections of local detention facilities be done biennially, at minimum, and requires inspections to include the types and availability of visitation, including, but not limited to, the mode of visitation, visitation hours, time inmates are allowed for visitation, and any restrictions on inmate visitation. (Pen. Code, § 6031.1.)
    
11. Provides that any conditional funding awarded by the Board of State and Community Corrections to a participating county for the construction or renovation of a local jail facility or adult local criminal justice facility after June 27, 2019, shall be used to construct or renovate a facility that meets or surpasses the minimum number of weekly visits as specified in regulation through the use of in-person visitation space. (Gov. Code, § 15820.948, subd. (a).)
12. Provides that in the case that there has been a conditional award of funding for the construction or renovation of a local jail facility or adult local criminal justice facility based on a proposal for a facility that only provided for video visitation, the county must submit a scope change to amend the proposal to include in-person visitation prior to the board's approval of the conditional award. (Gov. Code, § 15820.948, subd. (b).)

EXISTING BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS REGULATION:

1. Requires a facility administrator of a county jail to develop written policies and procedures for inmate visiting which shall provide for as many visits and visitors as facility schedules, space, and number of personnel will allow. For sentenced inmates in county jail Type I facilities and all inmates in Type II facilities there shall be allowed no fewer than two visits totaling at least one hour per inmate each week. In Type III and Type IV facilities there shall be allowed one or more visits, totaling at least one hour, per week. (15 Cal. Code Regs. § 1062.)
   
2. States that in Type I facilities, the facility administrator shall develop and implement written policies and procedures to allow visiting for non-sentenced detainees; the policies and procedures are to include a schedule to assure that non-sentenced detainees will be afforded a visit no later than the calendar day following arrest. (15 Cal. Code Regs. § 1062.)
   
3. Requires any visiting policies developed to include provision for visitation by minor children of the inmate. (15 Cal. Code Regs. § 1062.)
   
4. Permits the use of video visitation to supplement existing visitation programs, but prohibits a facility from considering a video visit to meet the requirements regarding visitation if in-person visitation is requested by an inmate. (15 Cal. Code Regs. § 1062.)
   
5. Prohibits a facility from charging for visitation when visitors are onsite and participating in either in-person or video visitation. For purposes of this subsection, “onsite” is defined as the location where the inmate is housed. (15 Cal. Code Regs. § 1062.)
   
6. Exempts from the rules mandating an in-person visitation a facilities which (1) exclusively used video visitation prior to January 1, 2017 or (2) had been designed without in-person visitation space and conditionally awarded funds prior to June 27, 2017 (15 Cal. Code Regs. § 1062.)
   
7. Prohibits a local detention facility that offered video visitation only as of January 1, 2017 from charging for the first hour of remote video visitation per week; permits charges after the first hour of the first visit per week. (15 Cal. Code Regs. § 1062.)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “When a person is incarcerated, even for a short period of time, family contact and in-person visits are crucial to maintaining family stability, reducing disciplinary infractions and violence while incarcerated, reducing recidivism, increasing the chances of obtaining employment post-release, and facilitation successful re-entry.
   
   “Since the implementation of public safety realignment, more people are serving time in county jails and for longer period of time than ever before. Eliminating in-person visitation would have a drastic and negative impact on families, particularly children, the wellbeing of incarcerated people, and the institutional environment.

“It is unconscionable that 74% of county jails across the country that implemented video visitation eliminated in-person visitation.

“Families with members in these institutions must pay for video calls from home or can video call their incarcerated family member from the jail lobby for free. In the latter situation, both the visitor and the incarcerated person are often in the same building, but instead of having a real visit, they can only see each other through a video screen.

“Even when family members travel to these jails to ‘visit’ their loved ones through a video screen, equipment often malfunctions, leaving them unable to see their loved ones at all.”

1. Background: According to the background materials provided by the author, “In 2016 SB 1157 (Mitchell) attempted to prohibit prisons from having video visitation only, and was vetoed by Governor Brown. The next year the Governor Brown signed the budget that included AB 103 that banned jails from having video visit only after January 1st 2017. However, it allowed prisons that had plans or already converted to continue with the cruel practice.
   

“At least seven California counties (Kings, Madera, Napa, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Mateo, and Solano) have eliminated in-person visitation in at least one of their jails, meaning families there can only see their loved ones through a computer screen.

“Two counties (Imperial and Placer) have severely restricted in-person visitation since adopting video visits.

“Nine additional counties (Lake, Orange, Riverside, San Benito, Shasta, Stanislaus, Tehama, Tulare, and Ventura) intend to renovate or build new facilities that have no space for in-person visits.

“At least six California counties (Butte, Glen, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Plumas, and San Luis Obispo) use video visits in at least one of their jails and at least seven other counties (Alameda, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Sutter, and Yolo) planned to adopt a video visitation system.”

1. Recent Legislation: SB 1157 (Mitchell) of 2016 would have required a local detention facility that does not have existing space available for in-person visitation to provide such visitation by Jan. 1, 2022.
   
   In 2016, Governor Brown vetoed SB 1157, stating, “This bill would prohibit the exclusive use of video visitation at local correctional facilities. This bill as drafted does not provide adequate flexibility and creates a strict mandate. Nevertheless, I am concerned about the recent trend of making jail facilities unavailable for in-person visits. This practice could have an adverse impact on achieving rehabilitative goals and might affect in a negative way the families and loved ones of those incarcerated. I am directing the Board of State and Community Corrections to work with stakeholders to explore ways to address these issues.”
   
   A year later, Governor Brown signed AB 103 (Committee on Budget) which included several of the provisions found in SB 1157, most importantly, preventing a facility from eliminating in-person visitation in lieu of video visitation. However, AB 103 did not go as far as SB 1157 to require facilities that have never provided in-person visitation, or that eliminated in-person visitation prior to January 1, 2017, to provide in-person visitation in the future.
   
   This bill would give a detention facility that currently does not offer in-person visitation until Jan. 1, 2025 to provide in-person visitation. By requiring these facilities to provide in-person visitation when they currently do not, this bill may require a facility to invest significant resources into creating facilities to accommodate these visits. For example, San Bernardino seeks to maintain its grandfathered status to continue offering only video visitation, stating that the facility at the High Desert Detention Center was designed and constructed to only provide video visitation, and to accommodate visitors would cost “tens of millions of dollars.”
   
   
2. Argument in Support: According to the California Public Defenders Association, “Assembly Bill 964 (1) protects human dignity and (2) recognizes the unique importance of familial bonds and friendships. First, there is an inclination to treat those who are incarcerated as undeserving, and to then unnecessarily deprive them. Even presupposing guilt, an incarcerated individual does not un-become a mother, father, sister, brother, daughter, son, partner, or friend. By requiring each local detention facility to offer in-person visitation, Assembly Bill 964 mandates local detention facilities to provide the incarcerated with an opportunity to maintain a personal relationship. Incarceration is also incredibly difficult – sometimes more so – for the inmate’s family and friends. In-person visitation offers these individuals with an opportunity to address, to diminish, and to heal from the trauma that is caused by incarceration.
   
   “Beyond the sentimental value of human relationships, personal bonds are instrumental for rehabilitation. Family relationships and non-familial friendships can offer an accountability and motivation that leads to change. For the incarcerated, this can encourage rehabilitation and law-abiding behavior. By facilitating visitation, Assembly Bill 964 may help an incarcerated individual to maintain personal bonds that will hopefully encourage future law-abiding conduct.
   
   “Lastly, by requiring any onsite visitation to be free of charge, and by mandating that the first hour per week of any video visitation be free of charge, Assembly Bill 964 also acknowledges the financial toll that incarceration has on an inmate and her or his family and friends. In this vein, Assembly Bill 964 should also consider an amendment that will prohibit local detention facilities from charging individuals, who are at the facility for onsite visitation, for parking.”
   
3. Argument in Opposition: According to the Riverside Sheriffs’ Association, “Many jail and local detention facilities were designed for the housing and incarceration of short-term offenders. Mandating that all jails and detention facilities set aside non-existent physical space to be converted into visiting rooms will require much more than available physical space. ∙ The construction costs will increase over the next five years. ∙ Security requirements of these visitation rooms will be expensive. ∙ Staffing these visitation rooms will also be costly to our county - an expense our budget will not be able to afford.
   
   “The mandates contained within AB 964 will prove to be a very expensive hit to the state budget, or, in the alternative, county budgets and result in costly litigation. However, by pushing the implementation date back, it appears that the bill hopes to avoid the suspense file by not impacting the state budget for another 6-7 years.
   
   “The Riverside Sheriffs’ Association actively supports efforts to improve the operations of county jails. Unfortunately, AB 964 fails in that effort and will upend our county jail budgets and staffing levels by mandating visitation rooms at all facilities, regardless of need or space.”
   
4. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 103, (Committee on Budget), Chapter 17, Statutes of 2017, prevents all facilities that provided in-person visitation as of January 1, 2017, from converting to video-only visitation.
      
   2. SB 1157 (Mitchell), of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, would have prohibited local correctional facilities and juvenile facilities from replacing in-person visits with video or other types of electronic visitation. SB 1157 was vetoed by the Governor.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

All Of Us Or None
American Civil Liberties Union of California
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Public Defenders Association
California United for a Responsible Budget 
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Community Works
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Initiate Justice
Prison Policy Initiative
Starting Over, Inc.

Oppose

California State Association of Counties
California State Sheriffs' Association
County of San Bernardino
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
San Bernardino County Sheriff-Coroner
Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors
Urban Counties Of California

Analysis Prepared by:

Nikki Moore / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744