Existing law prescribes incarceration in the state prison as punishment for certain crimes. Existing law makes it a felony for a convicted felon who has been previously confined in a state prison to go upon the grounds of or land adjacent to a state or local carceral facility, as specified, without the consent of the warden or other officer in charge of the facility.

This bill would require the Board of State and Community Corrections to, on or before January 1, 2025, adopt regulations that establish a uniform process to allow persons convicted of a felony who are employed by an organization that provides rehabilitative programming for or who are associated with an organization that provides mentorship to currently incarcerated individuals to go into a local carceral facility. The bill would provide that evidence of rehabilitation, as defined, is a basis to appeal a denial of entry by the sheriff or other administrator of the facility. By imposing additional duties on local carceral facilities, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law prescribes incarceration in the state prison as punishment for certain crimes. Existing law makes it a felony for a convicted felon who has been previously confined in a state prison to go upon the grounds of or land adjacent to a state or local carceral facility, as specified, without the consent of the warden or other officer in charge of the facility.

This bill would require the Board of State and Community Corrections to, on or before January 1, 2025, adopt regulations that establish a uniform process to allow persons convicted of a felony who are employed by an organization that provides rehabilitative programming for or who are associated with an organization that provides mentorship to currently incarcerated individuals to go into a local carceral facility if specified criteria are met. facility. By imposing additional duties on local carceral facilities, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law prescribes incarceration in the state prison as punishment for certain crimes. Existing law makes it a felony for a convicted felon who has been previously confined in a state prison to go upon the grounds of or land adjacent to a state or local carceral facility, as specified, without the consent of the warden or other officer in charge of the facility.

This bill would allow persons convicted of a felony who meet certain criteria to go into a carceral facility for the purposes of mentoring currently incarcerated persons. are employed by an organization that provides rehabilitative programming for or who are associated with an organization that provides mentorship to currently incarcerated individuals to go into a local carceral facility if specified criteria are met. By imposing additional duties on local carceral facilities, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law makes theft a crime, and divides the crime into 2 degrees: grand theft and petty theft.

This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation relating to theft.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 1723 (Waldron) - Crimes: local carceral facility visitation

Bill Summary:

AB 1723 would require the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) to adopt regulations on or before January 1, 2025, that establish a uniform process to allow persons convicted of a felony to enter local correctional facilities to provide mentorship or rehabilitative services, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• Unknown, potentially reimbursable costs to the more than 350 local detention facilities supervised by the BSCC that will be required to update their visitation policies and practices consistent with the regulations promulgated by the BSCC as a result of this bill (local Funds, General Fund). General Fund costs will depend on whether the duties imposed by this bill constitute a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates.
• Minor and absorbable costs to the BSCC to adopt the regulations necessary to implement AB 1723.

Background:

There is research that suggests that peer mentorship by formerly incarcerated persons leads to improved reentry outcomes. For example, formerly incarcerated mentors have helped persons returning to the community connect to education, employment, transportation, legal, and housing resources, all while modeling effective coping strategies and interpersonal skills. People leaving incarceration frequently reported finding it easier to ask for help from a peer mentor who had successfully transitioned from prison to the community.

Under existing law, it is a felony for an individual who was formerly incarcerated in state prison to enter a jail without the consent of the officer in charge of the facility. This prohibition applies even if the formerly incarcerated person works for or with an organization that provides rehabilitative programming or mentorship to incarcerated individuals. Accordingly, this prohibition limits the number of people with lived experiences who can provide rehabilitative services and mentorship to the populations housed in local correctional facilities.

Proposed Law:

• Requires the BSCC to adopt regulations on or before January 1, 2025 that establish a uniform process to permit a person previously convicted of a felony who was confined in a state prison, is not currently charged with the commission of an offense, and is currently employed by a community-based organization that provides rehabilitative programming to currently incarcerated individuals to come upon the grounds of a local detention facility, as defined.
• requires the BSCC to adopt regulations on or before January 1, 2025 that establish a uniform process to permit a person previously convicted of a felony who was confined in a state prison, is not currently charged with the commission of an offense, and is currently associated with an organization that has the primary goal of providing mentorship to currently incarcerated individuals to come upon the grounds of a local detention facility, as defined, to provide mentorship services to individuals incarcerated in the facility.
• Requires a local detention facility to make any needed changes to procedures and forms to facilitate the requirements related to permitting a person previously convicted of a felon to provide rehabilitative programming or mentorship services in a local detention facility as described above.
• Requires the facility to publish on its website, and otherwise make available, the approval process for visitors who plan to provide rehabilitative programming or mentorship services in the facility as described above.
• Requires the applicant to be informed of a process to appeal a denial of their request to visit if the application is denied. Provides that a basis for appeal is demonstrating “evidence of rehabilitation.”
• Provides that the final decision of entry is at the discretion of the sheriff or other administrator of the facility.
• Defines terms for purposes of the bill and makes a conforming change to the general prohibition that makes it a felony for an individual formerly incarcerated in state prison for a felony to enter jail grounds without the consent of the officer in charge of the facility.

Related Legislation:

• AB 581 (Carrillo) would establish clearance levels for program providers that provide rehabilitative programming to incarcerated people to enter State prisons, including rehabilitative programing by formerly incarcerated individuals. AB 581 is pending on the Senate Floor.
• AB 958 (Santiago) would make the right to visitation in state and local correctional facilities a civil right, as specified. AB 958 is pending on this Committee’s suspense file.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Aisha Wahab, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 1723 Hearing Date: July 11, 2023

Subject: Crimes: local carceral facility visitation

HISTORY

Source: Insight Garden Program

Prior Legislation: None

Support: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California Public Defenders Association

Opposition: None known

Assembly Floor Vote: 79 - 0

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to require the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) to adopt regulations that establish a uniform process to permit a person previously convicted of a felony and employed by an organization that provides rehabilitative programming, or associated with an organization that provides mentorship to currently incarcerated individuals, to enter a local detention facility to provide those services, and require local detention facilities to make the visitor approval process available and inform an applicant who was denied approval to visit of the appeal process.

Existing law establishes the BSCC. (Pen. Code, § 6024, subds. (a).)

Existing law provides that the mission of the BSCC is to provide statewide leadership, coordination, and technical assistance to promote effective state and local efforts and partnerships in California’s adult and juvenile criminal justice system, including addressing gang problems. Provides that this mission reflect the principle of aligning fiscal policy and correctional practices, including, but not limited to prevention, intervention, suppression, supervision, and incapacitation, to promote a justice investment strategy that fits each county and is consistent with the integrated statewide goal of improved public safety through cost-effective, promising, and evidence-based strategies for managing criminal justice populations. (Pen. Code, § 6024, subd. (b).)

Existing law requires the BSCC to establish minimum standards for local correctional facilities, and requires the BSCC to review those standards biennially and make any appropriate revisions. (Pen. Code, § 6030, subd. (a).)

Existing law requires that the minimum standards include, but not be limited to, health and sanitary conditions, fire and life safety, security, rehabilitation programs, recreation, treatment of persons confined in local correctional facilities, and personnel training. (Pen. Code, § 6030, subd. (b).)

Existing law defines “local detention facility” as 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 minors. 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, 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 minors; any facility that holds local prisoners under contract on behalf of a city, county, or city and county, except as provided; and a court holding facility within a superior court. Specifies that it 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, § 6031.4.)

Existing law makes it a felony for a person who has previously been convicted of a felony and confined in any state prison to enter the grounds of any state prison, prison road camp, prison forestry camp, or other prison camp or prison farm, or any jail or any county road camp in the state, without the consent of the warden or other officer in charge. (Pen. Code, § 4571.)

This bill requires the BSCC to adopt regulations on or before January 1, 2025 that establish a uniform process to permit a person previously convicted of a felony who was confined in a state prison, is not currently charged with the commission of an offense, and is currently employed by a community-based organization that provides rehabilitative programming to currently incarcerated individuals to come upon the grounds of a local detention facility, as defined.

This bill requires the BSCC to adopt regulations on or before January 1, 2025 that establish a uniform process to permit a person previously convicted of a felony who was confined in a state prison, is not currently charged with the commission of an offense, and is currently associated with an organization that has the primary goal of providing mentorship to currently incarcerated individuals to come upon the grounds of a local detention facility, as defined, to provide mentorship services to individuals incarcerated in the facility.

This bill requires the local detention facility to make any needed changes to procedures and forms to facilitate the requirements related to permitting a person previously convicted of a felon to provide rehabilitative programming or mentorship services in a local detention facility as described above.

This bill requires the facility to publish on its website, and otherwise make available, the approval process for visitors who plan to provide rehabilitative programming or mentorship services in the facility as described above.

This bill requires the applicant to be informed of a process to appeal a denial of their request to visit if the application is denied. Provides that a basis for appeal is demonstrating “evidence of rehabilitation.”

This bill provides that the final decision of entry is at the discretion of the sheriff or other administrator of the facility.

This bill provides that “mentorship” includes meeting with, conducting educational programming for, or facilitating dialogue between incarcerated individuals within the facility.

This bill provides that “evidence of rehabilitation” includes, but is not limited to, the following:

• A person’s satisfactory compliance with all terms and conditions of parole, probation, mandatory supervision, or postrelease community supervision. Prohibits the person’s inability to pay fines, fees, and restitution due to indigence from being considered noncompliance with the terms and conditions of parole or probation.
• Evidence of maintaining steady employment and employer recommendations, particularly related to a person’s postconviction employment.
• Educational attainment or vocational or professional training since conviction, including training received while the person was incarcerated.
• Completion of, or active participation in, rehabilitative treatment, including alcohol or drug treatment.
• Letters of recommendation from community organizations, counselors, case managers, teachers, community leaders, parole officers, and probation officers who have observed the person since the person’s conviction.
• The age of the person at the time of the conviction and the amount of time that has passed since the conviction.
• A credible explanation of precedent coercive conditions, including physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, stalking, whether the person was the victim of crime, untreated substance abuse, mental illness, or disability that contributed to the conviction.
• Evidence that the individual has maintained good standing in the community since the conviction.

This bill includes an exception to the general prohibition that makes it a felony for an individual formerly incarcerated in state prison for a felony to enter jail grounds without the consent of the officer in charge of the facility for those individuals who have been authorized to enter the facility.

COMMENTS

1. Need For This Bill

According to the author:

Mentorship is a key part of rehabilitation. Meeting with and learning from someone who has shared similar experiences is a way to gain trust, and perspective, and keep incarcerated people on the right path. People who have turned their lives around and are part of organizations with a mission of mentorship and reducing recidivism should have access to a streamlined entry process without having to jump through multiple hoops.

1. Rehabilitative Programing and Mentorship by Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

Some research suggests that peer mentorship by formerly incarcerated persons leads to improved reentry outcomes. (Esther Matthews, Peer-Focused Prison Reentry Programs: Which Peer Characteristics Matter Most? (2021) available at <https://journals.‌sagepub.‌com/doi/full/‌‌10.1177/263266632110‌19958>.) “Organizations tasked with rehabilitation in various contexts have demonstrated that people with similar lived experiences may be best positioned to help individuals set aside dangerous or unhealthy lifestyles.” (Ibid.) For example, formerly incarcerated mentors helped mentees returning to the community connect to education, employment, transportation, legal, and housing resources, all while modeling effective coping strategies and interpersonal skills. (Ibid.) People leaving incarceration frequently reported finding it easier to ask for help from a peer mentor who had successfully transitioned from prison to the community. (Ibid.) Because their mentors had successfully navigated the reentry experience, they were knowledgeable about which resources were reliable. (Ibid.) Research further suggests that incarcerated individuals tend to view formally incarcerated mentors as more credible due to their shared lived experiences. Their “credibility is derived from the ability to understand the various inner pains caused by the experience of incarceration.” (Ibid.) Ultimately, “mentoring was more than just providing advice about how to find housing and employment; it was providing advice about how to do those things while recovering from the deep and varied wounds of incarceration.” (Ibid.) In one study, “prison staff also often noted their lack of a lived experience as limiting their ability to offer credible reentry support.” (Ibid.)

Under existing law, it is a felony for an individual who was formerly incarcerated in state prison to enter a jail without the consent of the officer in charge of the facility. (Pen. Code, § 4571.) This prohibition applies even if the formerly incarcerated person works for or with an organization that provides rehabilitative programming or mentorship to incarcerated individuals. Accordingly, this prohibition limits the number of people with lived experiences who can provide rehabilitative services and mentorship to the populations housed in local correctional facilities.

This bill requires the BSCC to adopt regulations that establish a uniform process to permit a person previously convicted of a felony who served their sentence in state prison and employed by an organization that provides rehabilitative programming, or associated with an organization that provides mentorship to currently incarcerated individuals, to enter a local detention facility to provide those services. This bill also requires local detention facilities to make available the approval process for visitors and inform an applicant who was denied approval to visit of the appeal process. This bill further specifies that evidence of rehabilitation is a basis for appeal, which can be demonstrated by a person’s satisfactory compliance with all conditions of parole, probation, mandatory supervision, or postrelease community supervision, maintenance of steady employment, or completion of, or active participation in, rehabilitative treatment, among other things.

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1723

Author:(Waldron)

As Amended Ver:May 19, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Require the Board of State and Community Corrections to, on or before January 1, 2025, adopt regulations that establish a uniform process to allow persons convicted of a felony who were confined in a state prison, and are not currently charged with the commission of an offense, to go into a local carceral facility if they are employed by an organization that provides rehabilitative programming or are associated with an organization that provides mentorship to currently incarcerated individuals.

COMMENTS

According to the Author

"Penal Code 4571 indefinitely prevents people who served a prison sentence in California from being eligible to visit anyone being held in county jails and state prisons. As a result of an indefinite ban, some counties and CDCR have created internal policies that will allow people who serve state prison sentences to visit incarcerated people, however, the policies are often unclear, vary from carceral institutions, don’t take rehabilitative factors into account, and take additional time. This bill would ensure that those people who want to gain entry can, as long as they are documented to be part of a rehabilitative organization for the purposes of mentorship."

Arguments in Support

According to the California Public Defenders Association (CPDA), "The problem is that while community groups who are ready, willing, and able to work with the currently incarcerated are in short supply, many of those groups are staffed by men and women who have themselves previously been convicted of a felony. Formerly convicted men and women who have dedicated their lives to community outreach are often the best mentors for justice-involved individuals, because their "lived experience" provides them with a deeper understanding of the carceral system, the people within it, and the challenges they face.

"AB 1723 addresses this problem by creating an exception to the current total bar against formerly convicted people visiting a local detention facility. Under its provisions, a formerly convicted person could work as a mentor in a local detention facility if they prove that they are working on behalf of a rehabilitative programming organization, and meet other criteria as specified.

"Importantly, the fact that a formerly convicted person is authorized to visit a local detention facility would not make them immune from the normal rules and laws governing other visitors, including provisions requiring a search of their person or property."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. One-time costs (General Fund) to the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) of an unknown but potentially significant amount for staffing to adopt regulations as required by this bill.
2. Potentially reimbursable costs (local funds, General Fund) of an unknown amount to local detention facilities. Local detention facilities may incur one-time costs to change their visitation forms and procedures to conform to the regulations that BSCC develops, and to post them on facility websites. There may be ongoing staffing costs for local facilities to implement BSCC’s regulations but those costs cannot be assessed until BSCC develops its uniform standards. General Fund costs will depend on whether the duties imposed by this bill constitute a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates.

VOTES

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 7-0-1

YES: Jones-Sawyer, Alanis, Bonta, Bryan, Ortega, Santiago, Zbur

ABS, ABST OR NV: Lackey

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 13-0-3

YES: Holden, Megan Dahle, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Mathis, Papan, Pellerin, Weber, Ortega

ABS, ABST OR NV: Dixon, Robert Rivas, Sanchez

UPDATED

VERSION: May 19, 2023

CONSULTANT: Liah Burnley / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0000912

Date of Hearing: May 3, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1723

Author:(Waldron) – As Amended Ver:March 29, 2023

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

SUMMARY:

This bill allows a person with a prior felony conviction to enter a local detention facility, as specified, if the person is employed by an organization that provides rehabilitative programming or associated with an organization that provides mentorship to current inmates, and is not currently charged with any offense.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Costs of an unknown but potentially significant amount to local detention facilities (local funds, General Fund). Local detention facilities may incur one-time costs to change their visitation procedures and post them online, and ongoing staffing costs to review and verify applications from prospective visitors with prior felony convictions. There are over 350 local detention facilities supervised by the Board of State and Community Corrections that may incur additional duties as a result of this bill. If each of those facilities incurs $5,000 in implementation and staffing costs, the total cost from this bill would be about $1.75 million. General Fund costs will depend on whether the duties imposed by this bill constitute a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s Statement. According to the author:

Penal Code 4571 indefinitely prevents people who served a prison sentence in California from being eligible to visit anyone being held in county jails and state prisons. As a result of an indefinite ban, some counties and CDCR have created internal policies that will allow people who serve state prison sentences to visit incarcerated people, however, the policies are often unclear, vary from carceral institutions, don’t take rehabilitative factors into account, and take additional time. This bill would ensure that those people who want to gain entry can, as long as they are documented to be part of a rehabilitative organization for the purposes of mentorship.

1. Background. Current law prohibits any person, if they have served a prison term for a felony conviction, from entering the grounds of a jail without the consent of the officer in charge of the jail. Entering a jail property in violation of this law is a felony. Existing law gives broad discretion to each jail or other detention facility to determine who may enter for the purpose of providing rehabilitative programs for current inmates.

This bill would require local detention facilities, as defined, to allow a formerly incarcerated person to enter a jail facility for the purpose of providing rehabilitative programming or mentorship, provided that the person is not currently charged with an offense, is employed or associated with an organization that provides services to currently incarcerated people, and meets other qualifications. This would allow entry into jail facilities for people with prior felony convictions who are employed as self-help program facilitators or who volunteer as mentors for current inmates, as long as they meet specified conditions and are not currently charged with any offense.

1. Related Legislation. AB 581 (W. Carrillo) establishes standard clearance levels for people who provide rehabilitative programs inside state prisons, including formerly incarcerated people. AB 581 is pending hearing in this committee.

AB 958 (Santiago) makes the right to visitation in state and local correctional facilities a civil right, as specified. AB 958 is pending on this committee’s suspense file.

Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 18, 2023

Counsel: Liah Burnley

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

SUMMARY:

Allows individuals previously convicted of a felony and employed by an organization that provides rehabilitative programming, or associated with an organization that provides mentorship to currently incarcerated individuals, to enter a local detention facility, as specified. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires local detention facilities to allow individuals who were previously confined in a state prison for a felony, and currently employed by a community-based organization that provides rehabilitative programming to incarcerated individuals, to enter the facility, if all of the following conditions are met:
   
   1. The facility allows visitors and the individual is requesting to visit pursuant to the visitation policies of the facility;
      
   2. The individual is not currently charged with the commission of an offense; and,
      
   3. The individual shows proof they are employed by an organization that provides rehabilitative programming to currently incarcerated individuals. Proof may be shown by, but shall not be limited to, a letter on the organization’s letterhead that confirms the individual is employed by the organization.
2. Requires local detention facilities to allow individuals who were previously confined in a state prison for a felony, and are currently associated with an organization that has the primary goal of providing mentorship to incarcerated individuals, to enter the facility, if all of the following conditions are met:
   
   1. The facility allows visitors and the individual is requesting to visit pursuant to the visitation policies of the facility;
      
   2. The individual is not on any form of supervision, unless the individual is able to demonstrate evidence of rehabilitation, as defined;
      
   3. The individual is not currently charged with the commission of an offense;
      
   4. The individual shows proof they are associated with an organization that provides mentorship services to currently incarcerated individuals. Proof may be shown by, but shall not be limited to, a letter on the organization’s letterhead that confirms the individual is associated with the organization; and,
      
   5. The individual is on the facility grounds to provide mentorship services to currently incarcerated individuals.
      
3. Requires local detention facilities to make any needed changes to procedures and forms to facilitate these provisions.
   
4. Requires local detention facilities to publish the approval process for visitors on their websites.
   
5. Defines “mentorship” as meeting with, conducting educational programming for, or facilitating dialogue between incarcerated individuals within the facility.
   
6. States that “evidence of rehabilitation” includes, but is not limited to, the following:
   
   1. An individual’s satisfactory compliance with all terms and conditions of parole, probation, mandatory supervision, or postrelease community supervision, provided that the individual’s inability to pay fines, fees, and restitution due to indigence shall not be considered noncompliance with the terms and conditions of parole or probation;
      
   2. Evidence of maintaining steady employment and employer recommendations, particularly related to an individual’s postconviction employment;
      
   3. Educational attainment or vocational or professional training since conviction, including training received while the individual was incarcerated;
      
   4. Completion of, or active participation in, rehabilitative treatment, including alcohol or drug treatment;
      
   5. Letters of recommendation from community organizations, counselors, case managers, teachers, community leaders, parole officers, and probation officers who have observed the individual since the individual’s conviction;
      
   6. The age of the individual at the time of the conviction and the amount of time that has passed since the conviction;
      
   7. A credible explanation of precedent coercive conditions, including physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, stalking, whether the individual was the victim of crime, untreated substance abuse, mental illness, or disability that contributed to the conviction; and,
      
   8. Evidence that the individual has maintained good standing in the community since the conviction.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that every person who, having been previously convicted of a felony and confined in any state prison, without the consent of the officer in charge of any jail, comes upon the grounds of any such institution, or lands belonging or adjacent thereto, is guilty of a felony. (Pen. Code, § 4571.)
2. States that every person who, without the permission of the officer in charge of any jail, communicates with any person detained therein is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 4570.)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “Penal Code 4571 indefinitely prevents people who served a prison sentence in California from being eligible to visit anyone being held in county jails and state prisons. As a result of an indefinite ban, some counties and CDCR have created internal policies that will allow people who serve state prison sentences to visit incarcerated people, however, the policies are often unclear, vary from carceral institutions, don’t take rehabilitative factors into account, and take additional time. This bill would ensure that those people who want to gain entry can, as long as they are documented to be part of a rehabilitative organization for the purposes of mentorship.”
   
2. Rehabilitative Programing and Mentorship by Formerly Incarcerated Individuals: Some research suggests that peer mentorship by formerly incarcerated persons leads to improved reentry outcomes. (Matthews, E. Peer-focused prison reentry programs: Which peer characteristics matter most? (2021) <https://journals.‌sagepub.‌com/doi/full/‌‌10.1177/263266632110‌19958> [as of April 11, 2023].) “Organizations tasked with rehabilitation in various contexts have demonstrated that people with similar lived experiences may be best positioned to help individuals set aside dangerous or unhealthy lifestyles.” (Ibid.) For example, formerly incarcerated mentors helped mentees returning to the community connect to education, employment, transportation, legal, and housing resources, all while modeling effective coping strategies and interpersonal skills. (Ibid.) People leaving incarceration frequently reported finding it easier to ask for help from a peer mentor who had successfully transitioned from prison to the community. (Ibid.) Because their mentors had successfully navigated the reentry experience, they were knowledgeable about which resources were reliable. (Ibid.) Research further suggests that incarcerated individuals tend to view formally incarcerated mentors as more credible due to their shared lived experiences. Their “credibility is derived from the ability to understand the various inner pains caused by the experience of incarceration.” (Ibid.) Ultimately, “mentoring was more than just providing advice about how to find housing and employment; it was providing advice about how to do those things while recovering from the deep and varied wounds of incarceration.” (Ibid.) In one study, “prison staff also often noted their lack of a lived experience as limiting their ability to offer credible reentry support.” (Ibid.)

Under existing law, individuals formerly incarcerated in state prisons for a felony cannot come onto jail grounds without the consent of the officer in charge of the facility. (Pen. Code, § 4571.) A violation of this prohibition is a felony. (Ibid.) Thus, unless individuals formerly incarcerated in state prison have consent of the officer in charge, they cannot enter the jail, even if they work with an organization that provides rehabilitative programming or mentorship to incarcerated individuals. Accordingly, the existing prohibition is a barrier to the provision of potentially beneficial rehabilitative services and peer mentorship opportunities in local correctional facilities.

This bill would require local correctional officials to allow formerly incarcerated individuals to enter the facility, as long as specified conditions are met, for the purpose of providing mentorship and rehabilitative programing. Notably, nothing in this bill would restrict the ability of a local facility to deny a person entry, pursuant to the facility’s visitation policies. In addition, nothing in this bill requires local facilities to allow individuals who are currently charged with an offense or who are on supervision into the facility.

1. Argument in Support: According to the California Public Defenders Association (CPDA), “The problem is that while community groups who are ready, willing, and able to work with the currently incarcerated are in short supply, many of those groups are staffed by men and women who have themselves previously been convicted of a felony. Formerly convicted men and women who have dedicated their lives to community outreach are often the best mentors for justice-involved individuals, because their “lived experience” provides them with a deeper understanding of the carceral system, the people within it, and the challenges they face.

“AB 1723 addresses this problem by creating an exception to the current total bar against formerly convicted people visiting a local detention facility. Under its provisions, a formerly convicted person could work as a mentor in a local detention facility if they prove that they are working on behalf of a rehabilitative programming organization, and meet other criteria as specified.

“Importantly, the fact that a formerly convicted person is authorized to visit a local detention facility would not make them immune from the normal rules and laws governing other visitors, including provisions requiring a search of their person or property.”

1. Related Legislation:
   
   1. AB 581 (Carrillo) would establish clearance levels for program providers that provide rehabilitative programming to incarcerated people to enter State prisons, including rehabilitative programing by formerly incarcerated individuals. AB 581 is being heard in this Committee today.
   2. AB 958 (Santiago) would make the right to visitation in state and local correctional facilities a civil right, as specified. AB 958 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   3. AB 1226 (Haney) would require CDCR to place incarcerated persons in the correctional facility that is located nearest to the primary place of residence of their child to facilitate increased contact between the incarcerated person and their child. AB 1226 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
2. Prior Legislation: AB 2133 (Goldberg), Chapter 238, Statutes of 2002, required that any amendments to existing regulations and any future regulations adopted by CDCR which may impact the visitation of incarcerated persons recognize and consider the value of visitation as a means of increasing safety in prisons, maintaining family and community connections, and preparing incarcerated persons for successful release and rehabilitation.
   

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Public Defenders Association (CPDA)

Opposition

None.

Analysis Prepared by: