BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Gloria Romero, Chair A
2007-2008 Regular Session B
1
0
4
AB 1049 (Solorio) 9
As Amended June 1, 2007
Hearing date: June 26, 2006
Penal Code
JM:br
PAROLE REENTRY PROGRAMS :
YOUTHBUILD MODEL
HISTORY
Source: California YouthBuild Coalition
Prior Legislation: AB 3064 (Assembly Committee on Public Safety)
- Ch. 782, Stats. 2006
AB 2436 (Ruskin) - Ch. 779, Stats. 2006
AB 643 (Wesson) - Ch. 829, Stats. 2006
Support: California Catholic Conference; Coalition for
Effective Public Safety; California Adelanto
YouthBuild; Mojave Basin Youth Corps; California
Correctional Peace Officers Association; California
Peace Officers' Association; California Police Chiefs
Association; Century Center for Economic Opportunity;
Community Action Partnership; Santa Rosa YouthBuild;
Crime Victims United; Glide Memorial YouthBuild
Program; LACAUSA YouthBuild; Los Angeles Conservation
Corps & YouthBuild Program; Los Angeles County
District Attorney's Office; MACC Project; National
City YouthBuild; New Haven Youth and Family Services;
North Richmond YouthBuild; San Gabriel Valley
(More)
AB 1049 (Solorio)
PageB
Conservation Corps; San Joaquin County Office of
Education; San Jose Conservation Corps & Charter
School; YouthBuild San Jose; Taxpayers for Improving
Public Safety; Venice Community Housing Corp
YouthBuild; Yuba County Office of Education; Crime
Victims United of California
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 75 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD A PROGRAM OF PAROLE REENTRY BE ESTABLISHED FOR YOUNG
OFFENDERS WHO ARE 18-23 YEARS OF AGE?
SHOULD THE REENTRY PROGRAM FOR THESE YOUNG OFFENDERS INCLUDE
CONSTRUCTION TRAINING, ACADEMIC SERVICES, COUNSELING, AND TRACKING
OF GRADUATES AFTER COMPLETION OF THE PROGRAM?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to establish, dependent on an
appropriation of funds, a parole reentry program for youthful
offenders ages 18-23 that would include construction training,
academic services, counseling, and tracking of those who have
completed the program.
Existing law states that release on parole is a conditional and
transitional legal period for all prisoners on release from
California prison after serving their sentence. (Pen. Code
3000.)
Existing law defines the purpose of the parole system is
reformatory in purpose. The objective of parole is to mitigate
the rigor of the prison system and to allow the prisoner to
reenter society by replacing continued incarceration with
(More)
AB 1049 (Solorio)
PageC
conditional freedom controlled by BPH regulations. (Pen. Code
3056; People v. Denne (1956) 141 Cal.App.3d 499, 507.)
Existing law provides that parole is a testing period for the
reintegration of the prisoner into society. (In re Carahes
(1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 927, 931.)
Existing law provides that any parolee, although no longer
confined in prison, is still under the constructive control of
CDCR and must comply with extensive restrictions imposed on his
or her freedom. (People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 531.)
Existing law allows parole for both determinately sentenced
prisoners who have served their terms and for indeterminately
sentenced prisoners serving sentences of life with the
possibility of parole who have been granted parole. (Pen. Code
3000.)
Existing law provides that administration of the parole system
is shared by two separate state agencies, the Board of Parole
Hearings (BPH) and CDCR. The responsibility and authority can
be described as follows:
BPH has sole authority over revocation and
waiver of parole. (Pen. Code 3000, subd. (a),
3052, and 5077.)
Termination and early parole functions are
shared between BPH and CDCR. (Pen. Code 3001,
subd. (a).)
CDCR has jurisdiction to make parole rules and
regulations. (Pen. Code 5058.)
Existing law provides for reentry programs in the City of East
Palo Alto. (Pen. Code 3055.) This program includes the
following features:
Mandates the CDCR, to the extent resources are
available or appropriated, to establish a reentry
program in the City of East Palo Alto.
Statistical information related to the reentry
(More)
AB 1049 (Solorio)
PageD
program, specifically the number of parolees served
and the rate of return to prison of these parolees,
must be collected and provided to the Legislature
upon request.
Provides guidelines for what the programs may
include. The reentry programs may include, but are
not limited to, the following:
Assessment of prerelease needs for
inmates scheduled for release to East Palo
Alto on parole.
Partner parole agents and local law
enforcement for supervision of parolees
released to East Palo Alto.
Develop reentry plans identifying
services needed for the parolees.
Partner community organizations and
service providers to provide support services
to parolees, including transitional housing,
job training, job placement, and substance
abuse treatment.
Existing law provides that the East Palo Alto program sunsets on
January 1, 2010.
Existing provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Cod e describe
and define the "California YouthBuild Program." (Unemp. Ins.
Code 9800 et seq.)
Existing law provides that YouthBuild is a program designed to
provide education and vocational training, particularly in
construction skills, to economically disadvantaged young persons
who have not finished high school. Program participants would
be employed to build affordable housing in needy communities.
Some of the major features of the program include:
Participants are paid a specified stipend.
A participant shall remain in the active program for
from 6 to 24 months.
Counseling and job placement shall be provided for 12
(More)
AB 1049 (Solorio)
PageE
months following the active program.
Eligible persons are between 17 and 14 years old.
At least 75 % of the participants either are not
attending school and have not completed high school or a
GED, or they are in danger of dropping out of school.
No more than 25% may have a diploma, but have
educational needs that can be met by YouthBuild. (Unemp.
Ins. Code 9800 and 9805.)
Existing law provides that entities eligible for grants under
YouthBuild must be nonprofit private entities and public
agencies with relevant experience. (Unemp. Ins. Code 9806.)
This bill directs the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), to the extent funds are appropriated,
to establish reentry programs through the Division of Juvenile
Programs ("DJP") as specified. This bill would require DJP to
preenroll eligible youths in the Cities of Adelanto, Anaheim, El
Monte, Fresno, Gardena, Los Angeles, Marysville, San Diego, San
Francisco, San Jose, Stockton, Venice, and Visalia. This bill :
Requires CDCR to enroll eligible parolees no less than
45 days prior to their scheduled release dates from a
facility or program operated by the Division of Juvenile
Programs into eligible programs in the specified cities.
Specifies that priority should be given to programs
which have been in existence for at least one year prior to
enactment of this provision, and programs which have been
operational at any time over the previous three years.
Requires an eligible parolee to be released to an
eligible program no more than 60 miles from his or her last
known address or intended release city.
Participation in the program shall commence no less than
72 hours upon release or discharge from a CDCR facility.
Enrollment is subject to approval by each program.
This bill defines an "eligible youth" as a person between the
(More)
AB 1049 (Solorio)
PageF
ages of 18 to 23; who is economically disadvantaged; under the
control of the CDCR on or after January 1, 2008; and who is
scheduled for release any date prior to January 1, 2010.
Limits enrollment to no more than 200 youths.
States that priority of enrollment shall be given to an
eligible youth who the CDCR has determined to be gang
affiliated or who has an immediate family member who has
been identified as gang affiliated.
This bill defines "eligible program" as having the following
minimum provisions:
Integrated education and job training services and
activities on an equally-divided basis.
The job training component shall involve work experience
and skills training apprenticeships related to construction
and rehabilitation activities. The construction and
rehabilitation shall consist of construction and
rehabilitation of housing and related facilities to be used
for the purpose of providing home ownership for
disadvantaged persons, disabled persons, and low-income
families.
The education component shall include basic skill
instruction, secondary education services, and activities
designed to lead to the attainment of a high school diploma
or its equivalent. The curriculum shall include math,
language arts, vocational education, life skills social
studies, and leadership skills.
Bilingual services and English learning curriculum shall
be provided where feasible and appropriate.
Programs shall have a goal of one teacher for every 8
students.
This bill requires assistance in attaining postsecondary
(More)
AB 1049 (Solorio)
PageG
education and in obtaining financial aid upon graduation from
the program.
This bill provides counseling services to assist participants
through peer counseling; life skills training; substance abuse
prevention; and referral to appropriate drug rehabilitation,
medical, mental health, legal, housing, and other community
resources. The program shall have a goal of 1 counselor for
every 28 participants.
This bill directs programs to work cooperatively with local
parole offices to oversee participants.
This bill provides that participating community programs shall
meet the requirements of the YouthBuild Program, as defined and
described in Unemployment Insurance Code Section 9800 et seq.
This bill provides that the CDCR shall allocate $20,000 per year
(or a fraction thereof) per-enrollee to each eligible program
that enrolls an eligible youth for each year of participation.
The CDCR shall provide no less than 50% of each annual payment
at the time of enrollment of the eligible youth, and the
remainder shall be paid upon the completion of each year of
participation by the youth. The eligible program shall return
any fraction of the payment to CDCR commensurate with the
participant's actual participation.
This bill requires mandated maintenance of statistical
information on the success of the programs, specifically the
number of eligible youth served and the rate of return to prison
for those who participate. The statistics shall be provided to
the Legislature upon request.
This bill includes a January 1, 2011 sunset date.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION IMPLICATIONS
California currently faces an extraordinary and severe prison
and jail overcrowding crisis. California's prison capacity is
nearly exhausted as prisons today are being operated with a
(More)
AB 1049 (Solorio)
PageH
significant level of overcrowding.<1> In addition, California's
jails likewise are significantly overcrowded. Twenty California
counties are operating under jail population caps. According to
the State Sheriffs' Association, "counties are currently
releasing 18,000 pre and post-sentenced inmates every month and
many counties are so overcrowded they do not accept misdemeanor
bookings in any form, . . . ."<2> In January of this year the
Legislative Analyst's office summarized the trajectory of
California's inmate population over the last two decades:
During the past 20 years, jail and prison
populations have increased significantly. County
jail populations have increased by about 66
percent over that period, an amount that has been
limited by court-ordered population caps. The
prison population has grown even more dramatically
during that period, tripling since the
mid-1980s.<3>
The level of overcrowding, and the impact of the population
crisis on the day-to-day prison operations, is staggering:
As of December 31, 2006, the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) was
estimated to have 173,100 inmates in the state
prison system, based on CDCR's fall 2006
population projections. However, . . . the
department only operates or contracts for a total
of 156,500 permanent bed capacity (not including
out-of-state beds, . . . ), resulting in a
shortfall of about 16,600 prison beds relative to
the inmate population. The most significant bed
shortfalls are for Level I, II, and IV inmates, as
well as at reception centers. As a result of the
--------------------
<1> Analysis of the 2007-08 Budget Bill: Judicial and Criminal
Justice, Legislative Analyst's Office (February 21, 2007).
<2> Memorandum from CSSA President Gary Penrod to Governor,
February 14, 2007.
<3> California's Criminal Justice System: A Primer.
Legislative Analyst's Office (January 2007).
(More)
AB 1049 (Solorio)
PageI
bed deficits, CDCR houses about 10 percent of the
inmate population in temporary beds, such as in
dayrooms and gyms. In addition, many inmates are
housed in facilities designed for different
security levels. For example, there are currently
about 6,000 high security (Level IV) inmates
housed in beds designed for Level III inmates.
. . . (S)ignificant overcrowding has both
operational and fiscal consequences. Overcrowding
and the use of temporary beds create security
concerns, particularly for medium- and
high-security inmates. Gyms and dayrooms are not
designed to provide security coverage as well as
in permanent housing units, and overcrowding can
contribute to inmate unrest, disturbances, and
assaults. This can result in additional state
costs for medical treatment, workers'
compensation, and staff overtime. In addition,
overcrowding can limit the ability of prisons to
provide rehabilitative, health care, and other
types of programs because prisons were not
designed with sufficient space to provide these
services to the increased population. The
difficulty in providing inmate programs and
services is exacerbated by the use of program
space to house inmates. Also, to the extent that
inmate unrest is caused by overcrowding,
rehabilitation programs and other services can be
disrupted by the resulting lockdowns.<4>
As a result of numerous lawsuits, the state has entered into
several consent decrees agreeing to improve conditions in the
state's prisons. As these cases have continued over the past
several years, prison conditions nonetheless have failed to
improve and, over the last year, the scrutiny of the federal
courts over California's prisons has intensified.
In February of 2006, the federal court appointed a receiver to
---------------------------
<4> Analysis 2007-08 Budget Bill, supra, fn. 1.
(More)
AB 1049 (Solorio)
PageJ
take over the direct management and operation of the prison
medical health care delivery system from the state. Motions
filed in December of 2006 are now pending before three federal
court judges in which plaintiffs are seeking a court-ordered
limit on the prison population pursuant to the federal Prison
Litigation Reform Act. Medical, mental health and dental care
programs at CDCR each are "currently under varying levels of
federal court supervision based on court rulings that the state
has failed to provide inmates with adequate care as required
under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The courts
found key deficiencies in the state's correctional programs,
including: (1) an inadequate number of staff to deliver health
care services, (2) an inadequate amount of clinical space within
prisons, (3) failures to follow nationally recognized health
care guidelines for treating inmate-patients, and (4) poor
coordination between health care staff and custody staff."<5>
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison and jail
overcrowding crisis outlined above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
AB 1049 is modeled on YouthBuild, a nationally
recognized organization focused on improving the lives
of at-risk youth. YouthBuild (YB) has an impressive
track record of helping at-risk youth follow a career
path out of poverty instead of the cycle of poverty.
With 50% classroom training and 50% vocational
training at the job site, youth graduating from the
program learn valuable and life-sustaining skills in
the construction trades. These youth in turn make
lasting contributions to their communities by building
affordable housing units, becoming role models for
other youth and children, and learning from private
industry mentors how to lead productive, successful
----------------------
<5> Primer, supra, fn. 4.
(More)
AB 1049 (Solorio)
PageK
lives.
2. YouthBuild Program in Existing Law
The Unemployment Insurance Code defines the existing California
YouthBuild Program. The program was created in statute by AB
643 (Wesson) Chapter 828, Statutes of 1999. The YouthBuild
program was originally created by federal law in 1992.
Section 3 of the bill creating the California YouthBuild Program
provided: "This act shall become operative only when funds are
specifically appropriated for the purposes of this act by a
state budget act."
The components and standards of the program are consistent with
and effectively equivalent to the parole and probation program
defined and described in this bill. This bill states that
community programs that are eligible to participate in the
program created by this bill must meet the standards set out in
the Unemployment Insurance Code for YouthBuild.
However, by necessity, some of the provisions and features of
the program created by this bill will differ from the existing
YouthBuild. For example, this bill requires that community
programs work cooperatively with a participant's probation or
parole office. It is suggested that the bill be amended to
provide that if there is a conflict between the provisions of
this bill and those in Unemployment Insurance Code Section 9800
et seq., the provisions of this bill shall control. Without
such a provision, programs may be placed in an untenable
position of violating one of the two laws.
SHOULD THIS BILL PROVIDE THAT WHERE A CONFLICT EXISTS BETWEEN
THIS BILL AND THE YOUTHBUILD PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS
OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CODE, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL
SHALL CONTROL, UNLESS FEDERAL LAW OR FUNDING RULES CONFLICT WITH
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS LAW?
3. YouthBuild was Administered by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and
Urban Development, Recent Legislation Transferred the Program
(More)
AB 1049 (Solorio)
PageL
to the Dept. of Labor and Amended the Governing Law
Federal authorization for YouthBuild in federal law is found at
The National Affordable Housing Act, Title IV, Subtitle D, 42
U.S.C. 8011, as amended; Housing and Community Act of 1992,
Section 164, Public Law 102-550. The HUD Web site (last updated
2005) states: "More than $485 million in grants have been
awarded since the program's inception in 1993 enabling over
47,000 young people to construct or rehabilitate more than
13,000 affordable housing units in their communities." . . .
YouthBuild grants are available to public or private nonprofit
agencies, public housing authorities, state and local
governments or any organization eligible to provide education
and employment training under Federal employment training
programs."
In September, 2006, the program was being transferred to the
Department of Labor for administration. The sponsor and the
national YouthBuild (non-government) Web site also note that
pending federal legislation would increase federal spending for
YouthBuild by 20% to $100 million annually. A cursory review of
the federal legislation transferring the program from HUD to
Labor indicates that the emphasis in the program is changing to
"occupations in demand and post-secondary education and training
opportunities." The legislation specifically refers to
"faith-based" organizations, although it appears that such
organizations were qualifying community based organizations
under former law. The new provisions also specifically include
Indian tribes or agencies. The existing California YouthBuild
statute tracks the former version of the parallel federal law.
The HUD Web site (last updated in 2005) lists 19 programs across
California. A typical grant is about $500,000. The local
entities operating the programs typically contribute "cash and
in-kind leveraging."
4. Opinion Piece by Philadelphia Columnist Leonard Pitts, Jr.
about YouthBuild and Educational Achievement, Community
Involvement and Substantially Lowered Recidivism
(More)
AB 1049 (Solorio)
PageM
A column about YouthBuild by Leonard Pitts, Jr. was published on
June 10, 2007. The column reads, in part:
YouthBuild was founded in 1978 by Dorothy Stoneman, a
white elementary schoolteacher in Harlem who was
frustrated by the poverty, idleness and random death
that were so much a part of her students' lives. She
began to ask them what they would do to improve their
communities if they could. "One of the answers was,
'We would fix those abandoned buildings and we would
make them fit to live in.' "
Nearly 30 years later, YouthBuild, with funding from
government and private sources, operates 226 programs
in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and various
U.S. territories. The program offers high-school
dropouts between the ages of 16 and 24 a chance to
earn their GEDs while learning job skills under the
tutelage of construction professionals on the
YouthBuild staff. The rehabbed homes are sold to
low-income buyers. It works. According to a 2004
Brandeis University survey, 75 percent of YouthBuild
graduates were either in post-secondary education or
working jobs that paid an average of $10 an hour. Of
those who had previously run afoul of the law, fewer
than 15 percent got in trouble again. Seventy percent
were registered to vote.
"I believe in the inherent goodness of every human
being," says Stoneman. "And I believe every young
person, no matter what rotten thing they might have
done by mistake or fate, that inside them lives a
beautiful human being who is eager to do good. They
often say, 'I don't know why you believe in me. I
don't know what you see in me that I don't see in
myself. I don't know why the staff cares about me,
but they obviously do. And they've made it possible
for me to care about myself.' "
The metaphor is as obvious as it is irresistible. In
(More)
AB 1049 (Solorio)
PageN
repairing broken homes, these kids - teenage mothers,
car thieves, drug addict's daughters and homeless
man's sons - repair their own broken lives. They
learn, perhaps for the first time, how competence
feels. And it is a short leap from competence to
confidence and from there, to achievement.
5. Statistical Data Related to Success of YB Programs- Detailed
Interviews of Graduates
(More)
Researchers at Brandeis University and Temple University
conducted detailed interviews with YouthBuild participants and
graduates. (A Duke University evaluation of YouthBuild has
noted that the program is respected for its data collection and
evaluation.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Category | Before YB (%) | After YB (%) | Change (%) |
| | | | |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|Has a GED or | 21.7 | 59.2 | 127 |
|diploma | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|Is a parent | 35.0 | 52.7 | 51 |
| | | | |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|Used marijuana | 71.6 | 25.1 | -65 |
| | | | |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|Used hard drugs | 29.7 | 6.4 | -78 |
| | | | |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|Sold marijuana | 37.7 | 8.6 |-77 |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Before YB (%) | After YB (%) | Change (%) |
| | | | |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|Sold hard drugs | 32.4 | 7.8 | -75 |
| | | | |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|Used alcohol | 75.7 | 42.9 | -43 |
| | | | |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
(More)
AB 1049 (Solorio)
PageP
|Arrested | 55.6 | 26.2 | -53 |
| | | | |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|Convicted of a | 37.5 | 15.3 | -59 |
|misd. | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|Convicted of a | 27.0 | 9.2 | -66 |
|felony | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|Victim of | 19.6 | 10.8 | -45 |
|abuse/viol. | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|Been homeless | 26.0 | 11.7 |-55 |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
6. State Funding of YouthBuild Since Enactment of California
YouthBuild Legislation
According to the Employment Development Department (EDD), since
the enactment of AB 643 (Wesson) in 1999, the state has provided
about $2 million for YouthBuild through the 2001-02 fiscal year.
Since 2001-02 the Budget has not specifically prescribed that
funds be spent on YouthBuild. Further, EDD has not funded
YouthBuild through discretionary spending under the Workforce
Investment Act (WIA) program. The EDD Web site does include
links for interested parties to pursue federal YouthBuild grants.
7. Specified Communities Enumerated in Bill for Preenrollment
This Committee has historically favored competitive grant
programs to provide a level playing field for interested
applicants. This bill would provide that CDCR, "through the
Division of Juvenile Programs, shall preenroll eligible youths
into eligible community programs, as defined in this section,
located in the Cities of Adelanto, Anaheim, El Monte, Fresno,
Gardena, Los Angeles, Marysville, San Diego, San Francisco, San
AB 1049 (Solorio)
PageQ
Jose, Stockton, Venice, and Visalia."
The author and the Committee may wish to discuss whether the
bill should be revised to not limit its provisions to
specifically identified eligible cities.
SHOULD THIS BILL BE AMENDED TO DELETE THE SPECIFIC CITIES
IDENTIFIED IN THE BILL?
***************