Bill Text

PDF |Add To My Favorites |Track Bill | print page

AB-1929 Inspector General: rehabilitation programs.(2017-2018)

SHARE THIS:share this bill in Facebookshare this bill in Twitter
Date Published: 04/04/2018 09:00 PM
AB1929:v97#DOCUMENT

Amended  IN  Assembly  April 04, 2018
Amended  IN  Assembly  February 28, 2018

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2017–2018 REGULAR SESSION

Assembly Bill No. 1929


Introduced by Assembly Member Lackey

January 24, 2018


An act to add Sections 6142 and 6143 to the Penal Code, relating to corrections.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


AB 1929, as amended, Lackey. Inspector General: rehabilitation programs.
Existing law creates the Office of the Inspector General that is responsible for contemporaneous oversight of internal affairs investigations and the disciplinary process of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Existing law requires the Inspector General, when requested by the Governor, the Senate Committee on Rules, or the Speaker of the Assembly, to review policies, practices, and procedures of the department. Upon completion of the review, the Inspector General is required to prepare a public written report, as described, to be posted on its Internet Web site and a complete written report to be disclosed in confidence, along with all underlying materials the Inspector General deems appropriate, to the above-described entities who requested the review, as specified, and the appropriate law enforcement agency.
This bill would require the Inspector General, commencing July 1, 2019, to develop and implement a monitoring program that evaluates all rehabilitation programs operated by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for adult inmates and parolees, as specified. The bill would require the evaluation report to include an analysis of whether the programs are evidence based, as specified. The bill would require the Inspector General to report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, the Assembly and Senate Committees on Public Safety, and the Governor biannually, on or before March 15 and September 15 of each year, beginning in 2020 and concluding in 2029. The bill would require the department to contract with one or more outside independent researchers or research organizations, as described, to conduct cost-effectiveness evaluations relating to reductions in recidivism, as specified, of rehabilitation programs operated by the department and funded by the state for adult inmates and parolees. The bill would require the Inspector General to monitor the contracting process, as specified. The bill would require the department, in consultation with the Inspector General, General and the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board, to issue requests for proposals on or before July 1, 2019, for the cost-effectiveness evaluation studies and would express the intent of the Legislature that the studies be completed and reported on or before January 1, 2024.
Vote: MAJORITY   Appropriation: NO   Fiscal Committee: YES   Local Program: NO  

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:


SECTION 1.

 Section 6142 is added to the Penal Code, to read:

6142.
 (a) The Inspector General shall, commencing July 1, 2019, develop and implement a monitoring program that evaluates all rehabilitation programs operated by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for adult inmates and parolees. The Inspector General shall report, in accordance with Section 9795 of the Government Code, to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, the Assembly and Senate Committees on Public Safety, and the Governor biannually, on or before March 15 and September 15 of each year, beginning in 2020 and concluding in 2029. It is the intent of the Legislature that the Inspector General evaluate an average of one-tenth of the rehabilitation programs each year and complete the evaluations on or before September 15, 2029. It is the intent of the Legislature that the Inspector General prioritize the evaluation of rehabilitation programs which are funded with state funds and which serve the largest number of inmates.
(b) Each evaluation report shall include an analysis of whether the program or programs being evaluated are evidence based. Specifically, the evaluation shall determine whether programs are (1) research based, meaning they are designed to be similar to programs that have undergone rigorous evaluations showing that the programs reduce recidivism, and (2) implemented with fidelity to a proven program, meaning programs are actually operating in the same manner as the proven program. The evaluation shall identify which programs are not evidence based, are not being implemented with fidelity to proven programs, or both. The evaluation report may include recommendations for changes to improve program performance or effectiveness. If a program is not evidence based, but represents a new or promising type of program, the program evaluation shall identify metrics that may be used to determine whether the program is cost effective and shall submit that information to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The Inspector General may make recommendations for the expansion, elimination, reduction, or modification of programs based upon its findings. The Inspector General may include updates on whether previously evaluated programs continue to operate or not operate with fidelity to a proven program in subsequent reports.

(c)The Inspector General may conduct the evaluations required pursuant to subdivision (a) or may enter into contracts with outside evaluators to perform that task.

SEC. 2.

 Section 6143 is added to the Penal Code, to read:

6143.
 (a) (1) The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall contract with one or more outside independent researchers or research organizations to conduct cost-effectiveness evaluations of rehabilitation programs operated by the department and funded by the state for adult inmates and parolees. This section does not require that each rehabilitation program operated by the department and funded by the state be subject to a cost-effectiveness analysis.
(2) The contracts shall ensure that there is a representative sample of rehabilitation programs across the department’s prisons and that each of the following types of programs are evaluated:
(A) Employment preparation programs.
(B) Academic education programs.
(C) Career technical education programs.
(D) Substance abuse treatment programs.
(E) Cognitive behavioral therapy programs.
(b) (1) At a minimum, each cost-effectiveness evaluation shall determine the extent to which the program evaluated reduces or has reduced recidivism by inmates who participate in the program and are released from custody compared to inmates who did not participate in the program and are released from custody. Evaluations of certain programs shall make additional determinations, as follows:
(A) For career technical education-related and employment preparation-related rehabilitation programs, the extent to which the program evaluated increased employment outcomes by inmates who participate in the program and are released from custody compared to inmates who do not participate in the program and are released from custody.
(B) For substance abuse-related rehabilitation programs, the extent to which inmates who participate in the program have reduced or ceased drug or alcohol use.
(C) For academic education-related rehabilitation programs, the extent to which inmates who participate in the program have obtained a diploma, degree, or educational certificate, attained literacy, or obtained a GED, as appropriate for the goal of the program.
(2) A cost-effectiveness evaluation of a program may include additional criteria that are deemed appropriate by the independent researcher or research organization in order to determine whether the program is cost effective.
(c) When determining the benefits of the rehabilitation program, the evaluation may include, but is not limited to, a consideration of the following, as applicable:
(1) Reduced cost of incarceration.
(2) Reduced use of government social services.
(3) Reduced cost of criminal activity to victims of crime.
(4) Increased payment of court-ordered child support if participants owe child support.
(5) Increased court-authorized access and visitation to the participants’ children.
(6) The extent to which participants have increased access to stable housing.
(d) The Inspector General shall monitor the contracting process to ensure the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation implements the contracts in accordance with this section. The Inspector General shall include a summary of the department’s progress implementing this section in the biannual reports the Inspector General issues pursuant to Section 6142.
(e) The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, in consultation with the Inspector General, General and the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board, shall issue requests for proposals on or before July 1, 2019, for the cost-effectiveness evaluation studies required pursuant to this section. It is the intent of the Legislature that the studies shall be completed and reported to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, the Assembly and Senate Committees on Public Safety, and the Governor on or before January 1, 2024. If the department and the Inspector General cannot agree on the content or scope of the request for proposals, the Inspector General shall notify the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, the Assembly and Senate Committees on Public Safety, and the Governor of the impasse.
(f) As used in this section, the term “outside independent researcher or research organization” includes, but is not limited to, a public or private university-based researcher, think tank, or an expert in the field of correctional rehabilitation program evaluation.
(g) (1) As used in this section, the term “recidivism” means a measure of each of the following:
(A) The percentage of former inmates returned to the custody of the department within three years after release.
(B) The percentage of former inmates convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony within three years after release.
(C) The percentage of former inmates arrested for a crime or who have had their parole, probation, or post-release community supervision revoked within three years after release.
(2) Each cost-effectiveness evaluation produced pursuant to the requirements of this section shall calculate the reduction in recidivism using each of the three measures described in paragraph (1) and provide separate measures of the cost effectiveness of the program being evaluated according to each of those measures.
(h) As used in this section, the term “released from custody” includes inmates previously incarcerated in the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation who are on parole, postrelease supervision, or probation, as well as former inmates who have been released from all forms of correctional supervision.