The Legislature finds and declares the following:
(a)The number of people in state prisons whose primary commitment offense was for drug law violations represents approximately 24 percent of the inmate population. Based on a representative sample study of new felon admissions during 1988, it is estimated that approximately 76 percent of the new commitment admissions to prison have a known history of drug abuse.
The number of parole violators returned to prison for drug violations increased 2200 percent from 1980 to 1988. In fiscal year 1988–89, drug
charges were a known contributing factor in over 64 percent of parolees returned to prison for parole violations.
(b)The relationship between public safety, recidivism, and substance abuse is undeniable and significant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
The Legislature finds and declares the following:
(a)
The number of people in state prisons whose primary commitment offense was for drug law violations represents approximately 24 percent of the inmate population. Based on a representative sample study of new felon admissions during 1988, it is estimated that approximately 76 percent of the new commitment admissions to prison have a known history of drug abuse.
The number of parole violators returned to prison for drug violations increased 2200 percent from 1980 to 1988. In fiscal year 1988–89, drug
charges were a known contributing factor in over 64 percent of parolees returned to prison for parole violations.
(b)
The relationship between public safety, recidivism, and substance abuse is undeniable and significant.
(c)
As pointed out by the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Inmate Population Management in its January 1990 report, both state and local correction systems are presently lacking sufficient programs and strategies to intervene with substance abuse and other behaviors that contribute to criminality. Judges and parole authorities lack the options of community correctional facilities and programs with substance abuse intervention and treatment when managing parole violators, probationers, parolees, and nonviolent offenders with a history of substance abuse.
(d)
There presently does not exist a model
for a state and local center to house substance abusers, increase employability skills, provide counseling and support, and make treatment programs available to intervene and treat substance abuse, to reduce the crime problem and the social costs which these offenders bring upon society, themselves, and their families.
It is, therefore, the intent of the Legislature to provide for the establishment of substance abuse community correctional centers and programs to be operated locally in order to implement state-of-the-art rehabilitation programs commensurate with public safety considerations.
It is further the intent of the Legislature to focus these efforts in local communities in order to blend state and local efforts to achieve a higher success rate and lower recidivism, and to reduce the number of substance abusers and offenders who are currently being sent to state prison.
It
is also the intent of the Legislature that these programs and housing facilities be built and operated in a manner providing maximum safety to the public commensurate with the purpose of the programming, and that the facilities be kept drug-free by whatever legal means are required.
The facilities and the programs shall be designed and operated in joint efforts by the state and counties, with primary funding from the state for construction of the facilities.
It is the intent of the Legislature that funds disbursed pursuant to this chapter be used to construct the maximum possible number of community beds for this purpose commensurate with public safety requirements.