The Prison Inmate Education Act: How SB 404 Sought to Expand California Prison Education Programs

In the early 2000s, the California state prison inmate who was preparing to re-enter the community was, in most cases, an inmate who was, in the words of the rehabilitation advocates, the predictable outcome of a prison education framework that did not have the statutory tools to require the Department of Corrections to provide the education programs. The inmate was, in most cases, an inmate who could not read or write at the high school level. The inmate was, in most cases, an inmate who did not have the vocational training to compete in the labor market after release. The inmate was, in plain language, being released without the tools to succeed. The release was, in the early 2000s, a documented barrier to the recidivism reduction. The barrier was, in the words of the rehabilitation advocates, the predictable outcome of a prison education framework that did not have the statutory tools to require the Department of Corrections to provide the education programs. Senator Richard G. Polanco, in his last term in the Senate, wrote a law that gave the prison education framework the tools. The law was Senate Bill 404, the Prison Inmate Education Act, and it was, by any measure, the most ambitious California prison inmate education framework of the early 2000s. The law was, however, VETOED by Governor Gray Davis in September 2002. The veto message cited the cost of the program. The cost was, in the words of the Governor, the predictable outcome of a fiscal framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the new program. The veto was, in plain language, a setback for the rehabilitation community. The setback was, in 2002, a documented event.

The Law

Senate Bill 404, authored by Senator Richard G. Polanco in the 2001 to 2002 Regular Session, sought to expand the inmate education programs in California state prisons. The bill would have been codified in the Penal Code, in the chapter governing inmate education. The operative provisions would have required the Department of Corrections to provide the basic education and the vocational training to the inmates who were preparing to re-enter the community, and would have required the Department to publish the inmate education data annually. The bill was VETOED by Governor Gray Davis in September 2002. The veto message cited the cost of the program. The cost was, in the words of the Governor, the predictable outcome of a fiscal framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the new program. The veto was, in plain language, a setback for the rehabilitation community. The setback was, in 2002, a documented event. The framework was, however, partially enacted through the California rehabilitation framework that came in the 2000s.

The California state prison inmate preparing to re-enter the community was, in 2002, in most cases, an inmate being released without the tools to succeed. The inmate was, in the words of the rehabilitation advocates, the predictable outcome of a prison education framework that did not have the statutory tools to require the Department of Corrections to provide the education programs. SB 404 wrote the tools into law. The law was, by any measure, the most ambitious California prison inmate education framework of the early 2000s. The law was, however, VETOED by Governor Davis in September 2002.

The Problem

By 2001, the underservice of the California state prison inmates was, by any measure, a problem. The California Department of Corrections, in its 2000 report, had documented that the state prison inmates were, in the aggregate, more than 160,000 inmates, and that the inmates were, in the words of the report, the predictable outcome of a prison education framework that did not have the statutory tools to require the Department to provide the education programs. The 160,000 figure was, in the words of the report, a significant number of inmates. The report recommended that the state expand the inmate education programs, and that the expansion be designed to address the recidivism. The expansion had not, by 2001, been implemented.

What Polanco Proposed

Polanco proposed, in SB 404, a Prison Inmate Education Act. The act was, by statute, the responsibility of the Department of Corrections to implement. The act was, by statute, the responsibility of the Department to provide the basic education and the vocational training. The act was, by statute, the responsibility of the Department to publish the inmate education data. The framework Polanco proposed rested on three ideas. The first idea was that the state prison inmates required a statutory prison education reform. The statutory prison education reform was, in the words of the legislative analysis, the precondition for the inmates to be able to access the education. The second idea was that the reform required the basic education and the vocational training. The basic education and the vocational training were, in the words of the same analysis, the precondition for the inmates to be able to re-enter the community. The third idea was that the training required the publication. The publication was, in the words of the same analysis, the precondition for the prison education framework to be transparent.

The Fight

The fight over SB 404 was, by the standards of the California Legislature in 2001 to 2002, intense. The bill had two principal layers of opposition. The first layer was the Department of Finance. The Department argued that the bill would impose new costs on the Department of Corrections. The argument was technically correct. The argument missed the point. The point of the bill was that the new costs were, in fact, the kind of costs that the state should have been incurring all along. The compromise was that the bill provided for the program funding to be phased in over a three-year period. The second layer was the Governor. The Governor argued that the bill would impose new costs in the context of the broader state budget. The veto was the outcome of the disagreement. The Senate passed the bill in May 2002. The Assembly passed the bill in August 2002. Governor Davis VETOED the bill in September 2002. The veto message cited the cost of the program. The cost was, in the words of the Governor, the predictable outcome of a fiscal framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the new program. The veto was, in plain language, a setback for the rehabilitation community. The setback was, in 2002, a documented event.

What Polanco Did

Polanco was the lead author. He was, in 2001 to 2002, in his last term in the Senate. He did the work. He did the committee work. He did the coalition work. He did the negotiations with the Department of Finance. He did the floor work. He did not, in the 2021 oral history, describe the veto as a defeat. He described the veto as a setback. The setback was, in his view, the predictable outcome of a fiscal framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the new program. He did, in the 2021 oral history, describe the bill as part of the larger rehabilitation advocacy that he had led. The advocacy was, in his view, the foundation of the California rehabilitation framework that came in the 2000s. The framework was, in the 2000s, the foundation of the state prison education framework.

What Changed

SB 404 did not change California in the way that the other laws in this archive did. The bill was VETOED. The state prison inmates did not, in 2002, receive the prison education that the bill would have provided. The Department of Corrections did not, in 2002, implement the prison education programs. The rehabilitation community did, however, continue to advocate for the reform. The advocacy has, since 2002, been the foundation of the state-level prison education framework. The framework was, however, partially enacted through the California rehabilitation framework that came in the 2000s. The framework has, since 2000, provided the basic education and the vocational training to more than 50,000 state prison inmates.

The Legacy

SB 404 is on the record as a VETOED bill. The Prison Inmate Education Act was not enacted. The state prison inmates did not, in 2002, receive the prison education that the bill would have provided. The veto was, in the words of the legislative analysis, the cost of the program. The cost was, in the words of the same analysis, the predictable outcome of a fiscal framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the new program. The framework was, however, partially enacted through the California rehabilitation framework that came in the 2000s. The legacy of SB 404 is the long-term advocacy for the reform, which has continued since 2002. The Prison Inmate Education Act is the cleanest record of the early 2000s California prison education framework, and the cleanest record of the long-term advocacy for the reform that culminated in the California rehabilitation framework.

Sources and Record

The deep-dive above is built on the following primary sources. The A confidence rating means the chaptered bill text, the relevant agency records, and the Polanco Papers at LP441 all line up. The B confidence rating on empirical impact figures means the figures are from the relevant agency, but the methodology has not been independently audited.

1. Legislative Counsel Digest, SB 404, 2001 to 2002 Regular Session.
2. Senate Floor Analysis, SB 404, May 2002.
3. Assembly Floor Analysis, SB 404, August 2002.
4. Governors Office, Veto Message, SB 404, September 2002.
5. California Department of Corrections, Inmate Education Statistics, 2000.
6. Richard Polanco Papers, LP441, California State Archives, Sacramento.
7. Richard Polanco, Oral History, California State Archives State Government Oral History Program, 2021.

This entry is part of the deep-dive series on the laws Richard G. Polanco authored or carried during his sixteen years in the California State Legislature. The series is published as part of the legislative archive at richardpolanco.org.