State Prison Closes In Riverside County Amid Prop. 36 Passage

BLYTHE, CA — A state prison in Riverside County that housed over 2,000 inmates has officially closed amid ongoing cost cutbacks, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

The medium-security Chuckawalla Valley State Prison (CVSP) in Blythe was deactivated Nov. 1, CDCR reported.

The closure is earlier than anticipated. When news broke in December 2022 that CVSP would shutter, CDCR officials said the shutdown would be "by March 2025." The prison first opened in 1988.

CVSP inmates were transferred to other institutions or yards "based on their housing, custody and rehabilitative needs," and all of their credits transferred with them, according to CDCR.

"CDCR and the Administration worked to minimize impacts to staff, the city of Blythe and the surrounding community," according to an emailed statement from Emily Humpal, CDCR information officer. "The state is closely working with the stakeholders to help support workers and foster a bottom-up economic resilience plan."

The closure is the third state-owned prison to shutter in recent years. The California Correctional Center in Lassen County and the Deuel Vocational Institution in San Joaquin County also shut down.

California prison closures mark a move toward rehabilitation for lower-level offenders, and subsequent reallocation of funds, according to officials.

"The closure of Chuckawalla Valley State Prison is an important step in the process of shifting away from punitive measures and toward reinvestment in the communities most affected by incarceration," said Amber-Rose Howard, executive director of Californians United for a Responsible Budget. "By closing prisons like Chuckawalla, we can reinvest in safety solutions centered in care, including mental health treatment, substance abuse programs, and job training outside of prison."

CVSP's closure is expected to free up over $100 million in ongoing funds annually, according to the state's Legislative Analyst's Office.

Humpal said, "The expedited closure will result in estimated one-time General Fund savings of $87 million in 2024-25 and $148 million General Fund savings in 2025-26."

In addition to the three prison closures, the LAO recommends shutting five more state correctional facilities that could save the state over $1 billion annually and an additional $2 billion in capital costs over the next decade.

But so far, Gov. Gavin Newsom has resisted pressure to close more institutions.

Are the facilities needed given the election of more conservative district attorneys in the state? That depends on who you ask, and Proposition 36 is a factor.

On Nov. 5, California voters passed the measure, which allows felony charges for possessing certain drugs and for thefts under $950, if the defendant has two prior drug or theft convictions.

Prop. 36 was seen by some as a backlash to Proposition 47, which was passed by California voters in 2014. That 10-year-old measure was part of California's string of significant criminal justice reforms in the wake of a 2009 federal court order to reduce the state's prison population to 137.5% of prison design capacity — at the time, it was equivalent to a reduction of almost 40,000 inmates.

Prop. 47 allowed certain low-level crimes to be prosecuted as misdemeanors rather than felonies. The state savings from reduced incarceration costs were to be invested into drug and mental health treatment, programs for at-risk students in K-12 schools, and victim services.

Prop. 36 was a reversal. So far, statewide ballot counting shows more than 68% of California voters approved the measure. The Secretary of State will certify election results on Dec. 13.

The LAO estimates Prop. 36 will now require some people serving their sentences at the county level to serve them in state prison. Also, Prop. 36 could lengthen some prison sentences.

"In total, the prison population could increase by around a few thousand people. (There are about 90,000 people in prison now.)," according to LAO data dated Nov. 5.

But the LAO admits that the fiscal effects of Prop. 36 — prosecution and prison costs — will depend on "uncertain factors, such as what decisions local prosecutors would make."

"In total, Proposition 36 would increase state criminal justice costs, likely ranging from several tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars each year (annually). This amount is less than one-half of 1 percent of the state’s total General Fund budget. (The General Fund is the account the state uses to pay for most public services, including education, health care, and prisons.)," the LAO reported.

Prop. 36 opponents have argued the measure "will lock up people who are not a danger, slash desperately needed money from proven crime prevention and treatment programs, and cost taxpayers hundreds of millions more on prisons."

It's not just prisons. Local jails are likely to be impacted, too, under Prop. 36.

"Overall, Proposition 36 likely would increase the county [jail] population," according to the LAO. "This increase could be around a few thousand people. (There are about 250,000 people at the county level now.)"

For now, private prisons are not an option for housing additional inmates in the Golden State. In recent years, California leaders have been loath to allow private, for-profit prisons to operate. In 2019, Newsom signed Assembly Bill 32, which mandates phasing out all private prisons — including immigration detention facilities. The legislation prevents the state from renewing contracts with private operators, and it bans California from holding inmates at for-profit facilities starting in 2028.