BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2011-2012 Regular Session B
5
2
6
AB 526 (Dickinson)
As Amended June 15, 2012
Hearing date: June 26, 2012
Penal Code
AA:mc
BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS:
DUTIES
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 92 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review)
- Ch. 36, Stats. 2011
Support: California Coalition for Youth; Little Hoover
Commission; California Cities Gang Prevention Network;
PICO California; Sacramento Area Congregations
Together; State Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention
Opposition:Chief Probation Officers of California; California
Probation, Parole and Correctional Association (unless
amended)
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 74 - Noes 0
(More)
AB 526 (Dickinson)
PageB
KEY ISSUE
THE PURPOSE OF THIS BILL IS TO ADD SPECIFIED DUTIES FOR THE NEW
BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, AS SPECIFIED.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to add the following duties for the
Board of State and Community Corrections ("BSCC") which, as of
July 1, 2013, will succeed the Corrections Standards Authority:
1) identify common purpose delinquency and gang intervention and
prevention grants for the purpose of consolidation, as
specified; 2) develop incentives for local government to develop
comprehensive regional partnerships, as specified; and 3)
develop, by January 1, 2014, "funding allocation policies to
ensure that within three years no less than 70 percent of
funding for gang and youth violence suppression, intervention,
and prevention programs and strategies is used in programs that
utilize promising and proven evidence-based principles and
practices."
Current law provides for the "Corrections Standards Authority,"
("CSA") an entity within the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), as specified. (Penal
Code
§ 6024.)
Current law establishes, commencing July 1, 2012, the "Board of
State and Community Corrections," ("BSCC") as the successor
entity to CSA, an entity independent of CDCR, as specified.
(Penal Code § 6024.) Current law provides the following mission
for the BSCC:
The mission of the board shall include providing
statewide leadership, coordination, and technical
assistance to promote effective state and local
(More)
AB 526 (Dickinson)
PageC
efforts and partnerships in California's adult and
juvenile criminal justice system, including addressing
gang problems. This mission shall reflect the
principle of aligning fiscal policy and correctional
practices, including, but not limited
to prevention, intervention, suppression, supervision,
and incapacitation, to promote a justice investment
strategy that fits each county and is consistent with
the integrated statewide goal of improved public
safety through cost-effective, promising, and
evidence-based strategies for managing criminal
justice populations. (Penal Code § 6024(b).)
Current law enumerates specified duties for the BSCC, including
requiring it to:
Receive and disburse federal funds, and perform all
necessary and appropriate services in the performance of
its duties as established by federal acts.
Develop comprehensive, unified, and orderly procedures
to ensure that applications for grants are processed
fairly, efficiently, and in a manner consistent with the
mission of BSCC.
Cooperate with and render technical assistance to the
Legislature, state agencies, units of general local
government, combinations of those units, or other public or
private agencies, organizations, or institutions in matters
relating to criminal justice and delinquency prevention.
Conduct evaluation studies of the programs and
activities assisted by the federal acts.
Identify and evaluate state, local, and federal gang and
youth violence suppression, intervention, and prevention
programs and strategies, along with funding for those
efforts. The board shall assess and make recommendations
for the coordination of the state's programs, strategies,
and funding that address gang and youth violence in a
manner that maximizes the effectiveness and coordination of
those programs, strategies, and resources. The board shall
communicate with local agencies and programs in an effort
to promote the best practices for addressing gang and youth
(More)
AB 526 (Dickinson)
PageD
violence through suppression, intervention, and prevention.
Collect county criminal justice realignment plans within
two months of adoption by the county boards of supervisors.
Commencing January 1, 2013, and annually thereafter, the
board shall collect and analyze available data regarding
the implementation of the local plans and other
outcome-based measures, as defined by the board in
consultation with the Administrative Office of the Courts,
the Chief Probation Officers of California, and the
California State Sheriffs' Association.
By July 1, 2013, and annually thereafter, the board
shall provide to the Governor and the Legislature a report
on the implementation of the plans described above. (Penal
Code § 6027.)<1>
Current law also requires the BSCC to"(i)dentify, promote, and
provide technical assistance relating to evidence-based
programs, practices, and innovative projects consistent with the
mission of the board." (Penal Code § 6027(b)(2).)
This bill would revise this provision to include a reference to
"promising" projects.
This bill would require the BSCC to "(i)dentify delinquency and
gang intervention and prevention grants that have the same or
similar program purpose, are allocated to the same entities,
serve the same target populations, and have the same desired
---------------------------
<1> In addition to these duties, BSCC (and its predecessor
entities) also is required to establish minimum standards for
local correctional facilities (Penal Code § 6030), to inspect
local detention facilities biennially (Penal Code §§ 6031 and
6031.1), to conduct biennial inspections of local juvenile
facilities, as specified (Welfare and Institutions Code § 209),
and to engage in related efforts with respect to standards and
conditions in local facilities where minors are detained, as
specified. (See WIC §§ 207.1, 210, and 210.2.) In addition to
its ongoing duties, CSA/BSCC is statutorily tasked with
administering certain programs, such as the AB 900 Local Jail
Construction Financing Program, the Juvenile Justice Crime
Prevention Act, and the Youthful Offender Block Grant.
(More)
AB 526 (Dickinson)
PageE
outcomes for the purpose of consolidating grant funds and
programs and moving toward a unified single delinquency
intervention and prevention grant application process in
adherence with all applicable federal guidelines and mandates."
This bill would require BSCC to "(d)evelop incentives for units
of local government to develop comprehensive regional
partnerships whereby adjacent jurisdictions pool grant funds in
order to deliver services to a broader target population and
maximize the impact of state funds at the local level."
Current law requires the BSCC to "(i)dentify and evaluate state,
local, and federal gang and youth violence suppression,
intervention, and prevention programs and strategies, along with
funding for those efforts. The board shall assess and make
recommendations for the coordination of the state's programs,
strategies, and funding that address gang and youth violence in
a manner that maximizes the effectiveness and coordination of
those programs, strategies, and resources. The board shall
communicate with local agencies and programs in an effort to
promote the best practices for addressing gang and youth
violence through suppression, intervention, and prevention."
This bill additionally would require BSCC, by January 1, 2014,
to "develop funding allocation policies to ensure that within
three years no less than 70 percent of funding for gang and
youth violence suppression, intervention, and prevention
programs and strategies is used in programs that utilize
promising and proven evidence-based principles and practices."
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
("ROCA")
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, since
early 2007 it has been the policy of the chair of the Senate
Committee on Public Safety and the Senate President pro Tem to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions. Under
the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which stands for
(More)
AB 526 (Dickinson)
PageF
"Receivership/Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the Committee
has held measures which create a new felony, expand the scope or
penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increase the
application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate the
prison overcrowding crisis by expanding the availability or
length of prison terms (such as extending the statute of
limitations for felonies or constricting statutory parole
standards). In addition, proposed expansions to the
classification of felonies enacted last year by AB 109 (the 2011
Public Safety Realignment) which may be punishable in jail and
not prison (Penal Code section 1170(h)) would be subject to ROCA
because an offender's criminal record could make the offender
ineligible for jail and therefore subject to state prison.
Under these principles, ROCA has been applied as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress towards reducing prison
overcrowding by passing legislation which could increase the
prison population. ROCA will continue until prison overcrowding
is resolved.
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving
California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its
(More)
AB 526 (Dickinson)
PageG
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject
to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate
circumstances. Design capacity is the number of inmates a
prison can house based on one inmate per cell, single-level
bunks in dormitories, and no beds in places not designed for
housing. Current design capacity in CDCR's 33 institutions is
79,650.
On January 6, 2012, CDCR announced that California had cut
prison overcrowding by more than 11,000 inmates over the last
six months, a reduction largely accomplished by the passage of
Assembly Bill 109. Under the prisoner-reduction order, the
inmate population in California's 33 prisons must be no more
than the following:
167 percent of design capacity by December 27, 2011
(133,016 inmates);
155 percent by June 27, 2012;
147 percent by December 27, 2012; and
137.5 percent by June 27, 2013.
This bill does not aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis
described above under ROCA.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
In 2009, the Assembly Committee on Accountability and
Administrative Review (AAR) held a hearing on Youth
Crime Prevention and Juvenile Justice Funding. The
Committee found that despite an increasing body of
knowledge that juvenile justice programs operating
according to evidenced based practices were most
effective in achieving the goal of reducing gang
violence, few state agencies require gang intervention
and prevention funding be allocated to evidenced
(More)
AB 526 (Dickinson)
PageH
programs that incorporate such practices. The
Committee adopted a recommendation that state agencies
adopt an evidenced based program policy for the
allocation funding.
Further, the former Office of Gang and Youth Policy
Violence (OGYVP) recommended to the Assembly Select
Committee on Delinquency Prevention and Youth
Development that requiring or incentivizing local
agencies to form regional partnerships and pool gang
related funding will deliver services to a broader
target population and maximize state funding at the
local level. OGYVP also recommended that grouping
different funding streams that serve the same purpose,
and establishing a single application process would
reduce redundancy among local agencies that must now
submit multiple grant requests for funding, which
address similar problems, and that grouping would make
for a more efficient grant process.
AB 526 would implement the recommendations made by the
Assembly AAR Committee and the former OGYVP. . . .
As of January 1, 2012, the BSCC assumes responsibility
of OGYVP functions. However, BSCC's enabling statute
does not address the need to focus gang
intervention/prevention funding on programs that
operate according to evidenced based principles and
practices, nor streamline the application process, and
encourage regional partnerships. AB 526 would make
clear that these requirements be part of the BSCC
grant making process.
The AAR Committee, and the Select Committee on
Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development have
found that the State spends in excess of $1 billion
annually on youth crime prevention and Juvenile
Justice funding, with about 75% of that money coming
from state coffers. Despite these expenditures, the
state has little ability to determine which programs
(More)
AB 526 (Dickinson)
PageI
have been the most effective at preventing youth crime
and lowering recidivism rates among juvenile
offenders. Programs operating according to evidence
based practices, however, have been independently
evaluated and proven to be effective in studies
comparing program participants to a control group, and
then replicated by others with similar successful
outcomes. By focusing gang prevention/intervention
funding on such programs the state is more likely to
get a better return on its investment.
Additionally, 17 different state agencies allocate
funding to programs addressing juvenile justice,
delinquency and youth development, but with little
coordination and collaboration among them. The grant
process is often duplicated many times over for
applicants, and the many funding silos prevent
achieving program synergies among grant recipients.
AB 526 will initiate consolidating the grant process,
beginning with the BSCC, thereby reducing local
frustration in having to file multiple grant
applications for program with similar objectives, and
utilize program dollars more efficiently and
effectively. Over time, what starts at the BSCC, can
be replicated by other agencies funding juvenile
justice programs.
2. What This Bill Would Do
This bill would add the following duties for the new Board of
State and Community Corrections:
identify delinquency and gang intervention and
prevention grants that have the same or similar program
purpose, are allocated to the same entities, serve the same
target populations, and have the same desired outcomes for
the purpose of consolidating grant funds and programs and
moving toward a unified single delinquency intervention and
prevention grant application process in adherence with all
applicable federal guidelines and mandates;
(More)
AB 526 (Dickinson)
PageJ
develop incentives for local government to develop
comprehensive regional partnerships, as specified; and
develop, by January 1, 2014, "funding allocation
policies to ensure that within three years no less than 70
percent of funding for gang and youth violence suppression,
intervention, and prevention programs and strategies is
used in programs that utilize promising and proven
evidence-based principles and practices."
As noted above, the reconfigured BSCC will become operational on
July 1st. In addition to its continuing responsibilities from
when it was the Corrections Standards Authority and before that
the Board of Corrections, the new BSCC will be expected to
emerge as a key state entity responsible for facilitating issues
relating to the 2011 Public Safety Realignment. As noted in the
March 22, 2012, Agenda for Subcommittee No. 5 of the Senate
Budget and Fiscal Review Committee concerning BSCC:
The Board will be critical to the implementation and
success of the 2011 public safety realignment. One of
the key drivers in establishing the Board was the need
for a state/local body that could serve as the
backbone of California's public safety continuum. To
facilitate local success, California needs to
strategically coordinate support, foster local
leadership, target resources and provide technical
assistance. Per statute, the Board will be charged
with "providing statewide leadership, coordination,
and technical assistance to promote effective state
and local efforts and partnerships in California's
adult and juvenile criminal justice system, including
addressing gang problems. This mission shall reflect
the principle of aligning fiscal policy and
correctional practices, including, but not limited to
prevention, intervention, suppression, supervision,
and incapacitation, to promote a justice investment
strategy that fits each county and is consistent with
the integrated statewide goal of improved public
safety through cost effective, promising, and
evidence-based strategies for managing criminal
(More)
AB 526 (Dickinson)
PageK
justice
populations."
The Board also will have the duty to "collect and
maintain available information and data about state
and community correctional policies, practices,
capacities, and needs, including, but not limited to,
prevention, intervention, suppression, supervision,
and incapacitation, as they relate to both adult
corrections, juvenile justice, and gang problems. The
Board shall seek to collect and make publicly
available up-to-date data and information reflecting
the impact of state and community correctional,
juvenile justice, and gang-related policies and
practices enacted in the state, as well as information
and data concerning promising and evidence-based
practices from other jurisdictions."
Within these responsibilities, the Board will play a
key role in collecting, maintaining, and reporting
data regarding the 2011 public safety realignment.
Such data will be critical in understanding how
resources should be allocated and how program success
is ultimately measured.
It is worth noting that there is significant interest
in researching and reporting on aspects of the 2011
public safety realignment from within academic and
private foundation communities. One project of note,
The Partnership for Community Excellence (The
Partnership) established by California Forward, seeks
to develop a "hub" to coordinate efforts to assist
local governments in implementing public safety
realignment. The Partnership notes that the state has
not provided any direction or assistance to counties
in developing integrated strategies to reduce costs
and improve outcomes. This effort highlights the
urgency for the Board to assume its responsibilities
in ensuring that California has an efficient and
effective approach to public safety in a time of such
(More)
AB 526 (Dickinson)
PageL
momentous change.<2>
Members may wish to discuss the timing and potential impact of
adding additional statutory duties and priorities for an entity
that faces many challenges relating both to its structural
reformation (independence from CDCR), its ongoing duties (for
example, implementation of the SB 81 Local Youthful Offender
Rehabilitative Facilities Construction Financing Program) and
the added duties and expectations surround the BSCC concerning
the public safety realignment.
3. Opposition
The Chief Probation Officers of California opposes this bill,
and urges that specified funding, such as the Youthful Offender
Block Grant, Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Funds, Juvenile
Program and Camps Funding, and other realignment dollars be
expressly excluded from the scope of this bill. As currently
drafted, the bill would require, "By January 1, 2014, the board
shall develop funding allocation policies to ensure that within
three years no less than 70 percent of funding for gang and
youth violence suppression, intervention, and prevention
programs and strategies is used in programs that utilize
promising and proven evidence-based principles and practices."
CPOC submits in part:
These funds currently have very specific and well
adhered to reporting requirements as well as clearly
defined distribution processes. To include these
funds in the provisions of this bill could result in
the reduction or redirection of critical juvenile
justice funds.
The programs noted by CPOC all are part of realignment funding,
and the funding allocation methods for them set by statute.
Thus, funding for these programs is outside of BSCC's control,
---------------------------
<2> See
http://sbud.senate.ca.gov/sites/sbud.senate.ca.gov/files/SUB5/322
2012Sub5CorrectionsAgenda.pdf.
(More)
AB 526 (Dickinson)
PageM
and no policy adopted by BSCC could affect how these funds are
allocated. In this way, it does not appear that the provisions
of this bill could affect the programs noted by CPOC.
4. Background
The March 22, 2012 Agenda for Subcommittee 5 of the Senate
Budget and Fiscal Review Committee provides the following brief
summary of the history and purposes of the new Board of State
and Community Corrections ("BSCC"), which becomes effective July
1 of this year:
Originally, the Board of Corrections (BOC) was
established in 1944 as
part of the state prison system. Effective July 1,
2005, as part of the corrections agency consolidation,
the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) was created
within CDCR by bringing together the BOC and the
Correctional Peace Officers Standards and Training
(CPOST) commission. The reorganization consolidated
the duties and functions of the BOC and CPOST and
entrusted the CSA with new responsibilities.
The CSA works in partnership with city and county
officials to develop and maintain standards for the
construction and operation of local jails and juvenile
detention facilities and for the employment and
training of local corrections and probation personnel.
The CSA also inspects local adult and juvenile
detention facilities, administers funding programs for
local facility construction, administers grant
programs that address crime and delinquency, and
conducts special studies relative to the public safety
of California's communities.
The CSA currently operates using a four divisional
structure:
Facilities Standards and Operations Division. The
Facilities Standards and
(More)
AB 526 (Dickinson)
PageN
Operations Division works in collaboration with local
corrections agencies to
maintain and enhance the safety, security, and
efficiency of local jails and
juvenile detention facilities.
Corrections Planning and Programs Division. The
Corrections Planning and
Programs Division plans, develops, and administers
programs in collaboration
with local and State corrections agencies to enhance
the effectiveness of
correctional systems and improve public safety.
Standards and Training for Corrections Division. The
Standards and
Training for Corrections Division works in
collaboration with State and local
corrections and public/private training providers in
developing and administering
programs designed to ensure the competency of State
and local corrections
professionals.
County Facilities Construction Division. The County
Facilities Construction
Division works in collaboration with State and local
government agencies in
administering funding for county detention facility
construction projects, for the
purpose of enhancing public safety and conditions of
confinement.
Legislation associated with the 2011 Budget Act
abolished the CSA and established the new Board of
State and Community Corrections (Board) as an
independent entity, effective July 1, 2012. The Board
will absorb the previous functions of the CSA as well
as other public safety programs previously
administered by the California Emergency Management
Agency (CalEMA). Specific statutory changes include:
Abolish the CSA within CDCR and established the
(More)
AB 526 (Dickinson)
PageO
Board as an independent
entity.
Transfer the powers and duties of the CSA to the
Board.
Transfer certain powers and duties that currently
reside with CalEMA to the
Board.
Eliminate the California Council on Criminal Justice
and assigned its powers and duties to the Board.
Reestablish CPOST within CDCR.
(More)
The Board will provide statewide leadership,
coordination, and technical assistance to promote
effective state and local efforts and partnerships in
California's adult and juvenile criminal justice
system. Particularly important in the next several
years will be coordinating with and assisting local
governments as they implement the realignment of many
adult offenders to local government jurisdictions that
began in 2011. The Board will guide statewide public
safety policies and ensure that all available
resources are maximized and directed to programs that
are proven to reduce crime and recidivism among all
offenders.
The new Board will be an entity independent from CDCR.
The Board will continue to be chaired by the
Secretary of CDCR, and its vice-chair will be a local
law enforcement representative. The Board will have
12 members, streamlined from both its immediate
predecessor (CSA), with 19 members, and its former
predecessor (BOC), which had 15 members. Members will
reflect state, local, judicial, and public
stakeholders.<3>
***************
---------------------------
<3> Id.
(More)
AB 526 (Dickinson)
PageQ