BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 560
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 1, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 560 (Ammiano) - As Amended: March 21, 2013
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 5-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill:
1)Requires the court, when imposing a sentence of imprisonment
in county jail pursuant to correctional realignment, to
suspend the final six months of the term and place the
offender on mandatory community supervision - probation - for
those six months. (Current law leaves the duration of
mandatory supervision - if any - to the discretion of the
court.)
2)Authorizes the court, when a defendant is sentenced to county
jail pursuant to correctional realignment, to, upon its own
motion or upon the recommendation of the sheriff, recall the
sentence and resentence the defendant, provided the new
sentence is no greater than the initial sentence. (This
process parallels current law regarding state prison
sentences.)
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Significant local savings, likely in the tens of millions, by
requiring all offenders to serve part of their sentence under
community supervision, which is considerably less expensive
than jail.
If, for example, an additional 7,000 offenders served six
months under community release rather than in jail, annual
local savings would be in the range of $75 million, assuming
per capita costs of $6,000 for community supervision, and
$28,000 for county jail.
AB 560
Page 2
2)If the proposed six-month mandatory supervision is determined
to be a reimbursable mandate - for increasing costs already
borne by a local agency under correctional realignment -
there would be major costs, in the tens of millions, to county
probation departments for mandatory supervision.
For example, assuming 30,000 sentences to county jail pursuant
to realignment, if 15,000 offenders are released each year to
six months of mandated probation supervision, at an average
cost of $3,000, the annual reimbursable cost would be in the
range of $45 million. Costs would fluctuate depending on the
number of offenders released in a given year.
Proposition 30 (2012) specifies that legislation enacted after
September 30, 2012, "that has an overall effect of increasing
the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or
levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment Legislation
shall apply to local agencies only to the extent that the
State provides annual funding for the cost increase." While
this bill does add costs to a local agency (probation) by
requiring a new level of service, it does not add to net
county costs. Moreover, the proposed mandatory supervision is
part of a criminal sentence that is already authorized under
current law.
Further complicating the mandate determination is that it is
not clear how persons with less than six months to serve at
the time of sentence, would serve six months on mandatory
supervision. In addition, requiring mandatory supervision may
conflict with situations in which a county opts to simply
release an individual due to jail overcrowding. In these cases
this bill would create new costs by requiring supervision.
Whether this bill creates a reimbursable local mandate remains
under discussion at this point.
3)Unknown, likely minor annual savings to the extent sentences
are recalled and reduced.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author's intent is to require at least six
months of post-release community supervision, so felons are
not released from jail with no supervision or re-entry
AB 560
Page 3
services, thereby reducing the risk of recidivism. In
addition, the author would extend the existing authority of
the court to resentence inmates in state prison to include
county jail inmates.
According to the author, "Under realignment, some low-level
offenders are released into the community without any
supervision or guidance. This bill would require that all
people who serve time in a county jail for a low level felony
serve at least the last six months under mandatory supervision
in the community. This would allow these individuals to have
some supervision and support while reentering their
communities.
"Research has long shown that receiving reentry services is a
pivotal part of reducing recidivism. A recent report done by
the Vera Institute of Justice shows that individuals leaving
jail have a number of wide-ranging concerns, from securing
employment and housing to mental health treatment. To try and
tackle these issues all at once without any support is a
recipe for failure. By providing support, guidance and
supervision during those first pivotal months of reentry, we
can provide for a smooth reentry and reduce the likelihood of
reoffending."
2)Split sentencing . Under realignment, a court may sentence a
defendant to a full term in custody, or split the sentence
between custody and mandatory supervision in the community.
The proportion is up to the discretion of the court.
3)About 24% of those sentenced pursuant to realignment have
received split sentences , though the most recent data show a
wide disparity between counties. For example, L.A. and Alameda
are less than 10%. San Diego, Santa Clara, Orange, and Fresno
are close to 30%. San Francisco and Sacramento are close to
50%. San Joaquin is close to 70% and Contra Costa is close to
90%. The reasons for the disparity are varied and debated, but
appear to be based largely on jail capacity and judicial
preference.
4)Support . The Chief Probation Officers of California, who are
responsible for post-release supervision, cite the benefits of
post-release supervision and split sentencing in a recent
study, Mandatory Supervision: The Benefits of Evidence Based
Supervision under Public Safety Realignment.
AB 560
Page 4
"Since Realignment began, approximately 16,500 [now more than
22,000] offenders have been sentenced to a period of custody
time (often referred to as "straight time,") with no mandatory
supervision to follow. Once their local prison time is served,
they must be released, with no supervision during the critical
transition period, and no assistance reintegrating into the
community. This is the period when recidivism is most likely,
and the research is clear - these offenders will have a higher
likelihood of committing more crimes than those who were given
a split sentence. These facts have two conclusions. First,
sentencing offenders to straight time increases capacity need
in our jails. Secondly and more importantly, based on
research, people coming out of incarceration without any
treatment have a lower likelihood of succeeding and are more
likely to recidivate than those who are supervised and case
managed."
5)Opposition . The California District Attorneys Association
opposes this particular diminution of judicial discretion. "In
simple terms, this bill reduces the potential custodial
sentence for hundreds of felony offenses by at least six
months. Additionally, AB 560 casts aside a major part of
realignment by removing judicial discretion regarding the
propriety of split sentences. Obviously, we are vehemently
opposed to the blanket reduction in custodial time this bill
represents and urge you to reconsider this massive
penalty-cutting measure."
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081