BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
1
0
5
AB 1050 (Dickinson) 0
As Amended June 13, 2013
Hearing date: June 25, 2013
Penal Code
AA:mc
BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS:
DEVELOPMENT OF "KEY TERMS"
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: None
Support: Mental Health America of California; California Council
of Community Mental Health Agencies; American Civil
Liberties Union; California District Attorneys
Association; California Public Defenders Association
(if amended); California Probation, Parole and
Correctional Association; Chief Probation Officers of
California
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 75 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
(More)
AB 1050 (Dickinson)
PageB
SHOULD THE BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS BE REQUIRED
IN STATUTE TO DEFINE KEY TERMS RELEVANT TO DATA COLLECTION AND
EVIDENCE-BASED PROGRAMS AND PRACTICES, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to require the Board of State and
Community Corrections to develop definitions of key terms,
including, but not limited to, "recidivism," "average daily
population," "treatment program completion rates," and "any
other terms deemed relevant in order to facilitate consistency
in local data collection, evaluation, and implementation of
evidence-based practices, promising evidence-based practices,
and evidence-based programs," in consultation with the
California State Association of Counties, California Sheriffs'
Association, Chief Probation Officers of California, California
District Attorneys Association, and the Administrative Office of
the Courts.
Current law establishes the "Board of State and Community
Corrections" ("BSCC"), 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
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 1050 (Dickinson)
PageC
justice populations. (Penal Code � 6024(b).)
Current law enumerates specified duties for the BSCC, including
requiring it to do the following:
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 was well as
information and data concerning promising and
evidence-based practices from other jurisdictions.
Develop recommendations for the improvement of criminal
justice and delinquency and gang prevention activity
throughout the state.
Identify, promote, and provide technical assistance
relating to evidence-based programs, practices, and
innovative projects consistent with the mission of the
board.
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.
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.
Cooperate with and render technical assistance to the
(More)
AB 1050 (Dickinson)
PageD
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.
Develop 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.
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. 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. The board shall
communicate with local agencies and programs in an effort
to promote the best evidence-based principles and practices
for addressing gang and youth 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
(More)
AB 1050 (Dickinson)
PageE
on the implementation of the plans described above. (Penal
Code
� 6027.)<1>
Current law also authorizes BSCC to do either of the following:
(1) Collect, evaluate, publish, and disseminate statistics and
other information on the condition and progress of criminal
justice
in the state. (2) Perform other functions and duties as
required by federal acts, rules, regulations, or guidelines in
acting as the administrative office of the state planning agency
for distribution
of federal grants. (Id.)
This bill would require the BSCC, in addition, to "(i)n
consultation with the California State Association of Counties,
California Sheriffs' Association, Chief Probation Officers of
California, California District Attorneys Association, and the
Administrative Office of the Courts, develop definitions of key
terms, including, but not limited to, "recidivism," "average
daily population," "treatment program completion rates," and any
other terms deemed relevant in order to facilitate consistency
in local data collection, evaluation, and implementation of
evidence-based practices, promising evidence-based practices,
and evidence-based programs."
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
---------------------------
<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 1050 (Dickinson)
PageF
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which
stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the
Committee held measures which created a new felony, expanded the
scope or penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increased
the application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate
the prison overcrowding crisis. Under these principles, ROCA
was applied as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary
to ensure that the Legislature did not erode progress towards
reducing prison overcrowding by passing legislation which would
increase the prison population. ROCA necessitated many hard and
difficult decisions for the Committee.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order issued by the Three-Judge Court three years
earlier to reduce the state's prison population to 137.5 percent
of design capacity. The State submitted in part that the, ". .
. population in the State's 33 prisons has been reduced by over
24,000 inmates since October 2011 when public safety realignment
went into effect, by more than 36,000 inmates compared to the
2008 population . . . , and by nearly 42,000 inmates since 2006
. . . ." Plaintiffs, who opposed the state's motion, argue in
part that, "California prisons, which currently average 150% of
capacity, and reach as high as 185% of capacity at one prison,
continue to deliver health care that is constitutionally
deficient." In an order dated January 29, 2013, the federal
court granted the state a six-month extension to achieve the
(More)
AB 1050 (Dickinson)
PageG
137.5 % prisoner population cap by December 31st of this year.
In an order dated April 11, 2013, the Three-Judge Court denied
the state's motions, and ordered the state of California to
"immediately take all steps necessary to comply with this
Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to reduce overall
prison population to 137.5% design capacity by December 31,
2013."
The ongoing litigation indicates that prison capacity and
related issues concerning conditions of confinement remain
unresolved. However, in light of the real gains in reducing the
prison population that have been made, although even greater
reductions are required by the court, the Committee will review
each ROCA bill with more flexible consideration. The following
questions will inform this consideration:
whether a measure erodes realignment;
whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and
whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
According to the Legislative Analyst, the BSCC was
created with two core missions, including the
collecting and analyzing of data related to criminal
justice outcomes in the state (Chapter 36, Statutes of
(More)
AB 1050 (Dickinson)
PageH
2011). While specifying data collection and analysis
as Board responsibilities, the LAO points out that the
statute leaves it up to the Board to determine how it
might go about undertaking this mission.
Currently, the BSCC distributes surveys to sheriffs
who report various statistics about their inmate
populations, and information related to the
implementation of 2011 realignment. The BSCC intends
to expand the types of data it collects and eventually
post the information it receives on-line. However,
the LAO states that the surveys do not collect much
information on the outcomes of local CCP programs,
such as completion rates for treatment programs or
offender recidivism rates.
In addition to being somewhat limited in the types of
information the BSCC surveys and collects, there is
little, if any guidance as to how the data should be
collected, and the specific measurements that should
be used in the collection of data. In essence, the
BSCC leaves it up to individual counties to determine
how to measure and report outcomes such as recidivism,
and drug treatment success. For example, agencies
vary on the length of time they track offenders,
whether they count re-arrest or reconviction as
recidivism, and whether they continue to track
offenders after they are discharged from supervision.
This variation defeats the ability of policy-makers
and the public to determine how well any particular
county is doing, as compared to outcomes in other
counties and/or statewide averages. In the end
accountability is circumscribed and it may be
difficult to accurately understand the effectiveness
of public safety realignment.
The LAO recommends that the BSCC develop a longer term
data collection strategy that promotes public safety
by ensuring policymakers have useful information for
making decisions about programs, policies and funding.
(More)
AB 1050 (Dickinson)
PageI
The LAO further recommends that a principle role for
the BSCC is to facilitate the collection of data that
promotes transparency and uniformity.
AB 1050 is a step towards implementing the LAO
recommendation about BSCC realignment data collection,
to ensure uniformity and accountability. The bill
would require the Board to work with relevant
stakeholders such as probation chiefs, the
Administrative Office of the Courts and state sheriffs
to determine terms deemed relevant to facilitate
consistency in local data collection and evaluation.
Taking this step will enhance our ability to
understand what is and is not working and where
efforts should be focused to maximize the goals and
objectives of public safety realignment.
2. What This Bill Would Do
As explained above, this bill would require the Board of State
and Community Corrections ("BSCC"), to "develop definitions of
key terms, including, but not limited to, 'recidivism,' 'average
daily population,' 'treatment program completion rates,' and any
other terms deemed relevant in order to facilitate consistency
in local data collection, evaluation, and implementation of
evidence-based practices, promising evidence-based practices,
and evidence-based programs," in consultation with the
California State Association of Counties, California State
Sheriffs' Association, Chief Probation Officers of California,
California District Attorneys Association, and the
Administrative Office of the Courts.
3. Recent Budget Language
The budget bill passed on June 14, 2013 (AB 110) included the
following:
(More)
Not later than May 1, 2014, the Board of State and
Community Corrections shall provide a written report
to the chairpersons of the appropriate fiscal and
policy committees in each house of the Legislature and
to the Chairperson of the Joint Legislative Budget
Committee detailing the board's recommendations for
how it can build its clearinghouse and technical
assistance capacity for collecting and providing user
friendly information to assist state and local
corrections with selecting, implementing, and
evaluating evidence-based or promising programs,
services, and treatment practices for managing
criminal offenders in the community. The report shall
also describe how the board developed its
recommendations.
This bill would seem to be consistent with this budget bill
language.
4. Stakeholders
This bill would require BSCC to perform the bill's requirements
"in consultation with" the following enumerated stakeholder
groups:
California State Association of Counties;
California State Sheriffs' Association;
Chief Probation Officers of California;
California District Attorneys Association; and
The Administrative Office of the Courts.
Members may wish to discuss why specific associations are named
participants in the bill, rather than stakeholder categories.
In addition, members may wish to consider whether any other
associations (for example, the Public Defenders Association)
would be appropriate for balance if this approach is retained.
Members may wish to review current statute, which directs the
BSCC to include a range of stakeholders and experts as a matter
of practice in conducting its business. BSCC is required to:
(More)
AB 1050 (Dickinson)
PageK
. . . regularly seek advice from a balanced range of
stakeholders and subject matter experts on issues
pertaining to adult corrections, juvenile justice, and
gang problems relevant to its mission. Toward this
end, the board shall seek to ensure that its efforts
(1) are systematically informed by experts and
stakeholders with the most specific knowledge
concerning the subject matter, (2) include the
participation of those who must implement a board
decision and are impacted by a board decision, and (3)
promote collaboration and innovative problem solving
consistent with the mission of the board. The board
may create special committees, with the authority to
establish working subgroups as necessary, in
furtherance of this subdivision to carry out specified
tasks and to submit its findings and recommendations
from that effort to the board.<2>
Consistent with this provision, the author and/or members of the
Committee may wish to consider revising this bill to direct the
BSCC to include the following expert and stakeholder
representatives (or their designees) in developing
recommendations which fulfill the objectives of this bill:
A county supervisor or county administrative officer;
A county sheriff;
A chief probation officer;
A district attorney;
A public defender;
The Secretary of the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation;
A representative from the Administrative Offices of the
Courts;
A representative from a nonpartisan, nonprofit policy
institute with experience and involvement in research and
data relating to California's criminal justice system; and
A representative from a nonprofit agency providing
comprehensive community services to adults with severe
--------------------------
<2> Penal Code � 6024(c).
AB 1050 (Dickinson)
PageL
mental illnesses.
***************