BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND FISCAL REVIEW
Mark Leno, Chair
Bill No: SB 144
Author: Cannella
As Amended: April 22, 2013
Consultant: Joe Stephenshaw
Fiscal: Yes
Hearing Date: April 29, 2013
Subject: 2013 Realignment Legislation addressing justice
reinvestment.
Summary: Establishes the Realignment Reinvestment Fund and
a formula to annually calculate deposits into the fund for
the purpose of providing local agencies additional funding
for responsibilities resulting from the 2011 Realignment
Legislation addressing public safety. For the 2013-14
fiscal year, $819.9 million would be transferred from the
General Fund to the Realignment Reinvestment Fund.
Background:
The 2011 Realignment moved programs and the ongoing fiscal
responsibility for those programs to local agencies. The
local agencies were also provided a dedicated revenue
source along with increased control and flexibility over
the realigned programs. Realigned programs include local
public safety programs, mental health, substance abuse,
foster care, child welfare services, and adult protective
services. Many of these programs were already administered
at the local level by counties.
The public safety programs realigned in the 2011
Realignment included: 1) trial court security, 2) law
enforcement subvention grants, 3) juvenile justice grants
(Youthful Offender Block Grant and Juvenile Reentry Grant),
and 4) responsibility for certain criminal offenders as
established by Chapter 15, Statutes of 2011 (AB 109). AB
109 consisted of the following primary components:
------------------------------------------------------------
| Key Features of AB 109 |
-1-
------------------------------------------------------------
|------------------------------+------------------------------|
|Felon Incarceration |Restructured felon penalty by |
| |making specified non-violent, |
| |non-serious, non-sex offenses |
| |subject to local punishment |
|------------------------------+------------------------------|
|Post-Release Supervision |Created post release |
| |community supervision for |
| |certain offenders to be |
| |supervised locally upon |
| |release from prison |
|------------------------------+------------------------------|
|Parole Revocations |Parole revocation terms are |
| |served locally (with |
| |exception of lifers) |
-------------------------------------------------------------
Funding for the 2011 Realignment was constitutionally
guaranteed by Proposition 30 in 2012 and is primarily
provided through 1.0625 percent of sales tax revenue
(approximately $5.9 billion in 2013-14), with a small
portion coming from Motor Vehicle License Fee revenue
(approximately $467.3 million in 2013-14). Funding for the
public safety-related programs included in the 2011
Realignment is displayed in the following table:
(dollars in millions)
------------------------------------------------------------
| 2011 Realignment Funding (Public Safety Programs) |
------------------------------------------------------------
|-------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------|
| | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 |
|-------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------|
|Trial Court | $506.7| $518.7| $541.3|
|Security | | | |
|-------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------|
|Enhancing Law | $489.9| $489.9| $489.9|
|Enforcement | | | |
|Activities (Local | | | |
|Law Enforcement | | | |
-2-
|Subventions) | | | |
|-------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------|
|Community | $920.2| $1,088.6| $1,103.2|
|Corrections (AB | | | |
|109 Programs) | | | |
|-------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------|
|District Attorney | $19.8| $23.1| $27.1|
|and Public | | | |
|Defender (related | | | |
|to AB 109 | | | |
|Programs) | | | |
|-------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------|
|Juvenile Justice | $109.1| $121.1| $143.7|
|-------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------|
| Total| $2,045.7| $2,241.4|$2,305.2 |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Law:
This bill:
1. States that this act shall be known and may be
cited as the 2013 Realignment Legislation addressing
justice reinvestment.
2. Establishes the Realignment Reinvestment Fund in
the State Treasury. Moneys in the fund are
continuously appropriated and shall be used
exclusively for the purposes of this chapter.
3. Establishes that, beginning in 2014, on or after
July 1, and no later than August 31 of each year, the
Director of Finance shall, in consultation with the
Legislative Analyst, annually calculate the net
savings to the state for the immediately preceding
fiscal year and the estimate of net savings for the
current fiscal year resulting from the 2011
Realignment Legislation addressing public safety, as
specified. Beginning in the 2014-15 fiscal year, this
bill would transfer an amount equal to these net
savings, plus $453 million, from the General Fund to
the Realignment Reinvestment Fund, on an annual basis.
-3-
4. Transfers, for the 2013-14 fiscal year, $819.9
million from the General Fund to the Realignment
Reinvestment Fund.
5. Specifies that the Controller annually allocate
moneys in the Realignment Reinvestment Fund, no later
than September 1 of each year, to each county and city
and county, for deposit in the county's or city and
county's Realignment Services Account proportionately,
based on the average daily population of realigned
offenders under each county's supervision for the
preceding fiscal year. The Controller shall consult
the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) to
determine the average daily population (ADP) in each
county.
6. Establishes a Realignment Reinvestment Services
Account in each county or city and county treasury to
receive all amounts allocated for the purposes of
implementing this chapter.
7. Specifies that each county's local Community
Corrections Partnership (CCP) shall recommend a
comprehensive, locally run supplemental
community-based corrections plan to the county board
of supervisors. The purpose of the plan shall be to
improve the outcomes of the 2011 Realignment
Legislation addressing public safety.
8. Specifies that 1) each county's supplemental
community based corrections plan shall identify
specific objectives of the programs proposed for
funding and specified outcome measures to determine
the effectiveness of the programs and contain an
accounting for all program participants, 2) each
county or city and county shall report annually,
beginning on October 15, 2015, to the county board of
supervisors and the BSCC on the programs funded
pursuant to this chapter and program outcomes, and 3)
the BSCC shall report annually, beginning on March 15,
2015, to the Governor and Legislature on program
expenditures, as specified.
-4-
9. Establishes that 1) each county's supplemental
community-based corrections plan shall be voted on by
an executive committee of each county's CCP, as
specified, 2) if a supplemental community-based
corrections plan has been previously approved, the
plan shall be reviewed annually and modified as
needed, and 3) the supplemental community-based
corrections plan, or modified plan, shall be deemed
accepted by the county board of supervisors unless
rejected by a four-fifths vote of the board.
10. Requires the Controller to allocate funds in
accordance with this section, as specified, and
requires local agencies to remit unspent moneys in the
Realignment Reinvestment Services Account to the
controller for deposit in the Realignment Reinvestment
Fund.
11. Requires, beginning in 2014, and no later than May
1 of each year, the Director of Finance, in
consultation with the Legislative Analyst, to develop
an estimate of the cost avoidances expected to be
realized by the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in the current fiscal year
that are the result of the 2011 Realignment
Legislation addressing public safety and report those
estimates to the Chairpersons of the committees in
each house of the Legislature that consider
appropriations and the Chairperson of the Joint
Legislative Budget Committee. The Legislature may
consider each year whether to appropriate funds in
augmentation of the moneys otherwise allocated
pursuant to this chapter in an amount up to and
including the amount of cost avoidances reported.
12. Includes a non-supplantation provision to ensure
funds deposited in the Realignment Reinvestment
Services Account do not support other local programs.
13. Prohibits expenditure of funds from each county's
or city and county's Realignment Reinvestment Services
Account on administrative overhead in excess of one
percent of each entity's allocation for that fiscal
year or the cost of any capital project or
-5-
construction project that does not directly support
programs or activities included in the supplemental
community-based corrections plan.
Fiscal Effect:
This bill transfers $819.9 million from the General Fund to
the Realignment Reinvestment Fund for expenditure by local
agencies in 2013-14. This would result in more funding
being provided for AB 109 responsibilities (approximately
$1.9 billion) than the state is saving in cost reductions
to the CDCR's budget (approximately $1.45 billion) as a
result of AB 109.
This bill also may result in additional state costs of tens
of millions of dollars for required reports and other
activities by local agencies that could be deemed mandates
by the Commission on State Mandates.
Comments:
Realignment Funded with Growing Funding Source.
The 2011Realignment dedicated 1.0625 percent of the state
sales tax to fund the local programs that were realigned.
This dedicated tax is projected to generate $5.9 billion
for the realigned programs in 2013-14. Any growth above
this level of funding is also dedicated to local programs
realigned under 2011 Realignment. This includes over $1
billion in funding just to address community corrections
(AB 109 programs). AB 109 programs are expected to receive
approximately $90 million more than they received in the
current fiscal year due to underlying revenue growth.
Treatment of Vehicle License Fee Revenues Unclear.
The 2011 Realignment provided budgetary savings in CDCR of
approximately $1.45 billion. This would suggest that the
state did transfer the majority of the savings related to
the AB 109 population to the counties. However, the author
has indicated that this bill would also include an
additional allocation of $453 million General Fund that
represents vehicle license fee revenue that was permanently
dedicated to the local law enforcement subventions under
2011 Realignment. It is unclear whether the author
proposes to provide this funding twice (with vehicle
-6-
license fee revenues and General Fund) or if they propose
to repeal the allocation of the vehicle license fee
revenues.
Realignment Also About Reducing Prison Overcrowding.
The 2011 Realignment of the low-level offenders was
important for reducing the state prison population in order
to comply with federal court orders to reduce prison
overcrowding, that were upheld by the US Supreme Court.
Realignment of certain low-level offenders and parole
violators allowed the state prison population to be reduced
without early release of any state prisoner. Even after
the significant population reduction related to 2011
Realignment (approximately 24,500 inmates), the federal
courts have recently ordered that the state reduce the
population by an additional 9,000 inmates in order to reach
the court order population cap of approximately 110,000
(137.5 percent of design capacity).
Allocation of Funding Among Counties Determined by CSAC.
The allocation of funding for the community correction
programs funded as part of 2011 Realignment was allocated
by the California State Association of Counties (CSAC). In
the first year of realignment (2011-12), the formula was
based on three factors (60 percent caseload [ADP], 30
percent adult population [ages 18-64], and 10 percent
county SB 678 [felony probation incentive program] success
rate), with the most weight placed on the average daily
population of low-level offenders realigned under AB 109.
The allocation formula for the second and third years of
realignment (2012-13 and 2013-14) allows counties to choose
from the best of three options (population [ages 18 to 64],
status quo [first year 60/30/10 formula], or adjusted ADP
of realigned offenders). The funding was not allocated on
just an ADP basis because this would have disregarded
important efforts many counties had made in supervising
low-level offenders locally prior to 2011 Realignment.
The author's office indicates that rural counties,
especially those in the Central Valley, have not been
provided with enough funding to address the offenders
rehabilitation needs as these counties had very few
community rehabilitation resources prior to realignment.
The author indicates that allocating these additional funds
-7-
strictly on an ADP basis will ensure that Central Valley
counties receive additional funding to support
rehabilitation programs for criminal offenders realigned
under 2011 Realignment.
Support:
Chief Probation Officer, Merced County
Support if Amended:
County of Sacramento
Opposed: None on file.
-8-